THE SECOND PART OF A DISCOURSE Concerning Imputed Righteousness.  
Together with a large Preface in Answer to Mr Throughtons late Book entitled Lutherus Redivivus: And a Postscript containing a Vindication of the Authors Doctrine in the former part, against the Reflections of Dr John own in his late Book of Justification.  
By Thomas Hotchkis Rector of Stanton by Highworth in the County of Wilts.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettleby at the Bishops-head at the West-end of St. Pauls Churchyard, 1678.   

THE PREFACE. Containing Reflections more at large upon Mr Throughtons late Book, styled Lutherus Redivivus.  
Christian Reader,  
FOrasmuch as the Title-page, together with the Index annexed to this Second part of my Discourse( Written indeed and sent to the Stationer two years ago in order to its being made public) do plainly and fully declare the scope and subject matter thereof, I should not have deemed it necessary in the least to have prefixed any Preface thereunto, were it not to give thee to understand, that a few weeks ago there came to my hands Mr Throughtons late Book entitled( Lutherus Redivivus, or, The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith onely.) Which h●ving rend throughout and finding myself( together with those two very Learned Writers, Mr Richard Baxter, and Mr Joseph Truman) by name therein opposed, I have thought it expedient for the vindication and confirmation of that Doctrine, which is held forth in both parts of this Discourse, to speak somewhat more at large in reference thereunto.  
In this undertaking I intend these four things.  
1. A brief relation of the scope of the said Authors Book.  
2. A manifestation of his want of candour and conscience in his frequent misrepresenting the doctrine of his brethren, disguising their true sense and meaning, and mistaking the Question, or Question in debate betwixt him and them.  
3. A punctual answer to every passa●e in his book, wherein I find myself by name concerned.  
4. Forasmuch as by his book he pretends to be a great friend to the Protestant cause against Arminianism, Socinianism, and Popery, I will give in a list of several his doctrines, with some animadversions upon them therein divulged, and thereupon leave it to the judgement of the learned and impartial Reader, whether instead of real service he hath not done great disservice to the Protestant Cause and Churches.  
1. As to the first, The scope of his book is apparently to maintain a sinners justification to be onely by faith, i.e. by faith taken in a strict sense by way of contradistinction from all other graces or duties of evangelical obedience( such as repentance for sin, or sincere purpose for amendment of life) Yea that it is onely by that kind of act of faith, which he doth all along style, A trusting in the promise of Christ, of salvation by Christ, of free grace in Christ or of God through Christ for mercy. Nor will he acknowledge, that this trusting in the promise is commanded sinners in the gospel as any proper condition of their justification, but only as a natural means and way to it, denying also perseverance in faith and holiness to be required of God as the condition, upon which a sinner is to continue, or be continued in a pardonned and justified estate. Faith( says he p. 122.) is commanded as the natural and onely means of saving a sinner, who hath no righteousness of his own. And( p. 23.) Faith is not a proper condition, but a natural qualification capacitating the soul to receive benefit by Christ, appointed by God for that use and having the promise of success—  
This is that pretended Protestant doctrine of justification by faith onely, which he sets himself his book throughout to vindicate, as against multitudes of his Brethren of a different judgement therein from himself, so more especially against that Antesignanus in this warfare Mr Richard Baxter: for having said in his Epistle to the Reader( p. 2, 3.) that the contrary opinion to his hath of late diffused itself amongst men of all persuasions, Forms and Modes amongst us, so he says particularly concerning Mr Richard Baxter, p. 6. That he hath diffused this doctrine, viz. That faith and sincere obedience to the gospel are therein required of sinners as the condition of their salvation by christ, through all his writings, of which doctrine he passeth this peremptory censure, or sentence, saying in his Epistle, p. 3. It is no other, than the old Popish doctrine divested of the School-Terms.  
2. As to the second thing promised( the manifestation of his want of candour in misreporting the doctrine of his adversaries, his mistating of the Question, or Questions in debate—) in order thereunto among very many I shall onely single out a few the following instances, beginning with that in his Epistle, where p. 3. In short, says he, this is the Question, Whether we be accepted, and entitled to life for the righteousness, which Christ wrought for us, or for our own righteousness, or obedience to the Gospel whether Christ wrought any righteousness to justify and save us by, or only died to procure this grant, that we should be justified and saved by believing and obeying the Gospel.  
Answ. The Question, or Questions betwixt him and his Brethren are here most falsely reported by him: for none of them( of what persuasion, form, or m●de whatsoever) did ever question, whether we be accepted and entitled to life for the righteousness, which Christ wrought for us, or whether Christ wrought any righteousness to justify and save us by: for to make a Question of this, is to question the word of God in the very letter of it which says, That we are justified by the blood of Christ, and that by His Obedience We are made Righteous, Rom. 5.9, 18. Let the Reader therefore take notice of the words of this Author in the same page. and immediately following, as an intolerable slander, he there saying, It is the latter opinion, that is, We are entitled to life for our own righteousness, not for the righteousness, which Christ wrought for us, which many now publish in Pulpit and Press. We publish no such doctrine in press, or pulpit.  
2. In short, the Questions are such as these.  
1. Whether sinners be accepted and entitled to life, justified, or pardonned actually and immediately for the sake of that righteousness, which Christ wrought for them, or whether their actual pardon, or discharge for Gods sake doth not depend upon their performance of certain duties required in the gospel in order thereunto, the faithful performance of which duties being commonly styled our personal, or evangelical righteousness, and in the language of Scripture, The righteousness of Saints, Rev, 19.8.  
2. Q. Whether according to the gospel-law, or ordination of God a sinners actual justification, or pardon doth depend onely upon faith strictly taken in way of opposition to other evangelical graces, or( as some would have it) upon one elicit act of faith styled( trusting, recumbing, relying upon Christ, or the promise in Christ—) or else Whether it doth not depend upon other graces also, or upon certain other imperated acts of faith, i.e. upon faith its acting itself in, or by repentance for sin, holy desires, sincere purposes for amendment of life and the like?  
3. Q. Whether, as a sinners entering into a pardonned and justified estate doth depend upon the said acts, or actings of faith by a penitential return to God in Christ, so, Whether a sinners continuance in that saving estate, his full pardon in all its effects, or final justification and salvation doth not also depend upon his perseverance in faith and holiness, as the condition thereof, or the thing prescribed by God in order thereunto?  
4. Q. Whether that very righteousn●ss, which Christ wrought to justify and save us by, be in its essential nature imputed to us, and We justified and saved by the imputation thereof in that sense, or else Whether it be imputed to us in such a sense as our sins were to him, i.e. in its saving fruits and effects? the imputation whereof in which latter sense I take to be the true Protestant Doctrine, and I am glad to perceive, that it is so acknowledged to be by this Author, pag. 10.11. where he reports their Doctrine in the express words transcribed, as followeth.  
The righteousness of Christ, whereby he fulfilled the law, is imputed to believers for their justification, i.e. for that his righteousness God grants them pardon of sin and a firm gift, or grant of eternal life.  
Lo the true Protestant Doctrine concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness to believers, the imputation whereof in that sense being the Doctrine pleaded for by myself and the brethren in consort with me; so falsely is it said of us by this Author in the same pages, That we do( upon a pretence there feigned by him) deny, that Christs righteousness cannot in that sense be imputed to us.  
page. 13. He represents the Doctrine of his Brethren concerning justification in the following words here transcribed.  
Justification is nothing else but the pardon of sin, i.e. the not exacting the punishment of sin due by the law of works, and an acceptance of man so far and so long as he performeth the new condition of sincere obedience. And he says, p. 99. That according to us Christ died onely for sins against the law.  
Whereas we say, That Gospel-justification doth comprise the pardon of all sin against any law whatsoever( whether against the law of works or of grace) onely final impenitency, or unbelief excepted, all former, or temporary unbelief, and impenitency being pardonned to a justified person, when justified and all the bewailed imperfections of his new obedience being pardonned also, it continuing to be sincere, so that the thing we say is, That Christ died for the pardon of sin both against the Law, and Gospel.  
In p. 14. As to the Question, By what way, or means Christs righteousness and the benefits of it are made ours, he thus states the matter, viz.  
Whether by trusting in it according to Gods promise as the immediate and sole cause of pardon and right to life( as all, says he, till of late have taught) or whether all the benefit of it be, that it hath procured a new covenant, viz. That they, who believe and obey the Gospel, shall be saved, though their obedience be not perfect?  
Answ. The matter is not as thus reported by this Author, but the Question is, whether God hath promised, that Christs righteousness in the benefits thereof shall be ours and we saved thereby merely by the means of our trusting thereunto, or whether besides that acting of faith by the way of trust or reliance, God doth not also require the acting of faith in the way of obedience to other commands of the Gospel as a means, whereby, or as a condition whereupon sinners are to be saved, and upon which obedience( though imperfect, yet if sincere) sinners shall certainly be saved for the sake of Christs righteousness as the sole meritorious cause thereof; but otherwise and without such Gospel-obedience not at all? So that it is untruly said by him, that the said Question as by him stated was agitated amongst us about 30 years since in opposition to growing antinomianism: nor was there any just ground for him to say as he immediately doth in the following words.  
And because it seemed most effectually to overthrow that Error( of Antinomianism) and to be an ingenuous notion, viz. That we should be saved by our works, and yet works are not to be meritorious, but subordinate to Christ, it began to please many, who( I believe) little thought, they should come utterly to exclude the righteousness of Christ from any part of justification, and make it only subservient to mans works; they, that followed the controversy, found, that they could not defend our being justified by our works, unless they denied our being justified by Christs righteousness; for that alone if imputed, is sufficient to justify.  
Answ. 1. Although we do upon good ground exclude Christs righteousness from being any part of justification( forasmuch as Christs righteousness is a thing wholly extrinsical to justification even as a cause is to its effect;) nevertheless we do not in the least exclude it from doing its proper part towards the effecting of a sinners justification, viz. the part of a meritorous cause.  
2 We are no way necessitated to deny our being justified by Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause of that saving benefit( much less did we ever deny our being justified thereby because we do assert, that God doth in the promises of the Gospel require certain good works in order to our partaking in the benefits of it, viz. justification, remission of sin, or eternal salvation; of the actual participation of which saving benefits although our faithful works, or working faith may be truly said to be the means whereby, or the condition whereupon we are par●●●ed, justified, or saved, Yet Christs righteousness truly is the sole meritorious cause; so that it is falsely said by this Author, that we cannot defend our being justified by means of our faithful works, unless we deny our being justified by the righteousness of Christ.  
3. As it is a contradiction to say of us( as this author here doth) that we do utterly exclude the righteousness of Christ from any part of justification( his meaning is, from doing any part towards it) and make it only subservient to mans work( for if we make it subservient to mans works, we cannot truly be said, even for that very reason utterly to exclude it from any part;) so it is falsely said, that we do make Christs righteousness subservient to mans works; though withall it is most true to say, That Christs righteousness and mans faithful works do after a different manner, or in a way peculiar to each, serve for, or towards one and the same end and purpose, viz. The salvation of sinners; the one as the alone meritorious cause, the other as the means under Christ whereby, or the condition upon which a sinner is to be saved, even as it is true to say also, That it is Christ, who saves the sinner, and it is the sinner also, who under Christ must save himself.  
4. It is a notion not only ingenuous( as this Author phraseth it) but also Scriptural to say, That we may be saved by our works: and yet works not be meritorious, but subordinate to Christ; for the Scripture says, that the Saints of old did {αβγδ}, by, or through faith and not by faith onely, but by works also, even through faith and patience inherit the promises, Heb. 6.12. whom we are there exhorted to follow, seeking the same heritage by patient continuance in well doing, as is the Apostles expression, Rom. 2.7.  
Having said, p. 36. That God will freely forgive a sinner upon his flying for refuge to the blood of Christ, he chargeth us with the following words, No say our Authors, pardon is not granted for what Christ hath done, nor a right to heaven, but it is offered and promised upon condition of mans future and sincere obedience.  
Answ. We do not say, that pardon is not granted upon what Christ hath done, but this we say, That pardon is not conferred upon sinners, or sinners are not actually and immediately pardonned upon what Christ hath done, the actual enjoyment of pardon being offered and promised to them upon condition, which condition is not merely a sinners flying for refuge to the blood of Christ( which a sinner may do in such sort as Joab did to the horns of the altar, yet found it not a place of refuge for such a Malefactor as himself, and in which sort those workers of iniquity Mat. 7.21, 22, 23. seem to fly for refuge to Jesus Christ) but a return to God by repentance altogether with a sincere purpose of future amendment of life. And it is no small wrong, that this Author hath done his Brethren, in misrepresenting their Doctrine by the following similitude, p. 36.  
Even as a Captive( it is their own similitude, says he) is set at liberty, that he may try his friends and use means to procure the price appointed and agreed for his ransom, which when he hath fully procured and paid in, then by the contract he must be set at liberty, and if he procure not the price, then he must return to his bondage with this aggravation of his misery, that there was liberty, or redemption to be had, but he sell short of it. All this while the man is a prisoner, though at large, and is as it were upon parole, his redemption dependeth upon certain conditions to be fulfilled by him.  
Answ. Till this Author, or some other for him shall nominate any of their Brethren, who did ever use this similitude in the case before us, I shall take liberty to think this similitude to be of this Authors pure invention and not theirs; for his Brethren do not say as is aforesaid of them, but this they say and affirm constantly, That the price of a sinners redemption is already paid by Christ and accepted by God the Father; so that the price is not at all by them to be procured, nor is any such duty as the procuring the price of their redemption( whether in the whole, or least part) incumbent upon them, by which price already paid and accepted liberty is impetrated, or procured for them, yet not actually or absolutely to be enjoyed by them, but upon certain( not uncertain as this Author says p. 37.) conditions agreed upon betwixt God and Christ, and declared in the Gospel, upon the fulfilling of which conditions we do not say, as this Author would have us say, viz. that a sinners redemption doth depend, but upon which their actual enjoyment of the benefit of their redemption doth depend.  
