The Life of Justification Opened

CHAP. VIII.

Some passages of the New Test. confirming the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, Vindicated from the exceptions of JOHN GOODWINE.

HAving seen, what countenance the Old Test. giveth unto the Truth, we are asserting; & vindicate some of these passages from the Exceptions of John Goodwin. We come next to search for confirmation of this truth, out of the New Test. and I shall here begin with such, as the said Author taketh notice of, in order to excepting against them, in his Treatise of justification.

First Rom. 3: 21, 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. But if men would dispute against this truth, they should except against whole Chapters, in that Epistle; and dispute against the very scope & design, yea and all the Arguments of the Apostle, who, in the first part of that Epistle, is about to clear and confirm that, which he setteth down Chap. 1: 17. as the sum of the whole Gospel, and clear demonstration of its being the power of God unto Salvation &c. to wit, that in it the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; a Righteousness revealed, laid open, and offered to all, that hear the Gospel, that they may lay hold on it by faith: a Righteousness, revealed from the true and faithful God, unto our faith (as Ambrose, P. Martyr and others understand it) or revealed from faith to faith, that is only to faith, (as Pareus ) or ( as Calvin, Beza, Musculus and others) from a weak faith, to a stronger faith: or rather, to faith first and last, through the whole of a Saints life here, as the following words clear it, as it is written, the just shall live by faith. Yet let us see, what he excepteth pag. 136.

He 1. Supposeth, that he hath proved before, that this passage speaketh plainly for the imputation of faith for Righteousness; but no way for the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, for any such purpose. And. We may have occasion hereafter to examine his grounds, both from this and other passages, for the Imputation of faith, in opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. I shall only say at present, that this Righteousness cannot be faith itself, because it is revealed to faith; & it is called the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ; & so not faith itself. One thing cannot be both the Act, & the Object of that Act. And what sense would that make, to say, faith is upon all them that believe.

2. He said. By the Righteousness of God some under stand here His truth and faithfulness, in keeping promise. Ans. But though God's Righteousness may elsewhere import & signify His faithfulness in keeping promise; yet that is not the Righteousness here understood; for this suiteth a guilty sinner; such as the Apostle hath been proving, in his foregoing discourse, both Jews & Gentiles to be; & is such a Righteousness as is requisite to such, as would be justified in God's sight verse 20. & cannot be had by man's doing the deeds of the Law, by which is the knowledge of sin, & which therefore rendereth their case more desperate; & such a Righteousness, as is had by faith, & which is unto all & upon all them that believe verse 20, 22. and such a Righteousness, as is manifested without the Law verse 21. All which, and much more, which might be mentioned, show, that some other thing is here understood by the Righteousness of God, than His Faithfulness & Truth; even the Righteousness of God, which is imputed unto, & bestowed upon all that believe.

3. He saith. Hereby is mea • t that way, method & means, which God himself hath found out to justisis, or make men Righteous: or else that very Righteousness, by which we stand justified, or Righteous, in the sight of God. But not the Righteousness of Christ: nor is there the least appearance in the context of any necessity to take is so. Ans. It is true, the 〈◊〉 is here showing the whole way, method & means of our justification; & particularly, what that Righteousness is, by which poor sinners can stand justified & Righteous in the sight of God; even a Righteousness, that is not had by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: and this sufficiently evinceth, that the Righteousness of God, here spoken of, is the Righteousness of Christ, which saith seeketh in, and goeth to Christ for, that it may be imputed; for faith hath no other end or errand to Christ, in reference to a freedom from the wrath & Curse of God, but to lay hold on a Righteousness, in which the poor self condemned sinner may appear before God. Beside that the following words verse 24, 25, 26. where the Redemption & propitiation of Christ, which was His Surety-righteousness, is mentioned, may Satisfie us, as to what is meaned by this Righteousness of God. Sure, there is not the least appearance of Paul's understanding that Mean & Method, which this Excepter supposeth to be the only Method, to wit. That our faith, considered, as our Act, is that: as if that were the Righteousness of God, & could constitute us Righteous, in the sight of God, and were a Righteousness had without works & without the Law, & received by all that believe.

Secondly, Rom. 3. last Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the Law. Where the Apostle, preoceupying an objection, asserteth; That through justification by faith, he did not make void the law, but rather did establish it; the ground whereof is this, That by the Gospel-way of justification, the law getteth full Satisfaction, in all points, because Christ not only Satisfied for the penalty thereof, which we were guilty of, and did lie under; but did also yield a perfect obedience thereunto; that so He might make up a full & complete Surety-righteousness, by the Imputation of which unto His own, or the Lord's reckoning it upon their score, when they receive it by faith, they may be justified. And thus, though sinners, who have broken the Law, & so have forfeited the reward, promised to such as observe it in all points, & are come under the Curse, threatened to Transgressours, be not only freed from the Curse, but receive the rich Recompence of reward; yet the law is not made null & void, but is rather established & confirmed in its full force, both as to its Commands & Sanction.

John Goodwin excepteth 1. There is no necessity, that by the Law, in thisplace, should be meaned precisely the moral law; others understand it as well of the Ceremonial Law. Ans. But sure, Paul's doctrine was not for establishing of the Ceremonial Law, in whole, or in part. The Law, whereof the Apostle is speaking, is that Law, by which both Gentiles & Jews were convinced of sin, & had their mouths stopped, & were become guilty before God verse 19. & that Law, which maketh a discovery of sin verse 20. comp. with Rom. 7: 7. & by the deeds of which no flesh shall be justified, in the sight of God verse 20, 28. It is that Law, by the works whereof even Abraham could not be justified, nor David Rom. 4: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8.

2. He said, It is much more probable, that Paul should here assert the establishing of the Ceremonial Law, than of the Moral 1. Because the Jews were more tender and jealous over the Ceremonial Law, placing the far greatest part, if not the whole of their hop of justification and Salvation, in the observation thereof. 2. Because the Doctrine of faith did not carry any such color of opposition to the Moral, as to the Ceremonial part of their Law. Ans. To imagine, that no Law is here to be understood, but the Ceremonial Law, is to make the Apostle establish here, what he destroyeth else where, particularly in his Epistles to the Galatians & Colossians, & in his whole doctrine: yea this would make the Apostle, to cross the whole intent and design of the Gospel, which who dar once have the least thought of? The Law here doth plainly signify that, which was the Rule of Righteousness and of Obedience, & was publicly given unto the Jews for that end; & by obedience to & observation of which Law, they were expecting justification & life; as by the young man is manifest, who came to Christ to inquire what he should do to be saved; & said, he had observed all these &c. As to his reasons, they have no force: for. 1. The Jews had a zeal for the whole Law, but not according to knowledge, & went about to establish their own Righteousness, which was not in mere Ceremonials but in obedience & full conformity (as they supposed) unto the Righteousness, which they sought after, yea followed and hunted after Rom. 9: 31. & 10. 3. (2.) The doctrine of faith carrieth the same color of opposition to the Moral Law, that it doth to the Ceremonial, in the point of justification. And it is not the doctrine of faith that carrieth any color of opposition to the Ceremonial Law; though the doctrine of the Gospel-administration doth; else we must • ay, there was nothing of the doctrine of faith, under the Law, or that old dispensation.

3. He saith. Though the moral Law were precisely here understood; yet there is no necessity to say, that it is established by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: for, Some affirm, that the Law is therefore said to be established by faith, because faith compasseth & attaineth that righteousness, which the Law sought after, & could not attain. 2. The Moral Law may in this sense be said to be established; because faith purgeth the hearts of believers, & so promotes the observation of it. Ans. As for the first, I do not understand, what the meaning of it is. What is that Righteousness, which faith compasseth, and the Law sought after, and could not attain? It would seem to be nothing else but Holiness and Sanctification: and if so, the two make but one: and therefore I answer to this also, by saying to the Second. That albeit Subordinates can well consist together, & this sense needeth not thrust out our sense; yet I judge, this is not the main Objection, that Paul obviateth here: he reserveth a peculiar place for that hereafter, where he speaketh fully to it Chap. 6. & 7. But he speaketh of the establishing of the Law, both in its commanding power and Sanction; for having spoken so much of justification by faith in opposition to justification by the Law; and having said in the foregoing verse that the circumcision shall be justified by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith: and neither the one, nor the other by or through the Law; some might have thought, that by his thus crying up of faith, and speaking so much of it, and only of it, as to justification, he was quite casheering and rendering the Law null & void: And therefore he answereth, That he is so far from making the Law void through faith, that he rather doth establish the same, as was shown above.

4. He saith. The Law may be said to be established by saith, in as much as the threatenings of the Law are by the doctrine of faith declared not to be in vain, Christ's sufferings being a full confirmation of the force, efficacy and authority of the Curse of the Law. Ans. This is so fargood: But why shall not also His obedience be a full confirmation of the force, efficacy & authority of the commanding power of the Law? This being principally intended in the Law, belongeth as much, at least, to the establishment thereof, as the Sanction. We assert not the one with an exclusion of the other; but assert the establishment of both by faith: and thus the Law is by faith fully established, in all its parts & demands.

5. He saith. The best Interpretation is, that by the Law here is meant that part of the Old Test. which comprehendeth the writing of Moses, with those other books, whi • h together with the writings of the Prophets, make up the entire body thereof, as it was used verse 21. and in this sense, the Law may most properly be said to be established by Paul teaching the Doctrine of faith, because it is fully consonant & agreeable to those things, that are written there. Ans. But this sense is not the same with the sense of the word Law v. 21. for the Law there is mentioned, as distinct from the Prophets. And if that part of the Old. Test. be meaned, which is different from the book of the Prophets, what ground was there to think, that the doctrine of faith did more seem to cross what was con ained in the one, than what was contained in the other? especially seeing he had said v. 21. that the Righteousness, he spoke of, was witnessed both by the Law and the Prophets. And if both should be here understood, seeing the Apostle did fully enough declare his mind as to that v.21. what ground is there to think, that he was called to remove that objection here again? And what imaginable color can be from anything that the Apostle spoke, in the foregoing words, for such an objection, as this? This manifestly is nothing but a groundless invention of men, that know not else what to say.

Thirdly Rom. 4: 6. where mention is made of a Righteousness imputed without works, & that as the ground of a man's blessedness & justification: for it is of the blessedness of justification that the Apostle is there speaking, and he showeth, that this is attained, not by the works of the Law, but by an imputed Righteousness, which can be none else, that the Righteousness of God, spoken of in the preceeding Chapter; or of Christ, who wrought the Redemption, and was set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

Against this He excepteth pag. 140. saying 1. If we • will needs here understand a positive legal Righteousness, it is much more probable, He should mean a Righteousness consisting of such, or of such an obedience to the Law, as hath an absolute & perfect agreableness to every man's condition & calling respectively, than the Righteousness of Christ, which hath no such property in it. Ans. The Apostle speaketh of a Righteousness, and of a Righteousness imputed, and all Righteousness must consist in obedience to the Law, and in full conformity thereto: and seeing it is said to be imputed, and not by our works, it must of necessity follow, that the Apostle is to be understood, as speaking of the Surety-righteousness of Christ. And if the Righteousness of Christ, who gave perfect obedience to the Law, and was constituted Mediator and Surety by the Father, and as such did give full Satisfaction both in obeying the Law, and in paying the penalty, be not such an obedience to the Law, as will serve every Believers turn, where else will the believer find a more adequat Righteousness? Shall we think, that his act of saith, which is but one act of obedience to the Law, or an act of obedience to one command of the Law, hath a more perfect & absolute agreablness to every man's condition respectively, than the perfect obedience & Righteousness of Christ! Let such believe this, as can.

2. He saith. The Righteousness, which God is said here to impute, is placed in Remission of Sins. Ans. That Imputation of Righteousness and pardon of sins do inseparably go together, is true; and that the one proveth the other, is also clear from these words. But it is not proved, nor can it be proved, that Imputed Righteousness and Remission of Sins are the same; seeing it is obvious enough, that Righteousness is one thing, and pardon of sins is another distinct thing. No man will say, that a pardoned thief, is a Righteous man; for that were as much, as to say, He was never a thief. It is true, by pardon He is no more obnoxious to the penalty; the obligation to underlye that being now taken away: yet that will not evince, that He is a Righteous man: and there is still a difference betwixt him, and one that never was chargable with that guilt: this man, as to this, is indeed a Righteous man, but not the other.

3. He saith. The phrase of imputing Righteousness is best understood by the contrary expression of imputing sin; & this signifieth either to look upon a person, as justly liable to punishment; or to inflict punishment upon him, in consideration of sin. Therefore doubtless to impute Righteousness importeth nothing else, but either to look upon a man as righteous, or to confer upon him the privileges, belonging to persons truly righteous. Ans. This is true, if we speak of a person, who is truly Righteous, antecedently unto this Imputation; as the sinner is supposed to be truly a sinner antecedently unto this Imputation. But when sin is imputed to a Righteous person, or to one, who, before the imputation, was not guilty, nor looked upon as a Sinner, as Sin was imputed to Christ, the Holy and Righteous one, who knew no sin; and as Sin through injustice, was imputed to Naboth, who was not guilty of what was laid to his charge; Imputation, in this case, must import some thing else, than either of these two mentioned, and that antecedently to an holding of that person liable to punishment, or to a punishing of him, with consideration to that sin: thus before Christ could be looked upon, as a person liable to punishment, or could be punished for sin, by the Righteous God, sin must first have been imputed to Him, and reckoned upon His Score; and that Righteously, because of His undertaking and willingly submitting to the debt, as Surety: as when Jezebel would have Noboth killed as a Malefactor, she first by injustice and indirect means, made him guilty of sin, & then held him liable to punishment, and dealt with him accordingly. So, upon the other hand, when Righteousness is imputed to a sinner (as we all are sinners) before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person, or be dealt with, as a Righteous person, He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him, and bestowed upon him: for how can God, whose judgment is according to truth, look upon a person as Righteous, and confer privileges upon him, due only to such as are Righteous, who is not Righteous indeed? Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him, & reckon a Righteousness upon his Score, to the end He may be just and Righteous, when He is the justifier of him that believeth?

Lastly He said. Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive, that by Righteousness, in this Scripture, should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith, Righteousness is imputed: for the man here spoken of, hath not a Righteousness of his own, as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters, & doth here, take for granted: And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another; and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins. And whose Righteousness else can this be, if it be not Christ's? Is there any third competitour here imaginable? must it not be the Righteousness of Him, whom faith goeth out unto & laith hold on, in order to justification? Must it not be His Righteousness, who was the Mediator, who laid down the price of Redemption, & was a propitiation, as He told us in the preceeding Chapter? Some men, in alleiging a difference, betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners, and the Righteousness of Christ, as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us, except the Surety-righteousness of Christ; as they expressly in this join with Socinians (See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565.) & with Papists & Arminians; so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel; yea greater strangers; than those were, against whom the Apostle wrote, who took it for granted, that if any Righteousness from without, or that was not by anything, which we do, were imputed, it behooved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator: And this, we may conceive, is the reason, why the Apostle doth not say, in so many express words, that it was the Righteousness of Christ; for who could have thought of another?

Fourthly Rom. 5: 19. a place, with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose: for the Apostle is not only here confirming, but also illustrating this whole matter, from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity; & after many various and emphatick expressions, used there-anent from verse 12. and forward, he saith here verse 19▪ for as by one man's disobedience, many were made Sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Socinus de Servat. lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us, That he supposeth, there is nothing written in the Scriptures, that hath given us a greater occasion of erring, than that comparison betwixt Adam & Christ, which Paul made & did prosecute at length here. And he would clear to us the comparison thus, That as by Adam's Sin & disobedience, it came to pass, that all men were condemned and died; so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to pass, that they wero absolvod, and did live: for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience, by virtue of the decree of God, did penetrate the heavens, there to reign forever, and there he begot eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself, and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse, needs not be declared, seeing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's design to be, to declare how & what way Christ obtained power and authority to save: Yet He goeth on to tell us, That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death, whence it came to pass, that all mankind, that are procreat of him after that guilt, is obnoxious to death: so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life; whence it cometh te pass, that whoever are procreat of him, partake of this life. But He never once taketh notice, that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death, their sinning in him verse 12. even such, as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression verse 14. yea, in every verse this cause is noted, or pointed at: & it being Notour of itself, that ifall mankind did sin in Adan, Adam's sin must be imputed unto them; so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His, inreference to their justification, & that with a much more.

Let us now see what John Goodwin excepteth pag. 142. &c. It is not here (said He) said, that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience, men are made formally Sinners, but simply sinners, that is, either obnoxious to death and condemnation, or else sinners by propagation, not Imputation. Ans. This is the same upon the matter, with Bellarmine's answer de justif. lib. 2. cap. 9. & here we have a distinction proposed without any explication, to wit. betwixt simply sinners, and formally sinners▪ And what can he mean by formally sinners? possibly he meaneth that, which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners: And if so, though Adam's posterity, so soon as they come to have a being, have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation; yet that is not it, which is properly said to be Imputed: for that which is imputed, is the guilt of Adam's sin, whereby they become sinners, that is guilty legally, and so obnoxious to punishment, death & condemnation: & this is enough for us; for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them, that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath; so Believers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous. (2) Whileas he will not grant, that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation, he joineth with the Socinians, who turn these words verse 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom; but because, or whereas, which the Ethiopic version doth better sense, saying. Because that sin is imputed unto all men, even unto them who know not what is that sin; And the Arabic turn thus, seeing all have now sinned: and the Syriac word is Behi, or Bhi, which may as well be interpreted in whom, as because. And in several other places, this praeposition so construed, as here in the Greek, hath this same import; as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5: 25. & 11: 22. Rom. 6: 21. Phil. 4: 10. 1. Thes. 3: 7. But enough of this here, seeing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox, writing against the Socinians; and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers.

Again saith He, Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto, or compare the Obedience of Christ, with the disobedience of Adam, as one Act unto or with another; but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation; or the Remedy to and with the disease. Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience, be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam, as the Satisfaction with the provocation, or as the Remedy with the disease; as that withal & chiesly, he cleareth up the manner & way thereof to be by Imputation, thus, That as Adam's sin of disobedience (which includeth both Omission & Commission, being a Violation of the Law, & of the Covenant) was imputed to his posterity, & they hence became guilty & obnoxious to death, yea & were punished with original Corruption, (which cometh by propagation) & the consequences thereof; so Christ's obedience, which was full & complete, is imputed unto Believers, whereupon they become Righteous, in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery.

Further He saith, By that obedience of Christ, whereby it is here said, that many are, or shall be made Righteous, that is jus • ified, we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ, which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law; but that Satisfactory Righteousness, or obedience, which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation, which was imposed upon him, and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings. Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation, strickly so taken, as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law, believers could not be made Righteous, as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience; for that could not be properly imputed, as this is, as hath been shown; & so Paul's similitude should halt. But (2.) Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law, seeing this was a part of that, & unto this He obliged Himself, in undertaking the Mediation. Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law, as to suffer the penalty? And was He not obliged to both, as Surety, in room & place? And then why may not both be imputed unto them? (3.) Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation? He addeth two reasons, but neither are valide. The 1. is this, Because otherwise the opposition • etwixt Adam's disobedience, which was but one single Act, and Christ's Obedience, if it were his universal conformity to the Law, would not hold. Ans. This same man told us in his former exception, That Christ's obedience, in respect of Adam's disobedience, was considered & opposed, as the Satisfaction to the provocation, & as the Remedy to the disease: now if this be true, Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation, but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit: & what He did & suffered should be only a Remedy for that one distemper: & if so, how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away? or are there no more Provocations or diseases? (2.) Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience; but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law: Saith not James, that he who offendeth in one, is guilty of all? I am. 2: 10. & prove it too, in the following verse? The 2. is this, The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ, to wit, justification, or Righteous making of many, is constantly appropriated to the death & blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood & death of Christ elsewhere, to wit, our justification, showeth, that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively; for by His death, exclusivly considered, we cannot-be made Righteous; for the Imputation of another's suffering, though it may exeem from death & suffering; yet it cannot constitute Righteous, in reference to the commanding Law. (2.) The death of Christ must not be looked on, as one act of obedience; but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience, belonging to His State of humiliation, whereof His death was the crowning piece; & so as including as His whole suffering; so His whole obedience to the Law, under which he was made: for He is said to have been obedient unto death, even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2: 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience, as it was not the whole state of His humiliation, but the terminating remarkable act thereof; as it was not all His suffering, His whole life being a life of suffering. (3.) If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying, & justification be looked upon, as the effect of this only, what shall become of His Soul-sufferings, while He was in an agony in the garden? But if the act of obedience in His death, include these, why not His whole state of humiliation? And if it include all this, why not also His obedience to the Law, seeing His being made under the Law, belongeth to His state of humiliation, as the Apostle tells us Gal. 4: 4.

He excepteth further, saying, Suppose, that by the obedience of Christ, we should here undorstand, His active obedience to the Moral Law, yet it will not hence follow, that men must be justified, or made Righteous by it, in such a way of imputation. Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law, we be made Righteous, as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us, as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity: for there is no other way imaginable. Let us hear his reason to the contrary.

