The Doctrine of Justification Cleared

To my Reverend Brethren, the Ministers of God's Word in the City of London, with all others laboring in that work of the Lord in other parts of this Kingdom.

YOu have here presented unto your view, Animadversions on Mr. J. G. Animadversions, and an examination of his whole Treatise of Justification; He hath appealed to some of you, and I appeal unto you all. He asserteth the imputation of faith for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to Juctification.

Though he granteth faith imputed, to be that whose object is Christ, p. 6. Tr.1. and that it is its office to bring us to fellowship with Christ, and of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased, p. 5. ib. and that it is essential to it to lay hold on Christ, p.14.

Yet he asserteth this faith not to be taken figuratively by a Metoy my or Metalepsis with respect to the object, because it layeth hold on Christ or Christ's righteousness, Tr. 1. p. 14. but properly and formally, p.22. 36. 41. & 44. &c. Yea, he saith, neither is the righteousness of Christ, the object of faith as justifying, p. 43. And that the righteousness of Christ (in the variety of the objects of faith used in Scripture) is not to be found in the least mention, p. 38. The Scriptures make not the least mention, or give the least intimation of such a thing, p. 43. there is no found or intimation of the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, p. 39.

And though he saith (with what agreement to himself, let him look to it) Not but that the righteousness of Christ is and ought to be believed as well as other things revealed and written in the Scriptures, and is of nearer concernment then other things to the main, p. 39.

And that the Scriptures propound the righteousness of Christ or his obedience to the Law, as that which is to be believed, and that, so it may be termed a partial object of faith, that as somewhat that ought to be believed, p. 43.

Yet it may be believed by such a faith as the Turks and Jews have, p. 39. and so the creation of the world is propounded to be believed, and that Cain was Adams son, p. 43.

When as he denieth the righteousness of Christ, that that is imputed to us for righteousness, he addeth, But it is that for which righteousness is imputed, p. 17. that is, it procureth that our faith should be imputed for righteousness unto us, p. 101 plainly. The merit of Christ or of his righteousness hath so far▪ prevailed with God on our behalf, that by or upon our faith we shall be accounted righteous before him, which in effect is the same truth which we maintain, viz. That God for Christ's sake, or Christ's merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousness unto us, p. 11. and then, in this sense only, and not any other, may the active and passive obedience of Christ be said to be the righteousness by which we are justified, p. 13.

This faith (not in a figurative, but propersense) is required and accepted for righteousness, and hath the same favors, rewards, and privileges upon the tender of it that should have been given to men in regard of that legal righteousness had it been fulfilled, &c. p. 15. 16. It is as good, p. 6. as available and effectual to justification, p. 15.

It is all that God requires of men to their justification instead of the righteousness of the Law, p. 92. And therefore if God shall not impute or account it unto them for this righteousness, it should stand them in no steed at all to their justification, p. 92. Yea,

He calleth it from Phil. 3. 9. a righteousness which God himself hath found out, and which he will own and countenance & account for righteousness unto men, and no other but this, p. 86. the righteousness there mentioned is as being and standing in faith, &c. and he calleth it a righteousness which will certainly carry it, notwithstanding all the unlikelihood and seeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly, ib.

This is the Helena he contendeth for, in Preaching first, and now in Print. The condition appointed by God, and required on man's part, in opposition to Christ's righteousness, the object; which he deneith the object of this faith as justifying, p. 38. In this which is but inherent righteousness, a weak and imperfect righteousness, which must have help to make it accepted, if ever it be so, in this I say will he be found not that which is by faith as an instrument, received and put on, and would have us to be so too, which God forbid. It will not steed us before God's tribunal, his friend Pareus calleth it Blasphemy against the holy Ghost, as in the front is shown; the Apostles text is for faith of Christ, and his righteousness, his righteousness being that which is imputed, Rom. 4. 6. 11. as I shall fully show.

It is observable, that this which is here by him established, is notwithstanding by him also in effect confounded with remission of sins which with him formally justifieth. This he calleth the imputing of righteousness. To show that God hath no other righteousness to confer upon a sinner, but that which stands in forgiveness of sins, Tr. 2. p. 7. That righteousness which God is said to impute unto men through faith, is nothing else (being interpreted) but the forgiveness of sins, Tr. 1. p. 75. this (he saith) hath the privileges, though not the nature of a perfect righteousness, p. 76. But let that pass, being fully considered in d • e places.

Again, the thing he mainly opposeth, is the active obedience or righteousness of Jesus Christ, of this he saith, amongst the variety of the objects of faith in the Scriptures, there is not the least mention as before.

And (establishing the passive obedience as the meritorious cause imputed in its effects, now faith, now pardon of sins) telleth us, That if Christ had fulfilled the Law for us in our steed, there had been no occasion of his dying for us, and that there is no light clearer then this, Conclus. 7. Tr. 2. p. 10.

Yea though he calleth it an efficient remote; not immediate, qualifying him to, but having no immediate influence, Tr. 2. p. 69.

Yet it is not causa sine qua non, with him; Causa si • e qua non, is causa stolida & ociosa, only present in the action, and doth nothing therein, as Dr. Abbot against Bish. p. 497. Causa sine qua non, non est causa, as the Logitians. This is a remote efficient confessed, and so causa.

And for the active obedience of Christ in the production of this effect, Justification, Mr. John Goodwin, seemeth to me to say enough to establish it in good earnest, and to have no cause▪ of excluding the same, which yet he often doth.

We deny not the righteousness of Christ in it self, rather we suppose and establish it, p. 16, neither the absolute necessity of it; neither the meritorious efficiency or causality, in respect of the Justification of a sinner, p. 16. but believes, &c. we are justified for the merits sake of Christ's righteousness, there being a full consideration in it, why God should justify those that believe in him. It is true, he meaneth the Passive righteousness chiefly, p. 16. which doth not exclude the Active.

Yea, that it falling into the Passive, and considered in conjunction with it hath influence into, and contributeth towards the justification of a sinner, as acknowledged on both sides, p. 7. That, together they may be called a righteousness; for which; but at no hand with which we are justified, p. 62. Wherefore they must be both together included or excluded, and in the same sort.

He will not have the Active and Passive righteousness separated in respect of this common effect justification, p. 132. and saith, as the Active separated will not profit; so neither will the Passive it self be found it self, that is an atonement or expiation of sin according to the wili and purpose of God, except we bring in the Active to it, p. 132.

And elsewhere, Though it be not satisfactory simply and directly in itself, nor contributing anything by way of merit towards the justification of a sinner, so that God is moved thereby to justify any man, (these are his hungry and cold; if consistent, expressions) Yet it cannot be denied—but it hath a moving efficiency—qualifying in part the Sacrifice of Christ for the fullness and height of acceptation with God, Tr. 2. p. 81. It was of absolute necessity to qualify and fit the Sacrifice for the Altar, to tender him a person meet by his death, and Sacrifice to make an atonement.—The absolute holiness and righteousness of the humanity it self was of necessary concurrence thereunto, p. 201.

There is great weight and moment in the righteousness of Christ's person, to assure or secure the consciences of men concerning their justification by his death.—It qualifieth his person at least in part for that meritoriousness of his death, which may stand the world in steed for their justification, p. 204.

He acknowledgeth the infinite perfection and worth of it, p. 87.

And that the habitual holiness of his person and moral righteousness or Active obedience of his life —are essentially and directly requisite to make his death and sufferings, Justification and life and salvation to them as hath been further opened in the former part of this Treatise, Tr. 2. p. 54. These are to be considered.

It is true he teacheth us, that Christ's Active obedience, that of nature and life were due for himself. But will not consider that what is due cannot merit, he that doth all is but an unprofitable servant, he hath done but what he ought. And if the merit be destroyed, how can it make Christ a Priest, or his Sacrifice an atonement? how is it, in its self an atonement or expiation of sin as before?

And what is become of our justification and salvation, yea of the glory of Christ?

You shall read dangerous doctrine about the imputation of Adams sin, that it is ours but in the effect, not the sin it self, as his opinion is also of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as if our spiritual death in which we were borne, supposed not our sin, Adams, ours sin by imputation.

Of Adams sin he saith, (extenuating it much though he saith he doth it not) It is a sinful s •• mbling or mis-carrying. Not out of envy, malice, or other sinister end or intention, which are the main aggravations of a sin, and raising the offensivenesse of it to the greatest height; but out of an inconsideratnesse or incogitance, which though it be no cloak for sin, yet is it a root of the least bitterness or provocation from whence it is lightly possible for sin to spring, Conclus. 10. p. 19. 20. 2. Tr. Are you of this opinion of Adams sin? I think otherwise, and in due place show it.

And what do you conceive of this in his fourteenth Conclus. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed on Christ in his death. But his death was a ground or consideration to God whereby to dispence with his Law, to let fall or suspend execution of the penalty or curse therein threatened.—Neither did God require the death and suffering of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispence with his Law, towards those that do believe more, or so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice, then his wisdom▪ for God might with as much justice have passed the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction, p. 33.

What I conceive I tell you in due places. I beseech you interpose yourselves to the settling of our brother. I persuade myself and know many of you are the same with our learned reformed Divines, who whether they are for that I oppose, and in that name enemies of this imputation, I leave also the world to judge.

I profess myself amongst the friends of Imputation (as Mr. G. calleth us, 2. Tr. p. 147.) of the Active and Passive obedience of Christ; the opinion he holds, I also hate, (I thank Christ) and as yet see no cause to change my judgment.

If Mr. Goodwin hath yet more to say in this cause, if he be more succinct, replying in a Christian and brotherly manner (which I earnestly desire) he shall find me cedere nescium, ready for a further trial; and if in anything I shall not agree with others, my reverend Brethren, and they shall lovingly advertise me of it; they shall find me a lover and imbracer of the truth shown; Homo sum, nihil humanum à me alienum puto. I do not willingly err, against all my failings. Thanks be given to God for our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord our righteousness.

The Contents of the first Part.

• THe worth of the Doctrine of Justification. p. 1
• The censure of Mr. G. opinion. p. 5. 6, 7
• Divines against it, as Betrius, as the heresies of Socinus, and opinion of Arminians and Papists, &c. p. 9. 10. &c. 22. 23.
• Objections answered. p. 17. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 61, 62
• Mr. Walker is not an Arminian. p. 15
• Nor for your opinion. p. 25. 26
• The phrase imputing, defended as by Mr. Wr. p. 26. & 31. 32
• Imputing an act of judgment and justice as well as mercy. p. 28, 29, 30. 35. 36, 37, 38
• It is a judging of a thing as it is. God's judgment is according to truth. p. 30. 33, 34, 35
• A thing is the same with it self. p. 38. 39
• Christ's righteousness Evangelical, how? p. 39
• Passive obedience denied satisfaction to the Law; proved. p. 40
• Christ by imputation a sinner. p. 41. 42
• Mr. Walkers contradictions not so. p. 42. 43, 44, 45
• Believers not redeemers from imputation of Christ's righteousness against Mr. Goodwin's Popish inference. p. 45, 46, 47, 48
• Mr. Walkers 1. argument. p. 48. Sect. 11
• His 2. argument. p. 49. Sect. 12
• 3. Argument from 6. & 11. verse.
• Righteousness that by which justification. p. 52.
• Tr. part. 2. 107
• Justification by Christ's works not excluded by the Apostle. p. 54
• Imputation of Christ's righteousness causeth remission of sins. p. 55.
• It is Christ's righteousness. p. 56, 57, 58
• 4. Argument. p. 58
• 5. Argument. p. 60
• Mr. Walkers 7. argument against M. G. not named or answered but by queries, are particularly answered. p. 62
• Quest. 1. whether faith, Rom. 5. 1. be our obedience to the Law. p. 62, 63, 64
• Quest. 2. p. 64. Q. 3. p. 64. Q. 4. p. 65. Q. 5. p. 65. Q. 6. p. 66. Q. 7. p. 67. Q. 8. p. 67. Mr. Wotton of union not real. p. 68. Faith how an instrument. 68. Q. 9. about God's justice. p. 69. Q. 10. p. 70. Q. 11. p. 71. Q. 12. p. 71. Q. 13. Christ's righteousness insufficient. p. 72. Q. 14. p. 73. Q. 15. p. 73.
• Justification by righteousness. p. 73
• Whether justif. in remission alone, Calvin. p. 75. &c.
• Remiss. effect. p. 80.
• Passive demonstrations from what outward. p. 81
• Q. 17. Adams sin not imputed, Pelagianism. p. 82. p. 83
• Q. 18. p. 82. Q. 19. 20, 21. p. 84
• Faith a condition in relation taking in the object. p. 84. &c.
• Mr. G. 1. argument and answer. p. 89. 90
• 2. Arg. ib. and p. 91
• 2. Arg. p. 91. faith a work in Mr. G. sense. ib.
• Q. whether to worship Christ as Mediator in the moral Law. p. 94. 95, 96
• Q. 1. whether Christ needed justification for himself. p. 100. 101
• Q. whether bound to the Law for himself. p. 102. 103, 104, 105, 106, &c.
• Mr. G. first argument against the Relative sense. p. 110
• Of Metalepsis. p. 110. 111
• 2. Arg. p. 112
• See about 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 2 Cor. 5. ult. p. 113. 114. &c.
• 3. Arg. p. 116. Abrah. faith, faith in Christ. p. 117. 118
• 4. Arg. p. 121. answered. 5. Arg. p. 123. &c. 6. Arg. p. 124 7. Arg. p. 126. Vlt. Arg. p. 127. &c.
• On which side Authors stand, see p. 137. 149
• That Christ's righteousness be a meritorious cause, is not sufficient, see the Learned. p. 139. &c.
• That is a Popish and Arminian shifti ib. p. 145
• Of Bucer. p. 150. Bullinger. ib. Luther cleared. p. 152 p. 153. &c. & 159. Calvin. p. 156. Martyr p. 160 Pareus. p. 161. 162. Aretius. p. 163. Beza. p. 165. Junius. p. 165. Doctor Abbot and Mr. Perkins. p. 166.
• Doctor Preston. p. 168. Forbs. p. 170. Musculus. p. 171.

The Contents of the first part of his Treatise.
• Chap. 3. Answering other proofs from Scripture. p. 1. &c.
• C. 4. Works of the Law are not absolutely excluded, from Rom. 3. 21. p. 10. &c.
• C. 5. Answering that from Rom. 5. 16, 17. p. 13
• C. 6. Arg. 5. from Phil. 3. 9. p. 18
• C. 7. That faith is imputed. p. 23
• C. 8. From Gal. 3. 12. being the last Scripture. from transferriblenesse. p. 24
• C. 9. Arg. 1. that Christ's righteousness cannot be imputed. p. 26 It is not fit.
• C. 10. 2 Arg. It is too glorious. p. 31
• C. 11. It is by remission of sins. p. 33
• C. 12. From adoption. p. 35
• C. 13. From repentance, p. 39
• C. 14. About remission of sins, and prayer for it. p. 40
• C. 15. Compliance with God's not seeing sin. p. 42
• C. 16. p. 44
• C. 17. Three arguments more. p. 45. &c.
• C. 18. Three further reasons. p. 48
• C. 19. Five further demonstrations answered. p. 59
• C. 20. Answering 21. 22, 23, & 24. reasons. p. 63
• C. 21. Last reason. p. 66

The Contents of the second part of the Treatise.
• Chap. 1. 2. examined, being 14. Conclusions. Conclus. 1. p. 73. Conclus. 2. p. 74. Conclus. 3. p. 76. Conclus. 4. p. 77. Conclus. 5. p. 81. Conclus. 6. p. 84. Conclus. 7. p. 87. Conclus. 8. p. 88. Conclus. 9. p. 92. Conclus. 10. p. 93. Conclus. 11. p. 96. Conclus. 12. p. 99. Conclus. 13. p. 100. Conclus. 14. p. 100.
• Chap. 3. Examination of distinctions. Of Justification. p. 104. Of Justice. p. ib. Of Christ's righteousness. p. 109 Of Imputation. p. III. Of obedience to the moral Law. p. 115. Of Christ's keeping the moral Law. p. 117. Dist. 7. p. 117
• Chap. 4. Examination of the causes of Justification. p. 118 Christ's righteousness the material cause. p. 120. &c. applied the formal. p. 125. &c. Whether remission of sins be the formal. p. 137.
• Chap. 5. Scriptures cleared, Psal. 32. 1. Examined, p. 144. Jer. 23. 6. & 33. 6. p. 146. Is. 45. 24. p. 148. Is. 61. 10. p. 149. Rom. 3. 21. 22. p. 156. Rom. 4. 6. p. 156. Rom. 5. 19. p. 161. Rom. 8. 3, 4. p. 165. &c. Rom. 9. 31. 32. p. 174. Rom. 10. 4. p. 176. 1 Cor. 1. 30. p. 180. 2 Cor. 5. ult. p. 184. Gal. 3. 10. p. 187. Phil. 3. 9. p. 192.
• Chap. 6. Examining the answers to aguments against the Imputation of faith in a proper sense Argument 1. p. 193. arg. 2. p. 195. arg. 3. p. 195. arg. 4. p. 197. arg. 5. p. 198. arg. 6. p. 200.
• Chap. 7. Our Arguments vindicated. Arg. 1. p. 204. arg. 2. p. 205. arg. 3. p. 207. arg. 4. p. 208. arg. 5. p. 209. arg. 6. p. 212. arg. 7. p. 214. arg. 8. p. 215. arg. 9. p. 216. arg. 10. p. 218. arg. 11. p. 219. arg. 12. 219.

The Doctrine of Justification cleared by Animadversions on M. John Goodwin's Animadversions upon M. George Walkers Defense of the true sense of the Apostle Rom. 4. 3, 5. &c. containing the two first Chapters of his Treatise of Justification.

Sect. I. T He Doctrine of free Justification is worthily, highly esteemed of, by all Orthodox Divines. As by Heretics, it is principally called into controversy: so by the other against them hath it been maintained. When'as they have entered lists with them, they have set the same amongst the chiefest Articles of Christian religion. The truth thereof professed and maintained in the Reformed Churches against Romanists, I find styled by one, the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles of the chief Article of Salvation: who afterwards leaveth this also upon record concerning it. Justification is a principle and hinge (as Bellar. with Pighius ingenuously confesseth) on which depend, or in which all contraversies between us and the Pontificians are infoulded. Pareus calleth it, besides others most necessary; and giveth this reason. For this question (of the formal cause of justification) is one of the greatest, in which sacred Theology is separated from Philosophy that is human, the Gospel from the Law, the Church of Christ from Jews, Turks, Pagans; Protestants from papists. It was, saith he, & is the chief cause of the divorce which the Protestant Churches were enforced to make from the Roman Papacy. Learned Junius calleth it as it were the kernel of the Gospel, and head of consolation. Gerhardus, This place is as a Castle and chief Fort of the whole doctrine and religion, which obscured, or adulterated, or overthrown, its impossible to retain pureness of doctrine in other heads; this being safe, idolatries, superstitions, and all corruptions else, fall to the ground by themselves. This head is the chief in Christian doctrine, as Chemnit. It especially setteth forth the free grace of God, and declareth his righteousness. It is the chief of those that glorify Jesus Christ; It setteth and keepeth the Crown on his head. Its a foundation of solid peace and comfort to Christians whilst on earth. In sanctification the streams run very muddy at the best, here they are liquid, always very clear, from hence peace and comfort flow; inflow into the heart and defuse themselves through their life: the soul is at peace with God and with its self, and hence it glorieth in the saddest condition, as appeareth by the word of God, examples in Scripture, and the sweet experience of God's Saints. If ever the soul did leap, was of good cheare, and comforted, that was the time when as God justified it; when as that was discovered unto the soul, with the bottoms and foundations thereof. Here all doubts are answered and scruples satisfied and removed: for hereby such a man is not only invested with the great privileges of a man perfectly righteous, deliverance from death and condemnation, acceptation into favor with God, as Mr. John Goodwin. 1 cap. p. 55. Edit. Walk. to which I may add a Long, &c. But also made white, though before as black as a coal; though before as Scarlet, as Crimson: as Scarlet in regard of the bloody Die of sin, yet then white as wool, white as snow, whiter then the snow. Christ's beloved is wholly fair, and there is no spot in her; they that are Christ's are presented holy, unreprovable, and unblameable in God's sight, exactly just and perfect; perfected forever, complete in Christ, and hence sins are pardoned. I cannot say, they are in the state they were before; the state of innocence, by pardon (as some) which cannot be in regard of inherent righteousness in this life; which if it were in them would be but justification by inherent righteousness, Popery; but by that which is far exceeding, even the most perfect and exact righteousness and obedience of Jesus Christ. By this is the true believer Just before God as Christ is, the believer in him. We are alike just, because with the same righteousness, though not equally, and in the same manner: He subjectively, we imputatively; He of his own, we of his bounty. This judging of God and account, is according unto truth: deliverance from sin and condemnation and acceptation to the favor of God follow righteously here; God's just in justification: Here fears, questions, doubts, &c. which are and may well be where there is nothing but inherent righteousness or faith in a proper sense, which are and arise in the minds of men, still moving men to ask where is the righteousness, are calmed and answered rationally. Here (if I be called to an account) I have to answer to scrupulous conscience, to the Devil, to God! which will serve before God, and is good in his righteous sight: a strong ground of comfort both in life and death. All Christians have experience in a conflict; of how great esteem to papists themselves in a confiict?

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

When as the whole world standeth engaged in this controversy ile not withdraw myself. I will give this golden Apple to none but Christ. If ever there was in me that which is as new Wine, bubbling and striving to have its vent; If ever any word of the Lord was in me as fire, it is this, and it must have its went. I have believed and spoken comfort to others from hence, and I cannot but speak in this cause, especially being called thereunto.

Sect. 2. I take not upon me the honor to be a defender of him who hath engaged himself in this cause, he is an old Soldier, and I think his work will bear him out. But as a well-wisher ile offer my mite; and do humbly crave leave of Master John Goodwin, to consider his reply to Master Walker, as I find cause in his Animadversions, to animadvert, We crave leave and will give it in like manner. In this let me be pardoned if I do not walk in the same steps of Master Goodwin, that I profess the contrary in the beginning, (it is what he desireth in his second book) that I Animadvert not on some and those the looser and fouler passages of his reply, as he professeth in the Frontispiece of his book, and promiseth to do to Master W. I conceive that evilly to conduce to the cause, as well as to the Authors honor and worth, and respect in the world, and that it is but an indirect way to steal hearts after the Author of the Reply.

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

O that there were not too manifest a truth in that passage of your Animadversions, and that so much pains had not been spent about foul and loose passages, there had not been so foul and loose a Recipe, the reply had not been so full of foul and loose passages, much labor might have been spared by him that replied, and those that read and answer the same. I know not who can read with comfort, or content. It suited not with a grave Divine, or so weighty a matter as the chief Article of salvation.

It was not now a time in that manner to laugh or dance, in that manner to speak, to war with such weapons; the Scriptures cited in the front are but abused. It was not a time of love, it relisheth of somewhat else, it will have a time of weeping and mourning before there be solid peace; such veins, how rich soever, yield much vanity; such jesting is not comely: the Prophets practice will not patronage such ironies as abound here. Our times have been times of license under the name of recreation: and man's nature is foully degenerated that can recreate it self thus: It is not wisdom to make a pastime of sin. The labor and strength to which, may well be suspected that is thus repaired. It were evil in transient words, for which yet we must give an account; it is worse in published books, which may continue with the world. It is an evil example, some adversaries will laugh, others blaspheme, the Lord give repentance for it to him that did it, and those that take pleasure therein.