In page. 78. he calumniates us in saying, That we agree with the Papists in this, that both of us do make mans righteousness the immediate formal cause of justification, for which we are accepted.  
Answ. 1. It is falsely said of his Brethren, that they make their own righteousness the formal cause of justification, remission of sin being it, which as they say, doth constitute, or is the formal cause of Gospel-justification.  
2. The things here charged upon us are incompatible, it being a naturally impossibility, that our own righteousness should at once be both the formal cause of justification and that also for which we are justified, forasmuch as in that case it would be a thing both intrinsical and extrinsical thereunto, for as a cause, for which being an efficient cause, is always extrinsical to the effect, so a formal cause is always intrinsical thereinto, it doth ingredi naturam ●ei.  
3. We make our inherent righteousness no other than a condition of our pardon, and acceptance with God, or a means of Gods appointment in order to our acceptance with him for the sake of Christs righteousness according to the tenor of Gods promise to sinners, If we do well, we shall be accepted, Gen. 4.8. from which and the like conditional promises we doubt not to say, That well doing is a condition requisite on our part, that for Christs sake we may be, and without which we shall not be accepted with God.  
He says of us, p. 81. That we make obedience the cause of justification in the same manner, that all Protestants affirm Christs righteousness to be, and is put into the room of it, viz. That we are not justified by Christs righteousness trusted in, but by fulfilling the commands of the Gospel. Now Christs righteousness is a proper cause of justification, not onely Conditio sine qua non.  
Answ. 1. It is a notorious calumny, that we put our obedience in the room of Christs righteousness, which we with all Protestants do constantly affirm to be the meritorious cause and not onely a condition, or a condition simply so called, such as mans obedience is.  
2. As Christs righteousness and our obedience have a site peculiar to each( the one being in the series of a meritorious cause, the other of a bare simplo condition) so by our Doctrine we preserve them in their proper place and for their proper purposes, putting neither of them out of place, and much less placing the latter in the room of the former, and we do assert withal a different manner of operation according to their different nature, the one having the nature of a mere condition, the other of a cause meritorious.  
3. It is falsely here said, That according to our Doctrine we are not justified by Christs righteousness, but by fulfilling the commands of the Gospel: for our Doctrine is, That we are not justified by, or upon the fulfilling this one, or this onely command of the Gospel, that bids us to trust in the righteousousness of Christ, but upon the fulfilling of other Gospel commands, such as Act. 3.19.( Repent and be converted) pardon of sin being promised in the Gospel not merely to the fulfilling of the former single command, but to that in conjunction with these, upon which performance we are justified for the righteousness sake of Christ.  
To the instances foregoing I might add very many others of the like nature dispersed here and there his book throughout, wherein he misrepresenteth the Doctrine of his adversaries, and mis-states the Question, or Questions under debate, whereby also the intelligent Reader may easily observe, that very much of his arguings do not touch the true state of the matters in question. But to prevent the excessive lengthening of this Epistle, I shall omit the mention of them, and proceed to the third thing promised.  
3. I am now to reply to such passages in this Authors book; wherein I find myself by name excepted against, the first whereof is in p. 4. 5. where to manifest, that many of his adversaries are of this opinion, viz. That pardon and life are promised to them that believe and obey the Gospel, by, or upon both which a man is justified, pardonned and accepted with God, he brings in myself for an instance in the first place, saying, Mr Hotchkis in a Treatise purposely written for this opinion thus delivers himself Disc. p. 59. The law, by which a sinner is justified, is an evangelical law, the law of the Gospel: The law, whereby a sinner[ I did not say a sinner, but a man] was and is to be justified, is twofold,  
1. The law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis, or law of works.  
2. The law of God Redeemer called Lex Remedians, or a law of grace, or faith; the formal law was exacted as the rule of justifying an innocent person, and the latter of a sinner; from which words of mine thus recited he infers, saying p. 5.  
Hence it is evident according to this Author, that faith and obedience to the Gospel are the righteousness of a sinner, whereby he is justiffed in the same manner as perfect obedience should have been his righteousness and have justified him by the law of works.  
Answ. Hence indeed( I confess) it is most evident, that whereas there was one kind of righteousness( commonly styled legal righteousness, which consists in obedience absolutely perfect) required in the law of works, whereby innocent man was to be justified, there is now in the law of grace and faith no such righteousness required of us for that end; the righteousness therein required of us as the condition of our being justified, saved, or accepted unto life by God, consisting in a return to God by faith, repentance and new obedience. This I say is evident from my words.  
But it is not in any sort from thence evident, as this Author suggesteth, viz. That according to me a sinner by his faith and obedience to the Gospel is justified in the same manner, as man innocent would, or should have been justified by perfect obedience: for,  
1. A sinner by the means of his faith and obedience to the Gospel( his evangelical righteousness) and an innocent man by his perfect obedience to the law of works( his legal righteousness) is not justified in the same manner, nor with the same sort of justification, but with a justification of a far different kind, the former being a justification A reatu poenae, from guilt of punishment, the latter A reatu culpae, from guilt of fault. I do truly remember, that this distinction of Reatus culpae& poenae, is censured by Dr. own in his late book, to be a distinction without a difference( Inanis, says he, sine mente sonus;) but for my own part I think, that the difference betwixt them is to the understanding of any unprejudicate person as discernible as is the difference betwixt the precept and the sanction( the preceptive and the remunerative part) of Gods law; guilt of fault being the result of the precept of the law as transgressed, and guilt, or obligation to punishment being the result or consequent of the comminatory part of the law. And as the person justified is( innocent, or not innocent) such I say is his justification, if innocent, his justification is from the guilt of fault and by the l●w of works, if nocent, or a sinner, his justification is, and can be no other absolutely, than from the guilt of punishment and by the law of grace or faith  
2. The former justification( viz. of a sinner) for the manner of it is( to speak simply, and precisely) arbitrary and of free grace, the latter, viz. of an innocent person would have been necessary and of strict justice.  
3. The said two kinds of righteousness( legal and evangelical) referring to the two different Covenants of Law and Gospel, do save, or justify a person after this different manner, viz. Perfect legal righteousness would have justified man, Vi suâ intrinsecâ, propriâ, ceu innatâ, by its innate worth, of itself and without the intervention of any gracious promise from God in Christ, but the said evangelical righteousness doth justify, or save a sinner, Vi tantum aliunde illatà, i.e. onely by virtue of Christs merit and Gods merciful promise in him: for if God had not preordained, or set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, that he might be just and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus, faith would not, faith could not have justified, or saved any sinner; this being one of those four things, wherein this Author doth acknowledge an agreement on both sides,( p. 3.) viz. That neither faith, nor obedience, apart, or together could justifi● a sinner were it not for the merit of the death of Christ, who hath purchased, that we should be reconciled to God this way.  
The Author proceeds to recite two passages( in my Discourse, p. 23 and 43.) wherein although I deny, that we are made righteous with the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, I do nevertheless acknowledge, that Christs righteousness is the external impulsive, or meritorious cau●e of our justification; from whence this Author infers, saying, page. 6.  
But when he saith, Christs righteouss is the impulsive meritorious cause of our justification, he meaneth, Christ merited, that we should be justified by faith and gospel obedience.  
Answ. 1. There be those, who although they will acknowledge Christs righteousness to be the meritorious cause of our justification, will nevertheless deny, that by that acknowledgement they mean, That Jesus Christ did merit for us the Covenant of grace, or the gracious terms of our being justified according to the tenor of this Covenant, I shall onely instance in two learned and well red late Writers( Dr own and the Author of Antizozzo) who will deny, that Jesus Christ did by his merits procure for sinners the covenant of grace, they herein concurring with Socinas: for this Author says, p. 90. concerning Mr Baxter, Mr Truman and myself with the rest opposed by him in his book, that we and Socinas do differ in this main point. Socinas( says he) saith, That God of his mere mercy without any respect to the death of Christ granted the Gospel terms of life. But ours teach, that God granted the terms of the new covenant for the sake of the death of Christ, that he fulfilled so much of the law and bare so much of the curse, as God thought fit, that so that law( That is, as a covenant of works) might be taken out of the way, and a new one established upon milder Conditions.  
2. But for my own part I do acknowledge, that in saying, that Christs righteousness is the impulsive meritorious cause of our justification my meaning therein implyed is, That Jesus Christ did merit that we should be justified upon milder terms, than those of the covenant of works, viz. by, or upon faith in Christ, our obedience to him being therein included. And I did assert this to be my judgement in the same words as this Author recites them( out of my Discourse, p. 8.) in the true recital whereof, p. 6. he hath not wronged me at all; and as I there said, so I say still, That Christ, fulfilling the law of his Mediatorship was accepted of God, not as our fulfilling either of that law, or any other law whatsoever( for the law of Mediatorship belonged not to us, it being peculiar to Christ himself) but it was reckoned, reputed or accepted by God as a satisfaction for our not fulfilling the law of God imposed upon mankind, I mean the law in the rigour of it, or as a Covenant of works, and that such an exact fulfilling of the law should not be exacted of us as the covenanted condition of our salvation, but that faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ should be so required. And I do not perceive, how this Author can with self consistency deny what I have here said once and again, although he doth professedly oppose it; for( as was before related) he confesseth it, p. 3. to be a truth agreed upon on all sides, That neither faith nor obedience apart, or together, could justify a sinner, were it not for the merit of the death of Christ, who hath purchased that we should be reconciled to God this way; from which words thus recited as the agreement on both sides we may certainly conclude this to be the Authors sense, or opinion, viz. That Jesus Christ hath purchased by his death, that we should be reconciled to God by the way of faith and obedience; and to say thus is all one in effect as to say, That Christ hath purchased by his death, that we should be justified and saved upon the condition of Faith and Evangelical obedience. And this is that, which Mr Truman says( Great Propit. page.. 69.) is the immediate effect of Christs satisfaction as satisfaction, and which is an essential consequent as a satisfaction to justice, it is only this, That that obstacle being removed, he might be at liberty to act in the pardon of sinners in what way, and upon what terms he pleased. He doth not say( as this Author objects against him and others) that the onely thing, which Christ by his merit procured for sinners was a conditional covenant of grace, or that sinners might be saved upon new and gracious terms, but that this procurement was the immediate effect of his bloodshed, precisely considered as a satisfaction to Gods justice, he meaning thereby, as he doth express the matter in his following words( which this Author is not so ingenuous to this his deceased Brother as to take notice, or to give notice of) not that God must pardon sinners, come what will of it, or be unjust, nor that sinners ipso facto should be pardonned upon the price being undertaken, paid and accepted, but onely conditionally, or upon the performance of such terms, as in the covenant of grace are expressed.  
The next place, where I find my name mentioned is in p. 229. where by occasion of my answer to that Scriptùre, Rom. 5.18. alleged by Dr own, to prove, that we are justified with the righteousness of Christ in its formal, or essential nature imputed to us, and my answer being this, viz. That the Apostle doth not say, as the Doctor would have him, with whose obedience, but by whose obedience we are made righteous, the two particles( By and With) differing in signification, By implying the nature, energy, or interest of an efficient, and as there implyed, a meritorious cause, and the latter particle( With) the nature and interest of a formal cause, by occasion I say of this my answer to that allegation of the Doctors, this Author replies in saying in the following words.  
A learned man( Mr Hotchkis, ut supra p. 43.) saith, we are justified by Christs righteousness, or obedience, but not with it: for saith he, By, in this controversy denoteth an efficient and meritorious cause, With, the formal. Young Sophisters know, that causa per quam, By which is the formal cause, and the efficient is causa a qua, of which, not by which properly( though sometimes so expressed in Englished) yet a meritorious cause in English must not be so expressed. Moreover causa cum qua, with which, is in no language a formal, but an instrumental cause, which is reduced to the efficient and sometimes it signifies a bare concomitancy. e. g. A man is a man by his soul, not with his soul. A man is righteous by righteousness, not with righteousness. On the other side man writeth with his hand, with his pen as instruments, or a man writeth with his head, i.e. not without it. With what a wet finger doth this Author wipe away all the Scriptures which can say, We are justified, or made righteous by the obedience righteousness, or death of Christ?  
Answ. 1. I grant it indeed as a thing well known by men generally( whether Sophisters, or no Sophisters) that as the Greek particles {αβγδ}, so the English particles, of, for, from, by and with are oft times used promiscuously and to express sometimes one and the self same cause, and sometimes divers kinds of causes, and sometimes no proper cause at all, but barely a condition, or some concomitant thing, and therefore as I did not then, so neither do I now deny, but that the particles( By and With) may in some cases be used indifferently. Nevertheless if any one shall assert concerning Christs righteousness, as Doctor own doth come. p. 200. that we are By it and With it perfectly accepted, or justified by God( the Doctors true meaning in such his sayings being this, viz. That Christs righteousness is not onely the meritorious cause, but also the formal cause of our justification, or that we are made righteous with Christs righteousness in its formal nature imputed to us) and if any one for the proof of this assertion shall, as the Doctor did, allege that Scripture in Rom. 5.18. I still think, that I may fitly make answer to that, or any other the like Scriptural allegation, as I did in that page. of my Discourse, viz. That it doth not prove the Doctors purpose, nor is it pertinent thereunto, the Question in hand not being this, viz. Whether we are justified By, or for the righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause of our justification, but whether we are justified With it, this particle With being taken in way of contradistinction to the particle By in this controversy, as importing the interest of a formal cause.  