For certain it is (said he) that that justification or Righteous-making, whereof the Apostle speaketh verse 19. is the same with that, which He had spoken of v. 16, 17, 18. Now that Righteousness verse 17. is described verse 16. to be the gift (i.e. the forgiveness) of many offenses i.e. of all the offenses, whereof a man either doth, or shall stand guilty of before God, unto justification: and evident it is, that that Righteousness &c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law. Ans. (1.) Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable; yet they are not formally one & the same; but Righteous-making (to wit by Imputation) is antecedent unto justification, & the ground thereof, as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned, but is prior to it, & the ground thereof. (2.) That free gift mentioned verse 16. is not free forgiveness, but is that, which is opposite to judgment, or guilt, or reatus, tending to condemnation; & so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God, & the gift by Grace verse 15. and the gift of Righteousness verse 17. which is in order to justification & free pardon. As therefore the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , guilt is not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 condemnation; but tendeth thereunto; so neither is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the free gift the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 justification, but leadeth thereunto, & is followed therewith. (3.) Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words verse 16. the free gift is of many offenses, to be the same with free pardon of many offenses, else he must say, that this free pardon goeth before justification & consequently is not justification itself, as he saith else where; for the text saith, that the free gift is of many offenses unto justification; as judgment or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was antecedent to condemnation. (4.) So then, the true meaning is, that the free gift of Righteousness hath respect unto many sins, to the end, that justification & pardon, that followeth thereupon, might be full, whileas the guilt, that was imputed to Adam's posterity, had respect only to his first breach of the Covenant, for which all were made obnoxious to condemnation.

Lastly He saith. It is but loose and unsavory argueing, to reason from a thing simply done, to a determinat manner of doing of it: so is it to reason from being made Righteous, to a being made Righteous by Imputation. Ans. The particular manner or way how we are made Righteous, is abundantly signified by our being made & constitute Righteous by the Righteousness of another, who was our Head, Representative & Surety: & that because it can be imagined to be no other way, than by Imputation. And Further, the whole discurse of the Apostle here, & particularly the comparison so much here insisted upon, putteth the matter beyond all debate. As Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, whereby all were accounted sinners, & dealt with as such, even as guilty, by reason of Adam's act of sin: So Christ's Righteousness becometh ours by Imputation, & we are made Righteous & accounted such & dealt with as such, upon the account thereof. No man can imagine, how one shall be accounted guilty, & punished as guilty of a sinful act, done by another, unless the guilt of that sinful act be imputed to him; so no man can imagine, how one can be accounted Righteous, & dealt with as such, upon the account of the Righteousness of another, if that Righteousness of the other be not imputed to him. And beside, This is called a gift, a free gift, & a free gift of Righteousness, & a free gift of Righteousness received, which fully pointe forth this Imputation, which we contend for.

Fifthly. Rom. 8: 3, 4. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, & for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. The Law could not help a sinner from under the Curse, nor unto the recompense of reward, because it was weak through the flesh, through the sin & corruption of man, whereby he could not give right and full obedience thereunto. And therefore God sent His Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who by His obedience & suffering, in His state of humiliation, took away the sting of death, & the strength of sin, by satisfying all the demands of the Law, the whole 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the jus & right of the Law, which consisted in yielding full & perfect obedience, & in making full Satisfaction for the violation committed: for the Law said, cursed is everyone, that continueth not in all things, which are written therein, to do them Deut. 27: 26. Gal. 3: 13. And the Righteousness, which is of the Law, is, that the man, who doth these things, shall live by them. And this was so ordered, that the Righteousness of the Law, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Law, the jus and demand of the Law mentioned, might be fulfilled in us, that is, in our Nature, by the Redeemer & Surety, who did & suffered all this in & for His own. The Ethiopik Version is a clear commentary, and when we were impotent to do the commands of the Law, God sent His own Son for that sin, who took on our body of sin, & condemned sin itself in our body, that he might justify us, & be propitious unto us, and that so he might fulfill the work of the commands of the Law for them, who walk in the Law of the holy Spirit. Let us now see what John Goodwin excepteth p. 145. &c.

He saith. (1.) Some understand this rather of Sanctification, than of justification; & by the fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, that Evangelical obedience to the precepts thereof, which all those, that truly believe in Christ, do in part perform, and desire and strive to perform more perfectly. Ans. Gospel justification & Gospel-Sanctification agree well together, and Christ is the true foundation & cause of both. But that this is to be understood rather of justification, appeareth hence. (1.) That this is a further explication & confirmation of what was said verse 1. There is therefore now no Condemnation to them, which are in Christ Jesus (2.) all that measure of Sanctification, which the Saints through Grace attain unto here, cannot be called a fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, the Laws demands are not thereby satisfied; for it calleth for perfect obedience, which none of the Sanctified can give. (3.) If this were understood of Sanctification, why are these words added, who walk not after the flesh, bue after the Spirit?

2. He said. By the Righteousness of the Law, which is here said to be fulfilled in believers, cannot be meant the Righteousness or active obedience of Christ imputed, because it must of necessity be such a Righteousness and such a fulfilling, as may be apprehended as a proper and suitable effect of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, as the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 declareth. But it is unpessible that the active obedience of Christ, or the imputation of it, should be any proper effect of condemning sin in the flesh, that is of the abolishing or taking away the guilt, or the accusing and condemning power of sin; for when the guilt of sin is purged away, there needeth no other Righteousness, nor Imputation of Righteousness for justification. Ans. (1.) Christ's obedience & Suffering need not be distinguished, both being done in His state of humiliation, and belonging-thereto, & both being necessary to answer the demand of the Law, which we did lie under: Christ performed both, to the end the whole 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or jus & right of the Law might be full • illed in us, and for us, by this Surety. And before guilt be purged away, we must have both imputed to us; for justification by saith must not make the Law void, but rather establish it. (2.) Neither is this verse 4. to be looked on, as holding forth the end of that, which did immediately precede in the end of verse 3. or of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh; but rather as a further end of God's sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; or as a comprehensive end of all that was mentioned before.

3. He saith. That clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some things in persons, or else some kind of Efficiency. But the Righteousness of Christ is Subjectively and inherently in Himself only; nor are we the workers of this righteousness. Ans. Though the Righteousness of Christ be subjected in Him only, & wrought by Him alone: yet the same being imputed unto Believers, the Righteousness of the Law may be said to be fulfilled in them because by faith they are in Christ, & Christ is in them: and in them, is as much, as for them, or upon them, or on their account (as this same person hereafter granteth, in a like case) & so it is accepted of God for all ends, as if it were performed by them; & so it is fulfilled in our nature, for for this end, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

3. He saith. If by Righteousness of the Law we understand that entire obedience, which every believer, according to the great variety of their several conditions, callings, & relations stand bound to perform, it cannot be said to be fulfilled in them, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness: for every believer is bound to many moe particular acts, than can be found in all that golden Catalogue of works of Righteousness performed by Christ. Ans. If the works of Righteousness, performed by Christ, shall not be a complete Righteousness, that can Satisfie the demands of the Law, where shall believers get a complete Righteousness? Shall their poor imperfect obedience, wherewith themselves are not satisfied, but complain much of, and mourn for, be a more perfect & complete fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law, than was the perfect obedience of Christ, with which the Father was well pleased? Or shall the single & weak act of their Faith (as this Author saith) be a more entire fulfilling of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Law, than the Catalogue of the works of Righteousness, performed by Christ? What probable ground is there for this imagination? (2.) Christ's obedience was perfect, & the Law-giver was satisfied there with, & accepted of it, in the behalf of all the chosen ones, & all their defects & sins, in their various conditions, callings & Relations, were done away by the Satisfaction made by Christ: so that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Law was perfectly fulfilled, in their behalf; & this being imputed unto them & received by faith, no more is requisite unto a stateing of them into a state of pardon & right to glory.

5. He saith. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not obedience to or conformity with the Law, but rather that justification, which was the end and intent of the Law, or rather that jus, or right, or Law ( as it were) of the Law. Ans. But all this will not weaken our Argument: for that right, jus, or demand of the Law was, as to us now sinners, both Satisfaction for transgressions committed, and full and complete obedience; & till both were done & performed, there could be no justification of sinners: and so this rather establisheth than hurteth the doctrine of Imputation, whatever he may imagine.

6. He saith By the word Law, cannot necessarily be understood the Moral Law for 1. The weakness of the Law extends also to the judicial and Ceremonial. 2. The Jews, to whom he specially addresseth himself, in all this disputati • n, built as much on the observation of the Ceremonial Law. 3. The Moral Law, though perfectly observed, could not have justified all men, at least, not the Jews, who were obliged to the observation of other Laws. 4. The Imputation of the observation of the Moral Law would not have served for the justification of the Jews, who were under the transgression of, other Laws. Ans. It wi •• satisfy us, if by the Law here be understood, that universal Rule of Righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, & that certainly is the Moral Law, whereof, as to the Jews, the Ceremonial & judicial were a part, or were reduced unto: & particularly the Ceremonial Law, being God's instituted worship, they were obliged to observe it by virtue of the Second command. And thus both the Exception, & all the Reasons confirming it, evanish: for (1.) we take not the Law here so narrowly, as to exclude the other laws, which God gave to the Jews, seeing they are all reduced there unto, & comprehended thereunder. (2.) Paul is here mainly writing for Information of the Gentiles, the Church of Rome; & though there might be some Jews among them, & what he saith may be also for their use: yet this will not prove that by the Law, he understandeth any other, than that perfect rule of Righteousness, which God gave unto them, comprehending these other Laws, as appendices thereof. (3.) The Moral Law, thus taken, if observed, could have justified even Jews, if we suppose they had not been born sinners. (4.) Christ having fulfilled all Righteousness, His Righteousness was an observation of this Universal Law: & therefore the Imputation thereof can serve for the justification both of Jews & Gentiles.

Lastly He saith. The clear meaning of the place seemeth to be this, That that justification, or way of making men Righteous, which the writings of Moses prophefied of long since, to wit, by faith in the Messiah, might be accomplished, made good, and fully manifested in us, or upon us, viz in our justification, who by an eminency of holiness in our lives, above the strain and pitch of men under the Law, give testimony unto the world, that the Messiah, the great justifier, is indeed come into the world, and having suffered for sin and overcome death, hath poured out the Spirit of Grace abundantly upon those that believe. Ans. (1.) To take the Law here for the mere writings of Moses, & then to Interpret the fulfilling thereof, as is here done, is to exclude the witnessing of the Prophets, which Paul expressly mentioneth Rom. 3: 21. (2.) What could this contribute to prove, that there was now no condemnation to such, as were in Christ Jesus, among the Gentiles? (3.) How can this be a proof of what was said verse 3. foregoing? (4.) How can this be the end of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, as himself said it was, Except 2? (5.) He told us before, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did properly Signifie jus, right, or Law of the Law, now I pray, what is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this jus, right, of Moses 's writings? And how is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 o • Righteousness fulfilled? (6.) What then can be meant by the weakness of Moses's writings? or how could they be said to be weak through the flesh? (7.) And how could God be said, by this Interpretation, to send His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, because Moses's writings were weak through the flesh? (8.) I see then, in us may import the same that upon us importeth, though it was excepted against formerly, as we heard (9.) It seemeth by this Interpretation, that there was no Eminency of holiness or walking after the Spirit, among those, who were under the Law; which is utterly false▪ (10.) Christ, by His coming, did not only fulfill Moses's writings, but also all the predictions & prophecies, many of which are else where to be found, than in Moses's writings. Yet to fortify this Audacious & groundless Interpretation.

He tells us 1. That this Interpretation (as far at least, as • oncerneth the clause in question, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us) is confirmed by the sweet proportion between, such a fulfilling &c. as the effect, & that sending of Christ &c. as the cause or means thereof. Ans. But before this proportion appear to be so sweet, it must be shown to us, what proportion there is hereby kept with the manifest scope of the Apostle, which is to clear & explain, how there is now no condemnation to them, which are in Christ Jesus, notwithstanding of the weakness of the Law, through the flesh. As also it must be shown to us, what interest these words, for what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, have, or can have, in this Interpretation: for a proportion, that suiteth not all the parts of the Text, is but a disproportion, being a plain perversion of the true meaning of the words.

He tells us. 2. In this Interpretation the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fulfilled hath its proper & genuine force, which is to signify the accomplishment, making good, or full manifestation of a thing, which before was only promised, or foretold. Ans. Not only the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often taken in another sense than is here alleged, as we see Rom. 13: 8. Gal. 5: 14. but the very verb in the same Tense & Mood, that is here viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, to import some other thing, than a fulfilling of what was promised, as we see 2. Cor. 10: 6. when your obedience is fulfilled, that is, perfected, established & confirmed. So John. 15: 11. & that your joy might be full, or fulfilled, that is, might be abundant and full in all points, and upon all considerations. So Luk. 22: 16. until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of heaven, that is, perfected.

He tells us. 3. The Righteousness of the Law here must be the same with that mentioned. Rom. 3: 21, 31. Ans. The Righteousness of the Law here, is the Laws 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , jus, right & demand, which was Satisfied by what Christ, the Surety, did & Suffered. But that Righteousness, mentioned Rom. 3: 21. is the Righteousness of God, or of Christ, which he performed, to Satisfie the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Righteousness of the Law; & so they are not the same formally, this being the obligation, & that the payment. It is true, the Law here & Rom. 3: 31. is the same; & that maketh for us, as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication of that place.

He tells us▪ 4. By this Interpretation, this passage is of perfect Sympathy with those Rom. 3: 21, 22, 25. Ans. This also will make for us, as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication, where this gloss was rejected: & I wonder, how he could imagine such a perfect agreement, seeing there mention is made of the Prophets, as well as of the Law, giving countenance to Gospel Justification: but here by his Interpretation, only the Law of Moses is understood: where then will he make his harmony appear? And what would he hence infer? 1. (saith he) That the righteousness of God, that is, the way that God holds for justification of men, stands in remission of sins Ans. Of this we have hithertill seen neither peer nor peep: pardon of sins hath no affinity with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 legis, the righteousness of the law. 2. Saith he That this righteousness or justification of his is witnessed, that is, asserted & vindicated by the law, that is, the writings of Moses. Ans. Neither is Righteousness & justification one & the same thing, as we said above, nor are the writings of Moses all the law & the prophets. Neither is witnessed by the law the same, with fulfilling of the law. 3. Saith he, That this way was not manifested, declared, or fulfilled, that is, fully revealed to the bottom & foundation of it, till the coming of Christ, & dying for sin. Ans. What ever truth be in this, there is no foundation for it here, but in his Imagination; as is manifest from what is said. And thus this place is vindicated.

Sixthly. He mentioneth next, that he may except against, Rom. 9: 31, 32. But why is not verse 30. mentioned? Is it because the matter is there too clearly hold forth? The Apostle doth there expressly say, That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, That is, did not pretend to justification by the • r own works; nor once think, by their own works to patch up a righteousness, wherein they might appear before God, and be absolved) have attained to righteousness. even the righteousness which is of faith (that is, have a righteousness imputed to them, & they made possessors there of by faith, laying hold upon it) But Israel (as it followeth verse 31.) who followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness, (That is. Isra • l, who conceiting their own works, & crying them up, and seeking after Absolution, justification & life, by the law of righteousness, and their conformity thereunto, & that with all earnestness & eager persecution, have not attained to that, they were pursueing after) verse 32. Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law (that is, They would not submit to the Gospel-way of justification, through the righteousness of Christ, laid hold on by faith; but would still be essaying the way of works; though all they did, was rather a shadow of obedience, or of conformity to the law, than a true performance of what was commanded.) The Ethiopic Version, though a corrupt Translation, yet hinteth something of the true sen • e, saying, But Israel, following after their law, could not be justified because they did not perform completely the commands of the law. Wherefore? Because the law doth not justify, but only is by faith, which perfecteth the accomplishment thereof. And we may further notice here, that what the Apostle, when speaking of the Jews, calleth the law of righteousness, he called, while speaking of the Gentiles, simply Righteousness: and what he there called the righteousness of faith; he here, speaking of the Jews▪ calleth by faith, in opposition to the works of the law. What excepteth Mr. Goodwin?

He saith 1. That by the law of righteousness here cannot be meant the moral law, or any law: for God had prevented them with the gift of all these, so that they needed not have soughs after them. Ans. But Cal • in thinketh there is an Hypallage here, & the law of Righteousness is put for the Righteousness of the law. And if we take the law of Righteousness here for the law of that law (as he himself spoke above) that is that form of righteousness and holiness, which the law called for, will not this satisfy? But the matter is plain, Their fault was, that they sought after a righteousness, by their own obedience to the law; & neglected that righteousness, which the Gentiles attained by faith, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, at whom they stumbled, verse 32. 33. And the Righteousness of God, of which they were wholly ignorant, Rom. 10: 3. This was not a simple endeavor of keeping the law (as he hinteth in the following words, where he would preoccupy this objection; and then tell us, that this study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness, as Christians are never further off from justification, by keeping the commands of God) but a proposeing of that design of attaining a Righteousness by their own works, whereby alone they might be justified. And when Christians endeavor after holiness, but not from Gospel-principles, nor upon Gospel-grounds; but to the end they may attain unto a Righteousness of their own, by their works of obedience; they prejudge themselves of justification: for thus they do not lay hold on Christ, but reject Him, and stumble at that stumbling stone, that is at Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, Rom. 10: 4.

2. He faith, neither Calvin, nor any other restaine the law to the Moral law. Ans. Nor do we so restrain it to that law, strikly so taken; but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness; and this is the Moral law, in its full sense; the ceremonial & judicial being parts thereof & appendices thereto.

3. He saith, There is no reason to limit this to the Moral law only, for the Jews sought righteousness by the Ceremonial also. Ans. This is but the same with the former; and we have told him, that the Ceremonial law was then enjoined by the Moral law; & so the Moral law did comprehend it, so long as the Ceremonial law was unrepealed. And whatever law it was, their seeking of righteousness by it, and their refusing of Christ and his Righteousness went together; and they so pursued after it, that they sought Righteousness by their obedience to it; and did not seek by faith after Christ's Righteousness, nor would they submit thereunto.

4. He saith, The righteousness of the Moral law alone, suppose they should have attained to it by believing, could have stood them in no stead, they being bound also to the observation of the Ceremonial law. Ans. This hath been answered before. Christ fulfilled all righteousness, and satisfied that law of righteousness, which was an Universal Rule of righteousness; & so comprehended the ceremonial laws, so long as they were in force: so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness, and embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ, they had been certainly saved; & the Imputation of this Righteousness had made them up.

Lastly, he saith, The clear sense is, that the law of righteousness is justification itself, or righteousness simply and, indefinitely taken, which the Jews seeking to attain to by the works of the law, that is, by themselves, & the merits of their own doings, and not by faith in Jesus Christ's, lost God's favor and perished in their sins. Ans. (1) That the Jews sought after justification by the merits of their own works, otherwise than merits are included in all works, is not manifest, in this place. (2) Otherwayes this may pass for part of the sense, for by faith he understands the act of faith itself, as our righteousness, & not the Righteousness of Christ, which faith laith hold on, or faith as laying hold on & receiving a Surety-righteousness, which is here imported, when the contrary is expressed of the Jews, & of them it is said, that they stumbled at that stumbling stone; & in the next chapter it is said, they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God. What he addeth, as a confirmation of this interpretation, is to no purpose, for he speaketh nothing to clear the main thing in doubt; but all is to prove, that by the law of righteousness, Righteousness is meaned; which is not denied: & withal he taketh for granted, what is not proved, & hath been denied, viz. That Righteousness and Justification are one & the same thing.

Seventhly, Rom. 10: 3, 4. A passage cleat & pregnant for our purpose, where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose, as to the Jews, and showing whence their disappointement & missing of that came, which they so earnestly endeavored after, viz. A righteousnss by which they might be justified before God: for (saith the Apostle) they being ignorant of God's Righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. There is a Righteousness here called God's Righteousness, which is opposite to, & inconsistent with men's own righteousness, that is, all that is done by them in conformity to the law of God, as a righteousness, whereupon to be justified: yea, so great is this opposition, that whoever labors most to establish & set on foot his own Righteousness, or to seek after a Righteousness by his own performances, is furthest from the Righteousness of God, as being both ignorant thereof, and in pride refuising to submit thereunto. This Righteousness of God is explained verse 4. to be the end of the law, that is, the full righteousness, which the law, in its primitive institution, called for, & which is the accomplishment of the laws design, as proposed to be a Rule of Righteousness, and the condition of life promised, upon the performance thereof. And Christ is said to be this end of the law for righteousness. He, by yielding perfect obedience, hath brought forth a righteousness, in which the law hath its End, And Christ is this, to everyone that believeth, the righteousness being made over unto them, who believe, and by faith lay hold on him; which, because the Gentiles did, they therefore attained to this righteousness, Rom. 9: 30.