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

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

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

Sibrandus Lubbertus against Bertius, that Prince of the Arminian band as you phrase him; holding Justification by faith in a proper sense against the figurative sense, which is yours, calleth it Detestable and abominable doctrine. The damned heresy of Servetus. Socinus his blasphemy. The damned phrensies of Servetus. Servetus before you delivered it, so did Socinus and Osterodus, where he also citeth Bertius a witness that Arminius jumpeth with him. Taken out of the blasphemies of Servetus and Osterodus, which all our Churches detest. The abominable and accursed heresy of Servetus and Socinus, which is worse then Popish errors. I say it is a blasphemous and thrice and four times execrable heresy. This thy position is the cause why I conclude, if you will be like yourselves, you must at length with Servetus, Socinus, and Osterodus, destroy wholly the merit or satisfaction of Christ, and that you say that Christ neither attained righteousness to us, nor that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, for to what end is the righteousness of Christ if it hath not in it force to justify? You write those things from whence those wicked and blasphemous abominations of Servetus, Socinus, and Osterodus, do necessarily follow. We hear everywhere learned men say that the Authors of this opinion have not enough put off Popery, they plainly say justification by faith in a proper sense, that is, our work, to be the relics of Monkish Pharisaism. This is certain that Socinus and Servetus before him borrowed this of the Papists. I deny not the Author of this writing to think with us and Papists, Christ to have satisfied for us; but which is grievous, whilst he proveth this justification by faith in a proper sense, he giveth such arguments by which the merit and satisfaction of Christ are overthrown. Those that wright these see the passage easy from this new Samosatenisme to Popery.

Consider how nearly these may concern you Master G. who deny professedly the imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification as Socinus doth, which yet Bertius professeth, p. 104.

If I should follow I should follow not the truth, but a lie, not God, but Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus. I wish the earth might open is mouth and swallow me up rather then I admit it.

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

Now it is certain that if God should justify us either by the works of the Law, or by faith as it is a work or habit in us, God could never be seen to be just in justifying of us, p. 29.

Which opinion can never be maintained with God's honor, p. 163.

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

Hearken to Pareus who saith, Which (Metonymicke) sense if our Adversary (Bellarmine) opposeth, truly he doth not impugn Luther, but blaspheme the Holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressly our righteousness.

I myself cannot speak well of your cause, it were to call evil good, to procure a woe. The justification of wickedness, abomination to the Lord. This is my judgment, I will endeavor to make it good by answering this reply, which I desire to do without passion.

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

What you, therefore, say they did of the golden Calf, and of the practice of those that adulterate Coine, serveth yourself as well as Master W. and may be returned; but of this let them judge who read when they come to the end.

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

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

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

2. It is evilly urged against M. W. when as yourself use them to prop your own cause, with such confidence.

3. It argueth weakness on your side in the argument, and self conviction, when you urge Authors, you do but pretend it and make a show.

4. In my weak judgment your wisdom will be to give over that argument in this Name. I advise you to it, if it be not too late.

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

When I found these mentioned by you in this cause, it put me in mind of the practice of Bertius that Prince of the Arminian band, he for faith in a proper sense maketh the world believe that Luther, &c. were for his cause; but how vainly, Lubbertus showeth, who disputing against that proper sense, for that which is relative and figurative, proveth it out of the same and other Divines. Let it please you to hear him, it may be what he saith concerneth you, though he be dead, to this purpose in that book doth he speak unto you.

In that (the Relative sense) agree all our Doctors, Luther, &c. Thou and Arminius deny it, I appeal to all our Doctors whether ye would not bring in some new thing into our Church. Where also he addeth. Now I entreat thee to produce one, one, I say one Doctor of the Reformed Churches that teacheth the same.

He giveth the testimonies of Pareus, Duneus, Ursinus, &c. p. 15. 16. &c. The Palatinate Catechism, Chemnitz, Musculus, Hemingius, Bucanus, p. 17. Hesuchius, Martyr, Piscator, p. 18. the Augustine and Belgike Confes. and Musculus, p. 19. Bucer, p. 20. Melancthon, p. 53. 54. and 60. Zanchi, p. 62. and 76. Pezelius, p. 63. 64. Where also he repeateth his challenge to the same purpose as before. Try thy strength and see whether thou canst bring forth but one, one, I say one place which teacheth this in clear and manifest words.

I will transcribe one passage more thence, and I entreat you consider whether it doth not concern you in the same cause. Sibrandus having examined that argument of authority saith: If thou wilt weigh these sayings which I have written out of the Doctors you allege, thy conscience will tell thee that here either thou haest stumbled out of ignorance, or out of malice by a calumny given this opinion to them that thou mightest deceive the unskillful or negligent, and mightest persuade them, those chief men, Luther, &c. to have approved and fomented the mad conceits of Servetus and Socinus, which you slily and secretly endeavor to bring into the Church; you should more truly say that you despising our Doct •• s, learned these things of Servetus and Socinus.

Pareus saith, Which is the judgment of all Protestant Divines. And thus before I am aware I am come to consider whether the contrary exposition and cause built on it are not Socinian and Arminian?

Sect. 4. And here I profess it my judgment, that if the assimulation of you to Socinus, &c. be the inhumane practice of the tyrant Mezentius, it is not Master W. but your own fault, for your faces answer faces, and hands hands, in this question; and yourself have coupled yourself with these in this cause. Master Walker is but a discoverer of what he found, and in part is shown to have been in Bertius by Sybrandus, as in his judgment of your opinion, and the last passages cited out of him in this cause. The shame that is in it, is from yourself, and sorrow, which if you take not to yourself, you may with sorrow and shame also go down unto the grave (as you speak.) If his Withs are green (as you say) they will hold you the stronger, your Art in Withs did fail here, they are dry ones that snap asunder, they do so without fire. Your Knife truth, (but why do you reprehend it in Master W. and offend in the same thing?) is error at the least, and will never deliver you, and though you be never so cunning (as you speak) in stretching on Tenter-books, and do your utmost, Daedalus sis, liceat, mediocritatem excedis & ad ruinam tantum ingeniosus videberis.

When as you tell us what you could do if you sought revenge on the man, and of your confidence that you could make him hold up his hand to the Barre, to answer the crimes of Heresy and Blasphemy; none believe you but your own Disciples, I do not; you do but beg him to be erratique, the intelligent Reader will judge these strains, militis gloriosi, and say, projecit ampullas, &c.

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

I should think that cause sufficient to say, that erra • ique Arminius (to speak softly) and that heretic Socinus and yourself in this opinion are coupled, face to face, and • ands to hands, that you are ad hoc gemelli, and what the earned in this have laid to their score, lieth on yours also, • nd must stand there until you be aquitted.

Neither is it Popish Mountabankery for M. W. to put you • n their company, to number you amongst them. Sibrandus • id so by the opinion before him, and it was your own ault to be so indeed. Your being so is rather Popish Mounabankry in the judgment of learned men, as before out of Sibrandus, as after shall appear through our discourse; the weapons you use are for the most part merely Po • ish, you may be noted for it. We read some taxed for • oing in the way of Cain; others for walking in the way of • alaam: so long as there is a real agreement between you • nd them, a man may say it.

Daniel was not by choice with the Lions, he was with • hem as Lilies amongst Thorns, as the Lord Christ be • ween two Thieves, by God's heavenly disposition. You • ight have been so with these. No man would have accoun • ed you a Papist had you been cast amongst Priests into the Gatehouse, or a Separatist for being in the same room with them, or for suffering simply with them; Contraries may be in • he same subject, asflesh and spirit in the godly. You are bre • hren in the same evil, the man that runneth may see you the same in judgment, and speech, and opinion, in this Exposition of Scripture, as it is shown afterwards. It were not absurd to say, Daniel & the Lions agree in animality, or the Lily with the Thorns in being vegetative. It is not affirmed of you that you agree in all opinions, and it troubleth us it is in this, this, we do judge too much.

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

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

I think you have, and cannot be ignorantof this controversy between us and Arminians, I, us and the Popish party. Have you not read their hatred against this Tenet of imputed righteousness? read Gerhard. de justif. p. 234.

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

I think I heard it from Doctor Davenants mouth, and I am sure he hath left this on Record to be The common opinion of all ours, neither for the substance hath any one written or thought otherwise. And doth he not prove the same? p. 363 &c. he doth by many arguments.

Johannes Crotius, We say the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be the form of our justification of God's part, our adversaries taking the negative part on them, &c.

It is manifest by the state of the question laid down by Papists and Protestants, and in this you agree with them. Have you not read faith to justify against them in a Relative and figurative sense? and that as it taketh in the object, the obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ? See Master Perkins, Master Wotton, def. p. 166. stating the question between us and Romanists.

Did you never read Romanists in this controversy of justification, urging, Rom. 4. with your interpretation of a proper sense, against the Relative se • se which the Protestants urge? Do you not agree for the proper sense of faith against the Relative, and against the imputation of Christ's righteouseesse?

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

Did you never read in Festus Hommius this proposition gathered out of Arminius, Faith, speaking properly, or that act of believing to justify us, or to be the righteousness by which we stand before God, and are justified. And, I say the very act of faith to be imputed unto righteousness, and that in a proper sense, not metonymically, faith is accounted for righteousness by God's gracious esteem.

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

Where also you may find other like passages taxed, and cited out of Vorstius, Bertius, and Arnoldus himself, who there p. 41. saith, Arminius saith, faith justifieth as an act, which is that work of God, John 6 and the very believing in Christ, to be imputed unto us for righteousness.

Doth not Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians instance in this point, the believing to be imputed to us out of both? and show in the next Paragraph the agreement of both in this, Faith graciously to be accounted for righteousness?

Do not both show their agreement in this, That the righteousness of Christ is not imputed for our righteousness before God?

Doth not that worthy Scholar Master Pemble show the Authors of this tenet, Servetus, Socinus, Osterodus, Arminius? doth he not give it to Bertius, Vorstius, Episcopius, and Bellarmine? You could not but read this in Doctor Prideaux, for you cite him. We assert it, the Pontificians, together with Socinians and Arminians deny it, where he stateth the question.

In Mr. Wotton I find those That teach faith the formal cause, either wholly, as Arminius and his followers have delivered, or in part, which pleaseth the Church of Rome.

We with you equally acknowledge ourselves justified with imputed righteousness which we have in Christ against Socinus.

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

Arminians do the same with the Papists, and Socinians, &c. so that we are not justified by faith, metonymically as an instrument apprebending that righteousness which Christ got for us by the merit of his obedience, which office of faith as proper to it, hath been hitherto acknowledged in all the reformed Churches.

Paul said, only faith to be imputed to righteousness, and they add of their own that, that they may transform a figurative speech into a proper one, and obtrude their interpretation, or rather error, for Paul's words, lest saith should be taken by a metonymy or relatively, with its object, that is the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, but for faith it self, in it self, which is accounted for righteousness by God. Socinus truly denieth Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. Episcopius elsewhere expressed it, that it was not the righteousness of Christ properly that which is imputed.

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

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

Why, what saith Arminius? He saith the righteousness of Christ to be imputed unto us and to be made ours in the gracious account of God, and that he supposed the same thing contained in the words of the Apostle. 2 Cor. 5. God made Christ sin for us that we might he the righteousness of God in him.

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

2. Arminius himself in that agreeth not with himself, &c. Your self confess him and some of his followers much more to express themselves on the other hand, and to affirm the imputation of faith for righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ.

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

4. Again, do you not clip his words? and doth not Arminius say more then you report in that point? and would he have these two, Christ's righteousness to be imputed unto us, and faith to be imputed unto us for righteousness to be the same? and did he there approve that phrase the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us for righteousness? which yet is Mr. Walkers, and of all Protestants. Those praised Divines of Leiden, having repeated what you do out of Arminius, truly observe and add. But he would not that Christ's righteousness to be imputed unto us, and faith to be imputed to righteousness, should be the same. Neither would be prove that phrase, Christ's righteousness to be imputed to righteousness. Both which Mr. W. would have done. So that Mr. W. and he jump not together. Nay Arminius faith ( It cannot be that God should impute unto us Christ's righteousness. He professeth he followed the contrary in his Theses, in his Declaration, and ad art. 31. he saith, I said I approve not the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us, whatsoever is imputed to righteousness, &c. that is not righteousness strictly and rigidly taken: but Christ's righteousness which he performed is righteousness it self straitly and rigidly taken: therefore it is not imputed unto righteousness.

For my part I conceive that by his imputation of Christ's righteousness, he meant not that, in it self, but in its effect, faith, the imputation whereof is the effect of Christ's righteousness. Forsooth Christ by his righteousness merited that faith should be graciously accepted in the place of righteousness. So he constantly, and in the same sense answering to the question of a proper or figurative sense, he denieth the latter and asserteth the former, with an, I plainly think so, wherein he agreeth not with Mr. W. but yourself; you are the men that jump together. These are a sufficient defense of him, they show he doth not (as you charge him) directly maintain what Mr. W. doth; there is palpable difference. Mr. W. saith that the right teousnesse of Christ is imputed to righteousness. Shew me the same in Arminius, then I will yield they jump, till then you come short of your undertaking.

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

Answ. For the practice of Fairies, I never read of it, and if it be so I shall think better of them then I did. Those that tell tales of them, seem to say otherwise, and I never heard of a well-favored changeling before. But how prove you that to be the Arminian tenet? you answer from those Divines of Leiden, c. 10. Who challenge them for affirming the word faith to be sometimes taken in Scripture for that whole and universal will of God, which before they said God would have performed by us, in which sense they would be taken and understood in this Chapter. 2. They are charged with Pontifician friendship, In that they number works amongst the causes of Justification with faith by an equal right. And after to have drawn this their notion of faith out of the Socianin lakes. We must remember this faith by which we are justified to be obedience of God. And after, in Christum credere, nihil aliud est, quam Deo ad ipsius Christi normam & prae scriptum obedientem se praebere: and after that by faith which they hold to be imputed for righteousness, they understand and mean fidem ipsam in se quae apud Deum habeatur pro justitia, quatenus fidei nomine comprehenditur p • nitentia, resipis • entia & in universum obedientia hominis Christiani.

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

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

They do not peremptorily as you, but doubtfully as inquirers affirm. Yet they seem to mean that, and they seem to take it with Socinus.

Thus the Remonstrants in their Apology answer those Divines, and observe the same. They dare not plainly profess it, for they everywhere double that there, they seem, and conclude at length they may sceme nearer to Socinus then the reformed Church; and much more to that purpose, which you would not or did not see.

To that question, Whether the Remonstrants make the essential form of faith to be obedience, that of the works of the Law, and especially of the Gospel; they seem to clear the matter whilst they answer. This is a manifest calumny, this will not be proved done in their Confession, the contrary appe ireth in terms, for they always distinguish obedience properly called from faith, as the effect from the cause from which it fla •• eth, as a River from the Fountain, as the Child from the Mother, where is Socinus thinketh otherwise. Arminius himself disclaimeth it, ad artic. 5.

And when as they join works with faith in instification, they say it is but a Grammatical or Logical controversy, and that the confessions of all reformed Churches acknowledge faith to be living, not dead, faith which bath joined with it good works, yea, which neither is without good works, nor can be, to be that true justifying faith as they call it, which by that property is distinguished from historical faith, temporary, and that of miracles, as they speak. Where also they urge out of those Censores, p. 11. They plainly assert obedience of works necessary to justification, not indeed with necessity of efficiency, but of presence.

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

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

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

He holds Faith is imputed immediately and formally, and the merit of Christ mediately and in effect.

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

But there he addeth. By faith be sarther showeth be only underst andeth observation of Christianism, because to believe is to keep Christ's precepts, neither was be ashamed at length to conclude that justisying faith, to be that inherent righteousness which the Papists urge.

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

And I pray you is not faith obedience to Christ's commandment and God's work? (as you both love to speak, in opposition to the moral Law, out of the 1 John 3. and Job. 6. of which after.) And is not faith that justifieth in a proper sense the inherent righteousness the Papists urge in this cause by the same text? Rom. 4. The difference is.

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

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

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

It is true he saith not so; you do, and yet that which the Doctor there speaketh to Arminius, appertaineth to and toucheth you both. Tell us in truth Arminius out of thine acute judgment how faith justifieth? The act of faith (saith Arminius) is imputed for righteousness, in a proper sense, not metonymically as it apprehendeth the object. If not as an instrument, How? So the Doctor answereth himself. So he denying, so you calling it an instrument, both teach the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere in a proper sense imputed, for righteousness; both deny the figurative sense; you that teach it an instrument, deny justification by it as an instrument receiving and applying Christ's righteousness • to justification; The agreement being such, it had been wisdom to conceal this disagreement.

You say he citeth Bertius, another Prince of the Arminian band; that he acknowledgeth this opinion to exclude the merit of Christ, which is contrary to what you have taught and profess.

If he be a Prince of the Arminian band; you are no common Soldier, but ad ho • , a Prince, as he, above him, a King. That he derogateth not from Christ he showeth, (with what agreement to himself let him look to that) That faith respecteth the merit of Christ, and thus it is true which is said, faith justifieth not by it self, but relatively as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousness: he is nearer the Protestant tenet in this then you, and if descent will make it, he leaveth you to be a King, you are lower or higher in that band. That faith in a proper sense is imputed, &c. he saith, and therein is but one of the Princes with you.

When as the Doctor saith this opinion; he hath no relation to Uorstius, or that his opinion, of which before, of faith so taken. When as he saith Arminius his opinion to exclude Christ's merit, it concerneth you. Sibrandus said to Bertius. This your thesis is the cause why I conclude, if you will be like yourselves, at length necessarily to come to it, that with Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus, you altogether take away the merit or satisfaction of Christ made for us, and say that Christ neither brought righteousness for us; (when you with Arminius preach ye are not justified by any righteousness at all) Neither that we be justified by his righteousness. Bertius said not the latter; Arminius and Socinus, &c. did, Bertius must come to it. Bertius saith it of Arminius. For he layeth such foundations by which the merit of Christ is necessarily overthrown. For either it must be by faith in a proper sense imputed and Christ's righteousness imputed, or one of them: If it be by faith in a proper sense as in your Doctrine, justification by Christ's righteousness imputed, is excluded; and it is your Doctrine as this latter excludeth the proper sense of Faith. Indeed at best the merit of Christ, as a remoter thing, must be established, meriting that faith should be imputed, which is Socinianism as Sibrandus showeth out of Osterodus, p. 10. & p. 97. and that which was taxed by the Doctor in Vorstius, but even now; see your 15. p.

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

Answ. You show not at whose suite, nor at what bar, nor in what. Neither can I divine which way it will appear, less you be the accuser, the witness, and the Judge in that Assise; open it when you please. Look at home, you deny it to Christ's active obedience; as being Christ's debt, and Christ's passive obedience also, when as thereunto you do call his active obedience as an essential requisite, though not without contradiction. Seeing nihil dat quod non habet, that which meriteth not, being debt, cannot make his sufferings to be so, of this in the answer to your treatises.

The other things which you say you could improve, p. 16. I pass and leave to the Readers to judge whether there be not Arminian blood in your tenent apparent, which is that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere of Abraham in a proper sense is imputed denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification: these are yours, they are of Arminius and Arminians, as before. In the words of Sibrandus I will add. This same thing Servetus taught before thee, for he writeth, his faith was reputed to Abraham for righteousness. And Socinus teacheth the same. When our faith is imputed to us for righteousness; the sense is, our faith is accounted for righteousness, when he teacheth righteousness to be imputed to us by Abraham's example. But therefore, because it seemed good to God to account our faith to us in the place of righteousness.

Socinus in one place writeth There is not a syllable in the Scripture of Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. Abraham believed God, and for that cause was he accounted just of him.

And when as you detract not justification from the blood and merit of Christ, but give it the blood and death of Christ, what do you more then Osterodus? these are his words. So far as that blood and death work in us those things for which God doth justify us, forsooth faith. I will conclude in Sibrandus words to Bertius. Out of which everyone may see thee and Arminius to teach the same of justifying faith, which before you, Servetus, Socinus, Osterodus, wrote and p • ea • hed. And if you desire to see farther agreement, see it in Peltius his Harmony de justif. par. 3. & 4.

Here is Arminian blood, neither have you proved the same in Mr. W. nor can you, sift and examine as thoroughly as you will. When as you say Arminian faith imputed includeth obedience to the Law of God. You hear they distinguish it from works, and you know, it is called by them and yourself, the work of God, the commandment and condition of the Gospel Mr. Ws. faith in the Relative sense indeed includeth the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to God's Law.

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

You say the Arminia • faith excludeth Christ's merit from justification. So doth yours as before; as that which is immediate, as that with which imputed we are just. You cannot say Mr. W. faith doth little less; perfect righteousness is that which faith applieth in Mr. W. Doctrine, by which we are justified before the Lord.

When as you ask, if Christ's righteousness and obedience be imputed to righteousness, what need there is of any satisfaction or atonement by blood.

Mr. W. will answer you, both are debt, full satisfaction consisteth in them both.

Mr. J. Goodw. will tell you it is an heinous crime to divide Christ's righteousness: and that his active obedience infloweth, and is in a sort satisfaction.

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

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

And though you thus part with Arminianism now in words; you are found not to do so indeed, and shall be shown to do so, to the end.

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

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

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

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

This faith in Christ he saith was reckoned to him for • ighteousnesse, and the faith which apprehendeth and ap • lieth the righteousness of Christ is proper to the elect • nd regenerate, and is an holy spiritual faith and belief: • ere is no opposition to himself, or agreement with you, • ou do but flatter yourself, and deceive your Reader.

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

The Remonstrants Apol. p. 113. giving a reason why they used not the phrase ( ) Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us, give this reason, ( ) We must necessarily s •• that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for the righteousness of Christ, which is not proper but absurd. It was borrowed, Discipulum t • facile agn • sc •• .

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

2. The explication of Mr. W. is of righteousness imputed, which he saith is that which faith layeth hold of, no • those words, to righteousness, which you might observe to have a distinct interpretation given it by Mr. W. His words are by imputing and accounting that faith for righteousness to Abraham, and everyone of his faithful seed is be • mea •• God's setting of Christ's righteousness on the score and putting it on the account of the believer, his judging them perfectly rightness.

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

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

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

Answ. 1. He hath no such words in that place, there i • neither universally, nor always.

2. If he did so, there is no • ispri • ion from his own Scripture instances,

It had not been good English (you say) I and my son Solomon shall be imputed offenders, and yet you must acknowledge to have offense imputed is to be accounted an offender.

Your self confess in some cases and falls of speech, they may be of indifferent use and signification, and in the case in hand to be expressions of good propriety, and that there is not • uch difference between them, except a man hath a mind to • avill and wrang • e about words. The man then that quar • else these words must be conceived ex confessis, to have a mind to cavil and wrangle. Who then layeth on tongue • nd multiplieth discourse? it is your phrase.

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

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

But the bare giving of the sense of a word cannot be • ermed a description, neither is every description to be • ried by the rules of a true definition, much less every explication of the sense of a word; pass that, What say you to it?

Capiat qui. potis est • aper • , and confess his eloquence to pass your intelligence.