2. Though I do in part grant what the Author here says, viz. That the particle with doth sometimes signify an instrumental efficiency and sometimes onely a bare concomitancy, nevertheless I deny the truth of his saying, That causa cum qua doth in no language import a formal cause, and I do affirm the contrary, it being apparent by many such instances as these. e. g. A whited wall is made white with whiteness, A wise man is made wise with wisdom and if I am indeed( as this Author in his obliging civility and charity hath styled me) a learned man, it may be truly and fitly said, that I am made learned with learning. Yea I may suggest the instances specified here by this Author for himself, against him, and say, That a man is a man with his soul, and a man is righteous with righteousness; for in these sayings, as the soul is the substantial form, or that, which together with its matter[ the body] doth constitute man, or make him to be what he is, viz. man, so are whiteness, wisdom, learning, righteousness the accidental forms, that( according to the properties of all forms) do first constitute and then denominate a thing or person, white, wise, learned, righteous, whiteness, wisdom, learning being in the predicament of Qualities, all Qualities being Accidental Forms, as this Author hath truly said p. 168. and which saying of his own he may do well here to call to mind, and apply to the case in hand. The premises considered, it may appear, that I have not wiped away that in Rom. 5.18. or any the like Scriptures with a wet finger( as is this Authors censure, and expression) instead whereof others( as I am persuaded) will say, That I have dexterously put by or put off that and the like Scriptures as impertinently alleged for Doctor Owens purpose, or not pertaining to the Question under debate; the Question in hand not being concerning the meritorious cause of our justification[ Whether we be justified, or made righteous by Christs righteousness] but concerning the formal cause, Whether we are made righteous with it, i.e. with the very thing itself imputed, or with the imputation of it in its formal and essential nature to us, which manner of imputation as I said then, so I say again, that Scripture in Rom. 5.18. doth not evince, nor any other Scripture, that I as yet am privy to.  
The last place wherein I find myself dealt with by name is in p. 231. where he doth except against me and Mr Truman, and others of us, in that we affirm, That the justification of a sinner is all one with pardon of sin, he quoting certain passages out of mine and Mr Trumans books to manifest that to be the thing affirmed by us.  
Answ. To this his exception I cannot but reply in the way of wonder, it being matter of a kind of astonishment to me( as I think it will be also to every considerate Reader) that he should except against us, or any of us for affirming that the justification of a sinner is all one with pardon of sin, forasmuch as he himself hath little less than ten times either in plain terms, or in effect and tantamount in his book expressed his concurrence with us in that assertion, See p. 97. and 163. and 172. and 149. An offender, says he in the place last quoted) is usually justified, that is, Forgiven and restored into favour by some grant, and p. 156. The Question, says he, speaking concerning Jam. 2.14. is, Whether a man be not justified, that is, pardonned through the righteousness of Christ by believing— Yea, p. 221. he says, That David himself placeth justification in forgiveness of sin, Rom. 4.6, 7. And again, says he, quoting the same Text, p. 199. Justification, or imputation of righteousness to a believer is a forgiving of sin, covering iniquity, not imputing sin.  
What can be more plainly spoken in the way of acknowledgement, That justification, non imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness are all one, than what hath been recited, from the Pen of this Author? And I am the rather glad for his express concurrence with me therein for these two reasons,  
1. Because it is one main part of my professed design in this second part of my Discourse to prove( and which I hope, I have done effectually) That forgiveness of sin is that very righteousness, which is said in Scripture for the sake of Christs righteousness to be imp●ted to sinners by God.  
2. Because hereby it is apparent, that in our asserting repentance for sin, and a sincere purpose of amendment together with faith to be duties required by God, that we may be justified at present and that perseverance in faith and holiness are required in Gods word, that we may continue, or be continued in that estate, we do assert no more, nor any other thing than this, viz. That the said graces, or duties are commanded by God, that thereupon a sinner may according to the tenor of his promise be pardonned and eternally saved. And this very doctrine being it, which this Author doth so zealously oppose and endeavour by his book to ex●irpate, I leave it unto every impartial Reader to judge what manner of task he hath undertaken in his book, it being( as he says p. 16) an endeavour to show, That the foresaid doctrine concerning faith and works as the necessary conditions, or requisites in order to the obtaining and retaining the pardon of our sins, that this our doctrine, 

1. Doth greatly diminish the work of Redemption.  
2. That it leadeth to Arminianism.  
3. That it is the same doctrine for substance with that of the Papist.  
4. That it is a high way to Socinianism.    
And verily when he hath effected these things, which his professed endeavour is by the grace of Christ to show, we may give him leave to say, That he hath demonstrated our said Doctrine to be the high way to hell and leading down to the chambers of death.  
The premises considered, I cannot but say again, as I said before, that I wonder greatly, that he should except against me, or any of my Brethren for affirming that thing which himself in so many places of his book doth affirm also, viz. That a sinners justification is all one with forgiveness of sin; so that we may rest fully assured, that this Author can object nothing against this assertion of his brethren, but what will touch or recoil upon himself, and that he and we must in this point of our agreement either stand, or fall together, it being as impossible for him to confounded us herein without confounding himself, even as it was not possible for samson without killing himself to kill his enemies, the Philistines. However it may be worth while to relate what he says against the common faith both of himself and his brethren in the foresaid Article and to shape a reply thereunto, as followeth.  
Now I demand, says he p. 232. If justification be nothing but pardon, whether it be an absolute pardon, or on condition onely?  
Answ. Forasmuch as justification and Remission of sin are like Pharaohs two dreams, viz. One in sense and signification, so that though the words signifying be two, yet the thing signified is but one, they are both alike distinguishable into Absolute and Conditional; whereupon I shall directly answer this Authors demand by downright saying, That conditional justification is all one with conditional pardon, and absolute or actual justification( for when the condition is fulfilled. the thing conditioned ipso facto becomes absolute) is all one with actual, or absolute pardon; this answer is enough in all reason to put a stop to his after arguings; nevertheless it may be useful in some respects to recite them, as I find them in the same page., and to reply thereunto.  
If absolute( says he) then what cometh of all their doctrine of works being the condition? If God for the sake of Christs death grant remission of sins and right to life absolutely, then these can depend upon no condition to be fulfilled by men; and Christ must have purchased more than a grant of life upon condition, even life itself to be given to whom he pleased.  
Answ. 1. Neither did God for the sake of Christs death ever promise, covenant or grant, neither did Christ purchase, or ever intend to purchase remission of sin, justification, or a right to life to be enjoyed absolutely by sinners, i.e. without any condition to be fulfilled by them in order to such enjoyment.  
2. When the conditions upon which the enjoyment of the said justification, remission of sin and right to life purchased by Christ, and promised by God are by sinners fulfilled, then doth the said grant, or promise, which was before onely conditional, become absolute, that is, the things granted or benefits promised come to be actually and absolutely enjoyed, which absolute enjoyment Christ Jesus did indeed purchase for sinners, yet not that they should enjoy the same immediately upon his purchase, but in consequence upon their fulfilling such, and such conditions of divine institution.  
3. Although Christ purchased heaven, or life itself to be given to whom he pleased, yet it did not please him, to give it merely arbitrarily, and without reason. Thus says this Author, p. 156. God proceedeth with equity in giving heaven to them, who have believed and been obedient, and he doth not give it merely arbitrarily and without reason.  
Briefly, As Christ purchased heaven to be given To whom he pleased, so to be given How and when he pleaseth, i.e. not presently and not otherwise than upon the performance of the conditions of his own and his fathers appointment.  
The Author proceeds to say of us in the following words.  
But if they say, That justification is pardon upon condition, that men fulfil the Gospel-terms, it is a contradiction in adjecto, to be nothing but pardon, and yet to require obedience as the condition of it, are inconsistent, pardon being nothing else, but noll. punire, a will not to punish, and to require conditions of new obedience being a prescribing of a new law, by which they shall be judged both for what was past before their justification and for what follows after.  
Answ. 1. Although we say, that Gospel-justification and pardon of sin are the same thing, and though we say, That justification conditional, and conditional pardon are the same thing, as also, That justification actual is the same thing with actual pardon, nevertheless we do not say,, as this Author here supposes, or would have us to say, viz. That actual justification is the same thing with conditional pardon, or with pardon upon condition, that men fulfil the Gospel-terms.  
2. Although it be a contradiction to say, that actual, or absolute justification is pardon upon condition of our fulfilling the Gospel-terms, yet it is no contradiction to say, That justification conditional ●s pardon of sin upon condition, that we fulfil the Gospel-terms. And forasmuch as this Author doth rightly describe a legal condition,( saying, p. 45. It is the condition of a law or covenant, whereupon some thing is promised.) I judge it to be a great mistake in him to deny the Gospel to be a new law, wherein a return to God by faith, and repentance and new obedience is prescribed as the condition, upon which justification, remission of sin, and a right to life are for the sake of Christ promised to be conferred upon sinners.  
3. It is his error to say, that pardon is but noll. punire, a will not to punish, which error I have at large refuted in my Exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin, p. 209. Pardon of sin is the actual dissolution of a sinners obligation to punishment, which doth indeed as much differ from Gods Nol●e punire, as doth Gods will, or purpose to do a thing differ from the thing done, or from his actual effecting the dead.  
4. Suppose, that pardon were but Gods noll. punire, it doth not from thence follow, but that God may by a law prescribe conditions, upon which the thing willed by him is to be enjoyed, and according to which law sinners must finally be judged.  
He proceeds to say of us, p. 232, 233.  
They say, That when a man is pardonned all his sins, it is all one as if he had done all his duty and fulfilled the law. Then to justify a man is to account him guiltless and in effect to have fulfilled the law, and how can this be without imputing Christs satisfaction, or fulfilling the law to him? But it is apparently untrue, that to pardon is all one as to account a man guiltless, or to have done his duty: for confession of g●●lt and sin must go before and acco●pany pardon and the law, which a man hath broken, doth still accuse, and c●ndemn him for the breach of it: Sin is still sin and deserves death though forgiven, though the law-maker being above the law will not suffer the law to have its con●se upon the offender.  
Answ. 1. We do not say, as is here insinuated of us, viz. That when a man is pardonned all his sins, it is( simp●y, abso●utely, universally, or in all respect●) a●l one as if he had done all his duty and fulfilled the law: But the thing we say is this, That when a man is pardonned all his sins, it is all one respectively to a sin rs impunity, or freedom from suffering, as if he had done all his duty, or( which is to the same purpose) this we say, viz. When a sinner is perfectly pardonned, he is dealt with respectively to the punishment contracted by his sins, as if he had never sinned. And the tru●h of this saying this Author cannot deny without self-contradiction, forasmuch as he doth expressly acknowledge, p. 199. that to impute righteousness, and not to impute or pardon sin are all one.  
2. As upon the reason here specified by this Author, we do not say, that when a man is fully pardonned all his sins, it is all one( simply and absolutely, or in all imaginable respects) as if he had done all his duty, so for the same reason we neither do, or dare say, that it is thus all one with a sinner fully pardonned upon the imputation of Christs satisfaction and fulfilling the law to him, though this Author seems to say that it may be done upon this account: for we do judge it a natural impossibility, that he, who hath sinned, and is become guilty, should upon any account whatsoever be, or be truly accounted guiltless, i.e. guiltless in respect of fault, that is, never to have sinned, or to have always done all his duty, It being truly said by this Author, That sin is still sin and deserves death though forgiven; and it is also truly said by him, that to pardon cannot be all one as to account a man guiltless or to have done all his duty, for this reason, viz. Because confession of guilt and sin go before and accompany pardon. But withall I observe, that in that saying he hath contradicted what he said elsewhere, p. 76. where although he acknowledges repentance for sin to be a thing requisite consequently to a sinners pardon, yet he denies it to be requisite antecedently thereunto. I know no way possible in these two places to make this Author consistent with himself, but by saying, That by confession of guilt and sin he doth not mean a penitential confession thereof, which meaning, I presume, he would with indignation disown, forasmuch as it is palbably against reason and against the truth of the Gospel to say, That confession of guilt and sin is to go before pardon, but a penitential confession of it must not.  
Now whereas this Author in the following pages having objected it as the opinion of the carnal multitude, that they shall be saved for their good works through the mercy of God, and because Christ died for them, doth, notwithstanding their renouncing the merits of their works and trusting thereunto, doth I say disallow all manner of trusting to our good works, as they are the performance of the conditions of the new covenant, I will therefore recite his words and reply thereunto.  
Mans reason and conscience( says he, p. 234, 235.) if it may be heard, will allow him to trust no further to his works, than as they are the fulfilling of Gods commands, i.e. as they are the conditions of the covenant, as these Writers express it, and unsanctified reason ignorant of the righteousness of God, will not suffer them to trust in Christ without the concomitance of their own works.  