Mr. Goodwin, pag. 137. &c. excepteth several ways, 1 There is (saith he) no color of Reason, that by the law here should be meaned precisely & determinatly the Moral law; because the Jews never dreamed of justification by this law only, but chiefly by the Ceremonial law. Besides, verse 5. he citeth that description, which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the Moral law; but out of the heart, as is were of the ceremonial law, Lev. 18: 5. Ans. The first part of this Exception hath been often answered: we take not the Moral law so precisely & determinatly, as not to include, as parts or appendices, all other laws given by God. And the last part of this Exception will say nothing, unless he think, this law is precisely & determinatly to be understood of the Ceremonial law, excluding all others, & especially the Moral law, taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial. But why doth he say, that this description of the righteousness of the law is taken out of the heart of Ceremonials, seeing in the place cited, both before and after the words, morals are mentioned? yea that whole Chapt. is taken up, in rehearsing morals.

Except 2. Neiter is it any ways agreeable to truth, that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, should be called; the end of the moral Law, for no Law, considered simply as such, is any cause or means of justifing a person, than by the observation of itself; & consequently justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the moral Law: for nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing, but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it. Now it is impossible that justification by Christ should be procured by the moral Law. It may be said, with a for more favorable aspect to truth, that Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law; yet not simply considered, as a Law, but as comprehending in it such & such usages & rites typifying Christ. Ans. (1.) This whole Exception looketh with a very ill favored aspect both to truth & modesty: For its scope & drift is not so much against the truth which we maintain, as against the Apostle Paul himself, & against the language of the Spirit of Lord; for it faith this in effect; that either the Apostle spoke not truth, or spoke not good sense, when he said, that Christ was the end of the Law: for (to use Mr. Goodwin's reason) as nothing can be properly said to be the Intent or end of a thing but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it; so nothing can be said to be the Intent & end of a Law, but what in likelihood may be obtained by it: But how can any think, that Christ can be, in any likelihood obtained by the Law? (2.) But we say not, that justification by Christ is had by the moral Law: yet, why the righteousness of Christ, consisting in perfect obedience to the Law, & in full answering of the same, in all its demands, may not be called the end or fulfulling of the Law, I see not; especially seeing the Apostle saith expressly, that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. The question being moved about a Righteousness, required by the Law, & this not being to be found in Man's obedience, but in Christ's, who was the end of the Law for righteousness, the Law hath its full accomplissement in him also when He suffered, & satisfied the Sanction of the Law, the Law had satisfaction, or the Lawgiver rather, & the Law its end & accomplishement, Now this Righteousness of Christ being imputed to believers, they are thereupon justified, & the Law is satisfied. And though the Law because it was weak throuw the flesh, could not bring about this righteousness, & this end, in us; yet Christ having answered all the demands of the Law, & given full Satisfaction both in point of obedience, & in point of Suffering, the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him, & that End, which is here meaned (3) We do not say, that the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to beleeleevers, is, or is called, the end of the moral Law: but that Christ came, & was made under the Law, that He might answer all the demands thereof; & both satisfy for its violation, & yield perfect obedience unto its commands; & so fulfill it in all points: So that it had its end & accomplishment in & through Him, & what He did & suffered: & that He submitted Himself hereunto, that He might make up a righteousness, wherewith the Law should be satisfied, for the justification of Believers. (4.) Though the Moral Law, nor no Law, considered in itself, can be any cause or means of justifying a person, otherwise than by the observation of itself; & though justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of moral Law: yet in Christ's obedience & Suffering, the Law may be said to have received its Accomplishment and Satisfaction; & thereby a complete Righteousness may be said to be obtained for all Believers.

Except. 3. The Greek Expositors make Christ in this sense, to be called the end of the law for righteousness, because he performed, or exhibited unto them that, which the law propounded to itself, as its end, & would have performed, but could not, to wit, their justification. Ans. Seeing the law ptopounded their justification, as its end, only by the perfect observation of itself, or by a full & perfect conformity unto it, Christ cannot be called the end or accomplishment of the law, unless He had performed all that, which the law required: nor could He be called the end of the law for righteousness, unless He had fully satisfied the law; and thereby made up a Righteousness, in the behalf, & for the behove of Believers, to whom it being Imputed, they might be accepted, & justified upon the account thereof. And this righteousness, where with the law was satisfied, & wherein it had its full accomplishment, is, I grant, exhibited in the Gospel, to the end, that all, who would be justified, may lay hold on it, receive it, & rest upon it, as the only righteousness, in and through which they desire to be accepted, and to stand before God, the righteous judge.

Except. 4. Some conceive, that Christ is said to be the end of the law, &c. Because the law, by convinceing men of sin, and exacting of them a Righteousness, which it doth not enable them to perform; & again by threatening & condemning them for the want of it, it doth as good as lead them by hand to Christ by whom they are freely justified. But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place. Ans. Seeing he himself is not satisfied with this interpretation, he might have forborne to have added it. But as for the interpretation itself, I judge the thing said to be true, and that it hath a subordinate aspect unto what we have said; & holdeth forth part of the truth; though it be not a plain and full exposition of the place: for there is mention made here of a Righteousness of God, which the Jews neither understood, not would submit unto: but in opposition to this they went about to establish their own righteousness, that is, to seek after a righteousness by their own works, or by their own obedience to the law; & therefore did miss their end: for this righteousness, which they were seeking after▪ & which they could not attain unto, by all their own acts of obedience; that is, a righteousness, that was a perfect obedience & conformity to the law, & withal a Sufficient compensation & Satisfaction for the breaches of the law, already committed, was only to be found in Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness, that is, made full Satisfaction for the breaches committed, and performed complete and perfect obedience, which the law did principally require (what ever other accidental ends it might have had, or the law-giver in promulgating it, & accompanying it with other things, as to the Nation of the Jews) because for this end was the law, as a law, given by the law-giver, that Subjects might walk according to the same, and that they might become thereby righteous, and have a right to the reward promised, by fulfilling this condition of the Covenant. Now, when these ends (or this end, putting these together as one) were only attained by what Christ did and suffered, the Jews, who stumbled at this stumbling stone, & rejected this righteousness of God, could never be justified by all their own acts of obedience to the law, how zealously so ever they should have sougt after a righteousness thereby.

Except. 6. (The 5. we pass, because he laith no weight on it himself) The plain & direct meaning is, that the law, that is, the whole Mosaical dispensation was for that end given by God to the Jews, that whilst it did continue, it might instruct and teach them, concerning the Messiah, who was yet to come, and by his death to make atonement for their sins, that so they might believe in Him accordingly and be justified: and further that in time, that Nation might be trained up & prepared for the Messiah himself, and that Economy & perfection of worship & service, which He should bring with him, & establish in the world at his coming. Ans. What was said to the two foregoing Exceptions, may serve for an answer to this: for what ever truth may be in this; yet it is no true sense & exposition of the place; because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth; & so to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews; whereas this gloss limiteth & restricketh all to the Jews. (2) There is nothing here, keeping correspondence with what is said, verse 3. touching their going about to establish their own righteousness and refuising to submit unto the righteousness of God. 3. The righteousness of the law, described by Moses, & here cited verse 5. hath no interest in the Mosaical Economy, as given for the mentioned end to the Jews. (4) If Christ made an atonement for sins, & was to be bele • ved in accordingly, by such as would be justified, then that atonement was to be made over unto them & reckoned upon their score, to the end they might be justified upon the account thereof. (5) The Text saith, that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness; & so was to bring in everlasting Righteousness, as well as to make atonement for sins, Dan. 9: 24. (6) The perfection of that service & worship, which Christ was to establish at His coming, was a clearer manifestation of the Gospel of the Grace of God, whereby the Righteousness of God, or the Surety-righteousness of Christ, was imputed unto Believers, & received by faith, in order to justification, as the whole Gospel declareth.

He laboreth to confirm this gloss with two reasons, 1. Because the Jews sought Righteousness & self justification, as well from the observation of the Ceremonial, as of the Moral law. 2. Because Christ is held forth; as the end of this dispensation, 2 Cor. 3: 13. Gal. 3: 24. Ans. As to the first of the reasons, we have often replied to it already. And the second will not prove, that there is no other interpretation of this passage, that can have place. And beside, That whole Economy did pointe out and lead them to the Messiah, that in Him they might find that, which they were seeking after by their own works, & all in vain; even the Righteousness of God, which will sufficiently cloth all believers, and both keep them from wrath due for sin, & give them a right to glory. So that even this sense, if rightly understood, doth rather strengthen than hurt imputed Righteousness.

Eighthly. 1 Cor. 1: 30. Is excepted against by him pag. 162. &c. To which we may add verse 29. & 31. Which will help to clear the matter. That no flesh should glory in His presence: but of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification & Redemption. That according at it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. All the work of God in and about His chosen ones, is so contrived, that no flesh should have ground to glory in the presence of God; but that he, who glorieth, should glory in the Lord: and therefore He hath made Christ to be all things to them, that they stand in need of, in order to their everlasting enjoyment of Himself; and particularly, Christ is said to be made of God to us (among other things, which our necessity calleth for) Righteousness, answering His Name the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, Ier. 23: 6. And a Righteousness he cannot be made unto us, any other way, than by clothing us (who are naked and have no righteousness of our own) with a Righteousness; that is, by Imputing to us His Righteousness, that we may thereby become Righteous, & be looked upon, as such, and so be accepted of God, & justified.

Except. 1. Christ is no other way said to be made righteousness, then He is said to be made Wisdom, &c. Therefore we may as well plead for the Imputation of His Wisdom, or His Sanctification: there is no more intimation made of the Imputation of the one then of the other. Ans. This is but the old exception of Socinus part. 4. de Servant, Cap. 5. And of Volkel. De vera Relig. Cap. 21. p. 566. And it standeth upon this only ground, That Christ is made all these particulars to us here mentioned, after one & the same manner: and what that manner is, should be declared: & of necessity it must be a very general one, otherwise it shall not agree to all these particulars. Therefore Socinus hath devised a very general manner of way, saying in the place cited: That all this signifieth nothing else, than that we have attained to that by God's providence, through Christ, that we are become wise, holy & redeemed before God's: & that therefore Christ is said to be righteousness to us, because through the providence of God by Christ, we have attained to be just before God. But this general way maketh us not one white wiser. Volkelius, in the place cited, giveth us no relief, but only tells us, That Christ is said to be made all these to us; because he was the cause of all these; & because God, by his means, made us wise & holy, & will at length redeem us. Bellarm. condescendeth to tell us, that He is said to be our Righ • eousness, because He is the efficient cause thereof. But how that is, he doth not explain: But Bellarm. next answer is to some better purpose; Christ (saith he) is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the Father for us; and doth so give and communicate that Satisfaction to us, when he justifieth us, that it may be called our Satisfaction & Righteousness. (2) Such as oppose us here, do (& must necessarily so do) speak of this matter, as if Righteousness & Sanctification were one & the same thing; & so give us here a most needless Tautologie. And others, who will not yield to imputed Righteousness, & yet will grant a difference betwixt Righteousness & Sanctification, must tell us distinctly, how He is the one, & how He is the other, to His chosen ones. (3.) Wisdom & Sanctification are of a different Nature from Righteousness; for Righteousness cannot be here taken for Inherent Grace & Holiness; for then it should be the same with Sanctification, & so there must needs be here a Tautology; & withal no perfect enumeration of the several great things, we stand in need of, & Christ is made to be unto us of God: & seeing they are different, there is ground to say, that He is not to us Righteousness, the same way that He is Sanctification; Sanctification is wrought in us by His Spirit; but so is not Righteousness; for if we had a Righteousness wrought in us, we should be justified by virtue thereof, & upon the account thereof; & if we be justified by a Righteousness within us, we are justified by our own works, & by the law, contrary to all the Apostles dispute, & contrary to what preceedeth & followeth the words under consideration; for then he who glorieth might glory in himself, & not in the Lord alone. 4. Al these particulars here mentioned, we must have or find in Christ, as the Ae ••• opik version hath it, & each, according to its Nature. And withal we must be made partakers & pos • essors of them all, according as the Nature of the benefit will admit: & therefore, as Christ is forthcoming to His chosen ones, for Wisdom, so as they may really become wise; for Sanctification, that they may become holy; & for Redemption, that they may be redeemed: so is He forthcoming to His own for Righteousness, that they may be justified; for though Righteousness & justified be not one & the same, as our Excepter often alleigeth; yet they have constant respect to other, and are inseparable, in our case. If then we find a Righteousness in Christ, for justification, that Righteousness must be made ours, & this being a Righteousness, that is not our own, before it be made our own, it must be imputed to us, that we may be there by justified.

He addeth, Suppose, Christ were made Righteousness unto us by Imputation: yet this special manner of his being righteousness to us, must be made out by other Scriptures, than this: as because a rich man hath silver & gold & jewels in possession, it will not follow, that he hath silver in one chest, and gold in another, jewels in a third. Ans. Christ's being made Righteousness to us, who have no Righteousness of our own, in order to our justification, saith, that the Righteousness, we have from Him, can be no other ways ours than by Imputation, for it cannot be wrought in us, else it should be the same with Holiness & Sanctification. And therefore the similitude of gold, silver & jewels is not worth a straw, in this case; because the dissimilitude is obvious.

Except. 2. The meaning only is this, That Christ is made, ordained of God, to be the author, or sole means, by way of merit of our justification. Ans. (1) According to his former exception, it will follow hence, that He worketh not Holiness & Wisdom in us, by His Word and Spirit; but only is the means thereof, by way of merit: for he will have Christ to be all these particulars to us, one & the same way. (2) This differeth little from the answer of Schlightingius cont. Meisnerum, p. 250. who saith, It is enough that Christ's righteousness be the cause of our justification: & Christ may be said to be made righteousness to us, because his righteousness redoundeth to our good and justification. (3) It is not said, that Christ is made justification to us; but it is said, He is made Righteousness to us, & though it is true, that He hath merited our justification; yet when He is said to be made of God Righteousness to us, it is apparent, that He bestoweth a Righteousness upon us, in order to justification, or He must be Righteousness to us, ere we be justified: & how shall we partake of His Righteousness, if not by Imputation? (4) Christ cannot be the Author, or sole means, by way of merit, of our justification, till we have a Righteousness; that is, He must be the sole Author & Means of a Righteousness; for we must not say, That He hath merited, that we shall be justified without a Righteousness, it being an abomination to the Lord, that even a terrene judge should justify one, that hath no Righteousness. If then He hath merited, that we shall be justified by having a Righteousness, that Righteousness must be within us, or without us: if within us, then He hath merited, that we shall be justified by the works of righteousness, which we do, & by the law, & by the works of the law, contrary to the whole Gospel: If without us, then it must either be Christ's own Righteousness, or the Righteousness of some other. It cannot be the Righteousness of any other, as will easily be granted: and if it be Christ's Righteousness, it must be imputed to us, to the end it may be ours, and we justified thereby: and this is the thing we press.

He addeth, to confirm this sense, That Righteousness is very frequently used for justification. Ans. Thus he gaineth nothing: for. (1) That will not prove, that it is so used here. (2) And though it did Import justification here; yet seeing there is no justification before God, without a Righteousness, it would say, That Christ were our Righteousness too, or that He merited a Righteousness for us: and what is that Righteousness, that He hath procured, that we shall have, in order to our justification? Is it the Righteousness of our own works? Then He hath merited, that our works shall merit justification; & why not also glorification? Is not this to overturn th • 〈◊〉 Gospel▪

He addeth. 2. Righteousness or justification, which Believers have in or by Christ, is still attributed unto His death & Sufferings, & never to His active obedience. Ans. But he hath forgetten what is said, Rom. 4: 25. Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. Sure, His Resurrection was neither His death, nor His Sufferings. He hath forgotten also what is said, Rom. 5: 19. So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. And to be Righteous, and to be justified, is all one with him, as we have ofttimes heard.

Except. 3. This will not say, That Christ's active obedience only is imputed; or that he only, by his active obedience, is made righteousness to us. Ans. I plead not for the sole Imputation of Christ's active obedience, but for the Imputation of Christ's whole Surety Righteousness, that is, His complete obedience & Suffering, or of what He did & suffered in answering all the demands of the law, which we were lying under.

Except. 4. Many sound & able expositors are for this sense; understanding nothing by this, but our justification, or righteous making by Him; some placeing this justification in Remission of sins; some ascribing it to the Sufferings of Christ. Ans. We • old also cite sound & able expositors for our sense, & bring-in beside the general Verdict of such, as write against Socinians, & Papists, & others also: but this is not our present work. (2.) Justification & Righteous-making are not one & the same. If we be made righteous by Him, it must be by His Righteousness: an • if we made righteous by His Righteousness, it must be imputed to us. (3) That justifi • ation is nothing but Remission of sins, is not yet proved. (4.) We have he • d Paul say, That by the obedience of one (i e: Christ) (in opposition to the disobedience of Adam, whereby all his posterity were made sinners) many are made righteous, Rom. 5: 19.

Ninthly, 2 Cor. 5: 21. For he hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is added, as a confirmation and further explication of what was said, verse 18, 19. Concerning the reconciliation of a sin • ul world unto God, in & through Christ, and of God's imputing their Trespasses unto them. As if he had said, all our Salvation, & all the way how it is brought about, is of God, who, in and through Christ, reconcileth the sinful world of His own chosen ones to Himself, and Pardoneth their sins, by laying them all on Christ, & making Him bear the guilt and punishment of all; that the chosen ones might be made partakers of that Righteousness, and have it imputed unto them, as their sins were imputed unto Christ; and so become the Righteousness of God in Him, or by being in Him, and united to Him. This place is pregnant and full of proof: so that the whole matter cannot be more clearly & emphatically expressed, than it is here hold forth. Yet Mr. Goodwin laboreth to darken it with his Exceptions, pag. 164. &c. let us hear him.

Except. 1. Here is nothing said, touching any Imputation of our sins to Christ: & consequently here can be nothing to build a reciprocal Imputation of His righteousness unto us upon. Ans. If that Expression of God's making Christ to be sin who knew no sin, & that for us, will not enforce an imputation of our sins to Christ, it must be so only with such, as will hold fast their opinion, let Scripture speak what it will to the contrary: for when it is said, that Christ, who knew no sin, i. e. was guilty of no sin, by committing of it, in thought, word or deed; was yet made sin by God, & that for us, what words can be imagined, that shall more emphatically express this Imputation? And the Greek commentators (whom our adversary doth oft cite, when he findeth it anything to his advantage) give the meaning to be, That he was made a great sinner, & was handled, as if he had been the worst of sinners, even very wickedness itself. And Isaiah tells us, Chap. 53: 6. That the Lord laid all our iniquities on Him, or caused them to meet in one upon Him. And nothing can be alleiged against this, except it be said, the meaning is, He was made an offering or Sacrifice for sin. But this is so far from weakening the truth, concerning the Imputation of our sins to Christ, that it abundantly confirmeth it: for there was a real imputation of the guilt of the sinner upon the Sacrifie, as is expressly said, Lev. 16: 21, 22. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all this iniquities of the Children of Israel, & all their trespasses in all their sins, putting them upon the head of goat, and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. And the people were to lay their hands on the head of the Sacrifice, to signify their rolling of their guilt over upon the expiatory Sacrifie, Levite. 1: 4. & 3: 2, 8, 13. & 4: 4, 15, 24, 29, 33. So that if Christ was made sin, that is, a Sacrifice for sin (though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is nowhere in the New Test. so taken) it must needs be granted, that guilt was transferred upon Him, in order to His becoming a Sacrifice for sin: justice could not exact upon Him, if it had not been so, He having been free of all sin and guilt, in His own person.

Except. 2. Some of the most judicious & learned assistants of the way of this Imputation, absolutely reject this equality or reciprocation of Imputation between the sins of believers unto Christ, and the Righteousness of Christ unto them. There is not the same force and power of our unrighteousness to make Christ unrighteous; which is of His Righteousness to make believers righteous. Therefore we are not made formally righteous by such an Imputation. Ans. We willingly grant several differences, beside what is mentioned: yet this agreement & correspondency (which is all we seek) is manifest, That, as Christ, who knew no sin, as to Himself, was made sin, or had the guilt of sin laid upon Him, and was handled by justice as a sinner legally; so we, who have no righteousness of our own, have Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, and bestowed upon us; and upon the account thereof are dealt with as legally righteous. We do not speak of Christ's obedience only; but assert the Imputation of His Sufferings too. Nor do we say, that we are hereby made formally Righteous, if the term formally import inherently; but that by the Imputation thereof to us, we are accounted & looked upon by God as Righteous formally in a legal sense; and as such are accepted of God & justified.

Except. 3. There is not so much, as the face or appearance, in this place of any comparison between Christ's being made sin for us, & our being made the Righteousness of God, in Him; but only the latter is affirmed, as the end, consequent, or effect of the former. Ans. Though the latter be a consequent of the former; yet every word holdeth forth a comparison, or correspondence; Christ made sin, & we become Righteous: Christ made sin, or a sinner for us, and we made Righteousness, or Righteous in Him: Christ knew no sin, and yet was made sin; & we, who were sinners land rebels, standing in need of reconciliation (as the preceeding words evidence, & as is undeniable) are made Righteous.