Answ. Which surely is a wonder, when as he seemeth to explain his speech to a common capacity. Do not you know what it is to judge a thing to be as it is indeed? I would not have said so of you, his words following spell them more plainly when as he addeth, then it is just and according to truth. The judgment is so not when it is judged as it is not, but as it is, for that is unjust judgment and not according to truth. He addeth, God's thoughts are always just, and his judgment is according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. therefore a just imputing and counting is here meant, saith Mr. for God doth account of all persons and things, as they are. He giveth instance of an unjust account and false imputing, 1 King. 1. 21. and of true counting, Neb. 13. 13. and Levite. 17. 4. and Psal. 22. 30. and do you not yet understand it?

Why do you dispute against it, and condemn Mr. W. for it in the entrance, saying, The man is nowhere liker himself then in the description? Surely you can never justly judge him or his cause in dispute, if so be that you do not understand him: you might have spared your 1. 2. 4. and last onset against what is said, and first have required Mr. W. explanation, that you might understand him.

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

You say, I should have thought that God's imputing faith for righteousness (take faith in what sense you will) had been an act of grace and mercy in God, and not an act of judgment.

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

2. But I suppose you take it for an act of justice, for judgment the exercise thereof; and if, why may there not be in justification a concurrence both of mercy and judgment? and both not be exercised in making men just? I should have thought there is sweet agreement between them. I have read in one of our Homilies, that God in our redemption and justification, with endless mercy joined his most upright and perfect justice. Homil. salv. 1. part. That God's mercy did not deliver us without a just ransom, p. 14. that when as it lay not in us to do, he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear—who besides his ransom sulled the Law for us perfectly, ib. that in this the justice of God and his mercy did embrace together, ib. so that in our justification is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Law calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom, and fulfilling the Law. The grace of God shutteth not out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of, man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be means of deserving our justification, ib.

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

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

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

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

I profess I could never endure what I read in Mr. Wotton and Socinians, that punishment and pardon are adverse, in some, nay in it self it is joined with denial of the satisfaction of Christ, and a destroyer of God's justice. Look you to it.

Justice shineth through mercy, Mr. Forbs, p. 92. and this of faith in a proper sense is against the justice of God, (as he) When as we are before God's judgment-seat to be judged in the rigor of justice; then we must bring something that may countervail the justice of God, not only acceptation in mercy, but also approbation in justice. We must be just if we be accepted of him. The Apostle showeth what Christ righteousness is when be calleth it obedience. Observe what we must bring into God's sight if we will be justified by works the righteousness of the Law complete. But because we bring th perfect obedience of the Law—because we have it not in us, God freely giveth it. No other righteousness is admitted in Heaven then the entire observation of the Law. The righteousness of God which shall be approved at God's Tribunal. We live not before God without righteousness. At God's Tribunal no righteousness is so judged but perfect and absolute obedience of the Law. We have need of righteousness which will bear the examen and rigor of justice entire and perfect.

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

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

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

1. The Scripture, and what hath been spoken are directly against you, which show God's judgment according to truth. I oppose it to your bare negation.

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

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

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

And here we may see what a goodly effect faith hath, and what a bringing into communion you mean, when as you deny communion with Christ's righteousness, but in the effect of it, to which after.

5. Faith in a relative sense setteth all at rights, it causeth communion and fellowship with Christ, and his righteousness to justification; by this Christ's righteousness is our own; the judgment of God is according to truth; when as the Lord imputeth it to righteousness, as the stream of Protestants runneth.

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

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

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

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

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

When as you say Mr. Ws. own tenet showeth it, that God imputeth Christ's righteousness for the righteousness we should have performed in our own persons, which is not our own personal righteousness. You miss-report it. Mr. Ws. words are, when God imputeth Christ's righteousness to a believer, he counteth him perfectly righteous by that righteousness, and so he is indeed.

And because you judge Mr. W. for that passage (which a reason why imputing signifieth an act of judgment) God's • oughts are just, and his judgments according to truth, Rom. • 2. as if God's imputing righteousness to him that is a • nner, and hath no righteousness, were an act of injustice • him, and contrary to truth.

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

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

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

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

If God should justify us—or by faith as it is a work or abit in us, God could never be seen to be just in justifying of • s, &c. p 92.

( ) God is just, and his judgment according to truth, faith •• not the whole righteousness of the Law, but only a little part • hereof.

But God's judgment is according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. We know, &c. Will he who judgeth according unto truth, and who in judging cannot err, who cannot deceive nor be deceived, account or can be, a small portion of saith imperfect and much defiled, for the perfect righteousness of the Law.

( ) When God doth account us just by faith, the truth which answereth this divine account, is not the righteousness of Christ formally inhering in us, but the righteousness of Christ really communicated and given us by divine ordination. If God should esteem us inherently just from that, that he imputeth unto us Christ's righteousness, his judgment should err, and there should be in the mind of God an account to which the truth of the thing answereth not (which is wickedness for a man to speak) ( ) Therefore Bellar. deceiveth and is deceived, calling th •• imputation of Christ's righteousness, a naked esteem or thought without the thing, seeing it is a real acceptation of the believing sinner for a just man in God's judgment.

Papists and Protestants agree that in justification God's account is true and right. Bellar. and Becanus urge the judgment of God according to truth, to which Cham. ( ) I confess that the judgment of God is according to truth, they are truly made just who are justified by God, but one way by inherent, another way by imputed righteousness. ( ) Grant that to impute is not simply to suppose, as when the understanding is deceived, and an Hypocrite seemeth good, who is wicked. Let it rather be joined with the truth of the thing, but its own truth, that Christ's righteousness be truly and really imputed to every Christian; this imputation God forbid we should oppose.

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

We affirm that it is by imputing unto him the perfect righ • eousnesse of Christ, accepting Christ's obedience for • is.

We here take up the forenamed rule, laid down by our adversaries. Whomsoever God pronounceth to be perfectly just, be must needs be made perfectly just, for God's judgment is according to truth, p. 9. and elsewhere. God accounts that only for perfect righteousness of the Law which is so indeed and truth, but faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law: therefore God doth not account it for such. —

The major must be proved that God accounts not that for perfect justice, which is not perfect indeed; this appears, Rom. • . 2. the judgment of God is according to truth. When therefore anything is not truly good and perfect, there God esteems it not truly good and perfect, ib. p. 37.

Gwalther (you say) an orthodox Interpreter findeth grace and favor not strictness of judgment in the phrase of im • utation. It teacheth us that God might indeed have dealt in • rictnesse of judgment with us, and that we are indebted to • is free gra •• that he dealeth not with us as we have de •• rved.

Who denieth but God might have dealt in strictness, equired and exacted personal obedience, and have execu • ed death on us for our sin? and that it is mercy that God imputeth or giveth Christ's righteousness: the A •• stle showeth Christ and all his, gifts, and so effects of • race, and yet in that there is strict justice, and that is • nswered by the L. Christ our surety by his perfect righ • eousnesse, so that God's righteousness is declared thereby. He is just in justifying, and so Orthodox interpreters, our • wne, and others, as before. I may add more.

The Law must be satisfied, or else we cannot be just, for the Lord doth allow no other righteousness but the very same which • s described in the Law, which whosoever cannot attain are pro • ounced guilty of eternal death; therefore if we will be righ • eous and saved, such a righteousness must be sought out, then which the Law cannot require a more absolute—and where • hall we find it? Our faith is but begun and we must always pray it may be increased in us—but righteousness must be of that kind as that nothing at all may be added thereunto.

The justice that freeth us from the Law, neither increaseth nor groweth, but is ever most perfect and absolute, that is, Christ his obedience imputed to us by faith;—what that righteousness is see there. I will not make application. ( ) At God's tribunal nothing is accounted righteousness but perfect obedience of the Law. ( ) Nothing imperfect or lame can be called the justifying righteousness of God. ( ) God is truly and most just in the surety. God, as I have elsewhere said, doth approve none for just, but those whom first he maketh just truly, and in the highest degree, not in themselves, but Christ's righteousness imputed. ( ) We so profess a sinner to be justified by the only mercy of God the Father that we acknowledge Christ with his office of a Mediator the next cause, who being borne for us, not himself, Jes. 9. 5. who by the ransom of most absolute perfection so reconciled the eternal justice of his offended Father to miserable men that God lost not the praise of justice in midst of mercy. Though as a most free agent he could justify whomsoever, and in what manner soever he would, yet both his Nature as he is infinitely just, and also his Will revealed in the Law, which in God is the eternal and immovable rule of justice: which moreover, in immutably requireth satisfaction for sin, and fulfilling the Law by obedience, seeing to justify a wicked man without righteousness he hath • alled it abomination, there is therefore made a translation of the Law which could not give life on Christ, who being made for us under the Law might every way satisfy the Law for us.

( ) This righteousness was altogether to be fulfilled in us, therefore Christ putting on our flesh in our behalf perfectly performed it. I came not, &c. Matth. 5. & 16. here it is easier for the Heavens to pass, this member appertaineth to the application of Christ's benefit to us. ( ) Then should it be vain if not satisfied by us, or in our name by another, and that is satisfied by Christ who came not to dissolve, &c. and he did fulfill it in our flesh. ( ) That very righteousness which the Law required that by its prescript we may be thought just and entire before God, for when as to forgiveness of sins and fulfilling the Law this third shall come, the perfect integrity of our nature, (all which we freely attain in Christ apprehended by faith) let Satan do what ever he can we are just before God, and that from that most absolute form of the Law, therefore the Apostle said he came not to destroy the Law, but to establish it, Rom. 3. 21. ( ) The righteousness of Jesus Christ by which we are justified before God is the most perfect obedience of the whole Law of God—the righteousness manifested in the Gospel, is the fulfilling of the Law made by Christ for us. ( ) He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as out of the doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousness of the Law. (f) The Apostle well said we establish; for what doth Christ's satisfaction but show the threats of the Law not void when as Christ must endure them? and what is Christ's righteousness else but a full performance of the Law. The doctrine therefore of faith seeing it doth not save us before it justifieth us, (that is, it applieth Christ to us by imputation, adorned with all these virtues) surely it doth not only not overthrow the Law, but rather stablisheth it in us.

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

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

Sect. 9. You go on, and say ( when as Mr. W. by righteousness saith is meant Evangelical righteousness—even the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of Christ our Mediator and surety, which he the Son of God, in man's nature performed to the Law. )

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

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

2. And in the rest you do but trifle, that which is imputed is the righteousness of Christ, so Mr. W. truly; that is Evangelical, Dan. 9.

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

4. To that question, (though impertinent) whether anything may properly be said to be truly and indeed the same with it self, and your reference of it to Mr. Walkers own determination when his Logic returns again unto him.

I Answer, that I should think anything may truly and properly be said to be the same with it self; neither do I conceive anything more truly and properly the same then the thing it self: other things may be like, are not the same. Every thing is every way the same with it self, identity is the sameness of a thing in my Logic. Your own immediately preceding words may answer your question, which are, surely there is nothing truly, really, and indeed the same with the satisfaction of Christ, but this satisfaction it self.

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

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

When you comprehend not why Mr. W. should call the righteousness of Christ evangelical righteousness, opposed to legal, and yet define a legal righteousness to be every man's fulfilling the Law in his own person.

I take it no difficult thing; take it as performed by himself, it was his performance and legal; take him to be our surety, and consider him so performing the same, and it graciously given unto us by God in the Gospel, it is Evangelical and rightly so called: Christ and all his benefits are Evangelical, such is his everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9. ( ) Neither are there places wanting amongst the Prophets of justifying righteousness, as,

You say legal righteousenes of works cannot be inherent, because they are matters transient.

1. Though the works pass, the habit whence which also is strengthened by the work, is inherent.

2. As sinful acts passing, leave a stain and skarre as well as guilt on the soul, why may not acts of righteousness a contrary luster?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he setteth himself against the wrath of the Law, and taketh it away, and satisfieth the Law in his own body by himself, I satisfy the Law for thee.

But the Law doth not require that an innocent person should die, but the transgressor, so you; he should not, considering the innocent person per se, in himself, & qua, as a surety, it is not so: so considered he was and might be numbered with transgressors. He was made sin for us, the iniquities of us all were laid on him. They, sins were on his account, on him, he bore our sins; hence guilt, hence punishment; Satisfactory it was (you say) but not to the Law, it knows no satisfaction, but to God, because he required it.

Answ. Whose Law was it, but God's? you say God required it, Was it not in the Law? satisfy God requiring, and satisfy the Law: in it he requireth death on the transgression thereof.

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

He was sin, and we righteousness, not our own, but of God, not in ourselves, but in him, as he is made sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but in us;—We therefore are so the righteousness of God in him, as he was sin in us, for • ooth by imputation.

Christ is innocent concerning his own person, and therefore he • ought not to have been hanged upon a tree. But because according • o the Law of Moses every Thief and Malefactor ought to be • anged, therefore Christ also according to the Law ought to be • anged, for be sustained the person of a sinner, and of a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves.—Therefore it behooved that he should become a transgressor, and as Jes. the Prophet saith, to be reckoned and accounted amongst transgressors and • respassers. And this no doubt all the Prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, mur • herer, adulterer, blasphemer, that ever was, or could be in all the world. For he being made a Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins, is not now the Son of God borne of the Virgin Mary, but a sinner which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor: of Peter which denied Christ: of David which was an adulterer, a murderer, and caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord. And briefly which hath and beareth all the sins of all men in his, body that he might make satisfaction for them with his own blood.—He verily is innocent, because he is the unspotted and undefiled Lamb of God: but because he beareth the sins of the world, his innocence is burdened with the sins and guilt of the whole world.

Whatsoever sins I and thou and we all have done or shall d •• hereafter, they are Christ's own sins as verily as if he himself had done them.—But what is it to bear? The Sophisters answer to be punished. Uery well, but wherefore is Christ punished? Is it not because he hath sin and beareth sin? —So Luther. I pass others for the present.

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

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

Less then the whole will not satisfy God's justice, will not justify, procure our freedom from sin, and eternal life. I will try that with you when you please. So that yet he hath quitted himself.

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

Surely that office doth not become you, you wanted an office when you took up that, the Ware you vent is no commodity, it is not appetible, adversaries only desire them in▪ such as they oppose for their own advantage. O how corruption pleaseth it self with them! What a precious dish is it to please your admirers in this your opinion! Let us examine the matter.

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

Sir, are not faith and all graces wrought together, and at once? are they not together? is the subject then a believer, and not regenerate, and not renewed? Is not faith that which is born of God, & the subject in that name regenerate and renewed? What is regeneration or renovation but works of God by his spirit enabling to believe, &c. and is it not necessary that in order of nature enabling to believe be before faith? This will never save a man or woman's longing, nor tickle the Reader unless he be a believer of you on those terms of Pythagoras his scholars, Ipse dixit, he said it. Let us try another.

Again, p. 9. he affirmeth that God doth account and judge of all persons and things so as they are, and yet p. 11. gran • th that God accounted Job his enemy, which he was not.

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

So p. 5. he defines faith, which is here said to be imputed for righteousness to be the supernatural gift and grace of believing, and yet p. 8. that God imputes a righteousness which neither consists in any work or works, nor in any grace or virtue inherent, and p. 12. he saith, by imputing▪ faith for righteousness is meant God's setting of Christ's righteousness on the score, and putting it on the account of every believer.

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

This righteousness imputed is neither any work or work or works, grace or virtue inherent in us.

By imputation of Christ's righteousness is meant God's setting it on the score of, or putting it on the account of a believer, he setteth it on his account, or really and truly giveth the same unto him. Here is not a contradiction to save a man's longing. It is well for him, not for your credit who beat up the Drum in Print and cry, If any man or woman, who may say, Parturiunt montes: let the Reader look for itsg Enlish in yourself.

Defining faith which the Apostle saith is imputed, he defines it a strong faith, or faith in the highest degree, so that a weak faith is not capable of Paul's imputation for righteousness.

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

This also troubleth you, that the spirit of God in working faith confirms the heart with confidence and firm persuasion. But why are you troubled? Is not the heart by nature weak, and do not the works of such an one show it? Ezek. 16. Do not all graces strengthen, and shall faith, the chiefest, not confirm?

Doth it trouble you that he saith, the spirit of God working faith confirms the heart with confidence? it needeth not, for whether confidence be of the nature of that mixed habit faith (as I think) or the effect of faith, it must • eeds confirm the heart. It needeth not that he calleth • t a persuasion, it was so truly called before you were born, • nd if it did not persuade, how doth the soul assent?

And as for firmness, it being a part of the inward and • idden man which is incorruptible, a part of the everlasting Kingdom of Christ, it must be acknowledged firm; infused • abits are so, all: they have more or less firmness in them.

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

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

To your ifs.

If God puts the righteousness of Christ it self upon a be • evers score, he puts the merit of Christ's righteousness up •• his score also, for these are inseparable: If he puts the me • t of Christ's righteousness upon his score, he must put all the • uits and effects of his merit also, for these likewise are in ••• arable as the other, and so God shall have accounted every • leever to have redeemed, justified, and saved the world.

I answer, God putteth the righteousness of Christ on • he score of a believer and the merit also, and so the ef •• cts of his merit are communicated. So that hereby man 〈◊〉 just, hath what to answer God requiring doing to life, • nd threatening death for sins, Christ his righteousness • nd merits, and hence is he justified, saved, &c. And yet followeth not that God should account every believer Sa • iour of the world. Your consequence is an absurd Popish one, reasons are given by our learned Protestants answering Bellarmine, whose it is against imputed righteousness. If the righteousness of Christ (saith Bellarmine) should be truly imputed unto us, truly we ought to be accounted and thought no less righteous then Christ himself, and therefore Redeemers and Savior's of the world, which is absurd. Cham. answering him, denieth the consequence in these words. We (Protestants) say it to be an absurd thing, and denieth us equally just, for as much as he hath it inherently, a se, from himself, and is per se justus, just of himself, when as we inherently are unjust, and have our righteousness only by favor, that is elsewhere and in another: and addeth. Again, it cannot be that he that is just by imputation should be a Redeemer of the world, and Savior, but only redeemed and saved.

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

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

1. Christ's righteousness to be so far imputed unto us, that we by the virtue thereof should be accounted so just God, as if we ourselves had that by which we are accounted righteous before the Lord.

2. The righteousness of Christ to be accounted to particular believers according to their Particular necessity, not according to all the worth of it, as a precious stone of great price, which is given for • he redeeming of divers Captices, is applied to particulars, not according to the universal worth, but according to the necessity of every Captive: mention therefore of the world is absurdly made in particular application.

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

Our late Learned Bishop of Salisbury answereth the same argument, and to that part saith, It is a ridiculous inference, for he is a Redeemer and a Savior, not who receiveth redemption and salvation, another's work imputed unto him; but who performeth redemption and salvation by his own effectual work. Therefore we are rightly affirmed redeemed, and saved, from the imputation of this righteousness, but we are called Redeemers by none that are in their right wits. Last of all, that also is to be considered, Christ's righteousness, cannot be imputed to this or that believer according to the whole latitude of its efficacy, but as everyone hath need of it. It is not therefore imputed to Peter a the general price of redemption for all, but as the price by which a soul in particular is redeemed, and by whose merit he in particular is exalted to eternal life. But from such an imputation of this righteousness, it can neither be gathered that we are equal'y as just as Christ, nor at all to be called Redeemers.

If we look on the truth of the righteousness which is imputed to us, we are accounted no less just before God then Christ, and yet we are not Redeemers. See the place.

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

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

Mr. Walker judging the Apostle the best interpreter of himself, argueth for a tropical sense, from Rom. 2. 26. &c. where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be accounted or imputed, is first used. If the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his Uncircumcision be accounted for Cirumcision? from whence he gathereth that as by a double trope (at large explicated) Uncircumcision taking in with it and comprehending the righteousness of the Law shall be accounted and accepted for the state of an holy and righteous man, one circumcised in heart, though he be uncircumci • and in a Gentile outward estate.

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

To this. ( Passing what you say this Scripture would do if managed to throw down his interpretation, and the slight sum of all granted, being but a cipher in your account, apparently such (as you say) because you do but say both.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. There is nothing else can do it saith Mr. W. It is a gracious way satisfying justice, the Apostle saith, the spirit is life, that is, the soul liveth eternally, because of righteousness, the righteousness of Christ imputed, Rom. 8. 10. there by righteousness the Apostle meaneth this same im • uted righteousness which we assert againsi Papists.

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

When as you lay down the manner of either, viz. that Christ justifieth by way of merit, satisfaction, and atone • nent making with God for sin. Here is a truth, but not •• l, for there must be imputation of it, real donation also • f God's part to make us righteous, and faith must concur • ot in a proper sense as accepted for the righteousness of • he Law in it self (as you say) but (as you say also) as it • ringeth us into communion of Christ's perfect righteousness, by • hich saith, (as by an hand receiving riches, riches do • ache rich the receiver) receiving the righteousness of Christ that maketh righteous; faith is as the hand, the • ighteousnesse that which as riches corporal that way, do • ache us thus spiritually rich, that is, righteous in the sight of God. Faith doth it relatively or by a figure not in a proper sense which you stand for: thus much you say, also.

5. When as you say, the Lord hath promised the same reward, • r a greater to those that shall believe in Jesus Christ, then which he hath promised to those that keep his whole Law, disputing against the relative sense for faith in a proper sense. What doth result but the Servetion, Socinian, and Arminian tenet, delivered also by Bertius, faith is accounted for the whole righteousness of the Law which we are bound to perform, which also they attribute to gratuide acceptation.

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

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

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

1. Though faith and Christ's righteousness differ, and are opposed diametrally in your sense and acceptation they are subordinate in Mr. Walkers.

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

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

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

God's people are holy, unreprovable, unblamable in God's sight, perfectly just, can that be without righteousness?

Mr. Bradshaw showeth, that, the proper matter of Justification is justice or innocence not caused or produced by the act of Justification, but existing some way or other before, for a person is not therefore just because he is justified, but he is therefore justified because he is just. The justice of the party justified, being the cause of his justification, and not his justification the cause of his justice.

Papist and Protestant agree in this, the one putting inherent righteousness the formal cause, which being imperfect, is truly rejected by us, and so faith in a proper sense. The other put the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

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

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

That Mr. W. is mistaken you prove.

1. Because it is not said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but without the article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which intimateth he speaketh not here of any particular or special righteous. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fixed in any subject as the righteousness of Christ is.

Here you grant righteousness, whether it be fixed in a subject or not, you seem so at least.

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

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

Thirdly, you answer, The righteousness here imputed is without works, which Christ's is not; works are the essence thereof.

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

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

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

The Church of England saw this, you might have learned it there. Whereas it lay not in us to do, (that was impossible before) he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ, who besides this ransom fulfilled the Law for us perfectly: and from the third of the Rom. 8. & 10. our Church, there must be on Christ's part to justification, justice, that is the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly.

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

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

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

Sect. 14. You argue that if the righteousness God is here said to impute, be the righteousness of Christ, then the description thereof, v. 7. & 8. is impertinent and improper, being laid down, in imputing sins, covering sins, not imputing sins; the imputing of Christ's righteousness in the sense pretended is much more then forgiveness of iniquity or not imputing sin.

For answer. You must prove that forgiveness of sins, &c. are the description of that righteousness imputed. It is but begged.

Imputation of righteousness is not the same with forgiveness of sins. It is more, it is the cause of remission of sins, this an effect of righteousness imputed. This righteousness imputed bringeth forgiveness with it, covers sin, making the believer in that respect blessed.

Remission of sins is caused by perfect righteousness imputed.

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

Yea, remission of sins is an effect of Justification. Pardon is neither the whole nor any essential part of Justification, but only a contingent effect of it.