Answ. 1. Although it is the vain opinion and damnable presumption of the carnal multitude( like those Professors of Piety, yet Workers of Iniquity, Mat. 7, 21, 22, 23.) to trust that they shall be saved through the mercy of God and merits of Christ upon account of their doing some external works pertaining to Christian Religion. Nevertheless this Author hath no just ground to rebuk the hope and trust of sincere Believers, who do believe and trust, that through the mercy of God and merits of Christ they shall be saved by their good works, i.e. by their faithful performance of the conditions of the new covenant, or by their patient continuance in well doing, as is the Apostles expression, Rom. 2.7. Yea this Author cannot without self-contradiction deny, that a sincere Christian may be truly said, through Gods mercy and Christs merits to be saved for his good works, forasmuch as he doth aclowledge, p. 141. that the word( for) assigns a reason of a thing affirmed, and not always a cause, according to the logical expression of the matter, Consequentiam deno●at, non causam, and upon that ground he says, p. 148. that he humbly conceives, That although to vulgar ears, it be safest to say, We are saved according to our work●( they being good and not evil;) nevertheless in di●putation We need not fear to say, They are actually saved for their works; and indeed that very reason, which he gives, p. 156. why the faithful may be said to be judged to salvation according to their works, is a cogent reason, why they may warrantably be said to be saved By, or For their works, viz. because God( as he says most truly) proceeds with equity in giving heaven to the obedient, and th●t he doth not give it merely arbitrarily and without reason; God hereby manifesting( as he says, p. 148.) that he is not partial giving heaven merely upon favour to persons, that are as bad as others, but that there is some fitness in those persons in their dispositions and practices.  
2. As sanctified reason and conscience illuminated by the sacred Scriptures will allow a Christian to trust to his works no further, than as they are the fu●filling the conditions of the new covenant, to, or upon which justification, remission of sin and eternal life are therein promised, so the same sanctified reason and conscience will warrant him so far forth to trust unto them and for the obtaining of so much as God hath promised to, or upon that performance, it being no less than justification, remission of sin and eternal life. And indeed in this sort, or thus far forth to trust unto our works( as they are the performance of the covenant on our part, in which covenant, or to which performance all good things are promised on Gods part) is in effect neither more, nor less and in true construction, than to trust God upon his word, or to God for the accomplishment of his own word and promise in his own appointed way, or upon his own terms.  
3. It is not unsanctified reason, ignorant of the righteousness of God, that will not suffer sinners to trust in Christ without the comitancy of their own works, but it is reason sanctified and illightened by the knowledge of God in Christ and his holy Gospel, revealing and prescribing to us the terms of salvation through Christ, that will not suffer any sinner to trust in Christ for salvation without the concomitance of their own good works, or( to speak in the language of Scripture, Heb. 6.9.) without such works, which do accompany salvation, the {αβγδ}, those Better things, which the Apostle there speaks of. And the contrary may easily be manifested to be a doctrine of unsufferable presumption and not of the true Scriptural trust in Christ, and such doctrine, which was never taught by the Protestant Churches: for the Protestant doctrine in this matter( as I have always apprehended it, notwithstanding all the gainsayings and foul aspersions of the Papists) is truly this, viz. That without the concomitancy, or presence of good works neither is Christ Jesus to be trusted unto for salvation, nor is faith to be trusted unto for justification. Hereupon I leave it to every intelligent Reader to judge whether this Author by this his Anti-protestant doctrine hath not greatly wronged and dishonoured the Protestant cause, which in the point of justification by faith he pretends to maintain and vindicate. What wrong he hath done our Protestant Churches by the manifold false doctrine dispersed in his book, I will endeavour to manifest in the fourth thing, which I promised and which I am in the next place to enter upon.  
4. Under this head let be considered in the first place, what he says respectively to the perseverance of the Saints,  
1. As he asserts in p 206.( as also elsewhere) That there is no danger of their apostasy, nor possibility of it, p. 200. so he blames us for supposing it possible, and says withall, That to assert their final condemnation upon supposition of their actual apostasy, is prodigious divinity.  
This Doctrine of his I take to be no Protestant, or Scripture Doctrine; for if( to speak simply) there were no danger, nor possibility of their damnable backsliding, in vain and altogether without cause would those and multitude of the like admonitions be, Heb. 4.1. and 12.15, 16. 2 Joh. 8. Rev. 3.11. And it is plain Scripture Divinity to assert the damnation of the Saints upon supposition of their apostasy, as appears by the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, 1 Chron. 28.9. Ezek. 18.24. Rom. 8.13. Heb. 10. lat. Nor do the Dort-Synodists( for ought I know) deny the Divinity, which this Author calls prodigious, to be scriptural; sure and certain I am, that our British Divines( Members of that Synod) do not deny it, yea they do assert the contrary.  
2. In p. 209. he doth in effect plainly assert, That as God doth purpose to give life to some men, excluding all respects to their works( which is their election) so he will certainly in time give them an actual right to life, and put them into an estate of life without respect to their works, which, says he, is j●stification.  
This, I am well assured, is no part of Protestant, nor yet of School-divinity; for though Aquinas with some other School-men do deny, That Deu● propter hoc vult hoc( wherein notwithstanding others do gainsay him, as in my slender reading I have observed of Amyraldus and Mr Truman;) nevertheless all of them do agree in this, That Deus propter hoc vult hoc esse, which indeed is a truth beyond all contradiction. And as it is the very letter of Scripture, that God chooseth sinners to salvation through sanctification and belief of the truth, 2 Thes. 2.13.( and therefore, as I am apt to think, not without respect thereunto) so I am most assured that it is the very truth of Scripture, that God puts no sinner( elect, or not elect to salvation, I say thus, because there are many great Divines, who with Austin hold, that all who are sanctified are not of the elect number) into an estate of life, or justifies them without respect to their faith, which worketh by love. I may justly style this Authors Divinity concerning the irrespective election and irrespective justification of sinners( to speak in his own language) prodigious Divinity, a prodigy of Divinity; for I think, that in the Native consequence thereof it makes( with due reverence to the Divine Majesty be it spoken) a Prodigy of God himself, by turning The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ into the similitude of a Creature worse than what is said was done by the Israelites in the Wilderness( Psal. 106.20. into the similitude of an Ox, that eateth grass) even into the similitude of such a creature as I abhor to think upon, and shall therefore here forbear to name. But the best of it is, that there is( to my seeming) no more agreement with this Authors divinity in this page. with his divinity in another before recited( he there saying, That God doth not save sinners merely arbitrarily and for no reason) than between light and darkness, or between Christ and Belial. I proceed to specify this Authors Doctrine touching the Article of redemption by Christ.  
3. In page. 76. He condemns the asserting, that Christ died for all men as Popish Doctrine, and says of us, In like manner do our late Authors lay this as a foundation, that Christ died for all men properly and intentionally.  
What this Author calls Popish, is, as I am persuaded, truly Protestant and Scriptural Doctrine. What he means by( Properly) I know not, But certain I am, that however in a peculiar sense, or for a more peculiar reason Christ is said in certain Scriptures to die for some( his sheep, his Church;) nevertheless in other Scriptures he is said to die for All and every man, 2 Cor. 5.14. Heb. 2.9. And if he did at all die for them, we may well lay it as a sure foundation, that he died for them intentionally, or intended to die for them, whereupon it may be truly said, That in his dying for sinners he did not onely pay a price sufficient for all, but also, He paid for all a sufficient price, and upon that account he is to be acknowledged the Redeemer of all Mankind. And however Amesius, with certain of the Synodists at Dort( the Low Dutch Divines) have denied it, yet this Author, I presume, is not ignorant, that our British Divines with those of Breme,( to name no more) were otherwise minded, and touching the Doctrine of Universal Redemption in a Scriptural sense, he may be pleased to peruse at leisure our famous Davenant, De morte Christi, and Dallies Apology against Spanhemius his Exercitations. I proceed to mention this Authors Doctrines concerning other matters of our Christian Faith, viz. Forgiveness of Sin, Justification, Repentance, Justifying Faith—  
4. If Justification, says he, p. 110. be real forgiveness of sin, it cannot depend upon works.  
That Justification is real forgiveness of sin is indeed true Protestant Doctrine, & Habemus Authorem ipsum confitentem, this Author himself doth aclowledge it( as appears by several testimonies out of his book before recited) but to deny justification to depend upon works and therefore to deny it, because justification is real forgiveness of sin, is not Protestant, or Scripture Doctrine. I may well here apply the old saying, Cujus contrarium verum est: for because Gospel-justification is real forgiveness of sin, therefore or thereupon it is most apparent by the Scriptures, that it doth depend upon works, for proof whereof I shall onely quote two Texts or verses in one Chapter, 1 John 1.7, 9. And having mentioned these texts of Scripture, I shall recite his inferences from the Doctrine of his Brethren, which he opposeth, and leave it to the judgement of the learned Reader, Whether he had not a like reason to infer, or object the same against the Doctrine of the Apostle S. John in the forecited Scriptures, as against theirs.  
In p. 188. he says, That upon our asserting the immediate effect of Christs righteousness to be the procuring a new grant, or charter of life upon condition of sincere obedience to God and Christ, That thus Christ is but a remote Saviour, His righteousness justifies not at all, onely makes way, that our own may justify us, We are not washed from our sins in his blood, but by our own repentance and obedience; onely his blood procured, that our obedience might be a means of our expiation; We are beholding to Christ for making a way for our justification, but we must be justified by our own selves, our righteousness being the onely immediate and total cause of our justification. Thus he. Now judge, Christian Reader, Whether this Author had not a like reason to make the same inferences from the Apostolical Doctrine of S. John, as against ours touching forgiveness of sin its depending upon works, and to say. If we must walk in the light as God is in the light, that thereupon we may be cleansed by the blood of his son from all sin, If we must confess our sins( yea and forsake them says Solomon, Prov. 28.13.) that thereupon we may be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness, Thus is Christ but a remote Saviour, His righteousness justifies not at all, onely makes way— We are not washed from our sins in his blood, but by our own repentance and obedient walking, Onely his blood procured, that— We are beholding to Christ for making a way— but we must be justified by our own selves, our righteousness( our obediential walking and penitential confessing of our sins) must be the immediate total cause of our justification. Thus by confuting us, he hath killed two birds with one ston( I mean) he hath confuted the Evangelist and Apostle S. John also.  
5. He says, p. 120. That Jesus Christ having performed the conditions of life, the conditions of the covenant are not to be performed by us, i.e. by the Head and Members both.  
This his Doctrine I take to be Doctrine Anti-protestant: for therein is implyed this piece of false Doctrine, viz. That Christ is the onely person covenanted with by God and that it is the same covenant and law, which is made with and for Christ, and which is made with and for us.  
6. He says, p. 72. That our Doctrine of conditional Justification is n● less in substance, than the Popish justification by works, though put into more Scriptural phrases. And he says, p. 87. That the Popish Doctrine, that Christ hath merited, that our works should deserve heaven, is in other terms no more than that Christ hath purchased, that our works should be the condition, whereupon we shall be saved.  
If this be true, that the Papists mean no more by the merits of their works, than is here said; surely we have all cause to bless God for it, and not to oppose them in it, but to say to them according to the old saying, Mentem teneas, however there be just occasion to say to them, Linguam corrigas: for their said meaning is the very sense of Scripture, even of the Prophets of God and Apostles of Jesus Christ, 1 Joh. 1.7. 1 Cor. 15.2. 1 Tim. 2.1. Col. 1.23. Amos 5.14.  
7. In p. 84, he says, That as our said Doctrine of conditional justification, and that of the Papists agree in the article of j●stification so they do also about justifying faith; The Papists deny it to be a trust, or affiance in the promises of salvation, Conc. tried. Sess 6. can. 12. Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae peccata propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, Anathema sit. This also is the Doctrine of our Authors, and indeed if w● are not justified immediately by the righteousness of Christ without the intervention of our obedience, then to trust in his righteousness cannot justify us, says he.  
It is the truly ancient, catholic and Apostolical Doctrine, as well as the Doctrine of Mr Throughtons Authors, that we are not justified merely by this one act of faith( trusting in Christs righteousness) but by the intervention of other acts thereof also, viz. by faith its acting itself by repentance, holy desires and purposes—  
2. Forasmuch as Christs righteousness is one thing, and trust in his righteousness is another, the things he implicitly here affirms, are inconsistent, viz. That we are justified immediately by Christs righteousness, and yet not without, but by the intervention of our trust in it.  
3. He wrongs the Papists in saying, that they deny justifying faith to be a trust, or affiance in the promises of salvation; the thing by them denied being onely this, viz. That justifying faith is not a mere trust in the promise of salvation, as the Trent Canon here recited doth plainly manifest.  
4. This Author had no more reason to distaste, or gainsay this Tridentine Canon, nor yet that recited by him in these words, p. 76.( Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel solâ imputatione justitiae Christi, vel solâ peccatorum remissione, exclusâ gratiâ,& c●aritate, quae in cordibus eorum per spiritum sanctum diffundatur, atque illis inhaereat, aut etiam gratiam, quâ justificamur esse tantum favorem dei, Anathema sit) than there is cause for him, or me to deny Jesus Christ to be the son of God, because the Devils did confess it, Mar. 1.24. Hath this Author indeed {αβγδ}, senses so exercised, as to discern good and evil, or to distinguish betwixt truly Protestant and Popish Doctrine?  
8. He says, p. 196. That men in their sinful and lost estate are not capable of new conditions of life, b●ing under the sentence of wrath for breaking the law; therefore not to be treated with by God upon new terms, or conditions, being also utterly unable in this estate to fulfil any new conditions.  
This I take to be no Protestant, or Scriptural Doctrine: for I have always thought and am still of the same mind, That the external way, in, or by which God doth t●eat with sinners, is by the dispensation of his word and Gospel( wherein are contained precepts, promises and threatenings) and which Gospel by Gods command is to be preached to every rational creature; so that this Authors Doctrine doth give a Supersedeas, or check to the execution of that Commission of our Saviour given to his Apostles for their treating with all and every sinner, declaring to them the terms or conditions of their salvation through Christ revealed, and beseeching them as his Ambassadors, and in his stead, to accept of them, that thereupon they may for Christs sake be made partakers of the salvation promised in the Gospel. Nor do I perceive any more reason, why mens inability( of themselves) to fulfil the new conditions of the covenant, should more make against institution of such conditions, and render them uncaple to be treated with by God in that way, than their said inability doth render them uncapable of Gods giving, or their receiving any such commands from God as that in Ezek. 18. lat. Make you a new heart and a new spirit, together with many other Scriptures of the same importance both in the Old and New Testament.  