Except. 4. That the weight of that particle, in Him, should be by the Imputation of His active obedience unto us, hath neither Instance or parellel expression in Scripture, nor rule in Grammar, nor figure in Rhetoric, to make probable in the lowest or lightest degree. Ans. We plead not solely for the Imputation of Christ's active obedience, as is said; but for the Imputation of His whole Surety-righteousness. And though these words in Him, that denote Believers Union with Him, as the ground of their Interest in His Righteousness, should not be asserted, to Import this Imputation: yet this words, that we might be made the Righteousness of God, will be a rock, whereupon Imputation may stand: for they hold this forth unto us, That as God made Christ sin by Imputation; so He maketh us righteous, yea the Righteousness of God, by Imputation.

Except. 5. The clear meaning is this, that God for that end made Christ sin, that is, an offering or Sacrifice for sin, for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him, that is, that we might be justified, or made a Society or Remnant of Righteous ones, after that peculiar manner of justification, which God hath established, through that Sacrifice of His Son. Ans. When Christ was made an offering for sin, the guilt of sin was laid upon Him, even the guilt of our sin. And if we be justified, or made a Society of justified ones, we must be made a Society of righteous ones: and if we be made a Society of Righteous ones, we must first have a Righteousness; seeing we have not a Righteousness of our own, we must have a Righteousness made over to us: and seeing we have this Righteousness made over to us, as being in Christ, it must be the Righteousness of God. So that though this Interpretation be very far fetched, and hath no countenance from the words, and destroyeth the cohesion of these words with the former, as also the reason, that is contained in them, adduced for confirmation of what was said, verse 19. yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation; but must contribute to its support, though a little more remotely.

He laboreth to give strength to this his Interpretation by alleiging. 1. That it is a frequent Scripture expression, to call the sin-offering, or the Sacrifice for sin, by the name of sin simply, as Exod. 29: 14. and 30: 10. Levite. 5: 6, 16, 18, 19, & 7: 1, 2, 7 & 9: 7. Ezek. 44: 27. & 45: 19. 23. Hos. 4: 8. Ans. Though it be true, that the Hebrew words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do sometimes signify sin, & sometimes, an offering for sin: yet the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth always signify sin in the New Test. and the 70 do not use this Greek word in the places cited, except Exod. 29: 14. & there, in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot, Lond. It is in the Genitive case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of sin: & the chald-paraph calleth it an Expiation Targ. Ionath. & Hierof. say, it is a sin, & so doth the persik version: & the Samaritan Version turneth it, that is for sin; & the Arabic, an Expiation. But further, though it were granted to be so taken here; yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice; but be rather confirmed, as was lately shown. And when the same word used to express a Sacrifice for sin, which signifieth sin itself, we may hence be confirmed in this, that that Sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it, before it can be Sacrifice for sin; & it must be sin, in respect of this, before it be a due Sacrifice, or oblation for sin. And therefore Christ must have been sin, in law, by Imputation, or have the guilt of sin laid upon Him, before He could be a fit Sacrifice for sin.

He alleigeth. 2. To express a Number of justified or righteous persons by the abstract term of Righteousness, is very agreeable to the Scripture dialect, in other places, as poverty for poor, captivity for captives. Ans. (1) Yet no one instance can be given, where the word Righteousness hath this Import. (2) But how ever, as was said, these justified, or righteous persons, must be righteous, else they cannot make up such a company; as captivity can never signify a company of men, that are not captives; nor poverty a company of persons, that are not poor. So that this company of righteous ones must needs be righteous, and that in order to justification: & seeing they have no Righteousness of their own, for in themselves they are ungodly, they must have a Righteousness by Imputation. (3) Why should they be called the Righteousness of God, according to this Interpretation? And how is the opposition here observed, betwixt Christ's being made sin, & their being made the Righteousness of God in Him? But this man, by this Interpretation, transgresseth all lines of Correspondence.

He alleigeth 3. That addition of God imports, that that righteousness or justification, which believers obtain by the Sacrifice of Christ, is not only Righteousness of God's free donation, but of His special procurement and contrivement for them. Ans. (1) Righteousness and justification are not one & the same, how oft so ever he name them as Synonymous. (2) We grant, that the Righteousness & the Justification, which Believers obtain, are both God's free gift & His contrivement: But notwithstanding hereof, yea so much the rather, is there a Righteousness imputed to them, & the Righteousness of Christ, who is God, and a Righteousness, which will be accepted of God, whose judgment is according to truth, as a sufficient ground, whereupon to pronounce such, as in themselves are ungodly, to be Righteous, & so to justify them.

He alleigeth 4. That by the grammatical construction & dependence of the latter clause, our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ, upon the former, it is evident, that in the latter such an Effect must of necessity be signified, which may answer that cause, to wit, the death of Christ for us; & this is deliverance from the guilt & punishment of sin, not the Imputation of His active obedience. Ans. As Christ's death could not be separated from His Obedience, which is thereby presupposed. His death being the Sacrifice of one, who is made under the law, and was obedient thereunto unto death, & that in the room & stead of His own; So the Imputation of Righteousness to us should not be separated from the Imputation of His Sufferings, both being necessarily required unto sinners, who had sinned, & yet remained under the obligation of the law, in order to their acceptance with God, and Justification.

He alleigeth 5. The Scriptures, when they speak of the Sufferings of Christ, as a cause, in respect of justification, never ascribe any other effect unto them, but only, either the Remission of sins, deliverance from wrath, Redemption, or the like. Ans. As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the Sufferings of Christ, do not exclude His Obedience; so neither do they exclude the Imputation of His Obedience, in order to our justification, and receiving a Right to glory: yea they make our being constitute Righteous, an Effect of His Obedience; & Righteousness or Righteous-making is accompanied with Justification. So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more expressly of the Sufferings, & sometimes more expressly of the obedience of Christ, according to the exigence of the cause handled; yet both are inseparable, as a cause; & so is our Righteousness & Justification inseparable, as the full Effect.

CHAP. IX.

Other passages of the N. T. briefly mentioned, which plead for this Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

THere are other passages of Scripture, beside these mentioned, in the preceeding chapter, and against which I find no Exceptions made by Mr. Goodwin, in the forecited Book, which yet do with no small clearness and fullness of evidence plead for the truth, which we own, to wit, The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Believers, in order to their Justification. These we shall not insist upon, but only mentione in short; seeing the full insisting upon them will not be necessary, after what is said, in the Explication & Vindication of foregoing passages.

1 Rom. 1: 17. For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith. The Apostle is here giving a reason, proving the Gospel, whereof he was not ashamed to be a preacher of, to be the power of God unto Salvation, & that to everyone that believeth, be he jew, or be he Gentile; viz. Because there is a Righteousness revealed therein, which sinners only stand in need of; & that Righteousness of God; that is, not only a Righteousness, which is devised by God, and is accepted in His sight; but an excellent Righteousness, even the Righteousness of one, who is God; and a Righteousness revealed for faith to lay hold on & receive, & that which faith leaneth to first and last, when it is weakest, and when it is strongest; that thereby the poor sinner, who formerly was dead by law, may live, as one reconciled to God. So that hence we see, Sinners have need of a Righteousness; and this Righteousness is the Righteousness of God, & is revealed in the Gospel, that it may be received by faith, and so Imputed & made over to the poor sinner, in order to his Justification, and acceptance with God.

2 Rom. 4: 11. And he (i. e. Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of the faith, which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Here is a Righteousness, and a Righteousness called the Righteousness of faith, because received & applied only by faith; and a Righteousness, whereof circumcision was appointed a seal, & granted to Abraham as such; and a Righteousness, which was imputed to Abraham, that he might be the Father of all them, that believe: for it is added, that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also: And this must be the same Righteousness, that was Imputed to Abraham, & the same way Imputed, & the same way received, that there migt be no essential difference betwixt the way of justification of Father and Children. The Ethiopic Version may serve for a commentary, and he had circumcision, a sign of his righteousness, which He gave him, and the sign thereof; that this might be made known unto him, that God justified Abraham by faith, when he was not at that time circumcised, that they may know, that they also are justified by faith.

3. Rom. 4: 24, 25. But for us also, to whom it shall be Imputed, if we believe on Him, who raised up tesus, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses, & was raised again for our justification. Here is something said to be Imputed, & this must be in order to justification: And this that is Imputed, cannot be faith itself, or our act of believing; for what is said to be Imputed, is promised to be Imputed upon condition of faith, or our believing on Him, who raised up Jesus our Lord. So that it must be the Righteousness of Christ, consisting in His Mediatory work, which He undertook & performed for His own: for it is added, that He was delivered for their offenses; that is, He was delivered unto the death, to make satisfaction for their sins; & He rose again, that He might declare, He had given full Satisfaction; & that He might apply this Surety-righteousness of His, to the end, they might be justified. Socinus doth not understand this, & therefore de Servat. part. 4. p. 333 saith, It is most certain, that the Apostle doth not speak of any Imputation of the righteousness of Christ; but assert, that the faith or credit, we give God, because He hath called Jesus Christ, our Head, from death to eternal life, shall be accounted unto us, in the place of righteousness; just as faith, whereby Abraham gave credit to the words of God, was Imputed to him for righteousness. But the Text hereby is manifestly perverted: for it saith, that something shall be imputed, if we believe, which cannot be faith; but something distinct from faith, which is to be Imputed, upon condition of faith. And what can this be else, than the Surety-righteousness of Christ, who is here mentioned, as dying & rising, in the place, and for 〈◊〉 good of His people, that they might be justified. And further, if it were faith itself, that were here said to be Imputed, in order to justification, the justified man should not be one, that is in himself ungodly, because he hath a Righteousness in himself; and he, who hath a Righteousness in himself, is not ungodly: & yet it is said, Rom. 4: 5. That God justifieth the ungodly. Again, That, which is Imputed, must be a Righteousness without works, verse 6. but if faith itself be Imputed, a work is Imputed, and not a Righteousness without works: and this would also lay down a ground of boasting, & make the reward of debt, & not of grace, v. 14.

4. Rom. 10: 10. For with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness, & with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation. The Apostle had been before verse 4. telling us, That Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth; & thereafter he discriminateth the way of justification by the law and by the Gospel, under the Notion of a Righteousness which is of the law, and a Righteousness, which is of faith: & then more particularly he describeth the Righteousness of faith, or a Righteousness is had unto Salvation, in & through faith verse 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, & shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; which he proveth in the 10. verse, now cited; & therein showeth, how by this believing that God hath raised the Lord Jesus from the dead, Salvation is brought about; viz. That by believing with the heart, a Righteousness is obtained & received: and this righteousness must be Christ's, even His Surety-righteousness; for faith looketh on Him, as raised from the dead, & that by God, as having now received full Satisfaction from Him; & thereupon bringing Him, as it were, out of prison. And in the Text cited, we see, that by faith a Righteousness is received; or faith is the way unto the possession of a Righteousness, as Confession is the way unto Salvation, or as the actual possession of Salvation is had by Confession. And as Confession itself is not Salvation, but the way thereto, and the mean thereof; so faith itself is not the Righteousness, but the way thereunto, and the mean or medium thereof.

5. Gal. 2: 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if Righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain. Whence we see, that a Righteousness must be had; and that this cannot be had by the law, or by our obedience to the law; but by Christ; & to deny this, is in plain terms, to frustrate the grace of God, & to say, that Christ is dead in vain. And if we look back to verse 16. & forward, we shall see, that the Apostle is speaking of justification by faith in opposition to the works of the law; that is, by faith in Jesus Christ, receiving a Righteousness, which He hath wrought in His estate of Humiliation.

6. Gal. 3: 21, 22. For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law: but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Whence we see, that Righteousness is required unto life, viz. the life of justification; and by whatever way life is had, by the same is Righteousness had: and that neither life, nor Righteousness is had by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: and both are held forth in a free promise, & given to the Believer in Christ.

7. Gal. 4: 4, 5. But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a Woman, made under the law, to redeem them, that were under the law, that we might receive the Adoption of sones. Christ, we see, was made under the law, & that to redeem such, as were under the law, that they might be freed from what they were liable to by the law, and by being under the law, and withal receive the Adoption of sones, which necessarily taketh in His Obedience, as the Aethiopik Version explaineth it saying, He was begotten of a Woman, & was a doer of the command, in the law. And that His Sufferings are here included, is plain from the one end assigned, that he might redeem them, who were under the law, or under the laws curse. The end therefore here being twofold, viz. Deliverance from under the law, and receiving the Adoption of sones; the Cause must have a subtableness thereunto; and say, That this complete Righteousness, comprehending both, must be Imputed unto us, for the ends mentioned.

8. Gal. 5: 5. For we through the Spirit, wait for the hope of Righteousness by faith. Whether we take here the hope of Righteousness, for justification, as the Ethiopic Version doth, translating the words thus, and we in the Holy Spirit, and in faith hope to be justified; to which also the scope may give some countenance; or for the Recompence of glory, which is the thing hoped for; that which we intend, will be equally confirmed; for if Justification be immediately here spoken of, it is manifest, that hereunto a Righteousness is requisite, and that this Righteousness is had by faith; and so is not in our selves; and therefore must be the Righteousness of Christ's, unto whom faith carrieth forth the soul, & of whom he spoke, verse 4. Saying, Christ is become of none effect unto you, who soever of you are justified by the law. If glory be here immediately intended, we may see, that the Apostle, to persuade the Galatians, not to seek after a Righteousness by the law, tells them, what he & others did, and were resolved to do; to wit, how they ventured their whole Salvation on the truth he delivered; for they waited and looked for heaven and happiness (which is here called, hop, by a Metonymy ) not by the works of the law (for heaven with them was not the hop of the law, or of the works of the law) but by the Righteousness of faith; that is, by & through that Righteousness, which is by faith; & therefore it is called the hope of Righteousness by faith; that is, that which they hope for, through the help of the Spirit, and expect in & through the Righteousness of Christ; which Righteousness is had by faith in Christ: & that this Righteousness is none else but the Righteousness of Christ, the following verse cleareth, where he saith; for in Jesus Christ, &c.

9. Philipp. 3: 8, 9. That I may win Christ, & be found in Him, not having mine own Righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the Righteousness, which is of God by faith. This place is so clear and full, that by speaking much of it, we may rather darken it, than explain it. We see, what was the main thing Paul designed, in opposition to what he once intended and sought after: what he did formerly look upon, as gain, and was hot in the pursuit of, he now had no better account of, than of as much loss & dung: yea he had no better esteem of all things beside Christ, & in this judgment, he persisted, accounting all but dung, that he might win Christ, & have Him for all his gain. And what would he make of Christ? He would be found in Him, hid in Him, covered with Him, and united to Him. In opposition to this, he desireth not to be found in, or having on his own righteousness, which is of the law; thereby showing us, That it was the Righteousness of Christ, he desired to be clothed with, and found in; & therefore addeth; but that (i. e. that Righteousness) which is through the faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by faith. The he was seeking, is the Righteousness of God, and which is of God by faith, and is had through the faith of Christ; and all this was said in opposition to the way, that the dogs, the evil workers, the concision, mentioned verse 2. were crying up, and following, viz. the observation of the law, in order to justification.

10. Hebr. 11: 7. By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith: Where there is a Metonymy, the Cause puth for the Effect; Righteousness put for that life, which is had by this righteousness: which showeth, • hat a righteousness is necessarily required, unto the life of acceptance with God, and unto Salvation; and that this righteousness is not in or of ourselves, but in and from another; for it is had by faith; and therefore is called, the Righteousness, which is by faith: and faith layeth hold on no Righteousness, but on that, which is Christ's.

These and other passages, which might be mentioned, are evident proofs of the Truth, we are asserting, with all such, as are unprejudiced, in the point; beside all those passages, which prove justification not to be by the works of the law, but by faith; for they also confirm this truth, That in order to our justification and Salvation; we must be clothed with the Righteousness of Christ; which is that, which faith grippeth to & apprehendeth, that the shame of our nakedness may not appear, and we may be in case to stand before the Tribunal of God.

CHAP. X.

Some Arguments for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, Vindicated from the Exceptions of John Goodwin.

THe truth concerning the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, hath been hitherto asserted from Scripture; & several of these passages have been vindicated from the Exceptions of Mr. Goodwin, a main adversary thereunto. For further clearing of the matter, we shall see what Exceptions the same man bringeth-in against the Arguments, which are made use of by the Orthodox for the truth asserted.

Argum. 1. If there be no standing in judgment before God, unless we be endued with perfect Righteousness; then must the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, in our justification. But there is no standing for us in judgment before God, unless we be endued with a perfect Righteousness. Ergo, &c.

Against this he excepteth, pag. 192. Chap. 7. saying, That the consequence of the former proposition is not good. And so doth Bellar. answer de Iustific. lib. 2. cap. 7. So do also the Socinians. But let us hear his reasons. Remissin of sins (saith he) which is the purchase & procurement of the death of Christ, is a perfect Righteousness, & is every way able to bear us out in judgment. Ans. Remission of sins neither is, nor can be called righteousness; • or a pardoned person is no • the same with one, that hath kept the law: though by virtue of this pardon, he is freed from the punishment, due to the transgressors of the law; yet hath he no right to the reward, promised to the keepers of the law. (2) Remission of sins being the purchase of Christ's death & Sufferings, cannot be had without the Imputation of the death & Sufferings of Christ unto the Believer: & so hereby one half of the truth must be granted. But His Sufferings & Obedience going together & both making up one Mediatory & Surety-righteousness, performed by Christ in His estate of humiliation, both most be Imputed, & made over to the Believer, to the end he may receive pardon, & right to Glory.

Arg. 2. He that is justified by the Righteousness of another, and not by his own, must needs be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed; because there is no righteousness to be found in any other, for the justification of a person, in the sight of God. But every man, that is justified, is justified by the righteousness of another, and not by his own. Ergo, &c.

He excepteth 1. The Major is false, because the passive obedience of Christ is the Righteousness of another: and men may be & are thoroughly & fully justified by the merit hereof, communicated to them in the free pardon of their sins; and so need not the imputation of His active obedience. Ans. (1) We plead not for the sole Imputation of Christ's active obedience; but for the Imputation of all, that He did and suffered, for & in the room & stead of His own. (2) Where are Christ's mere Sufferings, as distinguished from His obedience, called a righteousness? or how can mere Sufferings, as such, or bearing of the punishment threatened by the law, be called a righteousness? doth not righteousness denote the conformity of actions unto the law? (3) When it is said, the merit of Christ's passive obedience is communicated unto us, the meaning must be one of these two; either that itself is properly made over & imputed to us; or only in its effect, free pardon of sins. If this latter be said, Then no other Imputation is granted, than what Socinians will yield unto: & how can it be said to be Imputed, as to its Effects, when itself is not Imputed, in order to the partaking of these effects? If the former be said, then there is something, that is in itself imputed, & not merely in its Effects. And if Christ's Passions & Sufferings be imputed, abstracted from His righteousness & Active obedience, they shall be justified without a righteousness. And it neither is, nor ever will be proved, that pardon of sins is the whole of justification; or that a pardoned man is, 〈◊〉 ipso, that he is pardoned, a righteous man; or that a pardoned man, merely as such, hath right to the recompense of reward, promised to the fulfiller of the law.

Except 2. to the Minor, A man may be said (saith he) to be justified by the Righteousness of another, and not by his own, in a double sense, Either 1. by way of merit; and then it is true, that everyone is justified by the Righteousness of another, that is, by the merit of the righteousness of another, or 2. by way of form; & so it is altogether untrue; for that Righteousness, where with a man is formally made Righteous, is always a man's own by donation & Possession. Ans. (1) When a man is justified by the merit of the Righteousness of another, that Righteousness of the other must be imputed to the justified person; or we have no other Imputation, than what Socinians yield to (2.) If the righteousness, whereby one is formally justified, be his own by donation & possession, & no other possession be thereunto requisite, then we may be said to be formally justified by the righteousness of Christ: for we affirm, that Believers are possessed thereof by God's free donation and Imputation: & thus the whole is granted; for nothwithstanding hereof, that same righteousness, which is made over to the Believer, by free donation & Imputation, is Christ's Inherently, & so is the righteousness of another. Whereby we see, that the members of this distinction thus explained, are not different. Yet, we must not think, that this righteousness of Christ is so given to us, as that it is inherent in us, & wrought in us, as Faith & Repentance are: for even Remission of sins, whereby he will have us formally justified, is not so in us, as Faith and Repentance are in us: And through God's Imputation and Donation, the righteousness of Christ may be the Believers, when it is received by faith, as well as Remission of sins: for, to speak in his own language, that which is given unto man by God, may truly and properly be called his own. (3) That remission of sins is formal justification, will never be proved: and seeing he will have Remission of sins to be the pure Effect of Christ's Sufferings and death; so must justification be: and then, why saith the Apostle, Rom. 4: 25. Who was delivered (viz. to Sufferings and death) for our offenses, and raised again for our justification?