Finally you say, God's imputing righteousness (in this place) is meant only his justifying of men, or (as Mr. W. p. 10.) a dealing with men according as if they were righteous.

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

To that which followeth I may say, that, to impute righteousness is not the description of the act of absolution. It is an effect following on that, upon imputation of righteousness, not imputation of sin followeth and no condemnation.

The same may be said to what is alleged out of the 11. verse. being justified, and righteousness imputed differ as the cause and the effect. Imputation goeth before remission as a cause, and is necessarily pre-required.

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

From thence Tossanus giveth to us as Saint Paul's Thereme. Whence Paul layeth down that Theoreme. Our righteousness not to be moral virtue or habitual justice, as with the Pharisees the Pontificians would have it; but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

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

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

Though God's imputing righteousness justifieth; yet these differ as cause and effect as hath been shown. And

When you say they understand not the righteousness of Christ. It is apparently against all Protestant writers, who teach the righteousness of Christ to be that which is imputed, and not faith in a proper sense, as also from this that they denying the proper sense, are for the relative and improper sense.

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

Who also addeth, But there is in the words an Hypallage, (a figure so called) for God is properly said to impute righteousness by faith as the Apostle by and by speaketh, verse. 6. & 11. But what is understood by the word righteousness, we have expounded before, against the Sophisters; above, cap. 1. v. 17. & 3. 20.

When Bellarmine said, our Adversaries (Protestants) could never hitherto find a place in the Scriptures or Fathers, where it is read that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us for righteousness, or that we be just by the imputed obedience of Christ, therefore this is false. Pareus answereth.

The Antecedent is false, for it is expressly read, To him that believeth, his faith is imputed; • nd by and by, Blessed is he to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. That these are equipollent to the Apostle, is so evident that it cannot be denied: therefore they are equivalent, faith to be imputed to righteousness, and righteousness to be imputed without works. It is therefore evidently found, righteousness, by which we believers are justified, to be imputed unto us from God, or to be imputed righteousness. Whose this righteousness is, the same Apostle expoundeth in the following chap. 5. 19. Now our Adversarie (Bellarmine) hath where we have read it, from thence thus, (we reason) Righteousness by which believers are justified, is imputed unto us from God, Rom. 4. 5, 6. the righteousness by which we believers are justified, is the righteousness or obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19. therefore the righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us of God.

The same learned man, Neither is it anything that the Apostle said not, he is happy to whom God imputeth the righteousness of Christ; but absolutely, to whom God imputeth righteousness: for imputed righteousness is rightly called the righteousness of Christ, because Christ acquired it by his obedience—I, it is expressly called the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 5. 18, 19. The same Pareus, justitia imputata Christi justitia dicitur, imputed righteousness is called Christ's righteousness.

Our Ames. We read everywhere in Paul, that we are made just and justified by Christ, by Christ's death, blood, redemption, obedience, and righteousness, and that righteousness to be imputed to us of God without works.

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

I will end this with that learned Doctor of our Church, Doctor Whitaker, to Dureus, saying, our Doctrine of imputative putative righteousness to be against the word.

Thus you speak like a Jesuit, but what doth the Scripture more celebrate? Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. a clear text for it, so that there being more then one such Interpreters, you may believe it.

When Musculus saith, the righteousness of God which is freely imputed, is not to impute sin; He intendeth not that they be formally one and the same, but in the effect, this as an effect followeth that; so doth he call remission of sins our righteousness, as Mr. W. citeth him, p. 348. the book is not in mine hands.

Sect. 15. Mr. Walkers fourth argument runs thus, summed up by it self. Whatsoever is here said to be imputed, is, that which serves for righteousness to justification. Christ's righteousness is that which serves for righteousness to justification, Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8, 4. Rom. 10, 4. Ergo, it is that which under the name of faith is said to be imputed.

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

You add, Though nothing but the righteousness or satisfaction of Christ will serve meritoriously unto justification. Several things do ministerially, the Word, the Minister, and so faith in Christ, &c.

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

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

Truly in Justification such a formal cause is to be put, which withal may be the meritorious cause: for unless it contain that worth in it self, for which a man may be rightly accounted justified, it will never be the formal cause by which a man stands justified in the sight of God.

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

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

To omit that faith is not the righteousness of Christ urged, Rom. 5. 19. nor righteousness in which a man can stand before God, be made just, said to be holy and unreprovable, and unblamable in God's sight, perfected forever, as the man is that is justified, or otherwise then taken in a Relative sense to the object thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no such implication. That is necessarily implied by God's declaration, for God cannot give testimony contrary to what a man is indeed, God cannot lie, his judgment is according to truth, and so his testimony; the visor troubleth you. You proceed.

Neither doth that Scripture prove that heterogeneall conclusion, it doth not import any testimony from God of his personal righteousness or justified estate before God, but only the righteousness of the particular act.

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

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

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

And for your appeal to the strong savor of Socinianism in the beginning of his fifth argument, you speak of, you neither there nor here doc show in what that ranknesse lieth. There, if you remember, it had such a Uisor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell what the face of it is, or its complexion.

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

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

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

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

You add, entire obedience to the whole Law was required of Adam, but not to believe in Christ, the Law not being of faith, Gal. 3. 12.

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

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

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

They take faith in Christ to be a special part of internal worship, such as when I perform it to Christ, I perform it not to him alone, but to God, not only himself, but the other persons. He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me.

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

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

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

Again, that that Grace is but one, and so that it is but the Some faith by which we believe in Christ and God. Yea that grace, without which other graces required are not. That radical grace, without which other graces and their works cannot be such as God requireth, such hope, such love, such fear, such joy, such prayer, such praise, as God requireth suitable to him as a God in covenant and a Father, without which they cannot please God, neither aim at or attain God's ends, should not be excluded; the Law that requireth those graces else and their works, requireth that faith; and that, if faith in Christ he not required in the Law, infidelity will not be sin, neither can it condemn him that is under the same.

That the rule of faith, &c. is God's will contained in his word, and that the manner of worship and faith is ordinarily given to the second Commandment.

For Adam in innocence, there might be a bond on him to believe in Christ, though not as a Lamb and slain, but as only Mediator between God and man for eternal life. I am sure he was ever the beire and Lord of life, and that eternal life was forever in him.

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

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

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

So saith he in this cause to that Arminian Prince Bertius, Faith as a work appertaineth to the first Commandment, neither canst thou evade it. Thou must say us to be justified by a work of the Law, if thou shalt affirm us justified by faith as a work of ours. He goeth on.

Great Zanchius proveth our opinion. By the word Law he understandeth all which the Law requireth, but that requireth not only external works, but chiefly internal renovation, circumcision of the heart, the Love of God, (note it) faith. When as therefore the Scripture saith we are justified by the grace of God, and not by the Law, he excludeth all renovation, and all internal, and external good action of ours from the office of justifying, and ascribeth it only to free grace.

It is true, the Law of works requires saith.

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

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

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

Quest. 3. You demand how Mr. Walker proves that the righteousness imputed to Abraham was perfect conformity to the Law.

I suppose it is evident, because conformity to the Law is in the definition of righteousness, which if it be not perfect, hath need of pardon, cannot procure it of the Lord, cannot bear a man ou • in God's sight, cannot afford peace with God, or conscience; can never make a man holy, unblamable, unreprovable in the sight of God; white as Snow, and whiter then the Snow; perfect him forever; all which are true of Abraham by the righteousness which was imputed, and so is it of the Church by God's word.

As righteousness was imputed to him, Rom. 4. v. 6. 11. so it was perfect conformity to God's Law, which Christ's righteousness is, not faith in a proper sense.

Quest. 4. How doth it follow that God must needs err, lie, or judge unrighteously, if he imputeth righteousness without works?

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

Quest. 5. How Mr. Walker proves that the imputation of faith for righteousness maketh the satisfaction of Christ and his perfect fulfilling of the Law a vain and needless thing, which Mr. Goodwin conceiveth it establisheth both the one and the other.

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

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

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

This Thesis of thine (saith Sybrandus ) is a reason why I may conclude (if yet you will be like ourselves) you must at length come to this, that with Servetus and Socinus, &c. ye altogether take away the merit or satisfaction made for us, and say Christ neither to have brought forth righteousness to us, nor us to be justified by his righteousness imputed unto us—For to what end is the righteousness of Christ, if it hath not in it force of Justifying, and if it justify us not? Which (say I) it cannot, if faith in a proper sense be imputed for righteousness.

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

Quest. 6. How Mr. Walker can bring it about that the making of Christ's satisfaction ou • s, as truly as if we had performed the same in our own persons, should be a means whereby God is revealed infinitely just, wise, and merciful? Mr. G. conceiveth that insufficient, because a man having sinned could not be justified by personal performance of the Law.

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

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

3. When as Mr. Walker putteth Christ's righteousness, his meaning is his perfect obedience to the Law, our full debt Active and Passive righteousness, wherein satisfaction for sin is infoulded, so that the person is wholly fair; God seen to be just, merciful, and wise, this is sufficient.

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

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

2. Though justice leadeth to the offender, and not to the innocent party, here it cannot be so, the case is altened, the L. Christ cannot be said to be innocent, but as our Surety a sinner, our sins being on his score. He voluntarily accepted it, and undertook eternally to give these eternal life. So is he proposed to us since the fall by God himself, his taking our nature, doing all righteousness, and doing for us, proclaim the same, that he was a Surety, in this name he must fulfill all righteousness. He must die, it was his meat and drink to do, and he offered up himself. God spared not his Son, at his command the sword ar • se and smote Christ, the man that is God's fellow, he declared himself righteous.

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

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

1. He might well so think of Master Wotton, who though he acknowledgeth uinon, and that by the Spirit; yet he saith we make one body with Christ, not indeed, and properly, but improperly, and by a certain similitude.

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

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

3. The fellowship you affirm is not to fellowship with the righteousness of Christ, but the effect thereof or return, pardon, which is not all.

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

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

No man is ignorant but that by a figure called Metonymia, that is given to the instrument which doth belong to that which the instrument subserveth: as if you affirm the Pencell to white the wall, all understand this to be spoken by a Metonymy, that is given to the Pencell which belongeth to the matter, whiting.

This he showeth out of Ursinus. It is commonly said we are justified by faith correlatively, that is, we are justified by that which is correlative to faith, forsooth by the merit of Christ to which it is referred, or which faith doth apprehend: for faith and the satisfaction of Christ are correlatives, as the receiver and that which is received. But then we speak rightly, because then faith is understood of the formal cause of Justification: and the sense is, the merit of Christ doth justify, not faith. That which is apprehended justifieth, not the instrument apprehending. But justification is also without relation rightly given to faith, as to an instrumental cause. We are justified by faith, that is by faith as by a means: for usually the effect of the efficient cause, is given to the instrument. But when it is said. Faith is imputed to him for righteousness, and other such propositions, they are necessarily to be understood only correlatively, so faith is the instrument of righteousness apprehended, and as it were the hand by which the righteousness of Christ is received. So the learned man Ursinus. But to the next Question.

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

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

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

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

I do not detract it (Justification) from the blood and death of Christ, but I give it to the blood of Christ, so far forth as his blood and death work in us those things for which God doth justify us, forsooth faith.

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

5. God's bringing many sons to glory, and to save what should be lost by Christ's satisfaction of his justice was God's eternal and immutable purpose. The glory of justice and mercy God's main ends required it; as Christ did in time, God determined eternally: thus eternal will determined it self, and to consider otherwise is but the work of idle brain, there is no reality in the Lord to answer it.

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

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

When as God accepts Christ's righteousness for the debt of a believer, and imputeth it to him, that righteousness is not the believers personal righteousness, that is righteousness performed in his own person, so no flesh living can be justified in God's sight; but the righteousness of Christ his Surety, his Head, his by real union and communion, as if it were personal righteousness: the Sureties payment of a debt for the principal is all one as if the principal did himself make satisfaction to the Creditor.

Quest. 12. Where Christ's righteousness is denied to be the the righteousness of a true believer? I answer, where you deny Christ's righteousness to be imputed for righteousness, and to be that whereby we are made just before God: for those words formally I find not Mr. W. to contend about them, neither are men denominated ever from what is internal and such a form. It may be from that which is outward, as Doctor Davenant largely answereth the Pontificians. Neither is it enough that Christ's righteousness is a meritorious cause of justification, it must be so applied by faith that the believer may be thereby made righteous, which is denied where there is no imputation thereof for righteousness. The word saith he is holy, unreprovable, unblamable in the sight of God, which cannot be but as by that which hath merit and worth, so applied and made mine; all the money in the world will not enrich any man until it be his, enjoyed to that end. But to that which is a common evasion to you and Romanists in this controversy, making Christ only the efficient and meritorious cause, more after in due place, where I shall show Mr. G. sense Apocryphal, Popish, con • uted by our learned Protestant • , answering them.

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

And why Sir, should not that fit all which is the Son of God's fulfilling all righteousness? when as by it all are perfectly righteous that believe, men, women, of all statures and conditions.

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

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

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

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

Quest. 14. To the fourteenth▪ that which Mr. Walker saith overthroweth the satisfaction of Christ, hath this reason, that if we satisfy God's justice by our Surety Christ there is no Pardon, for pardon and satisfaction are contraries, so Mr. W. So some of the stamp, Mr. Wr. disputeth against. In this you are as a Socraticall disputant, wisely too, as in all that kind of answer to Mr. Walkers reasons.

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

Quest. 15. To the fifteenth, It is monstrous to reason to deny Legal righteousness to justification, seeing Justification is a making man just.

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

That Justification (and in that name) should consist only in remission of sins, excluding the righteousness of Christ imputed is as unreasonable, it is without the cause by which. You tell us you have handled it at large, but not where one may meet with it, had it been put here it should have been considered. The joint testimony of many a worthy Divine is but set us a Wooll-gathering.

For Calvin it shall be tried. I believe you mention him as Mr. Wotton doth the Church of England. He going about to prove Remission of sins to be the formal cause of Justification, triumpheth in the judgment of the Church of England.

It saith, Justification is remission of sins; and this Justification or justice is received, accepted, and approved of God for our full and perfect Justification. To which he addeth, In which words the whole nature of Justification is comprehended, only in remission of sins, and that it is affirmed the full and perfect Justification of God himself accepting it in judgment: and then addeth, neither is there in the two other parts of that Sermon, a syllable or letter which signifieth anything to be wanting, or to be repugnant to this opinion. So he.

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

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

But to Calvin, I grant he saith, Justification consists alone in remission of sins, and that we are not otherwise made just. And yet I assert, that in the exclusive he did not shut out the imputation of Christ's righteousness; but only renovation, inherent righteousness and good works. So to show it he inferreth, for if they should be esteemed by works, he disputeth against the Popish opinion, not against imputation of Christ's righteousness, and for both, read the 23. Sect. where you shall find his dispute to be against works, in these words.

That vain conceit vanisheth, that a man is therefore justified by faith, because by that he partaketh the Spirit of God whereby he is made just; which is more contrary to the former doctrine, then that it can be reconciled. He excludeth works not the righteousness of Christ. One place more there.

It cannot be doubtful but he wanteth righteousness of his own that is taught to seek it out of himself: where urging the text, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he addeth.

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

And speaking of Rom 8. 3. saith. And it maketh nothing to the contrary, that in another place, he teacheth that sin was condemned of sin in the flesh of Christ, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Where he meaneth no other fulfilling, then that which we obtain by imputation. For the L. Christ doth in such sort communicate his righteousness with us, that after a certain marvelous manner, be poureth the force thereof into us, so much as appertaineth to the judgment of God. It appeareth he did no otherwise mean by the other sentence which he had spoken a little before. As by the disobedience of one man we were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are justified. What is it else to set our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but to affirmthathereby only we are accounted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed unto us, as if it were our own. Therefore me thinks that Ambrose hath excellently well shown how there is an example of this rightousnesse in the blessing of Jacob: for Jacob not having of himself deserved the preeminence of the first begotten son, hid himself in the apparel of his brother, and being clothed with his brothers coat that savoured of a most sweet smell, he crept into the favor of his father, and received the blessing to his own commodity under the person of another: so we do lie hid under the precious pureness of Christ our elder brother, that we may get a testimony of righteousness in the sight of God.—And truly so it is, for that we may appear before the face of God unto salvation, it is necessary for us to smell sweetly with his Odor, and to have our faults covered and buried with his perfection. So Calvin.

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

When Mr. Wotton had forced Calvin, yet he confesseth; There are yet that think that the righteousness which is required to justification, by Calvin to be also placed in imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Of this number is Bellarmine himself, who wrote thus of Calvin. John Calvin truly admitteth with the Lutherans, that there is not us any inherent righteousness, and Christ's righteousness to be imputed, and for it sins to be forgiven. And after:

Calvin when in his Institutions and Antidote he contendeth justification to be placed in remission of sins, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but internal renovation and sanctification. And he reprehendeth the same Calvin, because he maketh a double formal cause of justification.

And now for Pareus, give me leave to show his judgment of Calvin in this matter. When as Bellarmine urged Calvin, as you do to the same end, Pareus answereth.

But that vain wrangler (Bellarmine) argueth himself of Calumny, for above he did confess that Calvin did not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And here again once more he confesseth Calvin with the Lutherans to acknowledge the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and not imputation of sins. If therefore Calvin did place justification in remission of sins, and did not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; what doth he dissent from the Lutherans?

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

But in saying this, he doth dissent neither from himself, nor from Luther, Melancthon, or any other Protestant: for that particle Alone, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which thing Bellarmine confessed, but it excludeth renovation, which those of Trent require in their definition with remission of sins to justification. In this respect also Luther doth plan justification only in remission and not imputation of sinnet— Melancthon also—so Martyr; thus Pareus.

Doctor Dounbam may be added. For though many of our Divines as hath been said have taught, that unto justification remission of sins is only required: yet their assertion it to be understood as Bellar. himself understandeth Calvin, as spoken in opposition to Papists, who say that to justification concur, not only remission of sins, but also inward renovation, or sanctification. To contradict them our Divines have said that we are justified by remission only, or not imputing of sin. Wherewith always concurreth imputation of righteousness, and not by renovation or sanctification. Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle Only, was not to exclude imputation of righteousness, which inseparably accompanieth not imputation of sin or Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellar. himself confesseth, but infusion of righteousness or renovation.

Doctor Davenant answering Bell. The fourth be repeateth is Calvin's, who (as he (Bellarmine) saith) teacheth the formal cause of justification to be placed only in remission of sins. But no man is ignorant that Calvin requireth imputation of the obedience of Christ, without which no remission of sins is obtained. If therefore one had sought of Calvin what that is, for which, and by which, a wicked man is justified: he had answered, for and by the merit of the Son of God, this is the cause of remission, and the cause of acceptation, this is the cause of translation from the state of death to the state of life. God respecting this obedience and righteousness of his Son, a • apprehended of us by saith, from the beginning receiveth us into the state of justified ones. God always beholding this same righteousness given unto us and applied, in the remaining course of our life, accounteth us for justified ones.

Chamier to Bellar. Objecting as you do, first answereth out of Bellar. himself, then out of Calvin, Instit. l. 3. c. 12. Sect. 2. to which he addeth, What can be more manifest? and Sect. 3. to which he saith, Could anything more be said against that figment of Bellarmine? Again he proveth the same. We are sure that cannot first be (that we be not accounted sinners) without imputation of the righteousness of Christ; thence the words of Calvin, he doth absolve us by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

And before, We (Protestants) do altogether conceive the imputation of the righteousness of Christ the foundation of the same justification, which being neglected, that is altogether none at all, neither in whole nor in part, howsoever it may be conceived as much as in thought.

I will add another witness for Calvin, Polanus. Now if any man will say that the found Teachers, Calvin; and others, do affirm that justice or righteousness is the forgiveness of sins. And again, that justice consisteth in remission of sins, we must know that it is very certain they speak metonymically, meaning so as that either justice in their writings, is the same that justification, because we cannot be justified but by justice, or else that justice is said to be the remission of sins, because justice is the cause of remission or forgiveness of sins; and that Calvin doth speak by Metonymia, is plain out of other places of his works, as l. 3. Instit. c. 17. Sect. 8.— And so in another place he plainly proveth that by, through, and for Christ's righteousness we obtain forgiveness of sins: and c. 3. Sect. 19. having obtained forgiveness of sins by means of Christ's righteousness coming between—and more plainly, c. 14. Sect. 12. and c. 11. Sect. 1. and c. 14. Sect. 13. man being covered with the righteousness of Christ pleaseth God and obtaineth forgiveness of sins.

So that if Calvin himself, and all these worthies are to be credited, nay Bellarmine and Mr. Wotton themselves, you wrong Calvin, and hence the places you talk of out of other Divines may receive their answer.

Quest. 16. To the sixteenth question, where the words are, &c. and that you cannot find in Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 4. Rom. 10. 4. so much as one express word either of the communication, much less of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction to us, least of all of their being made formally righteous by such imputation.

To this, first yourself grant (you say) we are justified formally too, by the communication of Christ's righteousness to us in a sense, viz. in as much as we obtain by such communication remission of sins which is our formal justification (with you;) so that the thing is in a sense, though not in express words, and you see it too.

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

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

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

5. But to those texts what you cannot see others have, and you might, had you received counsel of some dead and living still: that is, consulted with the the learned, the words Rom. 5. 19. that by the obedience of one many shall be constituted righteous. Here is righteousness constituting righteons, and then formal, for it is the nature of the form to constitute.

I know not what you can except but that the form is internal, and that what is external cannot be so termed, and hence it is that you so often put in (that sophistical term, as ours answer the Papists in the same controversy) formally: and if that will not serve your turn, as was shown you at Cheswicke out of Doctor Davenant, indeed, put a man constituted by righteousness, righteous, if it be not by his own personal righteousness, it must be by another's, Christ's. The place that was then read unto you was:

We grant that the form of Justification by which a justified person is non only reputed and denominated before God, but made or constituted so. But because he is said to be justified by a passive denomination (as it is known out of Grammar it self) It is not absolutely necessary that this denomination be taken either from an inberent form, or that it should suppose an inherent form: for such passive denominations sometimes respect in an inherent form, as when we say the wall to be whited: and sometimes not, as when we say a man to be beloved honored, condemned, absolved. For all these are truly spoken of him in whom there is not found an inherent form which may be ground for such denominations. William of Paris noted this Passive denominations or predications are made in things in which they are not, in them, or to them, or of them. Where he citeth Vasques the Jesuit rejecting that kind of argument as weak and unprofitable. Saying,

I will not fight against this kind of denomination with a certain kind of common argument which some use, forsooth that this denomination of a just man seemeth to be of these, which require an internal form. And by and by, A thing may be said to be just by that which is external and another's righteousness.

And Chamier. Everyone that is just is so said indeed from righteousness, not necessarily from what is inherent; there is imputed righteousness, there is righteousness of such as are compared Ezek. 16. an evil day, as of Jacob, and Ephes. 5. because of those which are done in them, as out of Chrysostom.

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

Sir, I suppose you intend not that I must find your term formally, and in the letter and formality, enough of that but now, and that if I find it the Pelagian heresy to deny Adams posterity to be made sinners by Adams sin imputed to them, it will satisfy your question. For that see Uossius.

That I might meet with them both, I have shown how truly Vincentius Lirinensis in times past wrote, that there was none before Celestius that prodigious Disciple of Pelagius, that did deny whole mankind to be bound by the guilt of the sin of Adam.