9. Though he doth frequently acknowledge justification to be all one with remission of sin, yet he denies that so much as a purpose of new obedience is antecedent thereunto, making the contrary to be Popish Doctrine, p. 79. and hardening himself with the authority of Dr Preston, he saying on Eph. 2.3. That justification hath no anteceden● conditions, though it hath condition●, that follow it.  
This Doctrine hath been already manifested to be anti evangelical Doctrine, nor is it any whit the more authentic for being attested by any human authority( the mistake of Dr. Preston therein I have long since taken notice of, and refuted his reasonings at large in other papers) the contrary being that indeed, wherein both Protestants and Papists do and should agree, no pardon being by God so much as promised to sinners but upon the condition of a sincere purpose of amendment as antecedaneous to the enjoyment thereof, the conditions, which follow it being conditions not of the thing itself, or thing itself simply to be enjoyed, but of the enjoyment thereof to be continued or not lost.  
10. He says, p. 49. That faith is a coming empty and naked of all righteousness of our own, that we may be accepted only through Christ.  
This also I conceive to be no part of the Protestant Doctrine of justification by faith onely, their Doctrine being this, viz. That justifying faith is an operative faith, which works by love, and therefore cannot be a coming to God empty and naked of all righteousness of our own( with which kind of faith those, who came unto him, were not welcomed by him, but turned from him without their errand, Mat. 7.21, 22, 23.) but it is a coming to God in the name of Christ with such repentance, self loathing and supplications a● did the Publican, saying, ( God be merciful to me a sinner) with a willingness to be rid of the service of sin, and to take upon them Christs easy yoke, that through this way of well-doing they may for the sake of Jesus Christ the Righteous be accepted with God; this kind of well-doing being the condition, upon which sinners are( according to the tenor of Gods promises) to expect acceptance with God and not otherwise, Gen. 4.8. 2 Cor. 6. lat.  
11. In p. 122. He denies faith to be a condition of pardon, and gives this reason, saying, Faith is nothing else but trusting in mercy and free grace with acknowledgement of sin and misery, and therefore it is of all things most unfit to be a condition of pardon, being no service to God, nor bringing any proper tribute of honour to him, but what is founded upon his own good pleasure to forgive.  
This is no Protestant Doctrine, that justifying faith( for of this faith he spake those words) is nothing else but trusting in mercy and free grace with an acknowledgement of sin and misery( as hath been already manifested in the foregoing paragraph).  
2. That faith, which the Author here will own to be justifying faith, or the means, or way to justification( as are his expressions else where) the Protestants do with the Scriptures disown to be justifying faith,( viz. such a faith as is nothing else, but trusting in mercy and free grace with an acknowledgement of sin and misery) they reputing faith without works to be a dead faith.  
3. It is admirable to me that this Author should upon the reason, or reasons here specified deny the faith here described by him to be a condition of pardon, or justification, and yet assert it to be an effectual way and means to it, as he doth elsewhere in his book.  
13. A sinner, says he p. 127. by flying to, or trusting in Christ for reconciliation is justified before God( in nature at least) before he considereth Christ as a King, or Prophet. And says he p 128.) Faith in order of nature( and of time in some) first looketh upon Christ as a Priest for reconciliation with God, then as a Prophet and King for illumination and sanctification.  
The contrary doctrine I take to be the true Protestant doctrine, viz.  
1. That is not saving faith till it look upon Christ as Christ, i.e. upon Christ in all his saving offices.  
2. That though a sinner should first look upon Christ as a Priest for reconciliation with God, yet that he is not merely thereupon justified at all( whether in time, or in nature) before he considereth, yea and accepteth Christ as a King and Prophet. I am persuaded, that though a sinner should look upon Christ as a Priest for reconciliation, he may look out his eyes and not be reconciled to God merely upon such a look or looking, nor till he both look upon him, and accept him as a King and Prophet. And whereas this Author says( ibid.) That Christ in the order of his offices was first a Priest undertaking to satisfy for sin, then a Prophet and King to rule and guide his people to eternal life, I answer, Neither do I believe this to be any branch of Protestant doctrine of justification by faith onely, but rather the contrary, viz. That Christ was at once constituted, the Christ of God, or our Mediator in all his Offices; nor do I believe, that if it had been even thus, as this Author hath modeled the matter in his own fancy, it would prove the thing intended thereby, viz. That a sinner is justified before God before he considereth Christ as a King, or Prophet.  
14. Though he acknowledgeth, p. 164. that a working faith, or a faith apt to produce obedience is the only justifying faith, nevertheless he denies, that the operativeness of it hath any proper influence upon justification, only it must be a working faith for other reasons.  
Answ. 1. Neither is this any branch of the Protestant, or Scripture-Doctrine to deny the operativeness of faith to be any part of the condition, or means of justification; for as for the words( influence and proper influence) we do decline such expressions, having never asserted, that either faith, or the operativeness thereof have any proper influence upon justification.  
2. Yea the contrary I judge to be the true Protestant Doctrine, viz. That the mode, or qualification of faith, that it be a working faith, for its aptitude to produce good works, is as well appointed by God to be the means, or condition, by, or upon which a sinner is to be justified, as is faith itself, or that in its kind it be true faith. If one promise to give to his neighbour a reward, if he will bring him an horse of such, or such a colour, it is part of the condition, that it be of the colour nominated and agreed upon betwixt them, as that it be an horse.  
15. Davids repentance( says he, p. 175.) was necessary only to remove Gods fatherly displeasure for the present, but not to avert, or prevent his eternal damnation( as he plainly there insinuates.)  
This is not Protestant Doctrine, that a godly man having committed such heinous crimes, as Davids( Murder and Adultery) is not obliged to repent for them under peril of damnation. And I am apt to think, that the Dort-Synodists did not abet such Doctrine. Sure I am, that our British Divines do renounce it, they roundly averring, That if David had not repented he had been damned, he by those his enormous crimes having lost his right( by them styled Jus aptitudinale) to the kingdom of heaven.  
16. Repentance properly taken( says he, p. 176.) is required in Scripture sometimes as necessary to salvation, sometimes to pardon, but consequently, not antecedently, as a disposition, that must be in a subject, that is pardonned, not as the very means of obtaining pardon.  
Neither is this Protestant Doctrine, it being apparently contrary to the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, as hath been already proved and improvable by Act. 2.38. and 3.19. repentance being there required in order to pardon, the force of which Scriptures he pretends to evade by this bold and shameful answer, saying, p. 175, 176. That by repentance there is meant an external repentace, which is necessary to an external and temporary pardon, which may be without that inward true repentance, which is pleaded to be the condition of justification, or pardon of sin. With the like shameful confidence doth he put off that Scripture, in Mat. 6.14, 15. saying, p. 179. It doth not prove that our forgiving others is a condition of Gods forgiving us, saying moreover, That that Scripture with others there mentioned( Eph. 4.32. Mat. 18.23, 24, 32, 33.) speak more properly of external pardon, not of justification to eternal life. But what if it should be granted, that they speak most properly of external pardon? will any Protestant conclude from thence, that they speak it exclusively to eternal forgiveness, as he interpnted Act. 2.38. and 3.19?  
17. Justification by works, says he, p. 197. in any sense will not exclude boasting: for a man may say, He hath done those things, upon which justification is promised, and therefore it is his due to be justified. Justification by faith excludes boasting, 
Quicquid bonorum operum habemus, id est fructus regenerationis. Unde sequitur, opera ipsa esse partem gratiae, quibus ideo salutem non possumus mereri, Calv. on Eph. 2.10.  only when men aclowledge, they are nothing and can do nothing, but trust to receive all of free grace.  
Mr Calvin doubtless would disown this as any part of Protestant Doctrine, viz. That the asserting of any works in any sense, i.e. faithful works, or ●orks of faith to be any part of the condition of pardon, or justification, will not exclude boasting: for himself asserts( upon Eph. 2.10.) that our evangelical works are Pars gratiae, and consequently do as much exclude boasting as doth faith itself, it being God, who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Hereupon although in one sense believers must say with S. Paul( they are nothing, 2 Cor. 12.11.) yet may they say with the same Apostle elsewhere, I can do all things through Christ, that strengtheneth me, Phil. 4.13.  
2. Justification would be as much a sinners due upon this Authors supposal, that a bare trust in Gods promise were the only means of divine appointment for the attaining of it, as it would upon the supposal of the truth of our doctrine concerning the necessity of repentance also by virtue of Gods command in order thereunto, and upon the former supposal as well as the latter, a man may say, He hath done that upon which justification is promised, and therefore it is his due to be justified.  
18. Having said in p. 199. That faith justifieth the ungodly, not the obedient, he says in p. 95. That Abraham was justified as an ungodly man by imputed righteousness.  
Doubtless this is no Protestant Doctrine: for although time was, when Abraham was ungodly and then not justified, nevertheless when after justified, he in person was not an ungodly man, nor was he justi●●●d as an ungodly man, but as a pious and an obedient believer.  
19. He denies the Gospel to be a new law, and God a Lawgiver in granting terms of salvation, p. 51. and 112. The asserting whereof he censures to be Popish and Socinian Doctrine, allowing the Gospel, or covenant of grace properly taken to be only a promise of grace and life through Christ to lost sinners, p. 110.  
The contrary doctrine I have always conceived to be the true Protestant and Scriptural Doctrine, the Gospel of Christ being in express letters styled a law both in the Old and New Testament. What is or can be meant by the Apostles expressions( The Law of Faith and the Law of Christ, Rom. 3.27. Gal. 6.2.) but the Gospel of Christ? And what is meant by those expressions of the Prophets( Isa. 2. begin. and Mic. 4.21. Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem) but the promulgation of the Gospel as a law to be begun first at Jerusalem and thence to be published throughout all nations, of whom it was foretold, Isa. 42.4. That the Isles, that is, the Gentiles should wait for this law of Jesus Christ, styled Hi● law?  
20. Our justification and salvation( says he, p. 105. were typified and set out by the birth of Isaac, Rom. 4.18. By the deliverance out of Egypt and Babylon— but in all these there was nothing of mans work, or endeavour— from whence we argue, that no works of ours have any concurrence in bringing us out of the state of death into the estate of life by Christ.  
If the Gospel of Christ be no law, but a mere promise, well might this Author conclude, that there is no duty therein commanded, or imposed upon sinners, whereby through Gods assisting grace to extricate themselves out of the estate of death, and that no work of ours( so much as our own endeavours) have, or are to have any concurrence therein. The contrary doctrine I believe to be Protestant doctrine and the truth of Scripture, wherein sinners are commanded to co-operate with God, To circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, Deut. 10.18. To circumcise themselves to the Lord, Jer. 4.4. To make them new hearts and new spirits, Ezek. 18. lat. To make themselves clean, Isa. 1.16. To hear, that their souls may live, Isa. 55.3. Not to grieve, resist, or quench the spirit, 1 Thes. 5.19. Briefly, To awake and stand up from the dead, this being the way in which Christ doth give us life, Eph. 5.14.  
2. Nor do I believe what this Author hath here said, either that the manner of Gods justifying and saving sinn●●s without any concurrence of their own works, or workings was typified by the birth of Isaac, and by the deliverance out of Egypt, or Babylon, or that no works of Abraham, or the Israelites did concur to the effecting or actual bringing to pass of Gods promises to them, I say, I can no more believe our Author herein, than I can persuade myself; either that Abraham did not beget Isaac ( for as it is recorded, that Sarah conceived him, Gen. 21.2. So it is as expressy said, that Abraham begot him, Mat. 1.2.( or that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt and Babylon without their own consent, or the use of their legs; though withall I do not forget what is said concerning Gods bringing his people out of Egypt,. How that he did it with a mighty hand and a stretched forth arm, Yea that he bare them on Eagles wings, and brought them unto himself, Exod. 19.4.  
21. He says p. 111. That to impose new conditions of obedience is a new covenant of works with some mercy, but no covenant of grace.  
The true Protestant Doctrine is, that the new covenant truly is a covenant of grace, notwithstanding that obedience, which is therein commanded as the condition of enjoying pardon and salvation therein promised. God promiseth to his revolted Israel to love them freely, Hos. 14.4. Yet not otherwise than upon their faithful and penitential return to him commanded, ver. 1.2. This Author doth indeed copiously set himself to prove, that to justify by pardon of sin and free grace and to justify by works in any sense, i.e. to make any kind of works any part of the condition of justification, or remission of sin, are inconsistent, arguing from Rom. 11.6. the utter inconsistency of all manner of works with divine grace, which construction of his as it is against plain reason, so it is as palpably against the analogy of faith, I mean the current of many other Scriptures: for if grace and all manner of works in any sense be utterly opposite and inconsistent, it would be impossible, for any promise to be a gracious promise that hath any duty therein imposed as the condition of enjoying the benefit promised, which to affirm is point blank contrary to that Scripture, 1 Chr. 30.9.( The Lord our God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, says Hezekiah, If Ye return unto Him,) and very many others, particularly Jer. 3.1, 12, Jon. 4.2. Joel 2.12, 13.  
22. He concludes his arguing against us, from the example of Abrahams justification, and says p. 220. That works of no sort, in no sense did justify Abraham.  