Arg. 3. If Believers have a true and real communion with Christ, then is his Righteousness theirs by imputation. But the former is true, &c. It may be, he proposeth the Argument, in such a mode & way, as may be most to His own advantage; for who argueth thus, he nameth not. Yet it is true, that the Union, which believers have with Christ, is the ground or their communion with Him in all things, which He was made or God to be for them, & which their necessity called for; among which His whole Surety-righteousness doth challenge a chief p • ace. Nor would I argue from the Union & communion in general; but from such a particular Union and communion, as is darkly shadowed forth unto us in the Scriptures, by such and such similitudes; such as the Union betwixt Man and Wife, who are one flesh, as Christ and Believers are one Spirit; as the Union betwixt the principal debtor and the Cautioner; and betwixt the public Head and Representative, and the Members represented; as betwixt the Redeemer and the Redeemed and the like. And to argue from such an Union, for such a peculiar end, to such a communion, as we here plead for, may stand against all his Exceptions, pag. 195. &c. Which are these following.

Except 1. The Major wants truth, because a true and real communion with Christ may stand, without His active obedience being made theirs by Imputation. There is a real Union and communion between the head and the feet, in the same Natural body; yet is not the brain, or the proper functions & operations of the head, made the brain or functions of the feet. So between the Husband and the Wife; yet is not the holiness, strength and Wisdom of the Husband made over to the Wife by Imputation. And. Similitudes go not always upon four • eet: and as these Similitudes come short of expressing the Union and Communion, that is betwixt Christ and Believers; so they are not appos •• ely here applied: for neither is the end of the Union and Communion between the Head and the Feet, that the brains and operations of the Head should be communicate to the feet; but that the head should use its proper operations & functions for the good of the feet: nor do the feet stand in need of any other thing from the head. And thus also is it in the other Similitude, as to the particulars Instanced: yet in other particulars, this last Similitude will come nearer to our business; for though the Husbands Wisdom, Holiness or Strength (which are not communicable) be not imputable to the Wife; yet his Honor & Riches can be & are imputed or communicated: for, though before the Marriage, the Woman was in a base condition, yet being matched with on honorable person, she partaketh of his honor; and being, before the marriage, a person in debt, her Husbands riches are so imputed to her, that she may be & is made thereby solvendo, and freed from her Creditors pursuit, and her Husband and she becometh one person in law, & he becometh chargable with her debt, & obliged to pay it So that as there is an Imputation, or a real devolving by law of the debt of the Wife upon the Husband; so his making payment & Satisfaction for the same, is by law accounted hers; & she is thereupon freed from all charge & trouble from her creditors.

Except 2. The Major wanteth reason; for there is no color of truth in it, that that Union and Communion, which believers have with Christ, should of necessity draw after it the Imputation of His active obedience; so that this obedience of His should become their formal Righteousness; more than the Imputation of His Wisdom, Power and Glory. Ans. (1) If by formal righteousness he understand with Papists, inherent holiness, or righteousness, it is nothing to the purpose; for we assert no such Imputation. (2) That the whole of Christ's Surety-righteousness be so imputed to believers, as that it becometh theirs; so that they, merely upon the account thereof, and clothed therewith, may be and are repute and held to be persons just, in the account of God, & so be justified in His sight, is the thing we assert: and that this doth necessarily flow from Believers Union with Him by faith, and is a part of the Communion they have with Him, and that upon a double account, First because He became Surety, and undertook their debt; & so was made under the law, and obeyed and Suffered all that it could have demanded of them; for this end and purpose, that what He thus did & suffered, as a public person or Surety, might stand for them, & be accepted on their behalf. Secondly because their case and necessity called for this, in order to their justification and Acceptance with God. (3) His Wisdom and power are other waves improven, and laid forth to their advantage, according to the Nature of the thing, and necessity.

Arg. 4. If there be no other principal End, Reason, or Necessity, why Christ should fulfill the law; but only that His obedience thereunto might be imputed to us for Righteousness, in our Justification, then is not the Imputation thereof to be denied. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. And sure, if Christ's obedience to the law, was not necessary in respect of Himself, it must have been performed upon the account of Believers; and that principally and mainly for their Justification and Salvation; and therefore for this end, that it might be imputed unto them. Against this, pag. 197. &c. He,

Except. There are diverse other ends, reasons and necessities to be assigned hereof. Ans. This is not the main thing, that is here denied; nor will all this help our Adversary, unless it can be shown, that those other Ends, which we deny not, are prejudicial unto, & inconsistent with that, which we look upon, as the chief, & as peculiar to Him, as Mediator & Surety, standing in the room of His people, who did mainly stand in need of this. Let us now see the particular ends he toucheth.

1. One reason (saith he) might be, to procure the greater Authority & deeper reverence to the Doctrine, which he taught, Matt. 7: 28. Ans. (1) The Socinians, upon the same account, deny, that His death was any proper Satisfaction for Believers: and if this be a weak argument in their mouth, it cannot be strong in the mouth of our present Opposites. (2) This End is but subordinate unto, and no way inconsistent with the principal End, which we have mentioned. (3) Though Christ's Miracles had a more direct tendency to procure this Reverence, than His Holy life; yet neither the one, nor the other were peculiar to Him alone: for both the Miracles, wrought by others, such as Prophets and Apostles, and their holy life, had a tendency to procure Reverence and Beleef to their Doctrine: And himself confirmeth this in the following words, saying. It is a truth of general acknowledgment, that the holiness, uprightness and unblameableness of the lives of Teachers have a powerful Influence into the consciences of Men, to render them more observant & awful in their attention to the things, which are taught by them, citeing Mat. 2 • : 32. John. 5: 35. & 8: 46. 1 Tim. 4: 12. 2 Tim. 3: 14. (4) We are to consider Christ, as Mediator and Surety, in what He did, as well, as in what He Suffered, in His state of Humiliation: for to us a Child was born, and to us a Son was given; He was made under the law for us, that he might redeem such, as • ere under the law, that they might receive the Adoption of Sones. Isaiah. 9: 5. Gal. 4: 4, 5.

2. This active obedience of Christ, (saith he) was serviceable to that same great End, whereunto our righteousness and obedience are subservient, viz. the glory of God, & the advancement of His Kingdom, John. 8: 49. & 7: 18. Ans. And was not His death & Sufferings also subservient unto this great end? Will it therefore follow, that He died not, to make Satisfaction to justice, for the sins of His people? And if this cannot follow, what ever Socinians imagine; how shall it, or can it hence follow, that His obedience was not to satisfy the demands of the law, and to procure the reward to His people? Is there any Inconsistency betwixt His fulfilling the law, as Mediator and Surety, in the room of His people; & His doing it for the glory of God, & the advancement of His Kingdom?

3. Another en • (saith he) is the exemplariness of it. Ans. This is but another arrow, taken out of the quiver of the Socinians; & is of no force to weaken our argument; seeing a subordinate & less principal end doth not destroy a more principal end. Was He not exemplary to us in His death & Sufferings? shall we therefore say, That there was no satisfaction for sins intended thereby? And what is there here peculiar unto Christ, as Lord Mediator, seeing the lives of other Saints are also exemplary?

4. It had (saith he) an excellent Importance to draw to Imitation. Ans. This is the same with the preceeding, and deserveth no further answer.

5. It was (saith he) a means of continueing His person in the love and complac • ncy of His Father, which was a thing of absolute necessity, for the carrying on of the great work of Redemption: for if He had once miscarried, who should have mediated for Him? John. 15: 10. & 8: 29. Ans. As to His Person, He was God equal with the Father, in power and Glory: It were therefore blasphemy once to suppose, that His person stood in need of this, for any such end: or to suppose, that He could have failed, as to any act of obedience, & thereby have displeased God. Wherefore His obedience being the obedience of one, who was & is God over all, blessed forever, it could not be necessary to Himself unto any such end. Therefore it behooved to be wholly for us, for whom He was made under the law; as He was given to us, and borne for us.

6. It was (saith he) of absolute necessity to qualify & fit the Sacrifice for the Altar, and render Him a person meet by His death and Sacrifice of Himself, to make atonement for the world, and to purge and take away the sin of it. Ans. Shall we think that He, who was God, was not a fit enoug Sacrifice for the world; but that He must be made fit and prepared by acts of obedience? And as for His Human Nature, which was no person, but did subsist in the Divine Nature, being assumed into the subsistence thereof, was it not sufficiently fitted to be a Sacrifice, by its personal union with the Godhead? was it not thereby Holy Harmless & undefiled & separate from sinners, which is all that the Apostle requireth, Heb. 7: 26? Was not the Human Nature personally united unto the Godhead, from the very first moment of conception? The holiness then, that consisteth in Acts of Actual obedience, was not required unto this Union: and after this Union it was not possible, that He could sin: as it is not possible, that the glorified now in Heaven can break the Laws, that we break here, while on earth; and yet it will not follow, that they are under the same particular obligations to particular acts of commanded duties, that we stand under: So nor was Christ, as to Himself, under the obligation of the p • rticular duties of the law, to which He willingly submitted Himself, & gave obedience; but all this was for us: Nor was this necessarily required to make His Sacrifice Holy; for His Human Nature, being once united, to the Divine, could not other ways be but holy and without sin; and so a sinless and holy Sacrifice. And withal we would take notice, that the Actions of the Mediator, were the Actions of the person, and not of either of the Natures alone; & therefore must not be looked upon, as the Actions of a mere man. So that His acts of obedience, were the acts of obedience of God man, or of that person, that was God. He needeth not then tell us, that the Absolute holiness and Righteousness of the humanity itself was of necessary concurrence unto His obedience: for we grant it, and this flowed from the hypostatical union: but that, which we deny, is, That there was an Holiness and Righteousness in acts of outward obedience to the law requisite thereunto; as if the human Nature, by virtue of the hypostatical union, had not been holy and harmless, untecedently unto those outward acts of obedience; and so had not been a sinless and holy Sacrifice, if He had been offered up in His Infancy, or before He was in capacity to do any commanded acts. He needeth not say (as he doth pag. 204.) that we conceive, that Christ-man might have been righteous without doing the works of Righteousness, which is all one, as to say, that He might have been Righteous, though He had transgressed; for not to keep the law, in those, to whom the law is given, is nothing else, but to transgress. For we neither do, nor need assert any such thing: for by virtue of the hypostatical union, He was Righteous, and could not transgress, or do anything contrary to what was imposed upon Him: but we say, that by virtue of this union, as to Himself, the Human Nature was not under the law, as we are; but He was under the law, that He might fulfill it for others; & not to fit and qualify Him to be a meet Sacrifice, as if for this His Human Nature had not been meet enough before. To this he saith, pag. 205. Let this Supposition be admitted, that Christ had suffered in the womb, and that this Suffering of His had been fully Satisfactory; yet had He been as perfectly righteous, in this case; and consequently had kept the law perfectly, as now He hath done; for the law requireth of Infants, during their Infancy, nothing but holiness of Nature. I Ans. (1.) This is enoug to confirm what we say, viz. That all His after actual obedience was not necessary to this end. (2) And beside though this holiness of Nature was conform to the law upon the matter, yet it was not a formal obedience unto the law, if we speak of Him in reference to Himself; for the Human Nature had this Holiness by virtue of the Hypostatical union: and Christ, when the Human Nature was first conceived, was God-man; and the person was under no law; & so was not under the obligation of any such law; but was made under the law, as Mediator; and so, for us, and not for himself; nor it is anymore to advantage, to except again & say, that His meaning is not, that there was an absolute necessity, that he should keep the law, upon the same terms, every ways, which now He hath done, as that He should perform the same Individual acts of obedience, or the same number of acts, in case He had been called to suffer any white sooner: but that until the very Instant, in which He should suffer, whether it were sooner, or later, He should in all things submit himself unto the good pleasure of God. For it doth hence sufficiently appear, That all his after obedience, in all these particular acts, was not necessary to fit Him, as a Sacrifice; & so could not be necessary for Himself. And therefore seeing He had been a sufficiently holy Sacrifice, had He been offered up before the actual performance of these commanded duties in the law, it is manifest, that these duties were not required unto the end alleiged: but that, as He was made under the law for us; so all His actual obedience to the law was for us, and not for himself. The Excepter, in end, perceiving the Invalidity of all his own discourse here, closeth the matter thus, pag. 206. But however suppose this necessity or use of the Righteousness of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared; yet since there are many others of undeniable evidence, the position so much contended for; to wit, that the Godhead of Christ sufficiently qualified Him for such a Sacrifice, as He was, makes nothing at all for the Imputation of His Righteousness. Therefore we shall not trouble either ourselves, or our Reader any further with untying an Impertinent knot. What these others of undeniable evidence are, we have not yet seen: and, sure, this one ground is sufficient to demonstrate, that his obedience to the law, in all points, was not for himself, nor to qualify him, as a Sacrifice; but for us: and therefore it must be imputed, & made over to us and become our Righteousness, whereby and whereupon, together with his Sufferings, made over to us also, we are to be justified and accepted of God, as Righteous; and not only have pardon of sins, but also a Right to the Inheritance, and to the reward promised upon obedience.

7. As Christ (saith he, p. 206.) was a Sacrifice; so was He and yet is, & is to be forever, Hebr. 7: 27. &c. An High Priest; and that Righteousness of His we speak of, qualifieth Him, that is, contributeth to His qualification for Priesthood, as well as it did for His Sacrifice. Ans. Seeing it cannot be proved, that his actual obedience to the law (which is the Righteousness we are here speaking of) was necessary to qualify him to be a Sacrifice here on earth; much less can it be proven, that it was necessary to qualify him for his Priest-hood in heaven. And all these qualifications mentioned, Heb. 7: 26, He had, before that actual obedience was either performed, or he in a capacity to perform it: & therefore his actual obedience was not necessary thereunto.

8. That holy pleasure (saith he) and contentment, which Christ himself took in these works of Righteousness, may be looked upon, as one considerable end, John. 4: 34. Ans. So took He pleasure and delight to Suffer: He had a Baptism to be baptized with, and how was he straitened, or pained, till it was accomplished, Luk. 12: 50. Shall we then say, that therefore his death was not to make Satisfaction for the sins of his own? These are but Socinian Evasions, that have no force to weaken the truth, in the least. And thus, notwithstanding of all his Exceptions, this Argument abideth in its strength. We proceed to another.

Arg. 5. If we be debtors unto the law, and that not only in matter of punishment, but in perfection of obedience also; then did Christ • ot only suffer death for us, that we might be delivered from the Curse; but also fulfilled the law, that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the law in him, or by the Imputation of His fulfilling of the law to us. Otherwise the law should yet remain to be fulfilled by us. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. The force of the Argum. lieth here, that we were debtors unto the law, not only as to the punishment, which we had deserved by transgression; but also as to perfect conformity thereunto: and therefore coming in our law-place, & taking on our debt, did not only undergo the punishment for us, but did also yield perfect obedience: And this complete Surety-righteousness of Christ, consisting both in doing and Suffering, must be imputed unto us, and reckoned upon our score, to the end, we may be justified and Accepted of God, as Righteous; & have Right not only to Impunity, but also to the Reward, promised to the obedient.

He excepteth p. 208. &c. Against the Minor, upon these grounds. 1. If the meaning (saith he) be, that we, who are believers, are debtors to the law in perfection for our justification; it is false. But as for these, that believe not in Christ, it may be true, in this sense; that if they mean to be justified, and to escape the punishment, otherwise than by Christ, they must keep the whole law. Ans. (1) We say not, that Believers, who are already justified, through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, are debtors unto the law, for this end: but that ere they could be justified and accepted of God, as Righteous, they were obliged to perfect obedience, as well as to suffer the penalty: and seeing this was impossible unto them, their Surety was to do it, and he did it, and what he did was imputed unto them, and reckoned upon their score. (2) As for Unbeleevers (ans such are all by Nature) seeing it is confessed, that they ere under this obligation, then it is necessary, that before they be justified, either they, or a Surety for them, must satisfy both these demands of the law. And though none be now under a command, to give perfect obedience unto the law, to the end, they may be justified; but such as hear the Gospel are commanded to believe in Christ, and to accept of him by faith, that they may have an Interest in his Righteousness, & so be justified: yet that taketh not away this Imputation, but establisheth it rather; because Christ having satisfied all the demands of the law, both in doing and in Suffering, and that as a Surety, Head, Redeemer and public Person, by believing in him, they receive this, and have it made over unto them.

2. If the proposition (saith he) meaneth, that Believers are debtors of perfect obedience to the law, in a way of Sanctification & thankfulness. This is true, but it concerneth not the question. Ans. Nor do we speak of this, knowing that it is nothing to the present question: But this we say, That all men by nature, and so Believers, before they be justified by faith in Christ, are not only under the Curse, because of sin; but are under the demand of the law, or the commanding power of the law, requiring perfect obedience, in order to the reward: And that therefore both these demands of the law must be satisfied by their Surety, and the same must be imputed to them and reckoned upon their score, before they can be looked on, as free of the Curse, and as heirs of the Reward, promised to full & perfect obedience.

3. We are not (saith he) therefore exempted from keeping the law, no not in respect of justification itself, because we have transgressed it, but because 1. having once transgressed it, we are utterly uncapable of such an observation, whether personally, or by imputation, which may amount to justification, or exemption from punishment. 2. That relaxation or release from an observation of, or dependence upon the law by justification accrueth unto us by means of our dependence upon Christ for justification, through his death, Rom. 7: 4. Ans. (1) If our transgression of the law doth not exeem us from the obligation to keep it perfectly, in order to justification, then, ere we be justified, that obligation must be satisfied, as well, as the obligation to punishment; and so the law must be perfectly keeped, as well as its penalty suffered: And seeing we our selves can do neither, our Surety must do it for us, & that must be accepted for us, & imputed to us. (2) Nor can it be said, that our uncapableness to keep it, so as may amount to justification, doth exeem us from the obligation, or destroy the laws power to require that of us; more than our uncapableness to suffer the penalty, so as may amount to a justification, doth or can exeem us from the obligation to suffer, or destroy the laws power to require the penalty of us. It is true, that no man now is called of God to endeavoure this way of justification: yet all such, as live without the Gospel have not the better & more sure way, through faith in Christ made known unto them. The obligation to perfect obedience remaining after the transgression, saith, that, ere a man, that was both obliged to Suffer, and to yield perfect obedience, can be justified, the law, as to both these demands, must be satisfied, & the Sureties Satisfaction to both must be reckoned upon his score. (3) Justification & Exemption from punishment are not one & the same, in our case, more than pardon & Righteousness. (4) The Exemption, that accrueth to believers, saith not, that there was no obligation upon mankind both to suffer and to obey, in order to justification, anteriour to Christ's doing both.

4. God never required (saith he pag. 210.) of any man, but only of Christ, both exactness of obedience to the law, & subjection to punishment, due to the transgression of the law conjunctim, but divisim only. He that shall perfectly keep the law, is not bound to suffer the penalty. Ans. (1) Then our transgressing of the law should exeem us from the obligation to obedience, contrary to what was granted in the First Exception. (2) Though he, who perfectly keepeth the law, is obnoxious to no punishment; yet he, who breaketh the law (as we all did in Adam, beside our daily transgressions) is obnoxious to punishment; & this obnoxiousness to punishment no more dissolveth his obligation to obedience, than his transgression was able to do. And therefore we are all, considered in our Natural state, obliged to both conjunctim; for we are borne sinners, and yet born under the obligation of keeping the law of God. (3) God's requiring both of Christ, who was Mediator & Surety, saith, that both were required of us: for what was required of him, as Surety, was required of the principal debtors.

5. He saith, In case a Man hath transgressed the law, & hath suffered (whether by himself, or by some other for him) the full punishment threatened, he is no further a debtor unto the law, neither in point of punishment, nor of obedience: for the punishment is of equal consideration to the law, with the most absolute conformity: and as no man can be obliged to fulfill the law twice for his justification; so neither is it reasonable to conceive, that he, who hath suffered the full penalty, that being as satisfactory to the law, as the exactest obedience, should be still bound to the observation of the law. Ans. When the law promiseth life to the fulfillers, as well as threateneth death to the transgressors, the suffering of death for the transgression, is not such a fulfilling of the law, as hath the promise of life annexed to it: Devils, though now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, the death threatened, yet cannot be said to be fulfilling the law, or obeying unto life; nor can they be said to be justified, nor to be suffering any thing, in order thereunto. In order therefore to our justification & Acceptance with God, as heirs of the life promised, who were both obnoxious to punishment, & also obliged to give perfect obedience to the law, the law as to both, must be satisfied. Nor can we say, that the punishment of Devils is of equal consideration to the law, with the conformity yielded thereunto by the confirmed Angels. And though the suffering of the penalty in laws penal or such as promise no reward unto the obeyers, may be said to be of equal consideration with the keeping of the law; yet this cannot be said in laws, which promise a Reward to the observers, as well as threaten a punishment to transgressors: Nor can the man, that suffereth the punishment, suppose to the full, that is threatened in the law, be said to have fulfilled the law, and to have deserved the reward promised to obeyers. (2) Though Christ hath both obeyed the law, & suffered the punishment; yet the law is not twice fulfilled, but once, because, as was granted, such as were sinners and obnoxious to punishment, were also obliged to yield perfect obedience: for transgression did not destroy this obligation. As when a man is punished for breach of a law, that not only required obedience under such a penalty, but also promised a reward to the observers, when he is put to perform what was commanded, ere he can have the promised reward, he is not put to fulfill the law twice: for his punishment was but Satisfaction to one part of the law, or to threatening; but it was no satisfaction of the law, as to the reward promised.