The Pelagians did deny Adams sin to be imputed to posterity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For (saith Doctor Whitaker) his will was ours, and therefore his transgression is ours: because he is not considered as one man, but as the root of mankind, in which we all were virtually included, and as Augustine saith, we all were that one man.

For neither should we • e held either with any guilt or iniquity contracted therehence, unless that act by which Adam violated God's precept, should be, by imputation, ascribed to us.

Here you see, in the doctrine of this great Divine, is the act and guilt, both, and if there were no more but imputation of that act, here is enough to clear God's justice in destruction of babes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearken and learn. Junius speaking of the covenant of grace, saith, whose condition is found out of us in Christ, and there he saith, that by that apprehended by faith we are just, &c.

Faith is wont to be considered two ways, in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers, properly according to the nature of faith simply, another figuratively, that is, by a metalepsis, and correlatively, as faith apprehendeth the object, &c. in the last sense it is said alone to justify.

Our justification is not with the condition of faith, as faith is an habit in us, but as out of us it appprehendeth Christ.

When as faith is an instrument, it is no wonder if, which is the nature of instruments, the name and office of the thing whose instrument it is, be given unto it.

Christ as to be applied, is the condition of the covenant.

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

Hence Bucanus. And how is faith imputed to righteousness? not absolutely, but relatively, because faith not alone, but with his crucified object is understood, as an hand which receiveth a treasure given, doth not make rich, but the treasure.

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

Therefore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart of the true Christian, is the true Christian righteousness, for the which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal life.

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

Hence we have first in what sense we give justification to faith, forsooth so far as it embraceth Christ and applieth him▪ Whence Beza calleth it, that only instrument by which we apprehend Christ offered, the only vessel provided to receive him. And after, when as out of Paul we affirm us to be justified, only by faith, or by faith, or without works, (for these are of the same signification) this saying is not so to be understood, as if we said faith to be a certain virtue which justifieth us in ourselves before God; for that were to substitute faith in the place of Jesus Christ who alone is our perfect and whole righteousness. But we so speak with the Apostle, and we say we are justified by faith alone, because it doth embrace him, who doth justify us, that is, Jesus Christ, with whom it doth unite and couple us that we may be partakers both of him and all his goods, which indeed beingimputed to us altogether suffice to this that we may be absolved before God, and be accounted for just men.

Where he citeth Bell. also, laying down the state of the question, who giveth to Protestants.— Which grace faith by believing receiveth: as when a poor man receiveth an alms of a rich man with his hand, that hand receiving the alms, is not the alms it self, nor the efficient cause of the alms, nor for it—but it only concurreth relatively to obtain the alms, because to give and receive are relates.

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

It ought rather to be named relatively, that is, so far forth as faith is considered with its object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter amongst the Fathers. We have elsewhere evicted the place, to be interpreted of Christ whom Peters faith confessed.

Junius, But correlatively as they speak, as it apprehendeth the merit of Christ as the hand of a beggar doth the alms.

To conclude, that we may expound this metonymy by as evident a similitude as we may; faith is as it were the hand, or as the purse apprehending the treasure of grace, which God giveth to us in Jesus Christ.

Peter Martyr, And also faith it self, if it be considered as it is our work, we cannot be justified by it, seeing it is a work both lame and imperfect, far worse then he requireth. But we say we are justified by it as we apprehend and apply the promises of God and Christ's righteousness & merits.

We answer, that which we have often elsewhere said, faith as it is a work doth not justify; for it hath that not from any strength of its own, but from its object. For, from the death of Christ, the promises of God, righteousness is derived to us. So the beggar receiveth an alms with a leprous hand, or that which is bloody, yet not as he hath an hand so infirm and leprous.—Faith was made and instituted of God to this use.

This Sir is the Protestant tenet, as faith taketh in the object it is a condition, and so it justifieth; rejecting this, you desert them, and join with the Papists, and Arminians, who calling faith a condition performed, an instrument: they allow it an instrument in a proper sense as you. Yet add not as if faith performed were made an instrument properly, or as an instrumental action, by which as with an hand we apprehend and draw to us remission: those are toys.

Neither is there fear of his agreement with Jews, Pagans, and Mohammedans, concurring with him in this that faith in Christ (as hath been said) is the condition of justification.

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

Truly the Protestant Church dareth . no more to oppose such a formal cause of justification to the judgment of God, then stubble to the fire: but it believeth she is justified freely by imputed righteousness, for the merits of Christ.

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

My next task is to examine your arguments, Mr. Wrs. answer, &c. And here passing the entrance in which there is much very unsavory, with collateral impertinencies, which yourself rightly conceive, are but the crude and indigested ebullitions of unnatural heat and passion; indeed vain-glorious babbling, deserving rather pity, then examination, or as much as reading.

And come to the arguments.

The sum of your first argument as you give it, is. Imputation of faith is in a proper sense, because the phrase is so often used in this chapter without alteration or exchange: whereas the imputation of Christ's righteousness hath not the least relief either from sound of words or sight of letter in the Scriptures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there not ground when as hereby God is declared just in justification? which justice faith in a proper sense, destroyeth, as Mr. Forbs, and before, seeing faith in it self is to divine judgment but as stubble to fire; needeth a covering, and must be justified as well as the person and other works. Here is the Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, the just for the unjust. What do you but not submit to the righteousness of Christ, that which is by faith, and establish a work, your own work, so is faith?

We clear that place against Papists, as before, so doth Calvin, as in Bellarmine. We answer thus to the Papist.

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

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

That for which, or the scope of the Law, the fulfilling of it. The Law therefore hath this end, that those that do the Law and live rightly should be justified. That end Christ alone attained, and we attain it when as we apprehend him by faith. So in Christ there is given and performed true righteousness which the Law required, so we believe in him, as the Apostle saith, To everyone that believeth: for truly righteousness is offered to all, but given and imputed only to believers. Where also he saith, nothing imperfect or lame can be called the righteousness of God justifying.

But these things diligently considered manifestly show what is understood by the word the justice of God. Forsooth that perfect and most high integrity of the human nature, with which everyone is endowed (but it is given to them that believe in him, who is absolutely endowed with this integrity according to the flesh for our sakes, as it shall be afterwards declared.) He is presented before God as the Apostle speaketh, holy, unblamable, and unreprovable. That therefore is said to be the justice of God, not only because it is the free gift of God, or because God in giving his showeth himself truly just (that is faithful and true) but also that it may be opposed to the righteousness of men, or of works, by which David testifieth no man can be justified.

Sect. 17. But to the second Argument (passing bitter and vain words not a few) which saith, the scope of the Apostle is to put men by the false way of justification which lies through works, and to discover the true way, that is to make known what they must do, what he requires of them to justification, and will accept of them instead of the works of the Law; and that is it which he here saith is imputed for righteousness. Now faith in the proper and formal signification is that which they must do, &c. and therefore is faith in a proper sense to be accounted for righteousness.

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

To this you answer, that Christ calleth faith a work, John 6. 29. this is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent.

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

Then a man should be justified by a work, which is denied by many other plain Scriptures, yourself acknowledging it a false way, and the word, not of works of righteousness which we have done, Tit. 3. 5. of which place Sybrandus answering Bertius your Arminian Prince objecting the same text saith, that speech of the Apostle (not of works of righteousness which we have done) is most firm: your interpretation then must be false, who also there cite Calvinus (of Papists:) the words at full are these.

At the last when they are weary of wresting the Scripture they fall to subtleties and sophistical arguments. They cavil upon this, that faith is in some places called a work, that we do wrongfully set faith as contrary to works. As though forsooth faith in that it is an obeying of the will of God, doth with her own deserving procure unto us righteousness, and not rather because by embracing the mercy of God, it sealeth to our hearts the righteousness of Christ offered to us by him in the preaching of the Gospel.

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

The Lord there calleth for faith in the object himself, who is the end of the Law for righteousness, as but now: Which the Law not being able to fit us with, we have from Christ. Faith in the relative sense, as Sybr. there both out of Melancthon and Calvin. Hearken to the Homily. So that as John The Baptist although he were never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiveness of sin, he did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold yonder is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world: even so us great and as godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from it self and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ saith unto us as it were thus. It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I send you for that purpose.

Faith thus considered, though but as a leprous and weak hand, may do the same, so that still you are entangled by your proper sense of faith.

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

As if the Apostle only disputed against their merit or opinion of deserving, we know they deserve not, and must have pardon themselves. The dispute is against them simply as causes, to keep this crown on the head of Christ alone, which that leprous hand faith and act of receiving doth, without opposition to God's free grace or Christ's righteousness; thus faith establisheth grace and the righteousness of Christ to God's justice, Rom. 3. 24, 25, &c. and the Law to boot, verse. ult.

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

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

Before I go on, those words are considerable. Surely to serve, worship, and believe in Jesus Christ as Mediator, are just and lawful, yet no works of the moral Law, nor was Adam in his innocence bound unto them?

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

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

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

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

3. Whether as Mediator he be not to be worshipped? and whether it be not God's Commandment through the word in all times, as he was made known in the same under the notion of an Angel, God's Son, &c. by obedience, faith, hope, love, fear, joy, subjection, prayer, and praise; and now with the observation of the Lord's day, our Christian Sabbath to his his honor, and righteousness, Rom. 14. 18. his service: and whether these be, or which are, or which not moral?

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

5. Whether if it be not in the moral Law, it falleth under the Judicial Law, or Ceremonial Law, or be a Counsel, or is the Gospel a Law?

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

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

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

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

10. Whether those words, I am the Lord thy God, prefixed to the Commandments, be not the tenor of God's covenant in Christ, to which there must be a suitable answer?

11. Whether any Commandment in the decalogue hath more requisites of a moral Law, then faith and worship of Christ as Mediator?

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

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

I find it written that all should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, and that he that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent him, John 5. 23. And, Yet believe in God, believe in me also, John 14. 1. And that, Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me, John 12. 44. I find that in righteousness, the grace and works of righteousness, Christ is served, Rom. 14. 18, 18. I find that as grace is from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 3. so that the glory of it appertaineth to both.

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

For we who have known but one faith out of the Apostle, Eph. 4. 5. do also acknowledge God only the one term of our faith: and we believe in Christ because he is God, for the same cause altogether as in the Father; so that Christ as we believe in him, is with the Father the proper and primary object of faith that saveth. For though in the Creed we profess distinctly we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet we have not those three distinct persons for three different or divers objects of saving faith. Notwithstanding we confess faith to be due to Christ, as to our only Prophet, Priest, and King, not one because of his office, and another by reason of his person, but one and the same, by which he that receiveth Christ, receiveth him that sent him, Matth. 10. 40. Therefore Peter teacheth us by Christ to believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. In which place he showeth the last object or term of our faith to be God, from whom Christ is distinguished, not in nature, but by reason of his office, as God in the last times spake to us by his Son, Heb. 1. 1.— Where there is no difference of faith, but one faith, which first directed to Christ God-man promiseth to it self all best things of the Father for Christ's sake, in whom otherwise out of Christ we should not believe to salvation; therefore is he called the Author and finisher of our faith by the Apostle, Heb. 12. 1. Therefore there is one faith by which we embrace the Father and Christ, which the same Apostle, Heb. 6. 1. calleth faith in God.

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

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

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

Another thing Mr. Walker excepteth against, is that you say. God doth not require of us the righteousness of Christ to Justification, this be required of Christ himself. To which you say, that before Mr. W. showeth the grossness of this error, himself drops two gross errors indeed.

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

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

Neither doth he deny faith required as a condition in a sense, Relatively, or as the hand and instrument receiving Christ's righteousness to justification. He denieth it as our work, for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law to justification.

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

He (say you) drops a second error more gross then the former, saying, that faith is a qualification to us for the receiving, applying, and enjoying Christ's righteousness, that is, faith is a qualification to us for believing; for what is the receiving, applying, and enjoying the righteousness of Christ, but believing as before observed?

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

2. To say that a man may receive, that is, apply and enjoy the righteousness, which receiving is believing, he must be qualified, is no more then to say, he must have a power that he may do; be habitually disposed, that he may act, which is so far from being an error, that it is impossible that a man should believe, receive, or apply in this kind without faith.

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

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

But let us return to what Mr. Walker taxed, that is, You said, God required not of us the righteousness of Christ for justification; this (you say) Mr. Walker calls a gross error, and instead of proof, complaineth of it as an harsh, unsavory, and absurd phrase: and that to justify his complaint, he saith God requires not the righteousness of Christ, but of Christ himself, implying he had need.

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

2. It is true, he calleth God's requiring of us the righteousness of Christ for justification, absurd, &c. which he showeth, and you touch not: see the place.

3. I suppose what you infer as his proof thereof is not so, nor to that end intended, but a plain passing to it (as he conceived) a gross error, and so your jests p. 70. fail, are but irrelativenesse and impertinencies.

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

But to the business, God required not of us the righteousness of Christ for justification. This he required of Christ himself: so you. This last he calleth an error indeed, There he putteth an Accent. This saith Mr. Wr. implieth Christ had need of justification, and was bound to fulfill the Law for himself, and savoreth of Socinian and Samosatenian heresy, which denies Christ's Godhead; for if Christ's human nature being from the first conception most pure, upright, and holy, was personally united to his Godhead, and so the Son of God, and heir of all things; Who can doubt but in himself he was worthy of all glory, at God's right hand from his birth: as his taking of our nature upon him, was altogether for us: so his infirmities, sufferings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousness and obedience to the whole Law was for us, and for all the elect, who of old believed in him to come for them, who do now believe in him exalted to glory according to his humanity. To think or say that he had need to justify himself, and to merit by his righteousness the state of glory, is in effect to deny he was God, infinitely worthy of all glory as he was the only begotten Son of God and Heir of all things. Thus Mr. Walker.

Here we must lay aside laughing irrelativenesse and impertinencies.

What say you to this? It seemeth a gross error by what is said.

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

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

How he can prove that Christ had no need of justification? Surely Christ was a justified or righteous person in the sight of God, this justification was not superfiuous, or no wise useful to him; and what is not superfluous, we men of the lower form of learning judge to be some ways needful.

1. Mr. Walker answereth, if justification be forgiveness and pardon of sin only, (as you elsewhere say) when as he is said to have need of justification, he is infoulded a sinner, to have need of remission of sins. Which if it be too too gross, by it may be proved that he needed not justification for himself.

Yea, to be in need of forgiveness of sins, and so righteous a person as you speak, are pugnantia secum frontibus adversis, a contradiction.

But it seemeth as he was a righteous person, that was not superfluous, therefore some ways needful.

You must say for himself. But he needed it not for himself being God's Son, God blessed forever, and comprehensor from the first moment of his conception by personal union with the holy Ghost. It was needful then for us. He was our Surety, and in that respect they might be needful for us, though not for himself else.

Being our Surety, what was our debt must be paid, it was necessary to our life; our debt was perfect obedience to God's Law. It was also death, the wages of our sins, to free us from death he must die, and he must fulfill the Law, that we may live, by the whole we come to be wholly fair, holy, unreprovable, and unblamable in his sight, complete.

I conceive our election to salvation was by and in him before the world as our Mediator and Surety, and we made accepted in him God's beloved one. That he was verily ordained before the foundation of the world, such, but manifested in the last times (a Lamb without blemish or spot) for us who by him due belteve in God. He was set for our rising, sent to and for us. Raised up an horn of salvation for us, borne to us, given to us. When the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a Woman, made under the Law to redeem us that are under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. That his making himself of no reputation, taking upon him the form of a servant, humbling of himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of, until the death of the Cross, was for us. So was his fulfilling all righteousness, and coming to fulfill the Law, his coming to do God's will, his always doing things pleasing to God; thus God purposed, thus he obeyed. He was a righteous branch, the Lord our righteousness.

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

When as the Scripture showeth him to be made a Surety, it is enough to show he was not made for himself, but for us.

It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell, he is the head of the body the Church; ye are complete in him.

Though therefore it was not useful to himself for himself, it was not superfluous, he being our Head, our Mediator and Surety; It was most necessary for us. What the Law could not do, God sent his Son, &c. that the righteousness of the Law; whatsoever the Law requireth to justification, might be fulfilled in us. And thus is he the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, as before out of Doctor Tossanus, enough to that question: to the second next, which is,

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

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

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

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

3. I read in our learned Writers largely observed. See Polanus, Symphonia Cathol. whose Thesis is. Christ is incarnate for us, he obeyed his Father for us, was baptized, suffered, dead, raised, glorified for us; which he there proveth by the Fathers.

And so on Dan. 9.

See Doctor Dounham using reasons which are to be answered.

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

Because, neither hath Christ righteousness to any other end, then that he may impute it, neither doth he impute any other thing then righteousness, neither is he otherwise our righteousness, then by imputation.

Christ was the Lord of the Law. He willingly subjected himself, although the Law was not given to him being just and sanctified from the womb.

The end also is shown by the Apostle, forsooth, that he was not made such for himself, but for us.

Therefore these axioms are to be held. Christ was not made subject to the Law for himself, but for us. And that the whole obedience of Christ is ours, and so imputed to us.

Calvin. That he may admonish us that Christ was not just for himself privately, but that the righteousness which he enjoyed was more large, that he might make rich the faithful by the gift conferred upon him.

Therefore Christ the Son of God, who by right had been free from all subjection, was subject to the Law, that he might gain unto us liberty. For as the man that was free, by making himself a captive and Surety, redeemeth, and putting on chains, taketh them off another: so Christ would become a keeper of the Law that be might gain unto us freedom, otherwise he had in vain undergone the yoke of the Law, seeing certainly be did it not for his own cause.

And for the undue obedience of the Son he remitteth what is due.

Junius. But also when as he was not properly a debtor of the Law in himself, nor in respect of his human nature, (for otherwise the Word himself by reason of the sameness of the person, should for himself be bound to the obedience of the Law, which would be contumelious to the Author of the Law) nor in respect of his person; but yet in respect of his voluntary disposition he did wholly satisfy the Law, that the overflowing fullness of his indeed infinite merit prepared for us in Christ, &c.

He was not borne for himself, but us.

Our righteousness is only the satisfaction of Christ performed to the Law for us and the whole, &c. of Christ humbling himself, &c. whatsoever, to conclude, he did and suffered, to which he, as a just man, and the Son of God was not bound, is his satisfaction which he performed for us, and righteousness which is freely imputed to us believing by God. For that satisfaction is equal either to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience, or eternal punishment for sin, to both which we are bound by the Law.

These are enough, they may satisfy you.

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

Whose book is not in mine hands that I may examine it. Only I say that it is not said that he merited for himself by works of righteousness which he did, but the spirit filled him with grace. For those words more and more till, &c. they are not to be justified by me, it is certain he had the spirit, was anointed with it, not by measure from the moment of conception; by that, and personal union from that moment he had eternal life, and was comprehensor, and did inherit.

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

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

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

You say. And he that holds Christ as man, was not bound to fulfill the righteousness of the Law for himself during his continuuance on earth in the flesh, must, if he be true to his principles, hold withal that Christ as man had a liberty, or dispensation from the Godhead, to transgress in respect of himself, and that his dispensation could not take place or be put in execution only because of the work of redemption he had undertaken.

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

Thirdly, you say, I would put him on this, to prove such an absolute inconsistency or diametricall opposition as he seems to imagine between Christ's fulfilling the Law for himself and for us, as if at no hand they could stand together.

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

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

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

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

You say it would cost him many of his thoughts and much of his learning to give a sufficient and clear account, how it should any way intrench or so much as look towards the denial of Christ's Godhead to conceive that Christ might he bound to fulfill the righteousness of the Law for himself.

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

It is also to imply him vainly bufied; living and enjoying life eternal being the fountain thereof, to do that he may live, and so to deny him to be that fountain, and to be that person that is God.

You conceive it is far more dangerously to shake the truth of his humanity to deny that he was no ways bound to keep the Law for himself.

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

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

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

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

2. Had he been mere man, what you say might follow, being also God, there was never such a man or woman in innocence.

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

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

You say as the personal union with the Godhead could not privilege his human nature or body against those properties which are natural and essential to it, as locality, quantity, finitnesse, commensurablenesse to its place, nor communicate, nor convey over those properties of imm • nsity, ubiquity, omnipresence, &c. which are essential to the Divine nature. So neither could it privilege his manhood against those moral habitudes, relations or conditions which are his essential in another way, as videlicet, subjection to God, obligation of serving him, and fulfilling his will, &c.

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

2. And essential properties of God incommunicabla.

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

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

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

And I question whether if his obedience was debt, his own debt, he could merit and satisfy thereby for himself or us, seeing debt and merit cannot consist. When man hath done all that he is bound to do by God's Law, he must say, and truly, he is an unprofitable servant, it is what he ought, and so not worth thanks at the Creators hands. Which yet you imply, when as before you say Christ's scope in obedience, was his glory as well as man's good, p. 180. before, and where you say in a sense it had an influence. What will become of man's justification by his passive obedience, which is confessed to have absolute necessity of his active to make i • a Sacrifice propitiatory, how is it an essential requisite, if due for himself?

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

Nothing satisfieth but that which meriteth, nothing meriteth but righteousness, which must be by another's.

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

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

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

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

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

And now let us to the bottom of this heap (as you speak) frothy words shall not stay me. Here you are charged to say, that if the Apostle had said they must be justified by Christ, or by the righteousness of Christ, this had been rather to cast a snare upon them, then to have opened a door of life and salvation, for which be (Mr. W.) curseth with Anathema maranatha, the man that proclaims it and obstinately maintains it.

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

I answer, I think intimation of that whereby needful, and that it is done, as where faith and receiving, as the hand and instrument are call • d for; so where the object of that is laid down, Christ and his obedience, as Rom. 5. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. so that there is no snare. Let us go on.

In the next place Mr. Wr. proposeth your first argument reduced, which is.

That the Relative sense fathers upon the Apostle an harsh and uncouth expression often used without explaining himself, when he saith faith is imputed to righteousness, and meaneth Christ's righteousness is imputed, which is rather to conceal then reveal it.

To this the answer is.

It is no harsh, strange, or uncouth expressure to use a figure of speech, and to mean by faith and believing, faith with its object, the righteousness of Christ, or state of the man, &c. which is shown out of Rom. 2. the four last verse. by Beza's interpretation.

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

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

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

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

And as for that Jeere on those that call it Metalepticall, it might have been forborne. It is the practice of more then Mr. Wr. divines not to be contemned by Mr. G.

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

I observe it in Lueas Trelcatius, Faith in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers is wont to be considered two ways, properly according to the nature of faith simply; another, figuratively, that is, Metaleptically, and correlatively, because faith apprehends its object. So doth he, answering Romanists.

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

We do not properly give justification to faith, but by a figure called Metalepsis, so far forth as the act of the object, because of the near connection between it and the habit by a usual phrase of Scriptue is given to the habit. Note that we and by an usual phrase of Scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

When as you admit that by righteousness in these places the Apostle meaneth faith: You will us to see what a fair market Mr. Walker hath brought his Hogs to. Let me (passing your Rhetoric) demand what is the market?

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

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

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

Come we now to your second Argument.

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

To this Mr. W. that Christ's righteousness is as truly his as his faith. You reply here you are friends in earnest, you grant the righteousness of Christ the believers, but that is not the question. What is it then? Whether it be his in such manner as it was Christ's himself? that is, whether we be made righteous with it as Christ was, whether not only for it and not with it?

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

The righteousness of Christ is that robe in the Prophet, that garment of salvation, with which the Church as a Bride is arrayed, whence white as Snow, whiter: Wholly fair in his beauty, as Jacob in Esaues apparel to Isaac, as Calvin before out of Ambrose.