This doubtless can be no part of the Protestant Doctrine touching justification; for they own the Epistle of S. James for a part of caconical Scripture( although Lutherus vivus did not) wherein it being asserted, That Abraham was justified by works and not by faith onely, the Protestants as well as Papists, do conclude, That certainly Abraham was justified by some sort of works in some sense, or else St. James was mistaken.  
23. He reproves us for our concurring with the Papists, p. 85. in describing faith to be such an assent to all the truths of the Gospel, as makes a man love, fear, serve God, forgive his enemies— and that we are justified as well by believing the threatenings and the commands and histories, as by believing the promises.  
1. It is a great scandal to Protestancy for any professed Protestant to gainsay any Papist for such a description of justifying faith as is here recited, or to deny, that we are justified as well by believing divine threatenings as well as promises.  
2. Forasmuch as very much of the Gospel of Christ is Historical, we cannot be justified, or said to be justified by believing the Gospel, but by believing history. Yea S. Paul doubted not to say, that we are justified and saved by our professed belief of the history of Christs resurrection, Rom. 10.9, 10.  
3. Forasmuch as Gods promises of pardon and salvation to sinners through Christ are conditional, and forasmuch as all conditional promises are virtually threatenings( even as all conditional threatenings are virtual promises) sinners cannot believe the one without an implicit faith of the other, for believing the one, they do of natural necessity believe the other.  
24. He blames us, p. 191. for concurring with Socinas, in saying, Idem est Christo credere ac Christo obedire.  
For my own part I verily thought this saying( though in the mouth of a Devil) had been true Protestant Doctrine, and that therein we do concur with the Apostle S. Paul, who doth as plainly, as almost the pen of man can express, make Credere Evangelio& obedire Evangelio, to believe the Gospel and obey the Gospel( not to insist also upon the word in the original its signifying both to believe and to obey, and is therefore by our Translators rendered indifferently, sometimes to believe and sometimes to obey.) I say, the Apostle makes these two to be all one.  
I might produce very many other instances, whereby to manifest what real disservice this Author by his book throughout hath done to the Protestant cause( his contrary pretences notwithstanding) to the scandalising of the Protestant Churches, and to the hardening of our common Adversaries both Papists and Socinians) in their enmity against our truly Protestant Doctrine. And it grieves me not a little, that I cannot do that service to God, his truth and t●e Protestant Church,( whereof I am both a M●mber and a Minister) as I think myself obliged Pro posse meo to endeavour, without exposing the nakedness of this brother and of all those Brethren( which as I hear, are not a few) who do applaud his book and abet him in his Anti-protestant and Anti-evangelical mistakes, and in such a matter as himself in the first page. of his Epistle to the Reader doth aver to be the chief and weightiest point in practical Divinity. But hastening towards the conclusion of this Prefatory Epistle, I shall forbear to specify any other instances of like import with those already produced, onely requesting the Reader as to observe, so also to bear in mind, That the great thing, which this Author contends for by this his book is to maintain the new Covenant to be unconditional, not allowing faith itself to be therein imposed by God upon sinners as any condition of enjoying the benefits promised in the said covenant, viz. Justification, remission, and salvation) and disallowing also the imputation of faith itself for righteousness, the contrary doctrine of his Brethren in these points being so offensive and distasteful to him, as that( among other his falshoods and slanderous words in his Epistle to the Reader, he says, That we do in effect tell the people, that the Papists are in the right in all the main Doctrines our Reformers oppose them in.  
I was about immediately ultimam manum apponere, to conclude. But because I perceive this Author is so scrupulous and fearful to assert, that ought in, or done, or to be done by sinners is any condition of their pardon of sin, or justification through Christ( although the conditional particle If, as expressive of the nature, or interest of a Condition, as the tongue of men, or Angels can utter, be never so frequently used in Scripture) it may not therefore be amiss to take notice of the reason or reasons of that his scruple, which being expressed by him in page. 134. I will recite, and in few words reply to.  
because the term of condi●ion doth properly imply a full pow●r in man to fulfil it, if he will take pains to fulfil it, and especially because it s●em●th to make God depend upon man in the performance of his own purposes and promises, I should choose rather to say, Good works and obedience are the way and order, in which onely God giveth more grace and glory and every good thing, Psal. 84.11 than to say, They are conditions of salvation.  
Answ. And is this indeed the true reason, and all the reason? It being all to a tittle, which I find here expressed by this Author, I reply,  
1. The term condition doth properly imply no more power, or other power in man to fulfil it, than Gods bare commanding us any Christian saving duty doth imply a power in man to fulfil that simplo command.  
2. As Gods bare commanding man to do this, or that duty doth imply a power in man( though not merely of himself, yet through Gods assisting help and mans co-operating with God, or his taking pains( as is this Authors phrase) to perform that command, so doth Gods imposing that duty as a condition of his promised mercy imply the same power in man so assisted and so co-operating, to fu fill the condition( for if man so assisted and co operating had not a power so to do, well might we say with the Disciples, Who then can be saved?) so that the word condition is as properly used in this case, as the word command, the thing required of man being as properly a condition as Gods bare requiring of a thing is properly a command to do it.  
Let these replies be the rather observed, because they may serve to answer what we red, page. 40. Where having said, that this is the Core of our opinion, that it turneth the Gospel into a Covenant of works, and thereby lesseneth, if not maketh voided, the righteousness of Christ in the efficacy of it for our redemption, he proceeds to say,  
To what purpose is it to promise life upon condition of obedience be it never so so easy, when it is known, that a man had no power to do any thing, that should be required, before the covenant was made?  
Observe, Reader, That what is here said doth as well, yea as much militate, or make against Gods bare commanding man in his lapsed estate any duty, as against Gods imposing the performance of that duty as the condition of his salvation, forasmuch as mans whether power, or impotency to perform a duty barely commanded, or imposed as a condition by God, is the same in both cases. I proceed in my reply, saying in the third place.  
3. The same reasons, upon which this Author is so tender and timorous( that I may not say also superstitious) to use the term Condition, he might and ought( so far as I know) to have scrupled the use of the terms, way, order, or means( which last word in other places of his book he useth passi●●) for 1. Man by nature is {αβγδ}, a creature much disordered, and there is as much power remaining in him to do the one as the other. Hath not man as much power to fulfil a condition of divine appointment for salvation, as to observe that order, which God hath prescribed, or to make use of those means, which God hath commanded, or to betake himself to that way of salvation, which God hath instituted? Doth not the Prophet say of the way of man as much as this Author can say of any duty imposed by God as a condition, viz. That the way of man is not in himself( I know it, says the Prophet, Jer. 10.23.) It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.  
4. How doth the word( Condition) make, or seem to make God to depend upon man in the performance of his purposes and promises more than the terms( prescribed Order, Way, or means?) Not one jot the more to my simplo understanding, or seeming; Onely man in both doth and may be truly said to depend and to be obliged to depend upon God and his appointment; whereas the Independent God cannot truly be said to depend upon any thing, although withall it may be truly said( as was afore said) that Deus wilt hoc esse propter hoc, and that he hath other reasons of his doing this, or that, specially of bestowing benefits( the benefits of pardon, justification and salvation) than his own arbitrary will, or merely arbitrarily, as was this Authors fore-recited words; this therefore is a truth, which he is obliged not to gainsay under the peril of self-contradiction.  
I will conclude my Reply to this Author with the same Scripture-words, as he doth his Book, saying in Gods name with the Prophet Jeremiah,( Chapter 6. verse 16.) Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.  
But withall let me expound the Prophets meaning; for he doth not mean, as this Author by comparing these last words of his Book seems to intend. viz. Look to Luther( the Book itself being entitled, LUTHERUS REDIVIVUS) but he meaneth as doth the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter 8. verse 23. To the law and to the Testament. This then is it, which I am minded to say, Look beyond Luther, look beyond the times, when there were any such distinguishing names as Protestants, or Papists in the world.  
Briefly, let me speak my mind, in two words, they being the words of our Saviour, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, and take heed of being misled by the names of such men of renown, as were either Luther or Calvin, or any single person among our famous Protestant Reformers, of whom notwithstanding we may say as Solomon says concerning the just indefinitely, Prov. 10.7. And Ecclesiasticus concerning Moses particularly[ Their memorial is blessed, Chapter 45. verse 1.] and for whom let us throughout all the Protestant Churches not onely give thanks to God, but pray also for them in the words of the last forecited Author, saying, Let their memorial be blessed, and let their bones flourish out of their place( I mean out of their graves to their fullness of bliss with all the Saints departed at the Resurrection in the last day) Chapter 49.10. But because both Luther and Calvin with the best of our worthies were men subject to the like passions of heart and mistakes of mind as we are, I shall say again, To the law and to the Testimony; to prevent the hurt, which the specious title of this Authors Book may do to the unwary and unlearned Readers; for had not the title ( LUTHERUS REDIVIVUS) been intended by him as a Lure or Bait to draw the more simplo sort to partake of his sweet-meats, he would have chosen rather( I doubt not) to have entitled it CRISPUS REDIVIVUS. These words I would not have spoken, if the cause of saying them could possibly have been hide.  
I conclude with the words of the Apostle, Prove all things: hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5.21.( that which is good and true in any whether Arminian, Socinian, Protestant, or Popish Writer) to which counsel of the Apostle, I shall onely add that of our Saviour, John 7.24. Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement. This is the humble request of,  
Reader, Thy aged servant in the Ministry of the Gospel. Thomas Hotchkis. Stanton. Feb: 5. 1677/ 8.   

THE Contents.  

Chap. I. Q. IS there any kind of Righteousness expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to Believers? Answ. Yes, proved by Rom. 4.6. from which text together with the context it is also manifested, That forgiveness of sin is that righteousness, which for Christs sake is there said to be imputed to them. A distinction concerning a twofold Non-imputation of sin commended to observation. The matter cleared from an Objection, with the Attestation of several worthy Authors, p. 1.  
CHAP. II. Q. What manner of Righteousness is forgiveness of sin? Answ. In order to the resolution of the Question a distinction concerning a twofold Righteousness is premised( the word Righteousness implying sometimes Officium, duty commanded; and sometimes Beneficium, mercy promised:) which distinction being also in other words apt for edification expressed, the Question itself is thereupon plainly determined. p. 12.  
CHAP. III. Q. Why is Forgiveness of sin in Scripture styled Righteousness, or a person pardonned there said to be Righteous? Answ. The Question for the more clearness of understanding is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively. A Caution to prevent the misconstruction of some places in Scripture, and two Rules suggested as conducing to a right interpretation thereof. A few brief Animadversions upon some passages in Mr. Will. Bradshawes Latin Dissertation concerning Justification. p. 18.  