Arg. 6. If there be no justification, without a perfect Righteousness, & no such Righteousness to be found, but the Righteousness of Christ performed to the law, then of Necessity this Righteousness must be imputed to us unto justification. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. The ground of this Argument is, that justification is the pronouncing of a person righteous, & justification being God's act, the person justified must be righteous, ere God can judge & pronounce him to be such; for the judgment of God is always according to truth; & no person having a righteousness of his own, all that are justified must have a Righteousness imputed to them; and there is no Righteousness that can be said to be imputed, but the Surety righteousness of Christ, and particularly, in satisfying all the demands of the law.

He Excepteth, pag. 211. against the Minor 1. That however it be true, that justification cannot take place, without a perfect Righteousness, being nothing else than the making of a man perfectly Righteous: yet a Righteousness consisting determinatly of such a tale of righteous acts, as Christ performed unto the Moral law, is not absolutely necessary: for in reference to the Jews, there must have been righteous acts performed unto the ceremonial law also. Ans. (1) Justification is not the making of a man perfectly righteous; but the judicial pronouncing & declaring of a man to be so, through the Righteouseness of Christ, imputed to him & received by faith. (2) A perfect Righteousness, consisting in complete obedience the law is required: we urge not such a determination of acts, in number & tale to the moral, or to the Ceremonial law: only we assert the necessity of a full obedience to the Rule of Righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, & this was the Moral law: Though, as to the Jews there were other prescriptions proposed, than were to others of the world; yet these same prescriptions, consisting in Ceremonials, or in Judicials, were reduced to the Moral law, & were enjoined thereby, so long as they stood in force, and were not repealed by the Supreme Law giver.

Except 2. Neither is it so absolutely true, that there is no perfect Righteousness to be found, beside Christ's. There is a Righteousness in the law as absolute & complete. And it is much more probable, that if God Imputes a legal Righteousness unto Men in justification, He fournisheth them this way out of the law. Ans. But what is that Righteousness in the law? doth the law hold forth any Righteousness, but perfect obedience? and how can God furnish them with this, but by Imputing unto them the perfect obedience of Christ, seeing He hath not so ordered matters, as they shall be in case, while here, perfectly to keep the law themselves. (2) He remitteth us to what he said formerly in the same Treatise; and in that place, he maketh this complete Righteousness to consist in Remission of sins. And yet, it is certain, that Remission is no obedience; nor is it a Righteousness held forth in the law; not is it any Satisfaction to the law: yea, it agreeth noth with common sense, nor with Reason to say, that by Remission of sins men are made formally Righteous.

Except. 3. That perfect Righteousness, wherein justification consisteth, and where with men are made formally Righteous, when they are justified, is nothing else but Remission of sins, Rom. 4: 6, 7. Ans. Remission of sins is not a perfect Righteousness. This hath no countenance, from Scripture, nor from Reason, or common sense. Who ever thought, or said, that a pardoned Thief or Murderer was a Righteous man? or that his pardon made him formally Rightheous, and an observer of the law? Though thereupon he be freed from the penalty, or from the punishment threatened in the law against such transgressors; yet is he nor thereupon either made or declared to be Righteous; but his pardon is a virtual declaration, that he is not Righteous, but a Transgressour. How that place, Rom. 4: 6, 7. is perverted, when adduced to give countenance to this fiction, is declared already.

He addeth, pag. 215. two Reasons for this: the first is, That remission of sins is equivalent unto, and virtually containeth & comprehendeth in it, the most absolute and entire obedience unto the law. Ans. Remission of sins, as such, is so far from being equivalent to this, or from comprehending this in it, that it is a plain declaration of the contrary: for where entire obedience is, there Remission hath no place, and Remission must presuppose a Transgression. The next is, Because (swaith he) it hath all these great and high privileges annexed to it, and depending upon it, which a Righteousness, most strickly so called, could have, as the Love, Favor, acceptation and approbation of God. Ans. If we speak of Remission of sins, in itself, and abstractly considered, this is also false: for though a pardoned man be freed from the punishment, due to Transgressours; yet, as merely pardoned, he hath no right to Reward, promised to the perfect observers of the law: Nothwithstanding hereof, we grant that the man pardoned of God hath all these high and great privileges; but not by virtue of his mere pardon; but because there is a Righteousness, imputed to him, upon which these privileges do depend, and Exemption from punishment dependeth upon his pardon.

He hath two other Reasons elsewhere, pag. 5, 6. to this purpose; as 1. That Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law, even as the Imputation of the law fulfilled, necessarily includeth the non-imputation of sin. Ans. Though in our justification, this might be granted to be true, upon the matter, because there is an Imputation of the whole Surety-righteousness of Christ together; and the one part is not separated from the other; so that the one consequently inferreth the other. But when it is thus reasoned against the Imputation of the one, the Inference here must be understood of a formal Inference, and so it is false, that Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law; for it only includeth the non-Imputation of guilt, notwithstanding that the law was broken: yea, as is said, it manifestly supposeth the contrary, viz. That the law was not perfectly observed, for had the law been perfectly observed, there had been no place for pardon. Moreover, Remission as such, giveth no Right to the reward, promised unto perfect obedience; but only impunity from the punishment, threatened for disobedience. 2. saith he. He cannot be said to have all this sins fully forgiven, who is yet looked upon, as one that hath transgressed, either by Omission, or Commission, & intended to be dealt with all as such. Ans. Though he, whose sins are fully forgiven, cannot be dealt with, as one guilty of sin, that is, as one liable to the punishment; yet he may be looked on, as one, that was guilty, and so did not give full and perfect obedience: and therefore, though he cannot be dealt with as a Transgressour; yet neither can he be dealt with, upon the account of his Remission, as one that hath yielded perfect obedience, & did never transgress. Wherefore, seeing he cannot be looked upon, as one that never transgressed, he cannot be looked upon, as one that hath a perfect Righteousness, and so, a Right to the Reward. The similitudes taken from a phisician, restoreing his patient to health, by recovering him from his sickness; and from the Sun, in one act expelling darkness & bringing in light, which are here adduced for illustration, have no force to prove anything here, in regard, there is no correspondence in all points, betwixt Matters Natural, & Matters merely Moral, or Political. There is no Medium betwixt light and darkness, or the habit and its privation; but there is a Medium here betwixt Transgressing of the law, & perfect obedience to the law unto the end, Adam, so long as he stood, was no Transgressour; yet he had not then given perfect obedience to the end, according to the Covenant. So there is a Medium betwixt Freedom from the Penalty, & the Right to the Reward, as was shown above.

Arg. 7. If do this & live, be an everlasting Rule of God, & which shall never be dissolved, then must the Active obedience of Christ be imputed unto Men, in justification, that so they may be said to have done this, and so live. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. That these words, do this and live, contain a determination & constitution of the Lord, as unalterable, as these words, That day thou eats, thou shalt die, cannot well be denied: and therefore, if because of this latter, no man can be saved, unless their Surety die for them; so because of that former, no man can have right to the reward, unless his Surety perform perfect obedience. And as the one is imputed to the Believer, so must the other be Imputed also, in order to his complete Salvation.

Against this he excepteth, pag. 216. &c. thus, In this sense, I grant, that do this and live, is an everlasting Rule, that is, it is, hath been, and shall be everlastingly true, that who so ever shall fulfill the law perfectly, shall live. But not in this sense, that it is the only perpetual and standing Rule, whereby and according to which, men must be justified, and so saved: for in this sense, it neither is, nor ever was, nor ever shall be a rule of God: for God hath always had, and forever will have another rule for the justification of men. Ans. (1.) Was it not a Rule of life & justification to Adam, in the state of Innocency? was he not, according to that Covenant, where in he stood, to purchase the good promised by his doing? It may be, the Excepter thinketh, with the Socinians, that no more was promised to Adam, than what he had in possession. (2.) We do not assert it, as a standing rule, whereby we should now expect to be justified; but we say, that it being a constitution of God's, as well as the other, viz. That day thou eats, thou shalt die, It must be satisfied, as well as the other. And as the rule of faith taketh not away Christ's suffering of death, according to what was threatened in the law; so nor doth the law of faith take away His obedience, according to the command of the law: and as Christ's paying down of the Penalty was necessary for our freedom from death; so His giving full obedience to the law is necessary to our life; though, as was said, we need not nicely thus distinguish, save to show the necessity of the Imputation of both.

Arg. 8. That Righteousness, which God accepteth on our behalf, is the Righteousness imputed to us in justification. But the Righteousness of Christ is that Righteousness, which God accepteth on our behalf, Ergo, &c.

He excepteth, pag. 217. 1. Denying the Major, because God may and doth accept that for us, or on our behalf, which yet He need not impute to us; at He accepted of Abrahanis prayer, in the behalf of Ishmael; & of the prayer of Elisha for the Shumanites Son, and yet neither was imputed to the other. Ans. But all this, & a thousand Instances of the like nature, can evince nothing; for the Argument speaketh of what is accepted of God, in order to justification, as the ground and meritorious cause thereof; which the Instances adduced come not nigh unto. He addeth, In like manner, these, in whose behalf, Christ's Sufferings were accepted, receive an unspeakable benefit & blessing by them; but this operats nothing to the Inference of the Imputation pleaded for; that is, that God must look upon these Sufferings of Christ, as if they had personally endured them, on whose behalf they are accepted. Ans. Then it seemeth not only is the Imputation of Christ's active obedience denied; but also the Imputation of His death and Sufferings; and no more is granted, than what Socinians will yield unto. (2) The Imputation, we plead for, is not such as maketh God to look upon these Sufferings of Christ, as if Believers had personally endured them: but such, as maketh God to look upon them, as the Sufferings of Christ, as Surety, Head & Public person, in the room & stead of His chosen ones; which Sufferings & payment of the Penalty by the Surety, being made over unto, & reckoned upon the score of Believers, they are, upon the account thereof, accepted & dealt with, as if they themselves had so Suffered and Satisfied, in their own persons.

2. He distinguisheth thus, If by the Righteousness of Christ the proposition meaneth, precisely that obedience, which He exhibited to that general & common law, whereunto all Men are obliged, considered apart from His obedience to that particular law of Mediator, given to Himself alone, so it is false. If by Righteousness be here meant that obedience of Christ, commonly called passive, or both active and passive together; so it may be true: but then the other will be found tardy. Ans. (1) Christ's obedience to that general law, by which all men were obliged, did as well belong to His law of Mediation, and was comprehended under it, as His giving up Himself to Suffering & to death: for as Mediator He was made under the law, as well as suffered the Curse. (2) The Minor proposition is to be understood of the whole Surety-righteousness, consisting not only in Suffering; but also in actual obedience to the law: & when this is granted, the whole we seek is granted. Neither is the former proposition found tardy, as appeareth from what is said; & the Syllogism is good, and no Paralogisme, what ever he supposeth.

Arg. 9. If Christ were a public Person, standing in the place or stead of all those that should believe in Him; then all that He did and Suffered, is to be looked upon & reputed by God, as done & Suffered by these, & consequently are Imputed to them. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. Sure, if Christ was a public person, standing in the place and room of the chosen ones, all that He did, as such a person, or as a Surety, as to that wh •• h law and justice required of them, & they were obliged unto, must needs be imputed unto them, & reckoned upon their score; and they must be dealt with upon the account thereof, as if all had been done & suffered by themselves. We do not say, that all He did & Suffered, is or must be Imputed: but that all, which He did and suffered, in Satisfaction of the law, and in payment of that, which we were liable unto, & stood under the obligation of, is and must of necessity be imputed, to the end we may be deliver •• from under the former obligation.

He excepteth, pag. 220. &c. 1. The publicness of Christ's person, or His standing in the place of those, that should believe, is no sufficient ground to build this Inference upon, That therefore all He did & suffered, are looked upon by God, as done and suffered by them; such as His conception, Birth, &c. Ans. We have obviated this already, by showing, that the Major is to be limited to, & understood of those things only, which the law required of us, & which we were under the obligation of, and were debtors to do and suffer, amongst which none of the particulars mentioned, and many moe such-like, can be reckoned. His after rambling discourse upon this mistake, is not worth the noticeing: And who seeth not, how vain it is for him to say, that then God should look upon men, as having redeemed the world: For, as the law did not require this of us; so to speak thus, destroyeth all acts of Sutetyship: for the Sureties acts can never be so imputed to the debtor, as to make him thereby the Surety. We know, that Sureties and public persons may do many things, which cannot be said to be imputed to the deb • ors & persons represented: but these things are not done by them, as such public persons & Sureties, but in another capacity. And it is folly hence to infer, that therefore the Sureties payment of the debt cannot be said to be imputed to the debtor; or that wherein the public person was a public person, and which he did as such, cannot be said to be imputed to those, whom he represented.

2. Except. Itagreeth not with Scripture expression, to say, that the Sufferings of Christ are by God looked upon, as our Sufferings, or to conceive, that we should suffer in Him. It is not all one to say, we were punished in Christ, and Christ was punished for us. This last as warranted by Isaiah. 53: 6. But the other cannot be affirmed; for seeing in Christ's death, we hav • remission of sins, we cannot be said, for the same sins to be punished in and with Christ. Ans. This is wholly founded upon his own way of wording the Argument, so as he thought it would give him most advantage: for all this looketh to these words, in the Major propos. are to be looked upon, & are reputed by God, as done & suffered by those; which words might have been left out, without any hurt to our cause: the Argum. without them would have been full and concludent for us, whether any have argued so, or he hath framed the Argum▪ to his own mind, I know not. Sure, there is no necessity for adding of these words: yet the words may admit of a candide Interpretation; for it hath no repugnancy, or dissonancy to Scripture expression, to say, that the Sufferings of Christ are looked upon as the believers sufferings, when they are impu •• d to him; not as if God should think, judge or conceive, that the believer, in his own Physical person, had suffered, that which Christ did suffer; but that he hath a special legal interest in these Sufferings, as being in a special manner interested in Christ: and are now dealt with by God, no other ways, than as if he himself had, in his own person, laid down that satisfactory price. And in this sense, there is no difference betwixt the saying, that we are punished in Christ, & that Christ was punished for us: for we 〈◊〉 only punished in Christ legally, as Christ suffered for us, as coming in • ur law-place. Neither doth the saving, in this sense, That we are punished in Christ, take a way Remission of sins, but doth rather establish the same, as being the only ground thereof: for till we have an Interest in Christ, and in His Sufferings, by the Imputation thereof to us, & our leaning to them by faith, we can have no Remission, according to the Gospelway.

Except. 3. The publikeness of a person, who negatiats the affairs of others, doth no further, nor any other ways, interesse those, whose affairs he mannageth, in what he doth in, or about such a transaction: buth only with reference to the issue, & success of what he doth for them, in that behalf: so that his dishonest, or unconscientious way, in the miscarrying, or his wisdom & faithfulness, in the right managing, are no ways imputable to the persons, whose business is negotiated. Ans. It is not necessary, that that special manner of management should be so imputed unto the persons, whose affaire is negotiated, it being sufficient, that the persons represented be interested in the transaction itself, in reference to an interest in the issue in the same affaire managed: and the transaction itself is so imputed to the persons represented, in reference to the effects, as if it had been done by themselves. So in our case, though the Wisdom, Faithfulness & patience of Christ, used in the management of that public affaire entrusted to Him, as a public person, undertaking for, and representing all His Children, be not imputed unto them: yet the business itself, with which He was entrusted, viz. Giving satisfaction to the law in all points, by Suffering & Obedience, which the law required of us, is imputed to us, & must be so, in order to our partaking of the benefits & advantage thereof.

Except. 4. It is not altogether so solid or sound, as is supposed, that Christ stood in the place & stead of those, that should believe in Him, especially in all things, performed by Him, and which tended to the qualification of His person. To stand in the place and stead of another, implieth a necessity of his being in the same place, & doing the same things himself, wherein he stands, & which he doth, who is supposed to stand in his stead, unless they had been done by this other for him. Ans. This last Exception is the same with the first, & needeth little more consideration. We do not assert, that He did so stand in the place & stead of believers, as to all things He did & suffered; but only that He stood in in our room & stead, in the whole of His active & passive obedience, or in making satisfaction to the demands of the law, in His state of humiliation, this being it, for & in reference to which, He was appointed to be a public person: all other things He did, as His Miracles, assuming a body, and the like, need not be said to be imputed to us; though, in that they concerned His person, & were requisite thereunto, & to the work He was employed in, they carry a special advantage in them for Believers; & were in a particular manner designed for their good, & were subservient to that main design.

Arg. 10. If we cannot be justified by the Righteousness of Christ otherwise than by the Imputation of it, then must it needs be imputed to us, in our justification. But the former is true. Ergo. &c.

He excepteth p. 225. The Righteousness of Christ concurreth toward justification, by qualifying His person for that Sacrifice of himself, by which justification hath been purchased for all those that believe Ans. The Argum. is to be understood of His whole Surety-righteousness, and not of His active obedience only. (2) Even as to this, it was answered above, that it was not requisite unto this end, His human nature being sufficiently hereunto qualified, by the personal union, by which His blood became the blood of God, and all He did and Suffered was the deed & Suffering of Him, who was God.

Arg. 11. If we may truly be said to be dead & crucified with Christ, to be quickened & have risen again with Him, &c. then may we truly be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ; & consequently that should be imputed to us. But the former is true, Ergo, &c. These expressions pointe forth the close union, that is betwixt Christ and Believers, & thereupon their Interest in what He did and suffered, as Mediator, Surety & public person, to the end they may have right to, and possession of the great benefits, purchased and procured by Him. So they hold forth Christ's suffering, dying, rising, &c. as a public person in their room & in their stead, & as their Representative: so that it is r • ckoned for them, and upon their score, and they are so interested therein, as that they are to be dealt with, as if all these things had been done & suffered by themselves. And though, in these expressions mentioned, there be no express mention made of Christ's fulfilling the law; yet they sufficiently hold forth that, which by parity of reason will enforce this, as well as the other: for they pointe forth Believers their union & communion with Christ, as to His Mediatory work, to which His fulfilling of the law did belong.

Against the consequence he saith, These expressions have no such Inference: for if we could be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ, our own fulfilling it in Him should rather be said to be imputed to us, than His fulfilling it for us. Ans. (1) This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's sufferings; for we are said to be dead with Christ; & therefore not Christ's death, but our own death in Him should be said to be imputed to us: But the Scripture knoweth no such thing. (2) The meaning of the expression is, we say, but to denote emphatically the imputation of what Christ did & suffered, unto us: for our own fulfilling of the law in Him, is but His fulfilling of it for us, & the same imputed to us; so as we are dealt with no other ways, than if we had done it ourselves; as our being dead & buried with Christ, is but His dying in our place & stead, or our having such an Interest in His death & burial, as that we are dealt with, as if, in a manner, we had died our selves. But he supposeth, there is a difference, as to this, betwixt Christ's dying & His fulfilling the law, saying, When the Scripture saith, we are dead &c. with Christ, the meaning is not, that God looked upon us, as if we had laid down our Natural lives by death, when he laid down His; & as if this laying down our lives were a satisfaction to His justice; for then we might be said, to have satisfied for & redeemed ourselves: But these expressions import either a profession of such a death in us, which holds proportion with, or hath a likeness to the death of Christ, or else this death itself really wrought in us, by that death of Christ. Ans. We do not asserte the meaning of these expressions to be, That God looketh upon us, as if we had laid down our Natural lives, &c. But that believers have such an Interest in Christ's death, as being the death of their Surety, Redeemer, Head, Husband and public person, that they receive the benefits & advantag •• thereof, no less really & effectually, than if they themselves, in their own persons, had died & satisfied, the same being now imputed unto them, & laid hold on by faith. (2) Though these expressions, at least some of them, & in some places of Scripture, as Rom. 6. may & do import what is here expressed; yet the full import of these Expressions is not hereby exhausted, as the scope & circumstances of the places may clear; as particularly that expression, Gal. 2: 20. I am crucified with Christ: & these Ephes. 2: 5. 6.

He addeth against this. That Gal. 2: 20. The expression is taken in the latter sense, importing that the natural death of Christ for Paul & others, had wrought upon him, in a way of assimilation to itself, & had made him a dead man to the world. Ans. Paul is rather clearing & confirming, how he was become dead to the law, and alive unto God, verse 19. in & through the virtue of Christ's death & crucifixion, in which he had such an Interest, that he accounted himself, as it were hinging-on the cross in & with Christ; & did so rest upon that by faith, & own that Sacrifice alone, that he & Christ, as it were, were become one person; & he owed his being dead unto the law only thereunto, & had it as really flowing therefrom & following thereupon, as if he himself had hung upon the cross, as a satisfactory Sacrifice.