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

We are alike just, because with the same righteousness, though not equally, and in the same manner; be as the subject of it, we by imputation, be of his own, we of his liberality.

If you regard the truth of imputed righteousness, we are accounted no less just before God then Christ; and that, that is the money and clothing too, we shall show at large anon.

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

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

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

Neither ought it to seem absurd that we are justified with that righteousness which is in him as the subject, as another's. When as it is so another's, that it is also ours by imputation. It was performed for us properly, and accepted of God as ours, as the Creditor so receiveth the payment of the Surety for the Creditor, as if the Debtor himself had made it. And that which is the property of our head Christ, by right of communion is given to the rest of the body, that is, the Church.

When God giveth Christ, he giveth his righteousness, we receive both by faith, and so both are ours, and therefore is he called the Lord our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is truly ours, though it not in us: where he proveth the same. See him, p. 50. 51. where speaking of righteousness imputed, he saith, nec minus nostram esse quam si corporibus & animabus nostris adhaeresceret, it is no less ours then if it did adhere to our bodies and souls, Olev.

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

Calv. on the words, he was made unto us righteousness, saith: In which he understandeth us accepted of God in his name, because be expiated our sins by his death, and that his obedience might be imputed to us for righteousness.

Though Christ and his righteousness differ, Christ's righteousness is ours by imputation in Calvin's judgment.

He is made unto us of God righteousness, because in him alone we are accounted righteous, we are reputed just by his merit.

And truly righteousness not in part, but our whole righteousness, by remission of sins and imputation of his whole righteousness.

Righteousness, that is our Justifier, bestowing on us true righteousness before God by faith; which is so not formally, that is, inberently, as Pareus speaketh, but by imputation.

Abraham is justified not with inherent, but imputed righteousness by faith.

To that text, 2 Cor. 5. Calvin. Now he more plainly teacheth what we touched before, that then God is propitious to us when he acknowledgeth us just, for those two are of the same force, that we are accepted of God, and reputed just by him. Righteousness is here taken for imputation, because righteousness is accounted to us.

And in that place, to the question, How are we just before God? He answereth. Forsooth we are now so just in him, not because by our own works we may satisfy the judgment of God, but because we h • accounted the righteousness of Christ, which we put on by faith, that it may be ours. Aretius on those words, that we might be made the righteousness of God.

That we may be pronounced just, that we might be adorned with imputed righteousness, as it were with a garment: but it is called the justice of God, because it is not ours, but his free gift. In him, he signifieth, that out of Christ there is nor righteousness with which we may adorn our

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

We be just with God, not indeed with righteousness inhering in us, but which, when it is in Christ is imputed to us from God by faith: therefore it is added, in him. Therefore we are so the righteousness of God in him, as he is sin in us, for sooth by imputation. So that in this you oppose not Mr. Walker alone, but the word and interpretation of our learned Authors.

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

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

You say he proveth idem per idem. I answer no, he proveth the righteousness of Christ the believers from the truth of God's judgment, whence he doth not account that to the believer which he hath not before, or at the same time communicateth to him.

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

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

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

I answer, the Apostle calleth it righteousness, verse. 6. and verse. 11. as before. Neither do you disprove it, by saying God or the promise, you e • illy oppose Christ's righteousness, God and the promise.

Is not God Abraham's in Christ, and so Abraham's saith in Christ supposed to his faith in God? 1 Pel. 1. 21. We by him do believe in God. Is not the promise of God's being Abraham's God in Christ, to whom it is first made, and in whom it is Yea and Amen, to Abraham and his seed? The Apostle saith, If we be Christ's, we be Abraham's seed, and Heirs according to promise, so Abraham and believers are Heirs in the Heir, by being Christ's, and so the promises containing our inheritance, are ours. Hence amongst the rest we are Heirs of the righteousness which is by faith.

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

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

The Apostle more plainly as before, the promise was the Seed, and blessedness, and we are blessed with all in Christ, they are the inheritance of believers in and by Christ the Heir.

Glevian hath passages this way observable. Having said, seeing God is • ust, he imputeth not sin, because he imputeth the righteousness of his Son. He addeth,

David did therefore build on the Sacrifice and intercession of the highest and eternal Priest, of whom he seek by the holy Ghost; Thou are a Priest for 〈◊〉 , &c. And so David believed, not in righteousness inhering us himself, but in that which was imputed from the High Priest, Christ. So Abraham sought not righteousness in himself, but by faith out of himself, he saw the day of Christ, and rejoyeed. The day signifieth, not only the time of the dispensation of the grace of Christ, but the whole benefit then as length exhibited, when the fullness of time came.

Therefore that inscription of the Covenant in the flesh of Abraham, (Circumcision) is called the Seal of the righteousness of faith, because, as a corrupt and unjust man, had possessed by faith in the promised seed, and it was imputed to him believing in Uncircumcision: But now the possession was confirmed by an imprinted Seal in his flesh of a thing placed out of himself and seen afar off.

Abraham believed, saith Pet. Martyr. But what did he believe? Forsooth this seed to be given unto him, that one seed, as Paul interpreteth it, in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed, which is Jesus Christ.

Amongst other things Abraham believed. Pareus addeth, But also of that which was spiritual, by Christ the Head of the seed, from whom the blessing and heavenly glory should flow unto the whole seed. For the Apostle expressly saith the promised seed to be Christ. Neither can is be doubted but the promise of the seed which Abraham is said to believe, to agree with the promises going before, and following of the seed and blessing of all Nations by it: therefore the saith of Abraham was indeed general or Catholic (as the Sophisters call it) assenting to every word of God, but also special to the promise given of the soed, which is Christ. So Ambrose on his commentary. Abraham believed God, What did he believe? that he should have seed, that is, a Son in whom all Nations should be blessed. Therefore Abraham's saith is founded in Christ.

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

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

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

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

To which I answer, you do but trishe, Believing insoldeth God his in Christ, Christ and what ever is lapped up in that word Blessedness; temporal, spiritual, eternal, with Jesus Christ: visiting, redeeming, raising up Christ an horn of salvation, salvation from evil, righteousness and eternal life, are the mercies promised to Abraham, God's holy covenant and his oath, in Zacharias' song. There is more in it then I suppose you are aware of, as if you had but trifled in earnest.

You marvel why Mr. W. still mentions the satisfaction of Christ with the righteousness of Christ. Whereas you intend no difference or dispute about the satisfaction of Christ but his active obedience to the Law. Whether this be imputed that thereby we may claim Heaven, by Do this and live. And that his thrusting in of the passive obedience or satisfaction is to presents you odious as an enemy to Christ's satisfaction.

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

2. It seems you are then for the imputation of Christ's Passive obedience to obtain pardon, and then Passive righteousness is that which is imputed, and faith in a Relative sense to that. And what is become of your proper sense then?

This Mr. Wotton blameth in Piscator, Yet I nowhere find in holy Scriptures that there is need of imputation of the Passive obedience of Christ to obtain it, (Justification or pardon) though it be true and clear; those sufferings to have been necessary (by the decree of God) to obtain pardon to us. Neither (that I may truly say what the thing is) can I understand what place is left to pardon, if we should be judged by suffering punishment in Christ, to have satisfied Divine wrath, and borne punishment due to sin: for pardon and punishment are adversaries. Tell us by your next whether and how far Magister sit hic ••• endus.

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

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

To your demand. Doth it follow (though a man cannot separate the righteousness of Christ from Christ himself in believing) that the righteousness of Christ must needs be the object of faith as justifying? And add, much less doth it follow that this righteousness of Christ must needs be signified by this word God, or by the promise of God concerning Christ, which himself granteth to have been the object of faith, as justifying.

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

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

The righteousness of Christ can in no tolerable construction be called that faith by which Abraham believed in God that quickeneth the dead, therefore the righteousness of Christ is not that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousness. I will add the first proposition, that faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is that faith by which he believed in God that quickened the dead. This (you say) is your next argument whereby you p • on • by the Word, that faith in these passages is not meant the Active obedience of Christ.

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

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

3. I answer, it is faith in Christ and his perfect righteousness whereby we believe in him that quickeneth the dead, by faith in Christ I believe in God, be is my God as Abraham's, by which our Lord proveth the resurrection, Matth. 22. against the Sadducees, it reacheth that blessing; by faith in Christ, Abraham, saw Christ's resurrection, and so his own, as David did the resurrection of Christ, Acts 2. 30. as God's oath to him, which was the same he swore to Abraham. Yea, he saw and believed his own resurrection; indeed lapped up in Christ's resurrection, as of a member in the raised head, and rejoiced at it, 16. Psal. fine, compare the places.

The Apostle saith the spirit is life because of righteousness, Rom. 8. 10. which life is without question (though I exclude not life simply) the quickening of the dead, as in the next, v. by righteousness, I take imputed righteousness meant; and, Chamier calleth it the very same we call imputed; and for that quickening of the dead, see the same Cham. out of Tolet, and Cajetan calleth it the righteousness of Christ.

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

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

And though Mr. Walker (as you conceive) Reads not Christ's lying three days and three nights in the grave, anywhere called faith, or signified by that expression, yet I suppose I read the Gospel to be called faith, and if that you mention be Gospel, it must be called faith, infolded under that expression. I am sure faith by which I believe remission of sins, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life, to be faith in God through Christ satisfying, obedient even until death, continuing God's set time in the state of the dead, for us, our justification and pardon, yea, salvation, to the glory not only of free grace, but exact justice, and do you consider the same.

Abraham's faith imputed to him, was such a faith wherein he was not weak, nor doubted of God's promise, verse. 19. & 20. This can be no description of Christ's righteousness.

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

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

I answer, it can be applied to the righteousness of Christ, and thence Abraham's communion with Christ in his righteousness, in that full manner faith being so full and strong.

When you demand, Was that faith whereby Abraham doubted not of God's promise, the righteousness of Christ?

I answer, it was the same faith by which he apprehended the righteousness of Christ, by which he believed the promise, and in God: What was that promise of but the seed, Christ and his righteousness and blessedness in and by the same?

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

1. Then there is somewhat you never heard of, I have between two famous and godly Divines in my time, though I approve not that Justification hath degrees. It is none of Mr. Walkers, there may be, and are degrees of union and communion with Christ, and so of faith, by which neither of these I suppose are here perfect. It followeth not of Justification or righteousness, seeing everyone is perfected forever, wholly fair, complete. Mr. Walkers aim is no more then this, that he more strongly applied it, that his a apprehension was stronger, and that he had more sensible communion with him in his righteousness. Mr. Calv. on those words, Rom. 1. 27. unto faith faith, because so much as our faith goeth forward, and so much as in this knowledge it profiteth, the righteousness of God together increaseth in us, and after a manner its possession is established. Let the last phrase explain the first, that of increasing, and what is said in my poor opinion is safe.

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

Faith imputed to Abraham was that by which he was assured that he who had promisnd was able also do it, verse. 21. & 22. But Christ's righteousness is not capable of any such description as this is, therefore it is not imputed.

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

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

But he saith, the more Abraham rested on God's power, the more justly did God count him a righteous man and impute Christ's righteousness to him; which implies God doth with less justice impute the righteousness of Christ to a strong faith.

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

Finally, that which is said, that the object of Abraham's faith, was God's power and ability, and your inference therefore not the righteousness of Christ, is in effect Bell. argument to exclude special mercy.

Abraham did not believe sins to be for given to him by special mercy, but that he should be the Father of many Nations, &c. That is, he believed God who had promised to be omnipotent & most faithful, and this faith was reputed to him for righteousness.

Pareus answering, granteth that Abraham did believe those things which his adversary saith, but that did not exclude his faith of special mercy in pardon by Christ, and then:

Abraham believed God not only promising a son of Sarah, but also promising blessedness to all Nations in his seed to be borne of the son of Sarah; In thy seed shall all Nations be blessed. The Apostle to the Galatians, teacheth this seed truly to be Christ, and interpreteth the blessing Redemption from the curse, and justification by faith, and Rom. 4. 11. be more clearly saith, that unto Abraham was imputed righteousness by faith.

We believe in Jesus Christ for Pardon in the Creed, and God Almighty, so did God appear to Abraham. Christ and his righteousness are not opposed to God's omnipotence, they are subordinate: And now to the seventh Argument.

That faith that is imputed, is believing in him who raised up Christ from the dead, verse. 24. Christ's righteousness is not our believing in him that raised up Christ from the dead: it therefore is not imputed.

I answer, your assumption and conclusion (which is a common fault) are laid down only of the righteousness of Christ, not of faith, whereas, what you are to improve, is faith in a Relativesense, and taking in Christ and his righteousness, which had you done, the answer had been easy. This faith taking in Christ and his righteousness is faith in God which raised up the Lord Christ from the dead, the same faith that believeth in Christ and his righteousness, believeth in God that raised up Christ, so is it laid down, 1 Pet 1. 21. upon it our justification dependeth; and if it were not, the Apostle saith our faith is vain, and we are yet in our sins. Christ's Resurrection supposeth him fully satisfying by obedience, even until death, aquitted. In the Creed there is faith in God Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, dead and risen, &c. whence our remission of sins and life everlasting. Who can lay thing to the charge of God's chosen? Who can cordenone? It is Christ that is dead, yea, rather that is risen, &c.

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

The sum of it is thus much as laid down by your self. The point of imputation in justification being only handled in this Scripture, and nowhere else explained, it is no ways probable but that the Apostle should speak somewhat distinctly and plainly of the nature of it, otherwise he might seem rather to lay a stumbling block in the way, then to write anything for the learning and comfort of Christians.

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

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

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

Now by the foundation judge of your superstructives.

I add, this speech is a distinct and plain speech, which appeareth by the unanimous judgment of all reformed Writers (but you Mr. Wotton, Arminius, &c. ) against the Papists, who stumble at Christ's righteousness, and establish their own.

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

Your interpretation is a mere stumbling block, and destroyer of comfort. This a principal foundation of comfort. The kernel of the Gospel and head of consolation, as Junius. Saint Paul judged it so when as he accounted all as dung, and would be found not having his own righteousness, therefore not faith in a proper sense, his, and a kind of righteousness, but that which is by faith. I will finish this, making it my prayer, which Doctor Prideaux did.

The greatest and best God grant that we may account all for loss, and may be found in him not having our own righteousness, which is of works. (I will add) faith in a proper sense opposed in justification to the righteousness of Christ; but that which is by faith, which faith receiveth and applieth, the righteousness of Christ Active and passive; those robes of righteousness and garments of salvation. In him to that end.

But it is meet you should be heard.

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

You go on. Only he gravely instructeth us, that it is more comfortable to us for to rest on Christ's righteousness, &c. then to build on faith, which in the best is mingled and stained with many doubts often times.

Surely this is geave advise, though you jest, you may find it one day as some Papists have dying, what ever you do in dispute, when as your soul shall be ready to take its flight from your body, and that to appear before God's tribunal. It will wish it may (and I pray it may) appear, nay it must appear in, clothed with this righteousness of Christ imputed by God, applied by faith, if then it hath comfort: in, agone quanti Papistis? Papists then esteem of this.

You go on relating what Mr. W. saith, viz. Therefore the Apostle doubtless intends Christ's righteousness, and so be doth express in plain words (to another purpose) c. 5. 19. 8. 4. & 10.4.

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

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

Against part of this (you say) Mr. Walker maketh an opposition between things of the most direct and essential subordination that can be, and which do inseparably involve one the other, resting on Christ's righteousness, and building on faith.

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

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

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

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

That other, building on faith, and that by on other believing, it is but a Castle in the air; at best it is but an assent or belief which the Devil hath, who believeth, that he that believeth in Christ shall be saved. It is a believing in abeleeving, which in your sense is a work, which is opposed to Christ's righteousness in justification by your doctrine. For the establishing the one, you deny the other, and so destroy subordination. It is safest to rest only on that Rock Christ, there is no other foundation; S. Paul did so, When as he would be found not having his own righteousnet, as faith in a proper sense, such as it is.

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

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

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

And whether he be not brought in equally building on faith and Christ? your phrase is as well, whether it agreeth with Saint Paul's spirit, who would be found in him, not having his own righteousness? which faith is in yoursense, but that which is by faith which it receiveth. Saint Paul's words that he believed in Christ, that he might be justified by faith of Christ, are no more then this, that he believed in Christ, that so by that faith in Christ he might be justified; knowing that (not works) the only way, here is no believing by believing on believing, his building by believing is in Jesus Christ, which is no other then believing in him for justification. By that very place faith as a work is excluded by Saint Paul.

If all works together justify not, how should that work of faith justify, that is, make just before God? Note it then.

The true sense is, which the Apostle in the 3. c. will explain, that we receive the blessing of Abraham by faith. Now the blessing of Abraham is remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness received by faith, because of Christ's merit. This Rom. 4.6. he said to be imputed to us for righteousness: which phrase is correlatively to be understood, for that, the obedience of Christ applied by faith to be imputed to us for righteousness, or righteousness to be imputed for the obedience of Christ applied by faith, as is largely demonstrated in my Commentary on the Romans.

And for the other place where you say, It may be said be that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the faithfulness of God, promising forgiveness to a believer. Though it be true of Christ, that he that by faith believeth on him, buildeth on God's faithfulness, or as otherwise revealed, and of faith in a Relative sense. As it is considered with his object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter, by the Antiens, and we have shown.

It is not so of faith in a proper sense, your faith.

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

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

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

It may occasion other thoughts to put the Crown on Christ's head, to deny it to faith in a proper sense as opposed to the righteousness of Christ, in the point of Justification.

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

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

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

You have nothing to object to God's just judgment; gratuide acceptilation of faith, for the perfect obedience of the Law, in a proper sense, that Arminian brat destroyeth God's justice: and that faith can no more be accepted then any grace else, it is worse, then to put all graces as the Papists do, as our own teach you, you shall never prove it the condition of the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

3. And thirdly, that you grant the act so used, but shife it by denying Christ's righteousness the object of believing, which he hath proved.

4. And lastly, that you deny Christ's righteousness the object of faith as it justifieth, whereas it is the proper object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I demand what that righteousness of God, Rom. 3. 22. which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all that believe? whether it be not Christ's? whether it be so called, Because God of his bounty bestoweth it on us, or therefore because it alone holdeth water before the Lord? as Calvin on the place. Once he resolved it, quam per fidem obtinemus, which by faith we obtain; and that which must be justice at God's tribunal, as Calvin. Where none is accounted righteousness unless perfect and absolute obedience to the Law, as the same Author, where I read farther.

If so be that no man be found that hath attained such exact holiness; it followeth that all are without righteousness in themselves. Then Christ must help, who as he is alone just, so by transferring his righteousness on us, maketh us just. Now thou seest how the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ; that therefore we may be justified—Christ is the matter, the word with faith the instrument. Therefore faith is said to justify, because it is the instrument of receiving Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us. After that we are partakers of Christ, not only ourselves are just, but our works are reputed just before the Lord. So Calvin.

What righteousness is that, Rom. 4. b. and that righteousness of faith, verse. 11. What that the Gentiles attained, and the Jews submitted not to, but stumbled at? Rom. 9. Saith Calvin, they did stumble at Christ, by whom alone the way to obtain righteousness is open.

Christ is given to us for righteousness.

Christ's honor is placed in this, that he be light, salvation, life, resurrection, righteousness, healing to us all; where also we may see of whose and what righteousness he speaketh.

We have elsewhere said, how men put on righteousness by faith, because for sooth Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.

And then he showeth the righteousness of faith to be established out of the very doctrine of the Law.

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

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

What is that Phil. 3. where Saint Paul will be found in him having that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, on which place Calvin. Faith offereth man naked to God, that he may be clothed with Christ's righteousness.

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

I take that to be the righteousness of God which is approved at God's tribunal.

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

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

Christ himself must be put upon us that we may be found in him, Rom. 13. 14. Phil. 3. 9. 2 Cor. 5. &c. with his clothing ourselves must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned, Phil. 3. 9. when he excludeth all kind of works, he must needs understand the righteousness of Christ.

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

And lastly say you where he affirms this righteousness of Christ to be the only object of faith, as justifying, whereas it hath been evidently demonstrated, that is neither the proper nor less proper object thereof as such, and that the Scriptures nowhere speaks so of it.

1. To which I answer, by righteousness Mr. Walker meaneth not a part, but the whole.

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

What followeth is but evil language.

I will pass that.

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

And pitch on that. He blameth me farther for not being ashamed or blushing to affirm that from the times of Luther and Calvin, the fairest stream of Interpreters run to water and refresh mine interpretation.

To this you answer, No, and you know no reason you have of being ashamed or blushing for standing up for the truth. And that if you should do otherwise, concerning the judgment of the best Interpreters, since Luther and Calvin's time touching the Scripture in question, then I do, then I should be like unto you and speak what is contrary to the truth.

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

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

And his being of the twain nearer Mr. Walker, then Mr. Goodwin, we have seen already; let the Reader judge.

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

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

But quis tulerit, &c. all I will say is; It is well for you, you would scarcely scape scot-free, were this book of yours in that respect before equal Judges. You would lose your manhood. For that man I have read that story, and elsewhere find Mr. Walker was not the first that charged this error on him. It is observed by that Lord.

This controversy a certain man called Abailardus stirred up against Bernard many ages after, Who though he were of the last, yet here was not behind any. Where he showeth out of Bernard; The obedience of Christ is no less ours, then the sin of Adam. He is werthy reading. For your testimonies, Mr. Walkers answer and they must be also turned loose together, as you Print them and himself since, to which this containeth no answer but vain words, p. 94.

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

1. For him you have not shown it.

2. For others it had been easy to give an instance.

3. Sibrandus was of the same opinion, who therefore challengeth Bertius twice, to show, but one, one, I say one places which teacheth this in plain words. I am so yet, I have not met with one but Mr. Wotton, &c.

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

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

For Testimonies you say, because they prove that which no man questions, viz. Justification by the righteousness and satisfaction of Jesus Christ in a meritorious way, and do not so much as touch or come near the point in controversy, except it be in way of contrediction i • himself that produceth them, I take my leave of them at once, and wish them rest and peace.

Sir, I commend your wisdom, this is a short cut, if you can so get off. But you must not thus escape, nor your meritorious way. It is as a City of refuge when you are closely followed. You think yourself safe when as you get it once over your head. It is (as you say of Metalepticke oil) your surest pinhorse; in this it differeth, that is shown the answer of learned Protestants; this is a borrowed shift of Popists, who use it as you against the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I meet with it often confuted by the Worthies of our side. It may be they may satisfy you, I promised it before, now I will labor to be as good as my word.

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

For Christ should be in vain given for righteousness, unless there shall be an enjoyment by faith.

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

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

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

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

The question is of the formal cause, but that word for, doth not denote the formal but meritorious cause.

Let therefore Christ's obedience be the meritorious cause of our justification, for which God doth justify us. What followeth now?

And truly in justification such a formal cause is to be put which also together may be meritorious; for unless it contain in it self that worth for which a man is rightly reputed justified, it will never be a formal cause by which a man shall be justified in the sight of God. And elsewhere.

Therefore one and the same righteousness of Christ, considered in it self and its worth, is the meritorious cause of man's justification. But considered as it is imputed, given, applied as their own to all believers, and inset into Christ, it is instead of a formal cause—God therefore who justifieth not but with respect to absolute righteousness, beholdeth Christ's righteousness, which is only such, and is pleased to impute the same to Christ's members; which being done, he dealeth with them, and determineth of them, as if it were their own, and this it is to make Christ's righteousness the formal cause of our justification. Where also take notice of his stating the question between us and Romanists.