CHAP. IV. Q. What peculiar Names have certain Modern Authors used to give to the said imputed, or imparted Righteousness( the Non-imputation of sin) whereby to distinguish it from that other kind of Righteousness, which doth consist in a practical conformity to the law of God? Answ. They have distinguished them by such Names, or epithets as these, viz. Active and Passive; Negative and Positive; Proper and Improper; Literal and Interpretative; Legal and Prolegal; to which is added, Primary and Secondary, with the Authors Opinion concerning the fitness of the said diacritical, or distinguishing Titles. p. 27  
CHAP. V. Q. By what distinguished words is the said Imputed Righteousness styled in Scripture? Answ. It is styled a Righteousness without works. Hereupon it being questioned, how, or in what sense it is, or can be said to be( forasmuch as the expression, a Righteousness without Works, is in sound like the expression, a Righteousness without Righteousness) the Question is answered more at large, 1. Negatively, 2. Affirmatively. p. 32  
CHAP. VI. Another distinguishing Phrase, whereby the said imparted or imputed righteousness( forgiveness of sin) expressed in the Writings of S. Paul, is a righteousness of God, and without the Law, the Reasons whereof are specified in the Chapters immediately following. p. 39  
CHAP. VII. Q. Why is the said imputed righteousness styled the Righteousness of God? Answer Hereunto it is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively, What is, and What is not, the Reason thereof. p. 41  
CHAP. VIII. Q. What Law doth the Apostle mean in styling pardon of sin a Righteousness without Law? Answ. In answer hereunto it is specified both what is and is not the reason thereof. A large explication of Phil. 3.9. wherein is manifested what righteousness that is, which he calls his own, and yet doth disown; and a vindication of the said Scripture from the misconstruction of divers Brethren. p. 43  
CHAP. IX. Further Reasons added to those in Chapter VII. Why the said Righteousness is styled the Righteousness of God: wherein it is commended to observation, that there is a twofold righteousness mentioned in Scripture, one which is so our own, as that it may and must be called the Righteousness of God; and another which is so our own, as that it may not, ought not, to be styled the Righteousness of God: and what these two kinds of Righteousness are, is plainly specified. Whence it is inferred, that Jesus Christ did not, in reference to the justification of a sinner, keep the Law in his stead. p. 52  
CHAP. X. Q. Why is the said imparted or imputed righteousness of God styled a righteousness without the Law? Answ. The Question is answered, 1. Negatively, What is not: 2. Affirmatively, What are the Reasons thereof. p. 57  
CHAP. XI. Another Scriptural Title given to remission of sin is, in its being styled the righteousness which is of, by, from, and through Faith; divers Reasons whereof are rendered. The Authors Opinion touching the pardonableness of sin, or placability of God in the question, Whether, this was any part of the {αβγδ}, i. e. A thing discoverable by the light of Nature. p. 62  
CHAP. XII. Q. Whether doth a Sinner need ought more than the righteousness of Christ to justify him in the sight of God? Answ. Yes. The Authors professed Dissent as from certain other Brethren, so in special from Doctor Grew, late of Coventry, wherein is manifested, that although a Sinner needs nothing of the same kind more than Christs righteousness to the said end, i.e. In genere causae meritoriae, as a meritorious cause; nevertheless( simpliciter loquendo, to speak the truth absolutely) he needs many things, and those of several kinds, to justify him before God; and what those things are is specified at large. p. 68  
CHAP. XIII. Q. In what sense is the word( Faith) to be taken in those Scriptures, wherein forgiveness of sin is insinuated to be the fruit or consequent of Faith, and wherein it is styled the righteousness of God, which is by Faith? Answ. It is not taken strictly, as excluding all other Evangelical graces in a sinner, viz. Repentance and sincere Resolution for amendment of life; but in a large sense as comprising them, these being of the very essence of Faith, as justifying, or as taken( though not in a strict Philosophical, yet) in a Scriptural construction or importance of the word. p. 73  
CHAP. XIV. Another Scriptural Title given to the said imputed righteousness is in its being styled, The righteousness of the faith of Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised, Rom. 4.11. The whole Verse being opened more at large, and vindicated from mis-interpretation too commonly received. Caution given for a due understanding as well of the Authors full as true meaning, in his asserting Justification or Remission of sin( a righteousness promised in the Law of Faith) to be it which S. Paul doth style the righteousness of God, and which is by faith, the Author in that his assertion must not be understood as excluding, but as supposing and including that other branch or kind of righteousness, which in the Gospel or Law of Faith is commanded. p. 68  
CHAP. XV. Q. Is there any thing expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to us for righteousness? Answ. Tes, viz. Faith, it being thus recorded in the Old Testament, Gen. 15.6. and the record thereof produced in the New Testament once by S. James, chap. 2. 23. and twice by S. Paul, Gal. 3.6. and Rom. 4.3. in which Chapter he doth assert little less than ten times over, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him, and that the like or same specificial faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, ver. 3, 5, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24. p. 88  
CHAP. XVI. Q. What is meant by faith in those Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, wherein it is said to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness? Is it to be taken properly for faith it se●f, or figuratively, i.e. objectively, for Christs righteousness the object of faith? Answ. Properly for the thing faith, or faith itself, the truth of which answer is proved by many reasons, and cleared from certain objections, with the suffrage of the very learned and most industrious Mr R. Baxter, and reflection upon a passage of Dr Grew in his Sermons upon Jer. 23.6. p. 91  
CHAP. XVII. Q. Whence comes it to pass, that so many very learned and most pious men have so much and miserable mistaken the true meaning of the word[ Faith] in its being said to be imputed to Believers for righteousness, they interpreting by faith not to be meant faith, but the righteousness of Christ? Answ. Four things are assigned as the causes of it, wherein much is spoken for the removing of them out of the way of truth, whereby they may no longer obstruct the sree current thereof. p. 104  
CHAP. XVIII. Q. What is it for Faith[ the thing itself Faith] to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness? Answ. There being a twofold righteousness, viz. Legal[ commanded in the law of works, or innocency,] and evangelical( promised in the law of faith;) and there being also a difference betwixt these two sayings( Faith, is imputed to us {αβγδ}, instead of righteousness, and {αβγδ}, To righteousness, this being the Apostles literal expression of the matter;) it is thereupon declared, How faith may be truly conceived and asserted to be imputed to believing sinners, both To Righteousness and instead of Righteousness. The Authors humble opinion touching the genuine sense of the phrase, and the reasons thereof rendered. p. 112  
CHAP. XIX. Q Upon what account, or from what cause, or causes is it, that faith( properly taken) is counted to Believers for righteousness, or proves to them effectually available unto righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered, 1. Negatively, Not ab intrinseco, from ought, which is in the intrinsical nature of faith, or the value and merit thereof. 2. Affirmatively, The causes assigned being wholly ab extrinseco, viz. Gods mercy, Christs merit and the gospel covenant. Hereupon it is made apparent, that those Protestant Writers, who do assert faith itself to be imputed to Believers for or to righteousness, do not dethrone the righteousness of Christ, or set up any branch of mans own righteousness in its stead. p. 124  
CHAP. XX. Q. Can ought, that is imperfect, possibly be by God imputed to a sinner for, or to righteousness? Answ. Yes. The Authors professed dissent herein from certain other Brethren, whereof two onely by name are instanced in, whose words are recited, and a reply made thereunto. p. 130  
CHAP. XXI. Q. Under what notion, specifical conceptus, or formal consideration is faith( properly taken) imputed to sinners for, or to righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered at large clearly and distinctly, i.e. both Negatively and Affirmatively. An objection answered. p. 140  
CHAP. XXII. Q. Is there any personal righteousness, which God sees in a sinner himself, upon the intuition whereof God is, or may be said to be moved to justify him? Answ. Yes, in maintenance of the truth of which answer a copious reply is made to a contrariant passage in Doctor Grews Sermons upon Jer. 23.6. p. 145  
CHAP. XXIII. Q. By whom is faith imputed to believing sinners for, or unto righteousness? Answ. In answer hereunto that text in Gen. 15.6. is vindicated from the misconstruction of some of the more ancient rabbis, it being withal asserted, That it is God himself, who doth so impute it. But whether it was imputed to Abraham by God as Benefactor, or else as Estimator, or Judge, is left to consideration upon what is said in answer to a Question, which is the subject of the Chapter ensuing. p. 150  
CHAP. XXIV. Q. Was not Abraham a Believer and his Faith thereupon actually imputed to him for Righteousness before he believed the promise recorded in Gen, 15.5. and that testimony given to his Faith ver. 6? Answ. Yes: long before, his departure out of his native country( Ur of the Caldees) implying not only a local, but also a moral departure. p. 154  
CHAP. XXV. Quest. Forasmuch as Abraham was a Believer, and his Faith imputed to him for Righteousness long before that Testimony given to his Faith in Gen. 15.6. How was it true to say, that his believing in the Lord was then, or at that time imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered several ways. A parallel Scripture concerning Noah( Heb. 11.7.) opened, by occasion whereof 4 Questions, with reference to that clause( And he became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith) are proposed and answered, 1. What kind of righteousness is there meant? 2. What is it to be an heir of that kind of righteousness? 3. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been heir of? or, Wherein did it consist? 4. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness, which is by Faith? p. 158  
CHAP. XXVI. Q. What was the object of that faith of Abrahams, which is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. Generally those revelations, which God had imparted to him concerning his divine will, i.e. both Mandati and beneplaciti: both what God himself had promised to do, and also what he had commanded Abraham to do, the prime whereof( both the things commanded and promised) are made instances in; Hereupon six things as observable are commended to consideration, with a reflection upon a passage in that very learned foreign Writer, Doctor And. Ryvet. p. 168  
CHAP. XXVII. Q. What was the object of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other the faithful patriarches of the old world before Abraham was? Answ. Such things as were made known to them by supernatural revelation, which things are summarily said to be Gods Existence and his Beneficence, proved by Heb. 11.6. Hereupon two Questions are proposed and answered, 1. Whether Gods Existence and Beneficence were not things of natural revelation, or made known by the light of nature? 2. Q. Whether was it made known to the said patriarches before the flood, that God( in Christ, or for Christs sake) was, or would be the Rewarder of them who diligently seek him. p. 182  
CHAP. XXVIII. Q. What is the object of that Christian faith, which in the New Testament is promised by God to be imputed to sinners for righteousness? Answ. Two remarkable differences in the object of their, and our Christian faith specified, the one styled Modal, the other Material, the object of our Christian faith being of larger extent, than that of the said patriarches. A refutation of those, who do assert ens incomplexum, i.e. the person of Christ to be the adequate object of justifying faith as justifying; as also of those, who will not extend the object of justifying faith[ as justifying] so far as to whole Christ in person, i.e. to Christ as considered in all his Offices, but do restrain it to the formal consideration of him onely as a Priest. Three causes of this mistake in a late learned latin Author. The suffrage of that most judicious and impartial Author Le-Blanc one of the very learned Professors of Divinity in Sedan. p. 192  
CHAP. XXIX. Q. Is it onely one act, or one kind of acts of faith, or else various acts thereof, and of divers kinds, respectively whereunto it is said, That Abrahams faith was impu●ed to him for righteousness? Ans. The most noted distinction of two kinds of the acts of faith, styled elicit and Imperate, being premised, exemplified and explained, the Question itself is perspicuously answered; and this in way of dissent from those Brethren, who instruct sinners to believe, that they are to be justified onely by one act of faith, which act various Authors do use to express by various phrases, some whereof are indeed Scriptural expressions, and some of their own invention. Certain of these Authors are instanced in, and their words being recited, a reply is made thereunto, together with a passage in the larger Catechism of the late Assembly of Divines. p. 205  
CHAP. XXX. A brief reply to a passage in Dr own, he saying, That in the Doctrine by him asserted touching the imputation of Christs righteousness he hath as good company as the Pr●lacy and the whole Church of England can afford. p. 226    

THE SECOND PART Of a Discourse concerning IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.  

CHAP. I. Q. Is there any kind of Righteousness expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to Believers? Answ. Yes, proved by Rom. 4.6. from which text together with the context it is also manifested, That forgiveness of sin is that righteousness, which for Christs sake is there said to be imputed to them. A distinction concerning a twofold Non-imputation of sin commended to observation. The matter cleared from an Objection, with the Attestation of several worthy Authors.  
FOrasmuch as it doth not appear( as hath been said in the former part of this Discourse) that the Righteousness of Christ is in any text of Scripture expressly said to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness, or at all to be imputed to them; I therefore think it not amiss to inquire, whether there be any other Righteousness explicitly, or in the express terms of Scripture said to be imputed to them, or ought else there said to be imputed to them for righteousness. These two grand inquiries, with the Resolution of very many material and useful Questions pertaining thereunto, shall be the Subject of this Second part of the Discourse in hand.  
1. Q. Is there any kind of Righteousness expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing Sinners?  
Answ. Yes, as doth appear by Rom. 4.6. where the words following are express, Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness. And to what manner of persons this Righteousness is imputed, the Apostle informs us v. 11. he there asserting, That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also.  
2. Q. What is that Righteousness, which in the forecited Scriptures is said to be imputed by God to believing Sinners?  
Answ. 1. Negatively, Not Christs personal Righteousness, or Christs Righteousness in its Essential nature, or as properly taken, as hath been abundantly manifested in the former part of this Treatise.  
2. Affirmatively, 
Forgiveness of sin, I say, is the self-same thing with that Justification, which by the Righteousness of Jesus Christ was purchased for, and in his Gospel of Salvation is promised unto sinrers conditionally upon their return to God by faith and repentance, or( to express the matter in the words of St. Paul in his farewel-Sermon at Ephesus, Act. 20.21.) upon their repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, or( as he elsewhere expresseth it Gal. 5.16.) upon such a faith as works by love,  Forgiveness of sin( which indeed is all one with the Justification promised to Sinners) is that Righteousness, which is there said to be by God imputed to Believers; Gods imputing Righteousness unto them being the self same thing with Gods forgiving them their sins, his justifying or acquitting them from the guilt thereof. To the proof of the truth of this Answer, by way of Premisal be it considered, that pardon of sin, or Justification is in many places of Scripture styled Righteousness: among which at present I shall instance in a very few, reserving the rest for some other place. See Rom. 10.10. With the heart man believeth to righteousness, i.e. to Pardon of sin, or Justification; as is plain by the Apostles words, as elsewhere in many of his Epistles, so in those words of his Sermon preached in the Synagogue at Antioch, and recorded Act. 13.38, 39. ( Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified—) as also by those words of St. Peter, Act. 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin. And this is that Righteousness, which the Apostle says, that himself with other true Believers hoped for by the faith of Jesus Christ, i.e. by embracing Christianity in opposition to any other Religion professed by Jews or Gentiles, Gal. 5.5. In this sense also the word Righteousness seems to be taken in Rom. 5. ult. where, as sin through the redundant guilt thereof is said to have reigned unto death: so the grace and mercy of God in Christ is said through Righteousness, i.e. through the forgiveness of sin, to reign to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.  
Having manifested, that Forgiveness of sin or Justification is styled by the name of Righteousness in other Scriptures, I shall now address myself to prove, that this is that Righteousness, which is said to be by God imputed to Believers, Rom. 4.6. and the matter seems apparent by the Context, i.e. by the words both foregoing and following the sixth verse of that Chapter: 1. The Apostle having asserted v. 5. that God by faith justifieth an ungodly man, i.e. an undeserving man, a sinner, a man in the strict sense of the Law unjust, he proves it by that description, which David gives of the blessedness of that man, to whom the Lord imputeth imputeth Righteouss without works. This plainly proves, that Gods justifying a Sinner, and Gods imputing Righteousness to him are all one; and that Gods justifying, or imputing Righteousness to a Believing sinner, are the same thing with Gods pardoning his sins, appears by the words following, quoted from the Psalmists saying, Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Whence be it it observed, 1. That that which St. Paul calls Gods imputing Righteousness, v. 6. is interpnted to be his forgiving iniquities and covering sin. He makes forgiveness of sin a description or declaration of the righteousness, which is imputed to believers.  
2. The Apostle by the Psalmist's saying ( Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered) makes him constructively to have said, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works: So that as he whose iniquities are forgiven, and to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, is one and the same blessed person: so the forgiveness of sins, and the righteousness by God imputed to him is that very self same thing that doth constitute him blessed, or wherein his blessedness doth consist. And this is consonant to what he says in the following Chapter, where v. 16. he calls the gift of Righteousness the free gift of Offences; and what is the giving of an offence, but the forgiving of it, we being usually said to give a man that debt, which we forgive him?  