To that Ephes. 2: 5, 6. he saith, The meaning is not, that God looks upon them, as quickened from a natural or corporal death, as Christ's quickening & rising again was. Ans. Nor do we say, that this is the meaning, nor need we either think, or say so: but this we say, that the expression holdeth this forth, that Christ died & rose again, as a public person & Surety; & that Believers have so near an Interest in His Mediatory work, & so close an union with the Mediator, that they are as one person in law; so that they are really made partakers of some of the fruits of what Christ did & suffered, already, & shall as really partake of what is yet to be communicated, as if they themselves had laid down that purchasing price. Let us hear what he giveth for the meaning.

The meaning (saith he) is either to signify the profession, that is made by us of that newness of life, which in way of a Spiritual Analogy, answers that life, whereunto Christ was quickened and rose again; or else the new life itself wrought in us. Ans. That the Apostle is not here speaking of a mere profession, is manifest: nor is he speaking only of a new life, wrought in them; for he addeth, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: Nor doth that, which he saith, invalidate the meaning, which we give; for that effect, or inwrough quickening is spoken of, as flowing from Christ's dying & rising, & from their Interst in His dying and rising, & their union with Him in all that, as being one person in law with Him; & so as virtually rising with Him, and now sitting with Him, who is their common Head & Representative All which doth abundantly confirm the Doctrine of Imputation, which we plead for.

He addeth finally, But on the other hand, as there is no such expression in Scripture, as this, we have fulfilled the law with Christ; so neither • if there were, would it make anything at all to salve the truth of the proposition, under question: for what if we should be said either to profess such a fulfilling of the law, as holds proportion with Christ's fulfilling it, or really & personally to fulfill the law, after such a manner? Ans. The expressions already mentioned do sufficiently evince this union and communion, that believers have with Christ, in His mediatory work, which is a solid ground of Imputation of the same unto them, as the foundation of their partaking of the benefits flowing therefrom: for there cannot any show of reason be given for the one, which will not hold good for the other also. And it is said, but not proved, that these & the like expressions hold forth no more, but one or both of these two things alleiged: yea the scope of the places, and the Import of the words, hold forth much more, as is said.

Arg. 12. Whosoever is a sinner, & so continueth whilst he liveth, cannot be justified other ways, than by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. But every man (Christ excepted) is a sinner, &c. Therefore, &c.

He excepteth, pag. 219. &c. If there be no other means of justifying, the condition of the whole world is hopless; for there is no such Imputation. Ans. The contrary hath been shown, & shall be more demonstrated hereafter. He addeth, Without Imputation there is another door opened. What is this? Those that truly believe in Jesus Christ, being not under the law, but under grace, are not liable to condemnation for their daily sins, 1 John. 2: 1, 2. Ans. True, but what then? How come they to be under grace, & not under the law? Is is not by virtue of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto them, unto their Justification; & because of their Interest in Christ, as Mediator, as their Head, Husband, Surety, Interessour & Advocate? He addeth. So that for the dissolving & taking away of all guilt, there needs no Imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The propitiation, which He is unto them, by His blood & Intercession, hath done this service to them, before this Imputation is supposed to come at them. Ans. We plead for the Imputation of His whole Surety & Mediatory work; & say that it is wholly imputed, & that at once, & not one part now, and another at another time. Nor do we say, that Christ's death did procur • one thing, & His obedience another thing: but that in & by both, He, as Surety, performed what the law required of us; & thereby procured all to us, that we stand in need of, to make us happy.

Thus have we vindicated the Arguments, which this Author thought good to make any answer unto: others might be mentioned, but we shall forbear mentioning of them, till some other occasion.

CHAP. XI.

Objections taken out of Scripture by Mr. Goodwin, against the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Justification, Answered.

HAving in the foregoing Chapters proved, both from Scripture & Reason, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto Believers unto justification; & having vindicated such of them, as were excepted against by Mr. Goodwin; we shall now come & examine the Arguments, by which he oppugneth the Doctrine of Imputation, in the first part of his Treatise of justification; Where he marshalleth his Arguments under two heads, viz. of Scripture & Reason. He beginneth with his supposed Scripture proofs, Chap. 2. &c. As to the first of which, largely prosecuted Chap. 2. we shall speak to it afterward, when we come to speak of the Interest of faith in Justification; for thereunto it doth more properly belong, being rather a proof of the Imputation of faith, in a proper sense, as our Righteousness, unto justification, than of the Non-Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.

Leaving therefore the examination of this to its proper place, we come to see what other Scriptures, adduced by him against the Truth hitherto asserted, do say, in this question under debate; & that the more willingly, because Mr. Baxter in his late book against D. Tully, referreth us to this man for Arguments.

First, he adduceth such passages, as absolutely exclude the works of the law from justification, as Rom. 3: 28. Gal. 2: 16. Rom. 3: 20. We spoke something to this matter, while we were mentioning the Mysteries, remarkable in justification: yet we shall here consider what he saith. He thus reasoneth, pag. 55. If a man be justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him, he shall be justified by the works of the law; because that Righteousness of Christ, we now speak of, consists of these works. Ans. The vainity & falsehood of the Consequence is obvious: nor doth the reason added, make any supply. It is true the Righteousness of Christ did consist in works of obedience, required by the law; yet though this be imputed to us, it doth not follow, that we are justified by the works of the law •• ccording to the Scripture sense of that expression: for the Scripture meaneth works of the law, which we do in our own persons, Tit. 3: 5. And the whole Scope, Drift & purpose of the Spirit of the Lord, in all these places cited, & in all others, evinceth this; and all the Arguments mentioned in Scripture against justification by the works of the law, demonstrate this to be the true and only impo •• of that expression, as cannot but be plain to any considering person. Yet he hath 4. answers, and he addeth several other things, which we must examine.

He saith I. Where the Holy Ghost delivereth a truth simply & indefinitely & in a way of a General & Universal conclusion, without imposeing any necessity there, or else where, to limit or distinguish upon it; for men to interpose by distinctions & limitations, to overrule the express meaning of the words, is to usurp authority over the Scriptures. Ans. I grant, to adhibite distinctions or limitations, which the Scripture giveth no warrand for, to over rule the express meaning of the words of the Holy Ghost, is to exercise an unlawful authority over the Scriptures, & savoreth of audacious profanity. And I judge, that there are not afew of such distinctions & limitations to be found, in his Book, making him fall under the lash of this censure. But to assert such a general and universal sense of a Scripture expression, as neither will agree with other Scriptures, nor with common Sense & Reason; yea which so directly crosseth the whole Gospel, and destroyeth the Scope, Cohesion, & obvious Sense of the whole purpose, and of every sentence, used by the Spirit of the Lord in that matter, is to usurp a Supra-papal power and Authority over the Scriptures of truth, and a most ready way to render them wholly useless. (2) As for our sense of this Expression, who, that will willingly be ruled by the Scriptures, cannot submit unto it? Let us but look to the very first place cited by himself, Rom. 3. & consider the whole preceeding discourse of the Apostle from Chap. I: 18. & forward, & particularly Chap. 3: 19. Where the Apostle closeth his discourse, tending to evince both Jews & Gentiles to be under the Curse, by saying, Now we know, that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Is not this to be understood, in respect of their own personal deeds & works? See then his conclusion, verse 20. Therefore by the deeds of of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Can any man, that hath not renounced common sense, understand this otherwise, than that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by his own personal works; seeing this is the only native conclusion, that floweth from the premisses; seeing by their own personal works they can be justified before men; & seeing the following words, for by the law is the knowledge of sin, that is, the law proveth & evinceth all, that we do, to be short & sinful, enforce this likewise? Is not this also enforced by these words, verse 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God? Is it imaginable, that justification, through the Imputed obedience of Christ to the law can evince, that we are not justified freely by His grace through the Redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, verse 24? If this general sense were the true meaning, what ground was there for that verse 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? no, by the law of faith? Would Justification by Christ's obedience give ground of boasting? And what ground were there for that objection verse 31. Do we then make void the law, &c. & in the following Chapter, when speaking of Abraham, doth he or can any man imagine, that the Apostle doth mean any other works, when be denieth that Abraham was justified by works, than Abraham's own personal works? And meaneth he, or can he mean any other works, when he saith verse 4. Now to him, that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt? But it were tedious to prosecute this matter further, that is so clear in itself to every ordinary Reader, that it must needs argue a desperate design, together with unpasrallel'd boldness, thus, with confidence & peremptoriness, to assert the contrary.

He saith 2. If the Apostles charge had been, in delivering of this doctrine, either to have made, or to have given allowance for any such distinction, certainly he should have been unfaithful in his trust, in giving the honor, due to the works of Christ, unto a thing of a far inferior nature, viz to faith, as he doth Gal. 2: 16. Where he saith not, but by the works of Jesus Christ, but by faith Ans. This answer is, in a great measure, sick of the same distemper of presumption, with the former. We must not think, that the Apostle is still to be blamed for unfaithfulness, when he speaketh not, as we would have him speak: Christian sobr • ety should reach us, to search for God's mind, in the expressions He hath thought good to use, for signifying of His mind. These, against whom the Apostle here wrote, & whose error, in the matter of justification, he was confuting, never had a thought of such a general groundless sense, as we have here obtruded upon us; nor can it come into the thought of any rational man; & when then should we suppose, that the Apo •• le should have spoken to such a thing? (2) Paul giveth not the honor, due to the works of Christ's, unto anything of an Inferior Nature, no not to faith, whatever this Author, misunderstanding the Apostle's mind, & perverting his words, would make his Reader believe, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter. This Author setreth Christ and Faith at variance, whileas the Apostle everywhere showeth their agreement & indissoluble union. (3) Taking faith, in this Authors sense, we see, That by his own Confession, the ascribing of that unto faith, which he doth ascribe to it, in the matter of • ustification, is a giving of that honor unto it, which, we say, is due to Christ's obedience. So that the question betwixt him and us, is, whether Christ and His obedience, or Faith of a far inferior Nature, must have that honor? We see no ground to imagine, that Paul would give the honor, that Universal obedience might call for, unto one act of obedience, or think that he would cry up one act of obedience, that is, faith, & cry down all other acts of obedience: far less that he would cry up faith, in prejudice of the full & perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Surety.

He saith 3. If Paul's intent had been, to have reserved a place in Justification, for the works of the law, as performed by Christ, his indefinite expression would have been, as a snare upon men, to cause them pass over the great things of their Justification. Ans. Paul's indefinite expression neither was, nor could have been a snare unto any; nor came such an imagination ever in the head of any man, but such an one, as can stumble in the most even path, being blinded with prejudice at the truth, & drunk with love to his own Inventions, which he cannot otherwise maintain, but by new and unheard-of fictions. What great things of justification could, I pray, Paul's expressions cause any pass over? Why are not some of these great things mentioned?

He saith 4. If this had been Paul's meaning, it cannot be once imagined, but that he would have made use of such a distinction, or reservation, & would have been glad, if, without trenching upon some Gospel-truth, he could have come over so near unto the Jews, who where chiefly incensed against Paul, for passing over the law in justification. Now had he said, that be did not exclude the righteousness of the law by faith, but advance it rather; only he preached that they could not be justified by their own observation of it; who seeth not how this would have taken off great part of their opposition, Ans. It is a wonder to see, how some men can shut their eyes, that they should not see what is most obvious, and what is in plain terms asserted in the Scriptures. Did not Paul say expressly enough, Rom. 3. ult. That he did not make void the law through faith, but did establish it? doth he not also plainly tell us, where the difference lay betwixt him & the Jews; & what it was especially, at which they stumbled, when he said, Rom. 9: 31, 32. But Israel, which followed after the law of Righteousness, hath not attained to the law of Righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, for they stumbled at that stumbling stone. And again Rom. 10: 3, 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness, & going about to establish their own Righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, &c. Is it not hence clear, that they rejected Christ, and would not own Him, as the end of the law for Righteousness: & that they stumbled at Him, seeking after justification & life, by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness, & by seeking to establish their own righteousness? How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law, as performed by Christ, as the Jews were, who would have nothing to do with Christ, but stumbled at Him, while as Paul sought only to be found in Him, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the law; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by faith, Phil. 3: 9. And proclaimed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousness, to everyone that believeth, Rom. 10: 4.

Against Fit. 3: 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness; which we have done; & a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned, & to prevent the stumbling of such, as love to walk in the light, he advanceth several answers, pag. 62. &c. As I. He never said, that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by; but that it hath a blessed influence into justification, as it issueth into His passive obedience, which together may be called a Righteousness for which, but not with which we are justified, except it can be proved to be either the Material, or formal, or instrumental cause of justification, & whoever attempt to do this, will wholly dissolve the merit of it. Ans. (1) All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand, which is to show, that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently, what he meaneth by the works of the law, which he excludeth from having any interest in justification, viz. The works of the law, performed by us in our own persons. (2) What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication, when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness, which is imputed unto us, he showeth not; nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience. If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice, we have shown above, that the personal Union did that; and consequently His active obedience, if it had no other influence, is made a mere stander by. (3.) A Righteousness for which, & a Righteousness with which, is a distinction, in our case, without a difference; for the one doth no way oppugn, or exclude the other, because the meritorious cause imputed, made over to and reckoned upon the score of believers, can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified. (4) Whether it may be called the Material, or Formal cause of justification (that any ever called it the instrumental cause, is more than I know) is no great matter, seeing it may be either, as the terms shall be explained, which men are at freedom to do, according to their own mind, when they apply them unto this matter, which hath so little affinity with Effects merely Natural, unto the causes of which these terms are properly applied: though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause, if necessitated to use here philosophik terms. (3) That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification, is to overthrow the merit of it, is said, but not proved: It is not these philosophical terms themselves, but the explication of them by such, as use them in this matter, that is to be regarded: and none shall ever show, that either of these terms, as explained by the orthodox, doth overthrow the merit of Christ's Righteousness, both doth rather establish it.

He saith, 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing, & yet no ways intimate, that the works of any other should be the cause thereof, If the words had gone thus, not by the works of Righteousness, which we ourselves had done, this had been some what an higher ground, to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon, viz. by the works of another, or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose, as the former; for these words were here brought only to show, what the Apostle meant by the works of the law, which he excluded from justification, viz. the works which we do: and not to prove immediately, that the works of any other were understood hereby. (2) It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction, betwixt works, which we do & works, which we ourselves, do, the same word in the original, which verse 5. is rendered we, is rendered we ourselves, verse 3. What poor shifts are these, which men take to support a desperate cause?

He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question, that excluding the works of the law, which we had done, he had no intent to imply the works, which another might do, he expresseth the opposition thus, according to His mercy. Ans. The mistake is still continued in: By these words, we only clear what the works are, which are excluded; viz. our personal works, or works, which we do, or have done: whose works else are accepted, other places prove expressly, & this by consequence, unless the work of a third could be alleiged. (2) The opposition here made, destroyeth not the opposition, which we make: for when we are justified & Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, we are justified & saved according to His mercy; as well as we are justified freely by His grace, when justified through the Redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3: 24.

He saith 4. & thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said. The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that, wherein this Mercy of God, be speaks of, consisteth, viz. regenerating us, &c. Ans. But, I hope, the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration, doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, the ground thereof; nor can he suppose this, unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works, done after Regeneration, & the new birth.

He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable, nor pertinent to the purpose; because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness, which he nameth, from being any cause, antecedaneously moving God to save us; & not from being the formal cause of justification: and we ourselves (saith he) will not say, that the works of the law, which Christ hath done, moved God to saveus. Ans. (1) The Inference, which he here speaketh of, is his own, and not ours, as we have said. (2) The Salvation here mentioned is comprehensive, and includeth Justification & Adoption, as verse 7. cleareth; & the Mercy, mentioned, v. 5. comprehendeth all other subordinate causes & means, which the Lord hath appointed: & though the obedience of Christ be no cause, moving God to decree to save; yet it may be a cause of justification. But then (saith he pag. 65.) This will only establish the merit of Christ's Righteousness in justification, but overthrow the formality of it. And why so? Because (saith be) it is unpossible, that one and the self same thing, in respect of one and the self same effect, should put on the different habitude both of the Formal & Efficient cause. Ans. All this is but vain talk, & a reasoning from terms of art, or philosophical notions taken improperly, to the same taken most properly & strickly; as if a Moral, polititical or legal effect were every way the same, with a Natural physical effect: and yet in physical Effects, as such, meritorious causes have no proper Efficiency: But, as to our case, we plainly say, that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification, & yet may be called the formal cause thereof, as that term may be adapted & fitly explained, according as the matter will bear; or the formal objective cause, which we rather incline to.

He speaketh against Gal. 4: 4. pag. 66. saying, that it is adduced to prove, that Paul mentioneth the works of the law, as done by Christ, in the discourse of justification; & consequently, that he had no intent to exclude the works of the law, as done by Christ from having their part in justification. But, as was shown above, there are many other places of Scripture evincing this. Yet let us see what he saith. 1. The law, under which Christ was made, is the ceremonial law, as is clear verse 5. we are not redeemed from the Moral law, which is of eternal obligation; but from the Ceremonial law. Ans. (1) That Christ was made under the Ceremonial law only, no reason can evince; for He was made under that law, under the curse whereof we were, who were to be delivered there from by Him, Gal. 3: 10, 12. But this was not the Ceremonial law only; otherwise he should have died only for the Jews. Again, The law, which he speaketh of, was ordained by Angels, in the hand of a Mediator, Gal. 3: 17, 19. but this was the Moral law, contained in the decalogue. Is the ceremonial law only that law, that cannot give life verse 21. was nothing a Schoolmaster to Christ, but the ceremonial part of the law, verse 24. (2) To be under the law, is not only to be under the laws obligation, but chiefly to be under the laws Curse, which is the same with being concluded under sin, Gal. 3: 22. (3) If being under the law be thus limited, or restricked, to a being under the obligation of the ceremonial law, no more can be meaned, by receiving the Adoptions of Sones, there mentioned, as the opposite mercy, than a freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law! but this, I suppose, will be too narrow an Interpretation. (4) Though none be redeemed from obedience to the Moral law; yet they may be delivered there from, as the sole condition of the Covenant, & as the sole way of obtaining life. 2. He saith, hereby may be meaned His subjection to the curse of the law. Ans. That this may be part of the meaning, may very easily be granted: & what then can hence follow? The expression of being under the law, hath not always this single and sole import, as we see in that same Chapter, verse 21.

Secondly, Chap. 4. pag. 69. He argueth from Rom. 3: 21, 22. thus, If the Righteousness, of faith, which is here called the Righteousness of God, consists in the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, then is it not, nor can it be, made manifest without the law, that is, without the works of the law. But the Righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the law, that is without the works or Righteousness of the law. Ergo. The connection of the Major he thus confirmeth. Because to such a Righteousness the law, and the works thereof, are every white as necessary than faith itself; for faith is made only a Means of the derivation of it upon men; but the body & substance of the Righteousness itself is nothing else, but the pure law, & the works of it. Ans. The connection of the Major is unsound, and its probation is founded upon a manifest wresting, or misinterpretation of the place: for the meaning of these words, The Righteousness of God without the law, is this, The Righteousness of God, which is not had by our performance of the commands of the law, or, doth not consist therein; not, the Righteousness of God, which is without all obedience to the law: for there be no such Righteousness; all Righteousness being a conformity to the law of God; & if Righteousness consist not in obeying the law of God, wherein shall it consist? The Righteousness then of God is a Righteousness consisting indeed in full obedience to the law; but yet a Righteousness consisting in obedience to the law, performed by one, who was God (& therefore also called the Righteousness of God; & not merely because invented by God; or because bestowed by Him upon men; or because such, as will only be accepted of by Him, as he saith; though these be also true, & may in part ground the denomination) & not by ou rselves, who were properly and originally under the obligation of the law.

This will not satisfy him, & therefore he saith. I. This sanctuary hath been polluted, & the horns of ibis altar broken down, in the demonstration of the former proof. Ans. The contrary is manifest from our foregoing examination of that supposed demonstration.

He saith 2. There is not the least intimation given, that the Apostle should have any such by, or back meaning, as this. Ans. Nor was there any necessity, for any express mention hereof; not only because the party, the Apostle had here mainly to deal with, understood nothing else by the law, but our obedience performed thereunto; knowing the meaning of the law to be this, he that doth these things shall live by them; but also because the whole scope and manner of argueing of the Apostle, & his whole procedure in this debate, manifest this to be the meaning: for having convinced both Jews and Gentiles to be under the law, as guilty before God, he inferreth, that therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3: 20. That is, by their own deeds or actions: for the law to them can do nothing, but convince of sin, & bind guilt more upon them. But it did not so to Christ, who yielded perfect obedience. We might also demonstrate this from the Apostles following discourse, if it were necessary; but we said enough of this, in answer to the foregoing objection.

He saith 3. The works of the law are never the less the works of the law, because performed by Christ. Ans. Yet when performed by Christ, they are not the works of the law done by us, who did lie under the obligation; and by the Imputation of such an obedience, as was performed by Christ, we have no ground of boasting or of glorying, either before God, or Man: and it is against such an obedience to the law, as the ground of justification, as doth not exclude glorying or boasting, and such as consisteth in works of Righteousness, which we have done, & is exclusive offree grace, that the Apostle disputeth.