The most perfect obedience of Christ the Mediator dwelling in us and by his spirit uniting himself to us, is the formal cause of our justification, as that which by the gift of God and application of faith be made ours.

There is Protestant Doctrine flourishing in Cambridge in my time, the Antithesis of the Papist followeth.

The obedience or righteousness of the Mediator, is not given or applied to believers in the place or by way of a formal cause, by whose virtue they stand justified or accepted of God to eternal life.

I need not to make uses of these passages, they are clear, as for other, so the present purpose.

I will take one place out of that Orthodox Doctor Tossanus.

The matter truly is the obedience of Christ, or his merit—the form is the imputation thereof, and remission of sins; which is done by and for the blood of Christ, which being imputed causeth that the righteousuesse of Christ which was another's is made ours, truly and really no less by imputation then it is Christ's by action, because we are inset to him, and it is truly given to us, and indeed accepted of God. So the Palatinate.

Come we now to that great Doctor of France, Chamier, he speaking of Papists, saith:

Therefore they believe not Christ's righteousness to be aninward cause, that is the matter as we speak of justification, but outward only, or the merit. He goeth on.

Andradius ( a great stickler in the Council of Trent taught,

That our justification in Christ, or Christ to be our righteousness, to signify no other thing, then Christ to have merited true and express righteousness for us. Thus he layeth down their tenet. Now for the Protestants, thus:

But Protestants conclude—But justification by which we be just with God to be imputation of righteousness inbering in Christ, which shall not be able any other way to merit life unto us unless it be so imputed.

I will transcribe another passage, and so do two things at once, that is, speak to this and the point of being sinners by Adam. For in both these you agree with Papists, the matter will be manifest by bare laying down.

Truly we grant by the disobedience of Adam all to be constituted truly unjust and with injustice indeed inbering. But the other part, that we are not unjust by the injustice of Adam imputed, we say this is false. Yea on the contrary we deny that we can be made unjust, by injustice inherent, by one man, unless the injustice of this one man be imputed unto us—therefore it is false that the disobedience of Adam is not imputed to his posterity. He goeth on.

Neither doth Pererius ( the Jesuit ) move me commenting on these very words of Paul—Paul said not (saith he as if he brought into Divinity some great thing, and not observed by others) us to be constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, lest one should think it by imputed disobedience, but he said by disobedience, that is, by sin remaining within them, coming from Adams disobedience. After the same manner therefore, not that Christ's righteousness should constitute just, as if men were made just, not by inherent righteousness, but by imputed: but to be made just by obedience, because this was the meritorious cause. But whom did he hope to persuade, that first phrase to be made just by righteousness, injust by unrighteousness 〈◊〉 otherwise their forformally (as they love to speak) but the other, by righteousness and obedience, not to signify otherwise then by way of merit?—Therefore that phrase truly nothing bindereth, but that, by the righteousness of one many shall be constituted righteous, we may so understand to be spoken, that, that righteousness may be not only the meritorious cause as the Papists would, but also the formal by which we are now just with God. And again.

The first place out of Rom. 5. Bellarmine and Becanus ( both Jesuits) do so expound, that they deny the obedience of Christ to be called the formal cause of our justification, but the efficient; they proveit the obedience of Christ is opposed to the disobedience of Adam, and as we may be said by this to be constituted injust, by that just. But by the disobedience of Adam we are constituted just not formally, but efficiently and meritorioush. But to this sophism we have already disputed in the second chapter.

Here therefore again I grant, both the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ, to constitute us both efficiently and meritoriously just or unjust, for of that none heard us denying; and of the other we have expressly disputed in the ninth book of this Tome; but we constantly deny that both are not imputed unto us. Yea, we deny they can meritoriously make us either injustor just, unless they be first imputed, for they are no ways made ours unless they be imputed. For they are singular and individual acts, and therefore proper to them from whom they are, and therefore personal. But for proper and personal acts to le common it is absurd and contradictory. Therefore they must be imputed, for this communication is not opposed to propriety, because there is a far other reason of them, therefore it was necessary that the very sin of Adam, I say that very same disobedience should be imputed to his posterity, and therefore also Christ's obedience. That truly because Adam was he, in whom human nature in general was judged to be by nature, but the other because there is the universal multitude of believers in Christ by grace; whence it cometh to pass that not only all are made sinners by Adam, but are said to have sinned, which is far another thing.

I say therefore it is certain that all are from Adam constituted really unrighteous, and all the faithful from Christ really righteous. But I deny that to be considered of the Apostle, who rather inquireth into the first causes as of that condemnation, so of that justification, for both according to judgment, he considereth it in Adam then, yet not peculiar to Adam, but appertaining to whole mankind that the sense may be, even then when Adam sinned, whole mankind to be damned or made guilty of disobedience against God, whence also in Augustine, original sin is called the punishment of the first sin. But how should it be the punishment unless that same first sin should be imputed?

In like manner in Christ the whole multitude of faithful, is said to be made or justified, or which is the same, Christ himself made to all righteousness.—But because that same righteousness of Christ, so communicated to us by grace, so surely, that it may be surely ours, nor less surely then ourselves had performed it, which we could not do.

Briefly, both are true, that Christ's righteousness is the efficient or meritorious cause of our righteousness.—And also either the formal cause, as Bellarmine, or the material, as we would rather, of our justification. See him again.

For both causes, both because Christ is the efficient cause of righteousness inhering in us, and because his satisfaction or merit is imputed unto us; we therefore thus determine Christ to be called our righteousness, and so as it followeth.

You see here your distinction and answer Popish, and refuted by our learned.

Know you not (saith Doctor Whitaker to Campian the Jesuit) that our sins were imputed to Christ, and why may not Christ's righteousness be imputed to us in like manner, &c. seeing you are compelled on the one side against your will, to confess an imputation, why do ye not also grant it in the other? especially seeing the Apostle himself propoundeth to us this Antithesis, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Therefore we are so made righteous in Christ as he was made sin for us, which must necessarily be understood of imputation, the payment is ours, no otherwise then by imputation. Consider on what side you are, and come about.

It is no marvel Arm. went before you & M. W in the same Arminius wrote Christ's obedience to be the meritorious cause, &c. not the object of imputation. Let us hear himself.

I say faith is imputed unto us for Christ's sake and his righteousness; in which proposition, faith is the object of imputation, but Christ and his obedience the obtaining Cause or meritorious of justification, which Christ with his obedience is the object of our faith, and not the object of justification or divine imputation, as if God did impute unto us Christ and his righteousness, which cannot be. Let your admirers behold this, and yourself denying your opinion to be Arminian, and they will say your opinion is as like as if it came out of Arminius his mouth. It is the same in this business.

You go on and say.

Only I cannot but take notice of a very strange piece of Divinity wheresoever he had it—Concerning Calvin, here he teacheth that sins of commission are taken away by that part of Christ's satisfaction imputed, which is called his Passive obedience or voluntary suffering the penalty of the Law: and sins of commission by his Active obedience in fulfilling the righteousness which the Law requires, which is the other part of Christ's imputed satisfaction. This you call a Lernean Lake, of hideous and portentuous Divinity, things you should have censured Mr. Walker would not have received, though an Angel from Heaven should have brought them to him.

But— sua narret Ulysses.

The sum is, there are sins of commission and of omission, such are all defects of what was to be in man, perfect righteousness. Though the guilt and punishment of all be taken away by the blood of Christ a Lamb, the defect must also be made up by the perfect obedience of Christ our Surety, he must and did do this that we may live.

But say you, he affirms the taking away of sins of omission by the Active obedience of Christ only, whereas the Scripture teacheth that without bloodshedding there is no remission.

I answer, only is your own, none of Mr. Walkers, and though it be given to the blood of Christ as justification is, it is by a Synecdoche, as Calvin and others use to speak; his Active righteousness is not excluded. It was the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without spot. Yea, his sufferings even to death were his obedience.

Still you must remember that there be what is debitum in esse, to life, for which there is provided the active obedience of Christ; the Church is holy, unreprovable, unblameable, wholly fair, not by taking away spots alone, but the beauty of Christ put on it.

You say he maketh the Active obedience of Christ penal and satisfactory, as if to live righteously and holy here had been a punishment, when as himself saith it was his meat.

Sir, what if he had said so? It was no less to take man's nature to be made under the Law. It was the becoming poor of him that was rich, his humiliation and abasement.

Yourselfe say, it cannot be denied in all this, but that the Active obedience of Christ may in some sense and respect be called satisfactory too, as concurring and falling in with its influence into the blood or death of Christ, &c.

Your reason, it was his meat, &c. is a truth of God's whole will in his hand. It was his meat to do; I, and to suffer; he did it willingly, which yet you confess was penal.

3. You say, the worst is, he divideth the satisfaction of Christ into parts, and utterly destroyeth and abolisheth the infiniteness thereof: for what may be divided must needs be finite, and that which is the part of another cannot be infinite.

And I pray you, are they not distinguishable into Active and Passive? either they are, and differ, or are the same; and why do you establishing the one (if you do so) dispute against the other? is it not by both if they be inseparable and not to be divided?

Neither doth division of Christ himself, or doing and suffering abolish the infiniteness of Christ. There are in him distinct two natures, three offices, body and soul, his Active obedience hath parts, and by parts were his sufferings made a whole. All which stand with Christ's infinite nature, and the infinite value of his satisfaction.

And what do you excluding Active obedience, which yet you confess to be in a sense satisfaction, and give all to what is Passive?

Mr. Walker making our righteousness to consist in the whole righteousness of Christ is farther from division, less destructive then your practice, denying and rejecting the Active obedience as the object of faith in justification.

Your objections urged, p. 98. are trifling impertinencies, grieving yourself, separating them, not Mr. Walker who is for the whole obedience of Christ.

Amongst them there is one passage to be taken notice of as a gloss corrupting the text, the text is, If righteousness be by the Law, Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. 21. Your gloss, that it is true of the Law performed by Christ as well as by men themselves, and then if the righteousness of the world be by the Active obedience of Christ his death must needs be in vain.

This is but a corruption of the text. The scope is, justification is not by man's personal obedience to the Law, and that if man had been able to obey perfectly, the death of Christ had been vain; man not being able, but being a transgressor, Christ's death is necessary, which doth not exclude his obedience to the Law for us, Christ's death doth not (alone taken) make us just, as is required, and thus is it by our Surety supplied.

Your self say it is satisfaction in a sense, and to fall in with death, so far righteousness is by the Law, Christ's obedience unto the fame.

You must acknowledge Christ a fulfiller of the Law, and and an establisher of it this way, and that faith in Christ doth not make the Law of God of none effect, as the word speaketh, and learned Expositors, of which before. And when as works or the righteousness of the Law are excluded; it is not Christ's, but a man's own.

Our Church in the Homily putteth Christ's death as a ransom, and yet add •• , who besides this ransom fulfilled the Law for us perfectly. It requireth on Christ's part justice, that is satisfaction to God's justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and thoroughly—So that in him our justification is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom and fulfilling of the Law, and so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits or deserving our justification: thus our Church in the Homily.

That which you call your last labor, p. 98. is but tri • ling, such at least is the Livery you give the learned men who use the figure Metalepsis. And that of willful men and importune spirits, and that the bare laying down the words is enough, and that Mr. Walker hath ratified it. All these are but trifling, and so I pass them. Let us come to something.

You say, concerning those testimonies in general, I desire to propound but this one consideration, whether it be probable, &c. That so many learned interpreters through so many generations, expounding a Scripture which they conceive Tropicall, should none of them give warning, or so much as take notice of a Tropicall expression, but deliver their minds in the same words, wherein the Trope shall lie.

Sir, I answer. First, the thing may be done by many Ancient and later Divines too, and those never the wiser that neglect the search of them, out of coneipt of their own great light.

Our learned ( exceptis before named) to a man have expressed themselves for the Relative sense and faiths justifying as an instrument, and the challenge is in Print many years agone to Bertius bragging of testimony to name vel unum, as much, or little, as one express place or Doctor for the contrary. For ours there are testimonies enough before. Romanists themselves, as you for a proper sense, confess Protestants to be for that which is Tropicall, when as some urge difference amongst us, ours answer there is none. You were not borne, nor your by-way observed by those that were curious to object the same. Doctor Davenant cleareth Luther by the Jesuit Vasques. And to that which is main in our business of them of those who teach the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to be the formal cause of justification he faith,

But this is the common sentence of all ours neither if we respect the thing it self, is there any one that wrote or thought otherwise. One may be confident of it in his judgment, he knew none of ours, if there were, they are without; indeed yours is but of yester-day amongst us. And shall we now think they held your proper sense? Iudeus Apella, non ego.

Whereas you persist in the contrary, Mr. Walker hath given testimonies, and many more may be given to fill books.

For Bucer I wonder you mention him, when as your Mr. Wotton speaking of him saith,

Whom I persuade myself to have been the Author of this opinion of imputation. Where also you may read his exposition of that Article in the Augustine confession, in these words, in the conference at Ratisbon, Anno 1546.

That is, because by this faith we apprehend the perfect righteousness of Christ, therefore the Apostle said, to him that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith to be reputed to righteousness: faith, fors • oth, apprehending the righteousness of Christ, that is, the righteousness of Christ it self. Where Mr. Wotton is willing to use the Popish shift of a meritorious cause, if it would serve, as you before. I find Bucer also amongst those of Sybrandus, and his writings are not now in mine hand.

For Bullinger I have read in him, It is certain therefore from these, Christ to have fulfilled the Law, and him to be the perfection of all men in the world. And then:

In him there is the most perfect love of God, and righteousness every way most absolute, and he doth freely communicate this to us that are most imperfect, if we believe; for he pardoneth to us our sins, being made for us a • expi • tion, and communicateth to us his righteousness which is called impu • •• ive, (which he proveth 2 Cor. 5. ult. & Rom. 4. Abraham believed, &c. For by faith we comprehend Christ, whom we believe most absolutely to have satisfied for us, and God to be at peace with us for Christ, and the righteousness of Christ to be freely imputed unto us, as our own (and truly our own by his gift) because we be now the children of God.

When as no mortal man exactly satisfied the Law for himself, how therefore to justice is promised life and salvation to such as observe the Law? No wonder, for that promise respecteth that perfect righteousness of Christ which is imputed unto us.

Whence it is now clear those sayings of the Lord Christ to be equivalent, He that believeth in me hath eternal life, and, If thou▪ wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments.

Therefore the whole abrogation of the decalogue, consisteth in those things of which we have spoken now before, that Christ in faith is our perfect righteousness.

And now Reader see how truly he saith of his Authors, that they exclude all other things whatsoever, without exception, from this i ••• tation; and thus for this demonstration, as you are pleased to call it, we shall see more afterward.

Come we now to your second demonstration, which as far as it will reach, say you, makes the matter greater then contradiction, that the Authors could not in their expositions and commentaries possibly take the word Faith •• Believing in a figurative sense, but in a proper.

Let us see this Demonstration.

Because (say you) the word faith taken in a figurative sense for the righteousness of Christ, is partly manifest and open blasphemy, partly most ridiculously absurd; for example, Luther on Gal. 3. 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem, &c. for perfect righteousness, if by faith there we understand the righteousness of Christ, and not faith properly, he makes Luther an 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 execrable blasphemer, for he calleth the righteousness of Christ imperfect righteousness. Illiricus a beggarly faith, &c. and therefore.

1. I answer that Calvin and Luther take the word, faith, in this point of justification, as an instrument Relatively, figuratively, and that it justifieth as it taketh in its object Christ and his righteousness, and not in a proper sense, as a work considered in and by it self, and that they teach the righteousness of Christ to be that which being imputed by God, and applied by our faith, to be that whereby we be just before God, is as evident and clear as the Sun in the firmament shining at noon day.

2. That the rankest enemies of God's grace, whether Arminians or Papists; yet, never (knowing the same) were so inconsiderate to lay such a charge on them.

3. That it is an injurious kind of dealing with Authors, to force them to speak against manifest expressures of themselves in their writings, a miserably poor shift, a sign that a man is near driven in a strait, desperate, especially in writing to do so. It were more modesty to say we understand them not, or deny their authority with reason, to say they err, then thus as it were to snarl at them, and bite them.

4. When as we speak of faith that it is imperfect, beggarly, leprous, we speak of it (though an instrument) as it is in it self, and therefore taking it so, deny it to justify as a work, or for its worth, and say it hath need of justification it self; and that in justice God cannot account it for the righteousness of the Law, we speak of it as of an hand that receiveth riches. Whether it be weak, or unclean, or leprous, so it affordeth a strong argument against your proper sense, and a necessity that when as it is said to justify that it should do so in respect to the object it is employed about, the righteousness of Christ which it receiveth.

And when as by a Trope the righteousness of Christ is signified, or taken in with faith the instrument, there is none that saith either that faith is the righteousness of Christ, or whatsoever is predicated of the instrument faith, is true of the object of it the righteousness of Christ. When you prove these, Christ shall be and his righteousness as is said of faith, imperfect, leprous, &c. till then, though the faith that is imputed be so, it will not be true of the object, imperfection and leprosy is its own. Justification properly is the effect of Christ's righteousness, which is given to faith not as imperfect or weak, or strong, but as an hand receiving the righteousness of Christ, which applied, justifieth.

Thus as I am able I have endeavored to answer you, not leaving willingly as much as one passage unanswered, and now may say, what you say not withstanding or do against Mr. Walker, or the cause, He may still have Peliade stomachum cedere nescii. The stouter a man is for the truth, I say the truth, the greater is his glory.

For a close, give me leave to the many testimonies used already, to add some more out of some learned moderne writers, by which the Reader may see whether the proper sense of faith, or that which is Relative to its object the righteousness of Christ hath their constant patronage, and whether we be justified by faith in a proper sense, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Luther shall lead the way. He to the Galatians hath many places. I in my reading him over have observed these, as he is in English.

I have another righteousness and life, which is Christ the son of God. Wherefore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart, is the true Christian righteousness, for the which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal life. Whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ, apprehended in the heart, him God will account for righteous; this is the mean, and this is the merit, whereby we attain remission of sins and righteousness. Because thou hast laid bold on Christ by faith, through whom thou art made righteous.

We are indeed justified and made righteous in Christ.

And teacheth what true Christian righteousness is, namely that righteousness whereby Christ liveth in us, and not that which is in our person.

Now, because Christ liveth in me, the refore look what grace righteousness, &c. is in me, it is his, and yet notwithstanding the same is mine also by that unspeakable union and communion which is through saith, by the which Christ and I are made one body in spirit.

For as much as Christ liveth in me, it followeth, that as I must needs be partaker of grace, righteousness, &c. I am now one with Christ, that is to say, Christ's righteousness, &c. are mine.

Christ died for sins that he might make us righteous, therefore when I feel myself a sinner, through Adams transgression, why should I not say that I am made righteous through the righteousness of Christ.

I will account and pronounce thee as righteous.

But because I am covered under the shadow of Christ's wing, as the Chicken under the wing of the Hen.

Through whom we are made perfect, sin is pardoned for Christ's sake in whom thou believest, who is perfectly just, whose righteousness is thy righteousness, and thy sin is his sin.

For all the promises past are contained in Christ to come, therefore as well Abraham as the other Fathers, are made righteous by faith in Christ, they by faith in him to come, we by faith in him now present.

Therefore all the world is blessed, that is, receiveth imputation of righteousness, if it believe as Abraham did.

Therefore to say that the Nations are blessed, is nothing else but that righteousness is freely given to them, or that they are counted righteous before God.

Moreover, if the Nations be blessed, that is to say, accounted righteous before God, it followeth that they are free from sin and death, and are made partakers of righteousness, &c. by faith in Christ.

Gen. 12. 9. speaketh of such a blessing as belongeth to imputation of righteousness; which is available before God, and redeemeth from the curse of sin, now this blessing is received only by faith, for the text saith, Abraham believed, &c.

To make us righteous before God there is a far more excellent price required, which is neither the righteousness of man, or the Law. Here we must have Christ to bless us, &c. as Abraham bad.

Whom Abraham himself by faith did apprehend, and through him was blessed. So making an happy change with us, he took upon him our sinful person, and gave unto us his innocent and victorious person, wherewith we being now clothed, are freed from the curse of the Law. He that doth so (believe) hath this innocence and victory of Christ, by saith only therefore we are made righteous, for faith layeth hold on this innocence and victory of Christ.

The Law threateneth unto thee death, &c. but be not afraid, fly not away, but stand fast, I supply and perform all things for thee, I satisfy the Law for thee.

Therefore there must come a far other Mediator then Moses, which may satisfy the Law.

The putting on of Christ, consisteth in putting on Christ's innocence, his righteousness, his wisdom, &c.

But Christ himself is our garment, &c. to be appareled with Christ is not, &c. but with an incomparable gift, that is to say, with remission of sins, righteousness, peace,—and Christ himself.

But you are clothed with a new garment, to wit, with the righteousnsse of Christ, now when we are appareled with Christ as with the rohe of our righteousness, and salvation, &c.

For as much as Christ pleaseth God, and we are in him, we also please God and are holy.

In him do I believe, if I be a sinner and err, be is righteous and cannot • rre. He with all that is in him is made unto me of God righteousness.

Faith God's gift and work in our hearts, which therefore justifieth us, because it apprehendeth Christ our Redeemers

We say faith apprehendeth Christ, which is the form, which adorneth and furnisheth faith, • s the color the wall.

Very form and perfection of faith.

Faith therefore justifieth, because it apprehendeth and possesseth this measure, even Christ present.

To him that believeth, sin is pordoned, and righteousness imputed.

Calvin.

God to be without Christ always angry with us, that we are reconciled by him whilst we are accepted in his righteousness, &c.

By faith we come to the possession of that benefit.

But by naming blood alone he would not exclude other parts of redemption. But rather under one part to comprehend the whole sum.—So by a Synecdoche the whole expiation is named.

For Christ should be in vain given to us for righteousness, unless there shall be fruition by faith.

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

Neither do we otherwise attain righteousness, but because, as it is brought unto us in the promise of the Gospel, so we see the possession of it as it were by faith.

From whence we gather that it is not disputed what manner of men, men are in themselves, but in what place God accounteth them, not that—but because when the cause is sought why God loveth us, and acknowledgeth us as just, there is a necessity that Christ should come forth who may clothe us with his righteousness.

For (that a man may be justified) there is required perfect and numeris suis omnibus, 1. every way consummated obedience as the promise of the Law soundeth, Lev. 18. 5. Those that are already appareled with the righteousness of Christ, they not only have God favorable to them, but to their works, whose spots and wrinkles are covered by the holiness of Christ, that they come not to account, if so the righteousness of faith be the only cause why works are accounted just. —

But by Christ's righteousness we are another way restored to salvation, neither is it therefore accounted to us, because it is within us: but because we possess Christ himself with all his goods, given to us by his Fathers bounty, the free gift of righteousness signifieth imputation.

But indeed that we may come to the participation of the grace of Christ, it behooveth that we be inset into him by faith.

That thou mayest enjoy Christ's righteousness, it is necessary that thou be a believer, because by faith we attain fellowship with him.

But it behooveth us to be just if we be accepted to him.

When he pronounceth us to be constituted just by the obedience of Christ, hence we gather, Christ in that he satisfied his Father, to have attained righteousness for us; whence it followeth, that the quality of righteousness is in Christ, but that which is proper to him to be accounted to us. He 'interpreteth also what is the righteousness of Christ, when he calleth it obedience. Where I beseech you let us observe what we must bring into the sight of God if we would be justified by works: forsooth the righteousness of the Law—every way absolute.