He saith 4. This righteousness is said to receive testimony from the law, that is, from that part of Scripture, which is often called the law; and from the Prophe •• . Now, neither of these give any testimony to such a Righteousness, but to a Righteousness procured or derived upon a man by faith, Gen. 15: 6. Hab. 2: 4. Ans. It is true, this Righteousness receiveth testimony from the law, and from the writings of the Prophets; & we plead for no other Righteousness, but such, as is so testified of, & hath the concurrent consent both of the O. and of the N. Testament. Both law & Prophets, that spoke of the seed of the Woman, & of the Messiah, & of His being the Lord our Righteousness, or spoke of the people's duty in reference to Him, as such, did bear witness to this Truth. (2) What is that Righteousness, which is here said to be procured, or derived upon a Man by faith? Is it the Righteousness of Christ? Then the cause is yielded. Is it the Righteousness of men themselves? Then justification by works is established, & the whole Gospel is overthrown. And how, I pray, can this besaid to be procured or derived upon a man by faith? The places cited speak of no such thing, but have a far contrary Import, as may hereafter appear.

He saith 5. This Righteousness of God is said to be unto all, & upon all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by or through faith, by way of opposition to the works of the law: Now between Faith & the works of the law, there is a constant opposition; but between the law and the works of righteousness of Christ, there is no opposition. Ans. (1) If this Righteousness be unto and upon all, by or through faith, it must of necessity be the Righteousness of another, in bringing home and applying of which, faith is an Instrument: & to this way of bringing in the Righteousness of God by faith from without, is the seeking of Righteousness by our own works, or by our own acts of obedience to the law, manifestly opposite & irreconcilable: & this is the opposition, which the Scripture always maketh, betwixt justification by the law, & by faith, as the very Scriptures, cited by himself, make manifest, to wit, Rom. 3: 27, 28. & 4: 13, 14. & 9: 32. & 10: 5, 6. Gal. 2: 16. & 3: 5, 11, 12. &c. (2) This argument & all the steps of its prosecution, make against himself, who will have our act of faith to be the Righteousness of God, though it be nowhere so called; & cannot be that, which is by, or through faith; for faith is not by or through faith; nor doth faith become a Righteousness by, or through faith: nor is faith, as our act, against the law, otherwise it should be no act of obedience, but a piece of will-worship; and consequently no righteousness at all but an unrighteousness, & a plain disobedience, or a work of Supererogation: nor do the law or Prophets, anywhere, testify to this, as our Righteousness.

Thirdly Chap. 5. pag. 73. He reasoneth from Rom. 5: 16, 17. thus. The gift of righteousness (as it is called verse 17.) which is by Christ, in the Gospel, & is said verse 16. to be a free gift of many offenses unto justification, that is the forgiveness of many offenses, cannot be a perfect legal righteousness imputed unto us, or made ours by Imputation, but the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel, is the gift of many offenses. Ergo, &c. The Major he thus confirmeth. That righteousness, which extends unto a man's justification, by the forginess of sins, can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed. But the righteousness of Christ, in the Gospel, by which we are justified, extendeth unto a man's justification, by the forgiveness of sins. Ergo, &c. The Major of this, he thus proveth. Because a legal or perfect righteousness doth not proceed to justify a man's person by way of forgiveness of sins; but is of itself intrinsically & essen • ially a man's justification • t yea such a justification, with which forgiveness of sins, is not competible: for what need hath he, that is legally righteous, or hath a legal righteousness imputed to him, of forgiveness of sins, when as such a rightousness excluded all sin, & all guilt of sin from his person.

To all which I ans. (1) The Major propos. of the two Syllogis • es, is true only of a perfect righteousness, wrought by ourselves, in conformity to the law; and not of the Righteousness of another imputed to us; which though it may be called legal, as to Christ, as consisting in perfect obedience & conformity to the law; yet is rather to be called Evangelical, as to us, upon the account of its discovery and revelation, and manner of communication unto us. (2) The confirmation of the Major is likewise only true of a righteousness performed by ourselves: for that indeed excludeth all Remission: and therefore if our faith be accounted our righteousness (as he faith) it must be our justification, & so, inconsistent with free forgiveness. (3) As to the Scripture, where upon all this founded. I say, The text saith not, that our righteousness is only free forgiveness; but that in reference to pardon & free forgiveness, there is a gift bestowed; & that this gift by grace, which aboundeth unto many, is attended with free forgiveness, as a necessary consequent. It is the free gift, that cometh upon all men unto justification verse 18. & that, by which many are made righteous verse 19. & therefore is called the gift of righteousness, verse 17.

He objecteth against himself thus, A man's sins are first forgiven him, and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him; and so he is justified. But this is not the thing we would say, but on the contrary, That first the perfect Righteousness of Christ is imputed, whereupon the believer is justified & pardoned, Let us hear his answer.

1. He saith, If we will needs distinguish the effects of the active & passive obedience of Christ, so as from the active part to fetch a perfect righteousness for Imputation, & from the passive remission of sins; yet whether it be any ways reasonable to invert the order, I leave to sober consideration. Christ did not first die, & after death keep the law; therefore reason requireth, that what is first purchased, should be first received & applied. Ans. I see no necessity of distinguishing, after this manner, the Effects of Christ's active & passive obedience; but judge it best, to keep as conjoined what divine wisdom hath firmerly & inseparably joined together: But though we should thus needlessly distinguish these effects; yet there is no necessity of saying, That Christ's obedience, because first existing, should be first imputed unto justification; and then His death to Remission: for neither do we assign justification to His active obedience only; nor is the same order to be observed, in the application of the Effects, that was observed in Christ's performance, of what was laid upon Him, and required of Him, as our Sponsor: for the Nature of the thing required, that Christ should first have obeyed, before He died: & on the other hand, the condition of sinners requireth, that they be first justified and pardoned, before they have a right to all the Effects of Christ's active obedience imputed.

2. He saith, If a man hath once sinned, it is not any legal righteousness what so ever imputed, that can justify him. Ans. This is granted; But in order to justification we say, That Christ's whole Surety-righteousness is imputed; & this comprehendeth both His active & His passive obedience, so usually distinguished.

3. He saith, If a man's sins be once forgiven him, he hath no need of any further righteousness for his justification; because forgiveness of sins reacheth home, & amounteth unto a full justification with God. Ans. If justification were nothing else, but forgiveness of sins, there would be some color for this: but in justification there is also an accepting of the man as righteous, & to this a mere pardon of sins will not serve: for a Righteousness is hereunto requisite; & pardon of sins and Righteousness are not one thing. It is false then to say, as he addeth, That this is all the justification, the Scripture knows, or speaks of, the forgiveness of sins, or acquitting from condemnation. For both according to Scripture, and the native import, and universal usage of the word, justification denoteth a constituting legally and declaring solemnly a person to be righteous, or free of the accusation, given in against him; or a pronouncing of an accused man to be righteous; & therefore supposeth, when the sentence is just, that the person is a righteous person: &, in our case, the sentence of God being according to truth, the person justified, having no righteousness of his own, must be clothed with the Surety-righteousness of Christ, as Surety, Head & Husband, imputed to him & received by faith.

He addeth, That righteousness, which we have by Christ, and where with we are said to be justified, is only a negative righteousness, not a positive: It is nothing else, but a non-Imputation of sin, which I therefore call a Righteousness by Imputation, as having the privileges, but not the nature & substance of a perfect legal righteousness, Ans. A Righteousness not positive, but merely negative, is no righteousness at all; for a true Righteousness is a positive conformity unto the law, the Rule of Righteousness; and as the Righteousness is but negative and Interpretatively such; so must the justification be, that is founded thereupon. He thinketh to prove this from Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. & addeth, a Righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative Righteousness. The Imputation of righteousness verse 6. is interpreted verse 7, 8. to be a not imputing of sin. Ans. The place cited, as we declared above, giveth no countenance unto this sense of the word justification; but evinceth rather the contrary. A righteousness without our works (which is the Apostles meaning) may be, & is no negative, nor privative Righteousness; but a positive, full and complete Righteousness, being the Surety-righteousness of Christ, the Sponsor: and the Text saith, not, That this Righteousness is nothing else, than a non-Imputation of sin, but inferreth rather the Imputation of Righteousness, as the cause, from the Non-Imputation of sin, as the Effect; and all this to prove, that justification is not by the works of the law.

He tells us, that we have the like description of this Righteousness, 2 Cor. 5. that which verse 19. he calls in God, the not imputing of our sins unto us, he calls in us verse 21. a being made the righteousness of God in Him. Ans. This is a plain perversion of the scope of the meaning of the words: for verse 21. the Apostle is giving the ground & reason of what was said verse 19. & showing how this Reconciliation & Non-Imputation of sin is founded, & what is the special ground thereof; as appeareth by the particle for verse 21. for He hath made Him sin, &c. He saith, This is most plain, Act. 13: 38, 39. where forgiveness of sins is immediately thereafter called justification. Ans. All that can be hence inferred, is, that in justification sins are pardoned; or that such as have forgiveness of sins are justified; or that these do inseparably go together: But no appearance of proof here, that they are both one thing; or that in justification there is no more, but pardon of sins.

He prosecuteth this purpose yet further, saying, This is the most usual & proper signification of the word, justify, not to signify the giving or bestowing of a complete positive righteousness; but only an acquitting or discharging & setting a man free from guilt & penalty, due unto such things, as were laid to his charge. Ans. (1) Nor do we say, that justification signifieth such a giving & bestowing of a complete, positive Righteousness; but that it signifieth a declaring & pronouncing of a person to be righteous: & therefore presupposeth this giving or be stowing of a complete Righteousness; for the man, whom God declareth & pronounceth to be Righteous, must be Righteous; & seeing he hath no Righteousness of his own, he must have his Surety's Righteousness imputed to him. (2) And so, in this sense, justification is an acquitting, or setting a man free from the guilt & penalty, due to such things, as were laid to his charge; for he is pronounced Righteous. But it is not a simple discharge of the person from the guilt and penalty, upon a pardon & Remission: for a pardoned man is not a justified man, but rather is supposed to be guilty, & is pardoned, because guilty.

He proceedeth, In the Scripture, it is usually opposed to condemning Prov. 17: 15. Where, by justifying the wicked, nothing is meart, but the making of them just, in the rights & privileges of just men, which are freedom from censure, punishment, &c. So that by justifying the wicked, nothing else is meant, but the not condemning of him, Rom. 8: 33, 34, & 5: 19. Therefore by justifying nothing else is meant, but acquitting from condemnation; & so to be justified & live are equipollent, Gal. 3: 11, 21. Isaiah, 53: 11. Ans. (1) That justifying is opposed to condemning, is granted; but this maketh for us; for condemning is something-else, than a not pardoning, even a pronouncing or declaring of a person guilty; & therefore an adjuging of him to the punishment, due for the guilt; and therefore justification must be something else than pardon. (2) Justification is more than not condemning; for not condemning may be a mere suspending of the sentence of condemnation; & while the Process is under trial, or the guilty person not yet convicted in law, he is not condemned; yet he is not therefore justified. (3) When justification & life are said to be equipollent, it is manifest, that justification is more than pardon, even an adjudging of one to the reward promised: for life here is not a mere Negative or privative life, but a positive life, called a Reigning in life, Rom. 5: 17. & the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3: 14. the promise of the Spirit, ibid. & all the blessings of the Covenant verse 17. & the Inheritance verse 18. Here then is a difference betwixt justification in our case, & justification among men: for among men, justification is usually in reference to the Accusation given-in; & the accusation beareth a reference only unto the sin committed & to the punishment due to such or such transgressors: so that the justified man is declared not guilty, & therefore not liable unto the penalty; but there is no word here of a Reward, due to the observers of the law, unless in cases, where a reward is expressly promised. And yet, even where there is no more, but a simple declaring of the person not guilty, & so not liable to the punishment, justification is more than mere pardon. But in our case, when the Lord justifieth the Believer, He not only declareth him not liable to the punishment, due to transgressors of the law; but also adjudgeth him to the Reward promised to the observers: and therefore here the person is declared and pronounced righteous, having a right to the reward, through imputed righteousness.

Fourhtly, He objecteth from Phil. 3: 9. This objection must be hard-headed, & showeth, with what confidence, some men, once in love with their own darling conceit, can abuse the most plain passages of Scripture: for what can be more plain & full against our Adversaries, than is this Text? The Apostle is here showing, upon what ground he desired to stand, in his appearing before God, & expressly renounceth all his former privileges, & what once he had an high esteem for; & particularly also his own Righteousness, of whatsoever kind, that consisted in his obedience to the law; & he saith not, which consisteth in my full obedience to the law; but, in mine own righteousness, which is of the law. And, in opposition to all this, he desireth to be found in Christ, stated & hid in Him, which includeth Christ's Righteousness: for Christ & His Righteousness are not separated; & the Righteousness he also expressly mentioneth, calling it, that which is through the faith of Christ, & again, the Righteousness, which is of God by faith. By which he cannot mean the act of faith, for that is his own righteousness, all which he renounced; for it was conform to the law & commandment, being enjoined by the law of God, otherwise it had been no act of obedience. Moreover; Faith is not through faith, nor by faith; but this Righteousness, which Paul sought after, is a righteousness, that is through faith & by faith, as an Instrument laying hold upon it, & applying it; Faith cannot be that Righteousness, which is through faith, or by the faith of Christ; for if so, Christ should be rendered useless, & the nature of faith in Christ should be changed, seeing true faith in Christ carrieth the soul out of itself to Christ, to the end a Righteousness may be had. Faith, sure, is not the Righteousness, which is of God, wrought by God, & imputed by Him. So that when Paul desired to be found in Christ, having the Righteousness, which is through faith in Christ, even the Righteousness, which is of God by faith, what can be more plain, than that he desired to be found in the Righteousness of Christ, which is imputed by God, & received by faith?

As to this place, our Adversary frameth no formal argument therefrom, but hath some observes, tending rather to make it useless to our point, than directly to confirm his own Chap. 6. pag. 84. I shall only take notice of such things, as he alleigeth to darken the glorious light of the grace of God, shining with a meridian brightness in this passage.

He (i. e. Paul) doth not say (saith he) that he may be found in His righteousness; much less in His righteousness imputed to him; but simply in Himself; which is an usual expression in Scripture of the Spiritual state & condition of a Believer. Ans. (1) To be found in Christ, who is the public person & Surety, is to be found in His Surety-righteousness: for Christ & His Righteousness are no more separated, than a Surety, as such, and his Surety-payment and satisfaction: And therefore, when Paul spoke of being found in Him, he emphatically enough expressed what we say. (2) It is true, the expression, in Christ, doth else-where denote a spiritual state, but here Paul speaketh not simply of being in Christ, but of being in Him, in order to the having of a Righteousness, wherewith to appear before God; in order to which, he had renounced all his former privileges and attainments.

What it is (saith he) to be found in Christ, he expresseth, negatively thus, not having mine own righteousness, yet not simply & altogether, no righteousness, that may in no sense be called his own; but precisely & determinatly no such righteousness, as his own, which stands in works of the law; such he must be sure, not to have; i. e. not to trust to, or to shroud & shelter himself under, from the stroke of God's justice. Ans. Then faith, considered as an act of obedience, must not be that Righteousness, under which he could think to shelter himself from the stroke of justice: for that stands in one work of the law; & if that righteousness be renounced, which standeth in works of the law; much more must that be renounced, which standeth in one work of the law. (2) The Righteousness of Christ, imputed & received by faith, may in some sense be called the Believers own: but that Righteousness, which the Apostle calleth his own here, is opposed to the Righteousness of another, and comprehendeth all his own acts & works, done in obedience to the command of God.

Next (he saith) affirmativly thus, but that, which is through the faith of Christ, &c. Here is not the least jot or title of any Righteousness, he should have by Imputation, no nor of any Righteousness by or through tht Righteousness of Christ; but only such a Righteousness, as is through the faith of Christ. Ans. (1) When all that Righteousness is excluded, which is in man's self, or in any acts of obedience to the law, which he doth; & yet a Righteousness mentioned as the only refuge & sheltering place, what can this Righteousness be else, than an Imputed Righteousness? & what can this Imputed Righteousness be: if it be not the Righteousness of Christ? Is there any other that will do our business? (2) A Righteousness through faith in Christ is most clearly a Righteousness obtained, possessed & laid hold on by faith.

The Apostle addeth (saith he) by way of commendation of this Righteousness, that it is the Righteousness of God i.e. a righteousness, which God himself hath found out, & which He will own & countenance, even the righteousness of God, which is in faith, i. which cometh, & ac • rueth, and is derived upon a man by faith. Ans. (1) It is not only a Righteousness, which God himself hath found out, and which He owneth & countenanceth; but a Righteousness also, which is in God, or is in Him, who is God, & is derived from Him to man; for it is a Righteousness, that is not to be found in man, or in anything he doth, in conformity to the law of God, all such Righteousness being already renounced by the Apostle. (2) The Righteousness of God, which is by, or through saith, & cometh, accrueth, or is derived upon a man in & by faith, must needs be something else, than faith itself, even the Righteousness, that is without a man, & is derived unto him from another, viz. from Him, who is God, & on whom faith laith hold, that is, Jesus Christ, in whom alone the Apostle was seeking to be found.

Fifthly, Chap. 7. pag. 88. &c. He abuseth to this end all those Scriptures, wherein justification is ascribed unto faith, as Rom. 3: 28. & 5: 1. As to the Interest of faith, in the matter of justification, we will have occasion hereafter to speak of it, at some length: here we are only enquiring after that Righteousness, upon the account of which, we are justified, which our Adversary, as it would appear, placeth only in faith: and so, instead of making faith the mean of applying & bringing home the Surety-righteousness of Christ, he maketh it the very formal righteousness itself, upon the account of, and because of which we are justified. Let us hear what he saith.

When men say (saith he) that faith justifieth, I demand, what is it, they mean by faith? do they not mean their believing of act or faith? Ans. When the Scripture • aith, That we are justified by faith, faith is taken for our act of faith, laying hold on Christ & on His Righteousness, it being the mean appointed of God for this end, by interesting us in & uniting us with Christ, & applying that Surety-righteousness of His. But this can no way prove, that therefore faith it selt is that Riphteousness, upon the account whereof we are declared Righteous in the sight of God, in order to justification; or is the formal objective Reason of our justification. Though faith be said to justify, as an Instrumental cause (as this Author himself afterward confesseth) it will not follow, that therefore it justifieth as a principal cause, or as the formal objective cause. The hand receiving riches doth instrumentally enrich; but is not the principal cause of the man's riches. The producing, in face of court, of the Surety's payment, by the principal debtor, now pursued by the creditor, is not the formal ground of the debtor's absolution from the charge, but the payment itself, which is instructed, is the only formal ground, though the Instruction of that payment by the debtor, in face of court, be requisite in its place, and a mean to the debtor's absolution.

He saith, he conceiveth not of faith as divided, or severed from its object, either Christ in person, or Christ in promise. Ans. It is true, the act cannot be conceived without its object; & all the consideration of the object here had by him, is by virtue of the act reaching the object, & so the act is only considered by him no further, than as a commanded duty, or as any other act of the Soul, which is commanded: and beside, this faith, thus acting on Christ, is but an historical faith: for if he consider faith, as acting on Christ, according to the Gospel, & as it is called Justifying or Saving faith, in distinction from the faith of Miracles, & from Historical faith, he must look upon it, as the soul's fleeing out of itself to Christ for refuge; and as laying hold on His Righteousness as only sufficient; and as receiving, embraceing, leaning to and resting upon Christ and His Righteousness; whence it is manifest, that it cannot be conceived, nor looked to, nor rested upon, as our Righteousness, its use & work being to bring-in and receive another gifted Righteousness, and to rest upon that for life, Justification and Salvation.

He •• ls us next, That he also confesseth, that saith justifieth instrumentally, & not otherwise; & that he hath neither said, nor intended to say any other thing. Ans. But how this can agree with what he hath said, & with what hereafter we shall hear him saying, let men of understanding judge. Did ever man before acknowledge faith, to justify instrumentally, & yet deny the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, as he doth? and yet assert that this Instrument faith is imputed for our Righteousness, for our only Righteousness, and as the only formal ground of our justification, as he doth? Did ever man assert this Instrumentality of faith, to shoulder-out the chief and principal Interest, that the Surety-righteousness of Christ hath, in the business? This therefore must be looked upon, as inconsistent with his only design, in this whole book; and as an unwary expression overturning all; or else that he must have said all this in an hid sense, not yet understood.

To that, That faith justifieth, as it taketh hold of Christ's Righteousness, he answereth, That yet it is the act of faith that justifieth. Ans. And did ever any mean otherwise, when they spoke of faith as an Instrument, or mean? But that is not our present question: we are now enquireing after that Righteousness, for which, & upon the account of which we are justified; and not after the Instrument, or Mean, by which we are possessed of that Righteousness, upon the account of which alone we are justified, & by which we are put into a state of Justification. So that all this waste of words is to no purpose.