You see therefore us to be altogether excluded from the righteousness of works, and therefore that we fly to the righteousness of Christ, because there can be none in us.

Which is especially necessary to be known, because we be never clothed with the righteousness of Christ unless we first surely know. —

Now he showeth the manner whereby the heavenly Father restoreth to us righteousness by his son. —

There is no doubt his righteousness to be called; which is his gift.

But we have elsewhere said, how men put on his righteousness by faith; forsooth because Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.

But after he cast all under guilt, he substituted a new righteousness in Christ.—Which being given freely, is accepted by faith.

He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as from the very Doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousness of faith.

The place is out of Lev. 18. 5. where the Lord promiseth eternal life to those who shall keep his Law.

And so by their own defect constrained they might learn to fly to Christ, 1 Cor. 130. be was made—whereby he understandeth us in his name to be accepted of God, because by his death he hath expiated our sins, and his righteousness should be imputed to us. For when as the righteousness of faith consisteth in remission of sins and free acceptation, we obtain both by him.

Now he more plainly teacheth what we before touched, that then God is favorable to us when as he acknowledgeth us for just, for those two are all one, that we are accepted of God, and that we are reputed just. Righteousness here is taken for acceptation, because Christ's righteousness is accounted to us.

How are we just before God? forsooth, as Christ was a sinner, for after a manner he took upon him our person, that he might be made guilty in our name, and might be judged as a sinner, not with his own, but others faults, when as himself should be pure, and free from all fault, and should under-go the punishment not due to himself but us. So forsooth are we just in him, not because by our own works we may satisfy the judgment of God, but because we are decounted the righteousness of God, which we put on by faith that it may be ours.

When as he saith, that be believed was imputed to him for righteousness, he therein signifieth him to be just who is accounted such with God, but when as men have net righteousness laid up in themselves, they attain it by imputation, because God accounteth it to them for righteousness; therefore we are said to be justified by faith, not because he transfuseth the habit or quality of faith into us, but because we are accepted of God. But why is so great honor given unto it that it should be called the cause of our righteousness?

1. We must know it to be only the instrumental cause, for speaking properly it is nothing else but God's gracious acceptation, in which our salvation is laid. But because the Lord in giving unto us a testimony of his love and favor by the Gospel, communicateth unto us that righteousness which I called it, therefore we receive the same by faith.

Therefore, when as we give to faith man's justification, we dispute not of the principal cause, only we observe the manner whereby men come unto true righteousness, this righteousness is a mere gift of God.—but it is possessed only by faith.

Therefore all those phrases of speech are as one, that we are justified by grace, Christ to be our righteousness, God's mercy to be the cause of our righteousness, righteousness to be attained for us by the death and resurrection of Christ-Righteousness to be bestowed on us by the Gospel, that w •• by faith obraine righteousness.

We have put you in mind, that those that are just by faith, that they are just out of themselves in Christ, not because we have praise of honesty among men, are we accounted just before God—but when we bring to him the perfect obedience of the Law—because we have it not in ourselves, God giveth it us freely.

I pass what Mr. Walker hath gathered out of these and other Authors, and Printed, and many testimonies of others, which I truly have by me already gathered, which needed but transcription. I will content myself with the testimonies of some few yourself name, and but a few, that the world may see what faith is due to you in citing Authors. I confess I have not all their writings by me, either to examine your testimonies, or bring them for myself, so far as I have will give a sufficient taste to the Reader.

For Bucer I refer me to what was observed before.

And so for Bullinger, and the Reader may turn to Mr. Walker.

Luther on that very text you cite, hath these passages.

Because I am covered under the shadow of Christ's wings.

Flying to Christ our Mediator and Reconciler, through whom we are made perfect; Through him we have all things who only▪ doth supply whatsoever is wanting in us. For Jesus Christ's sake in whom we do believe.

It is forgiven thee for Christ's sake who is perfectly just, whose righteousness is thy righteousness, and thy sin is his sin.

Christ which was given for us, whom we apprehend, that causeth that God doth account that faith though it be imperfect for perfect righteousness.

This object I bring sent from the Father pleased you, and because you have apprehended and embraced this object, therefore ye please him.

Nothing cometh between (me a sinner and Christ's love) but Christ the Mediator.—Imputation of righteousness is also necessary, sins do remain in us which God doth utterly hate, therefore it is necessary that we should have imputation of righteousness, which we obtain through Christ, and for his sake who is given unto us, and received of us by faith.

The reconciler (whence sin is no sin, damnable and not) is the Mediator between God and man, even the man Jesus Christ, Rom. 8. 1.

Judge now whether he excluded the object or no, whether he taketh it not in as what is apprehended and applied by faith.

Peter Martyr hath these words.

But also faith it self, if it be considered as our work, we cannot be justified with it, seeing it is a work both lame and imperfect, much worse then (God) requireth; but we are said to be justified with it, as by it we apprehend the promises▪ of God, and the righteousness of Christ and his merits, and apply them to ourselves.

Suppose to thyself the most filthy and leprous hand of some beggar, with which he may receive an alms from him that offereth it; surely that beggar is not helped from the filthiness or leprosy of his hand, but by whatsoever hand it doth receive. Ib.

He that hath Christ in himself, he hath righteousness altogether, for of him Paul writeth ad Cor. 1. 1. who was made to us wisdom, righteousness, &c.

Here he calleth that righteousness which is of works and the Law, his; but that which is of faith, and which he most wisheth, he calleth it the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Abraham believed, &c. But what did he believe? forsooth this only seed to be given unto him, that is, as Paul interpreteth, in which all Nations were to be blessed, which is Christ, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. Pareus.

What did Abraham believe? to wit, God's consolatory Sermon of God's singular grace—of seed to be borne of Sarah— for the Apostle calleth the promised seed, expressly Christ. Neither can it be doubted the promised seed which Abraham believed to agree with foregoing and following promises of seed and blessing of all Nations by it: and then Abraham's faith was a general faith or Catholic (as Sophisters call it) assenting to every word of God, But also special resting on the promise given of seed, which is Christ. So Ambrose, Abraham believed God: What did he believe? that he was to have seed, that is, a Son, in whom all Nations should be justified. Therefore Abraham's was founded in Christ. The Apostle will more clearly declare this faith about the end of the chapter expressly teaching; Justifying faith ought to be fastened in the death and resurrection of Christ. Pareus, p. 268.

And in the former page, Now on the contrary, he proveth Abraham to be justified by faith, that is, with righteousness freely imputed to the believer.

And there having denied faith as a virtue to justify, though it be most excellent, &c. Abraham is proposed not as working—but as by faith freely receiving righteousness, p. 270.

Again, When faith is said to be imputed for righteousness it is not to be understood but Relatively, because righteousness shall be freely imputed to the believer, or because the believer of grace shall • be reputed just.

I will name but one place more now of Pareus, he is often before cited, who when in answering Bellarmine, he had said of Luther but in a metonymicke sense he said faith, that is, Christ apprehended by faith, to be our righteousness. —Addeth.

Which figurative sense called Metonymia, if the Adversary opposeth, surely he opposeth not Luther, but blasphemeth the holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressly our righteousness, as Jer. 23. 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30.

Calvin followeth, in both places mentioneth the object. Abraham by believing doth no other thing then embrace the grace tendered to him, by which he meaneth the promises; Christ that seed especially and his righteousness, and that is infolded in the goodness of God which it is said to apprehend.

And on the same place. But by faith they borrow from elsewhere what is wanting to them, and therefore it is openly called imputed righteousness by faith.

Thither is to be referred the promise of future seed.

Where the cause is sought. Why—he acknowledgeth us for righteous, it is necessary that Christ come forth, who clotheth us with his righteousness.

Faith adorneth us with another's righteousness, which it beggeth of God.

Faith here hath relation and respect to such a word of God, which men believing can rest in it. What the promises are be showeth towards the end of his Commandment on that place, as Pareus and Martyr before.

Which righteousness seeing men have not placed in themselves, they obtain it by imputation.

To that question, why is so great honor given to faith, that it is called the cause of our righteousness? he answereth.

First, we must know it is only the instrumental cause, for to speak properly, our righteousness is no other then God's free acceptation, in which our safety is founded.

But because the Lord in giving us a testimony of his love and favor by the Gospel, doth communicate to us that righteousness I called, therefore we receive it by faith.

Therefore when we give man's justification to faith, we dispute not of the principal cause, only we observe the manner by which men come to true righteousness: For this righteousness is God's mere gift, not a quality which may inhere in men, but is possessed only by faith.

We have therefore called to mind those that are just by faith, are just out of themselves, forseoth in Christ.

We are justified before God, when we bring the perfect righteousness of the Law, for righteousness is opposed to the transgression of the Law, even in the least point, because we have it not ourselves, God giveth it to us freely.

Abraham therefore is not justified— but because be embraced the grace of God trusting in the promised Mediator in whom all God's promises are Yea and Amen

Let the Reader observe but these passages on the same place, and he may observe the vain confidence of this objector of Calvin, for his proper sense of faith, and opposition of the common tenet.

To Gwalther, M. Wr. rightly willeth the Reader to see how hardly we are put to it, when as you cite the bare words themselves to prove your interpretation: for Aretius (for I have not to examine by either Musculus or Gwalther, or Illyricus, &c. ) Shall in the next place be considered.

The instrumental cause is faith of Jesus Christ, that is, that imputed righteousness of God is applied to us by faith in Christ.

It is called the instruments of jusiification, because the righteousness of God is applied to us by faith.

Because seeing it is of God, and in God properly, yet it is imputed and applied to us, so as when we be guilty of death, God absolveth us from punishment, and may pronounce us just, his right cousnesse imputed unto us, hence may it be called imputed and free.

With which he maketh us just, this is imputative, for another's righteousness is imputed to men unjust by themselves, of this he speaketh in the present place.

Consider (in justification) the sin which is in a man not to be imputed, so contrary in justification, that righteousness to be imputed which is not in man.

Faith therefore so holy and so firm is imputed to him for righteousness, because this apprehendeth the mercy and proposed promise, hence righteousness is imputed to him.

Christ is made to us of God righteousness, because in him alone we are accounted just, we are reputed just with his merit.

That we might be made the righteousness of God, that is, might be pronounced just, and be adorned with imputed righteousness as with a garment. It is called the righteousness of God because it is not ours but freely.

In him he signifieth that out of Christ there is no righteousness with which we can array ourselves, and which availeth in the sight of God.

That he might perfectly fulfill the Law which was impossible to us, &c.

Thus for Aretius, who no whit digresseth from the former.

Beza. And not rather an instrument only and freely given us, with which, is an hand, we apprehend Christ our righteousness.

To righteousness, in those words there is a figure called Hypallage.

For properly God is said to impute righteousness by faith, as by and by in the 6. & 11. v. what that righteousness is, is opened before on c. 1. verse. 17. and c. 3. verse. 20.

For Junius, the man might be thought either blind, or un sound in his principles that will but mention him.

By the promises which Abraham by saith embraced, include that of Christ our seed.

Faith in the predicament of relation justifieth not as an habit—but by reason of its relative difference, which considently embraceth the gracious promise of righteousness and eternal life.

But relatively only as it apprehendeth death the merit of Christ, as the band of the beggar doth the alms.

The occasion therefore was this, that Abraham with a most simple faith did sit down in those most simple promises of God, and laid hold of the same righteousness of God by the same faith, as it is imputed not to workers to a reward, but believers to righteousness and life, as the Apostle doth best of all interpret.

To conclude, that we may expound this Metonymy by as evident a simily as we can. Faith is as an hand, or as a purse apprehending the treasure of grace which God in Jesus Christ exhibiteth to us.

Doctor Abbot is added in his defense of Mr. Perkins. I believe the words are there, though I cannot find them, and have four times inquired, and spent more time then will make an answer. Where we have first, righteousness imputed without works; secondly, what that is by your relation, the reputing of faith for righteousness, for that thereby we obtain remission and forgiveness of sins.

And you conclude, he that will undertake to divide this Author and the opinion we contend for, must be more severe then to give a man leave to be of his own mind.

I find the words otherwise cited in your Master Mr. Watton, and will say nothing to them, until I find them, but suspend.

But this I am confident of, that the Author no more favoreth your opinion, then any of those that are called your adversaries in this question; and whoever shall read his whole chapter, and consider whom he defendeth, and what against Bishop, shall see our arguments for the imputation of Christ's righteousness which you oppose proposed by Mr. Perkins, opposed in many things by Doctor Bishop the Papist, and made good against him by Dr. Abbot, who doth it as a son of the Church of England indeed. What he undertakes you may see, p. 381.

That our justification and righteousness before God standeth not in any inward virtues, &c. but in the imputation of Christ's obedience and righteousness made ours by faith, shall be proved to him, God willing, by better arguments then be shall be able to disprove.

In that place, for this by the way he nameth, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But the Gospel teacheth us to acknowledge Christ immediately and wholly our righteousness and salvation, in whom, and not in our se'ves, we are made the righteousness of God, that is, just in the sight of God, in that his obedience and righteousness performed and wrought in our name, and for our behoove, is imputed unto us by faith in his blood.

1. Mr. Perkins argument is, That which must be our righteousness before God, must satisfy the justice of the Law, which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live.

But there is nothing that can satisfy that justice of the Law but the righteousness and obedience of Christ. Ergo.

This argument the Doctor defendeth.

He showeth this Scripture meant of the Moral-Law.

Now Mr. Perkins to take away the opinion of our own righteousness, and to show that we have no other but the righteousness of Christ to rest safely upon, allegeth as Gregory doth, the rigor and severity of God's judgment which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect, according to the rule of justice prescribed to us.

2. His second argument is taken out of 2 Cor. 5. ult. As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made the righteousness of God in him. But Christ was made sin by the imputation of our sins being most boly. Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christ's righteousness is imputed unto him.

Which are made good out of Anselm, Augustine, and Jerome.

Where you shall find a comparison made good against you.

And, that answered that he was made sin not by imputation, but a Sacrifice. Where he demandeth why the Sacrifice of sin should be called by the name of sin. See him who is large in speaking thereunto, out of the Trope and Fathers. There I find Christ needed not for himself to be made under the Law, for to perform the righteousness thereof for his own justification before God, being otherwise simply and absolutely just. But what he did he did it for our sakes, that we thereby through faith in him should be justified in God's sight.

It followeth that the righteousness of God must be understood of another righteousness, which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth us, whereby the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, according to the words of David, &c.

Hitherto the Argument standeth good. As Christ was made sin, so we are made righteousness; Christ was made sin by the imputation of our sin, we are therefore made righteous by the imputation of his righteousness.

Mr. Perkins his third Argument, is from Rom. 5. 19. As by the disobedience of Adam, men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous. But men are made sinners by the imputation of Adams sin unto them, and not only by propagation of natural corruption: Therefore by imputation of Christ's justice we are made righteous.

The case is very clear, that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adams sin, then are we also righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Where he defendeth the imputation af Adams sin, which he proveth against Bishop, (and Bellarmine himself somewhere, and you) out of Bellarmine citing Bernard for it, &c. and Augustine, p. 406. and Bernard, p. 407. and Chrysostom.

Now I pray thee Reader do but judge whether this Doctor be of Mr. John Goodwines side, the opinion he contendeth for or against him, and never credit his testimony but on examination.

Doctor Preston maketh himself a stranger to the Tropicall interpretation of this Scripture, and improveth that which is literal and proper, Treat. Allsuff. p. 12. & 13. In this sense faith is said to be imputed for righteousness. Abra. believed God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance, he tells him what he would do for him. And (saith the text ) Abraham believed God, &c. Now it was accounted to him for righteousness, chiefly in this sense, as it is interpreted, Rom. 4. that this very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, in that he did receive that which God gave, that put him within the Covenant, and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man, even for that very acceptation and believing.

But that is not all, but likewise he accounteth faith to him for righteousness, because faith doth sanctify and make a man righteous, &c. And then cry out evidence.

1. Doth the Doctor in all this discourse mention your proper sense?

2. Doth he establish it with an, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed?

3. Doth he not insold the object? He tells him what he would do for him. So that all that he would do for him was what he believed, on which imputation.

Your self add. This very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, and that he did receive that which God gave, was that wherefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man.

Is not here receiving the object, the promise, the covenant, and what God gave.

Is not Christ and his righteousness in all these, the seed, and righteousness of God? If it be by receiving these, he was accounted just, these must not be excluded, this testimony is not against us, but for, and against you, who exclude these.

I will entreat the Reader to consider some of his particulars in the same work.

The Covenant is the ministration of life and justification — the Covenant of grace shows him a righteousness to satisfy this Law, that himself never wrought; shows him a way of obtaining pardon by the satisfaction of another.

Abraham saith the Lord, I will give thee a seed, and in that seed both thou thyself, and all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed.

There was no other way to make mankind partaker of the Covenant of grace but only by faith, by believing God, and taking the promise and the gift of righteousness by Jesus Christ.

Because we believe the promises and the Covenant of grace, therefore the Lord accepts us and counts us righteous.

I would die that I might have Christ and his righteousness.

What difference is there now between him and the rest of ours, who make the same things objects, and taken in to make us just?

As that of Christ the seed, &c.

And though righteousness be not named there, it is infolded, and explained by the Prophets who reveal Christ in the Covenant, the Lord our righteousness, and that with him was to be brought in everlasting righteousness. And it was granted when the Apostle layeth down circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith: faith receiveth righteousness which God promised, being the Seal of the whole Covenant there is infolded the seed, Christ's, and Christ's righteousness.

Mr. Forbs is the last, to which testimony I answer.

1. In the same place he saith. That opinion of the Metonymicke sense of faith, agreeth with the truth of the matter in it self.

2. When he saith that it is taken properly, yet it is with cautions. If they that take it so, err not in the signification of it, or the true sense of the imputation of it.

3. And now let us consider what he doth farther.

He teacheth Christ's righteousness the only matter of justification.

And the Lord's imputing thereof the form. That opinion (of God's accepting our imperfect righteousness) can never be maintained with God's honor.

That God justifieth us by accounting unto us Christ's obedience, which is in it self perfect righteousness, in such a sort as by this his imputation, it is ours as truly, and doth as truly clear us before God as if it were our own indeed, and we ourselves had indeed performed it.

We must first have righteousness, for God justifieth no man that hath not righteousness. It is abomination, Prov. 17. 15.

That opinion of those who place our righteousness in faith, properly taken, as it is the act of the heart without relation of it as an apprehending instrument unto Christ, is much more pernicious then the opinion of the Papists.

Nothing in Heaven or Earth in man or without man, is the matter of man's righteousness before God, except only Christ and his obedience. Therefore it is said by the Apostle that he is made to us of God, &c. 1. Cor. 1. 30. and in the Prophet, Jer. 23. 6. and 33. 16. where also he urgeth that text, 2 Cor. 5. ult. and cleareth it, and Dan. 9. 24.

He urgeth God's justice in justifying, and that if God should justify us—by faith, as it is a work or habit in us, God should never be seen to be just, &c. the Saints in Scripture have acknowledged their faith imperfect, whence he concludeth nothing can be righteousness except Christ alone.

And now let the learned judge of those passages: The clear approbation of many Authors. The judgment of able, learned, and impartial men is found in perfect concurrence with it: And that

From about Luther's and Calvin's time, the fairest stream of Interpreters runs to water and refresh this interpretation.

And so whether you have cause of shame and blushing for the same, and whether Mr. Walker had not cause of blaming you for not being ashamed and blushing: I say let the Reader judge.

Musculus is clear for us, as by these testimonies transcribed.

Est quidem sides vera quaedam qualitas in pectoribus nostris, sed non justifications quatenus est nova qualitas, sed quatenus gratiam Dei in Christo oblatam apprehendit, In Rom. 3. 24. &c.

Quomodo illa in nobis impleta est per Christum, primum imputative, aliena justitia, quae Christi est, adeoque & nostra, quia caro sumus de carne ejus & os de ossibus illius: hac ration vere justi sumus, quia scilicet Christus nostra est justitia, sanctificatio, redemptio, 1 Cor. 1. ad Rom. c. 8. verse. 3. &c.

Huc etiam facit quod justitiam fidei vocat justitiam Dei, non ob hoc tantum, quod illa Deo tribuit justitiam, sed & ob id quod nos per illius justitiam gratis in Christo filio ipsius justificamur per fidem, ita ut aliena justitia justi simus, non propria. Maxima pestis est totius mundi, quod hanc Dei justitiam talem esse non agnoscit, per quam nos justificemur, sed putat nostra ipsorum nos esse justitia salvandos; electi vero non ita, unde quid Apostolus scribat, Arbitror, inquit, omnia &c—Ex eo vero non ascribemus nobis aliam justitiam quam eam quae est Dei per fidem Christi. In Rom. 10. 3.

Verum placuit antithesi uti peccatorum nostrorum & justitiae Christi. Nos peccatores eramus, ill justus. Ut commutatio fieret, nostra peccata imposuit filio justo, ac vicissim justitiam illius communicavit nobis peccatoribus. Propter aliena igitur peccata factus ill peccatum est, & nos propter alienam justitiam justitia Dei facti sumus: sicut enimille non suis, sed nostris peccatis peccatum a Deo, ita nos non nostra ipsorum, sed ipsius justitia justitia Dei facti sumus a Deo.—

Facta namque mutatione peccata nostra sua, & justitiam suam nostram fecit, &c.

Sed secit nos justitiam, id est, imputavit nobis justitiam, idque non nostram, quae nulla est, sed suam, gratuitam videlicet & olementer a se imputatam, quam habeamus non in nobis, sed in ipso filio.—

Loquitur de justitia quam nobis in Christo imputat sicuti peccata nostra illi imputavit—In hac commutatione omnis nostra salus est sita, ubi & Augustini illud; Ipsiergo peccatum, &c. in 2 Cor. 5. ult.

Deinde sub Lege esse debitorem est esse faciendae Legi, ad obediendum illius praeceptis, ac subeundum transgressionis paenashic quaeritur an isto quo{que} sensu factus fuerit sub Lege Christus Dei Filius? Etenim si justo non est Lex posita sed injustis, quisnā reperietur ex omnibus hominibus, ad quem minus pertineat subjectio ista qua Legi sit subditus, quam Christus Filius Dei omnium innocentissimus ac justissimus? Accedit & hoc, quod qui Dominus est Legis liber est ab ejus observantia: talis autem est Christus, &c.

Verum ut paucis sententiam meam expediam, non impediunt rations, quo minus etiam hoc posteriori sensu, Christum sub Lege factum esse intelligamus. Licet enim hand quaquam propter se subjici debuerit Legi; subjectus tamen suit propter alios quos redimere debebat. Qui aliorum in se debita recipit, non minus debitor est quam si propter sua ipsius esset debita creditori obstrictus.

Christus autem propterea missus suit in hunc mundum ut debita nostra inse recipenet, proque illis satisfaceret; sic venit in sua factusque est sub Lege, haud propter se, sed propter cos qui sub Lege servient es condemnationi erant propter illius transgressiones obnoxii sic subjicit, ut eos qui &c. Musc. in Gal. 4.

And now for your other two Treatises of the same matter, God willing I shall examine all in your own order.

ERRATA.

Add 1 Arg. p. 48. 1 Par. for first, p. 49. put second 2 par. for justitiam justitia. p. 12. for which righteous, in p. 13. p. 16. no to himself but us, read Christi p. 19.