3. If Gods forgiving Believers their iniquities and covering their sins were not tantamount, or in effect the self same thing with his imputing righteousness unto them, that allegation from the Psalmist would not have proved the point undertaken to be proved by the Apostle, viz. Gods justifying believing sinners, or imputing righteousness unto them.  
4. Observe, that the Apostle in his allegation from the Psalmist, saying ( Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin) doth evidently make Gods not imputing sin, and his imputing righteousness to be phrases of the self-same importance, they being indeed the self-same thing, and effected by one and the same act of God, only differently denominated from the Terminus à quo,& ad quem. And what is it for God not to impute sin, but for God to forgive it; his not imputing sin being one among those many Negative phrases, that are of frequent use in Scripture, whereby to express his forgiving the same? 2 Cor. 5.18. I grant indeed, that there is one kind of a Non-imputation of sin mentioned in Scripture, which is not all one with forgiveness of sin; for the better understanding whereof be it considered, That as the person is( whether guilty, or not guilty) who is accused of sin: so is the Non-imputation of sin unto him to be interpnted, whether of the pardoning, or not pardoning him. E. g. If the person be not guilty, by the not imputing sin to him, is not meant the pardoning of the person, but the direct contrary, viz. the justifying him as not guilty, in which sense the phrase is used 1 Sam. 22.15. where Abimelech clearing himself doth beseech Saul, who had him in suspicion, to hold him guiltless, saying, Let not the King impute any thing to his Servant—. But if the person to whom sin is said not to be imputed, be indeed undeniably guilty, then by the Non-imputation of his sin is meant the forgiveness thereof. There be these two sensible and remarkable differences betwixt the non-imputation of sin, as applied to the said different objects or subjects thereof( the guilty and not guilty) 1. As applied to the guiltless, the phrase imports an acquitting or justifying from the guilt of fault; but as applied to the guilty, it imports an acquittance or justification from the guilt of punishment, this kind of Justification being it alone that a Sinner is a subject capable of, as hath been proved in the foregoing part of this discourse.  
The former Non-imputation of sin is wholly of debt, and not at all of Grace; whereas the latter is directly contrary, viz. not of strict debt, but wholly( in respect of us) of grace: And this is that gracious Non-imputation of sin, which St. Paul doth in the Scripture forecited make to be all one with forgiveness of sin( the subject thereof there spoken of being a Sinner, though a Believer) and with the imputation of Righteousness, I mean that righteousness, to which faith is said to be imputed.  
Lastly, The meaning of the phrase ( imputing righteousness) may be best interpnted by the contrary expression of imputing sin. The old Logical saying is herein verified, Opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt. Now what is it to impute sin to a sinner, but not to pardon him, to hold him guilty, and accordingly to punish him? And, if to impute sin be thus to do, to impute righteousness must needs imply the contrary, i.e. to pardon, and to deal with a delinquent as righteous. I conclude therefore, that that righteousness, which God is said to impute unto believing sinners, Rom. 4.6. is nothing else but the forgiveness of their sins, or acquitting them from that punishment, which for their unrighteousnesses was due unto them. And that the Imputation of Righteousness to a believing sinner doth not import more, than the plenary forgiveness of all his sins, hath already sufficiently( I hope) been manifested in the former part of this Discourse; wherein hath been declared, that forasmuch as there are sins of Omission as well as Commission, no Sinner therefore can be said to have his sins of the former kind as well as the latter, not imputed to him, or pardonned, but he must be said for that reason to have righteousness imputed to him: for he who is judged, or dealt with in judgement as a person who hath omitted no good, must needs be dealt with as one who had performed all good, and therefore as a person perfectly and positively righteous.  
Object. Is not Faith itself that very righteousness, which God is said to impute to every blessed person in that forecited Scripture Rom. 4.6?  
Answ. 1. I grant, that Faith itself is of its kind righteousness.  
2. That Faith itself is imputed to believing sinners for righteousness, as is frequently said in this Chapter.  
3. That Faith may in this sense be rationally styled a sinners imputed righteousness, because it is constituted and accepted by God as the sole condition of a sinners righteousness, pardon, or justification through Gods mercy in Christ.  
4. I grant, that the connotation of Faith its being imputed to us for righteousness, or as the condition of our pardon is not to be excluded, but is implied in those words of the Apostle, Rom. 4.6. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works: For it is by faith as the means or condition, by, or upon which God imputes righteousness to sinners, their faith being imputed to them to that end and purpose, as is oft said by the Apostle in this Chapter, and of which I shall take occasion to speak more at large in the sequel of this Discourse. Yea, it is the scope of the Apostle in this and the foregoing Chapter, to show what is and is not necessary on our parts in order to our justification, or the imputation of righteousness unto us, which he asserts to be faith in opposition to the works there in question, the necessity whereof was taught and obtruded upon believers by the false Teachers in those times crept into the Churches of Christ newly planted. So that when it is said by the Apostle in Rom. 4.6. [ Blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works] he meaneth no less, than if he said more fully and explicitly, even as he doth in the foregoing Chapter v. 28. [ We conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.] Blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness by faith, or by means of faith without works, the works of the Law.  
But Fifthly, Although God imputeth a believers Faith for, or to righteousness; nevertheless it will not follow from thence, that the righteousness, which God is said to impute to believers in Rom. 4.6. is Faith itself.  
6. The truth is, that though Faith be imputed to sinners as the condition qualifying, or capacitating them for righteousness; nevertheless that righteousness, for which, or to which it is said to be imputed, or which it doth qualify them for, is forgiveness of sin, or Justification; and this is that Righteousness itself, which God is said to impute to believing sinners in that fore-alleged Text Rom. 4.6. As faith alone, i.e. faith in opposition to works of the Law obtruded by the false Apostles, is imputed as the Condition: so pardon of sin is imputed to believing sinners, as the full and formal nature of their righteousness and justification. And it is of great concernment, that we preserve in our minds distinct notions of faith and righteousness in all such Scriptures, wherein both the one and the other are said to be imputed by God, faith being to be conceived of in the nature of a Condition imposed, and righteousness in the nature of a Reward in the Law of grace promised unto every penitent and believing Convert.  
Lest I should seem to any Prejudicate person to be singular in the said interpretation of Rom. 4.6. which I have so industriously, and( I hope) effectually both proved and cleared, I will close this Chapter with the allegation of the testimonies of several Authors famous in their generation, abetting me in the same.  
Remisso peccatorum est Justitia imputata, 
Justificatio hoins coram Deo nihil aliud est, quam remissio peccatorum. Pisc. on Act. 13.38, 39.  Our imputed righteousness is forgiveness of sin, says Chamier, that incomparable confounder of all Popery, as Mr. Robert Bolton calls him, whom all the jesuits in Christendom shall never be able to answer, whether in this world, or in the world to come, Cham. tom. 3. l. 21. c. 19.  
Notandum primo, Remissionem peccatorum esse justitiam nostram, This is first to be noted( says Musculus on Rom. 4.6.) that Remission of sins is our Righteousness— and the righteousness of God, which is imputed to us, is that sin is not imputed.  
Justitia imputata consistit— Imputed righteousness( says Pareus on Rom. 4.) consists in Gods gracious pardoning, covering, not imputing our sins; this is its both privative and positive form. Again, Imputata Justitia— Imputed righteousness is not legal conformity, or inherent perfection, but gratuitous pardon of sin.  
Calvin on Rom. 3.21. calls this a definition of the Righteousness of faith[ Blessed are those, whose iniquities are forgiven them;] and St. Paul teacheth, that God justifieth men by not imputing their sin. The like description of this righteousness, says he, see 2 Cor. 5. that which v. 19. he calls in God the not imputing of sin, he calls in v. 21. a being made the righteousness of God in him. He says on Rom. 4.6, 7. His verbis docemur— by these words we are taught, that Righteousness with St. Paul is nothing else but Remission of sin; and he calls Justification the imputation of righteousness, placing it in the pardon of sin: Surely, says he, the Apostle disputes not there of a part of Justification, but of the whole. And on Act. 13.38. says he, Haec est justitia fidei— This is the Righteousness of faith, while God reputes us for righteous by not imputing our sins. And in his Inst. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 21. Justitia fidei est— The righteousness of faith is our reconciliation with God, which doth consist in the sole remission of sin. See Mr. wot. De Reconc. Peccatoris, wherein he doth at large declare both his own judgement and Calvin's, with very many others, affirming, that the righteousness imputed without works is forgiveness of sins.  
If we examine the doctrine of the Apostle St. Paul and other Scriptures( says that universally Learned and judicious Author Mr. George Lawson in his Theopol. p. 311.) we shall find, that remission and imputation of righteousness are taken for the same— and p. 312. This imputation of righteousness is the forgiveness of sin. Thus he determines, and( as I conceive) most justly and truly, in opposition to those who hold, that a sinners justification doth consist of two integral parts, viz. Remission of sin, and the Imputation of Christs righteousness.  
I will conclude this Chapter with the sweet saying of Bernard, that most affectionate Postiller, on Cant. Dei justitia est non peccare, hoins autem justitia est Dei indulgentia, Not to sin is Gods righteousness, but mans Righteousness is Gods indulgent pardon: 
I mean the Homilies of our Church.  And with the first words in the first Homily of Salvation( which I had almost forgot to recite) they being as followeth:  
Because all men be sinner's and offenders against God, and breakers of his Law and Commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, words and deeds( seem they never so good) be justified and made righteous before God; but every man is of necessity constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification to be received at Gods own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended: And this justification or righteousness( viz. the Forgiveness of sins) which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and allowed by God for our perfect and full justification.  
By these words it appears, what was the judgement of our first Protestant Reformers concerning a sinners Righteousness, or Justification, viz. that the essence or nature thereof doth consist in Forgiveness of sin; and that this is the Righteousness of sinners, which is upon their faith imputed to them by God, and allowed by him in mercy and for the Merits sake of Christ, for their perfect and full justification. Nor doth Justification put a sinner any more into a state of acceptation, or grace and favour with God, than doth Remission of sin: I do not say, than such a bare remission of sin, which we may by our understandings abstractedly conceive or fancy in our minds; but than such a plenary Remission of sin, as in the Gospel is promised to penitent sinners. This hath been asserted and proved in the 22d. Chapter of the first part of this Discourse.   

CHAP II. Q. What manner of Righteousness is forgiveness of sin? Answ. In order to the resolution of the Question a distinction concerning a twofold Righteousness is premised( the word Righteousness implying sometimes Officium, duty commanded; and sometimes Beneficium, mercy promised:) which distinction being also in other words apt for edification expressed, the Question itself is thereupon plainly determined.  
Q. WHat manner of Righteousness is Forgiveness of sin?  
Answ. In order to the solution of this Question be it considered, that the word [ Righteousness] is in Scripture taken in a twofold sense, either as importing Officium, or Beneficium, Mans duty, or Gods mercy; or as it may be not unfitly in two words expressed, Work or Wages: 1. It signifies certain duty, or duties commanded by God, and by man to be performed, in which sense it is all one with holiness of living. In this sense it is taken Luke 1.75. That we might serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the daies of our life; where there is no necessity to confine the word [ Righteousness] to the duties of th Second Table, and the word [ Holiness] to the duties of the First; but both words may well and warrantably be taken as Synonymous, the word [ Holiness] being sometimes used in Scripture as expressive of the duties of the Second Table, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4, 7. and the word [ Righteousness] as comprehensive of the offices belonging to both Tables, Hos. 10.12. Sow to yourselves in Righteousness; the meaning of which phrase is commensurate with that of the Apostle, of Sowing to the Spirit, Gal. 6.8. And in this latitude the word Righteousness is used by St. Peter, 1. Pet. 2.24. That we being dead unto sin, might live unto Righteousness; this phrase of living unto Righteousness being of the same extent in sense and signification with that of the same Apostle else where, i.e. of living not to the lusts of men, but to the will of God, 1 Pet. 4.2. and of St. Pauls expression, i.e. of living not to ourselves, but to him that died for us, and rose again, 2 Cor. 5.15.  
2. The word [ Righteousness] is sometimes used in Scripture as importing certain Mercy by God promised to sinners, and according to the tenor of divine Promise conferred upon them. In this sense it s taken Isa. 48.18. O that my people had hearkned to my Commandments( this had been their Righteousness in the former sense of the word, as appears by that express Scripture in Deut. 6.25.) then had thy peace been as a River, and thy righteousness as the waves of the Sea. In this sense the word [ Righteousness] seems to be taken in Prov. 8.18. where Wisdom is commended from this, that there is with her durable riches and righteousness. And in one place( viz. Hos. 10.12.) the word being repeated is used in both the said senses, Sow to yourselves in Righteousness( there the word implies Duty commanded) till he come and rain Righteousness upon you( there it imports Mercy promised.) The former is styled the Doing of righteousness. 1 Joh. 3.7. ( He that doth righteousness, is righteous;) the latter is styled the Receiving of righteousness, Psal. 24.5. ( He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and Righteousness from the God of his Salvation.) The former may not unfitly be styled The work of Righteousness; the latter The effect, or the fruit, or the reward of Righteousness.  
2. Or to the same purpose, as hath been already said, I may express the matter in manner and form following, and say, Forasmuch as the word Righteousness is relative to the Law, and forasmuch as the divine Law doth consist of two parts, the Preceptive and Retributive part, commonly styled the Precept and the Sanction, Righteousness may be denominated from its relation to each part of the Law: 1. To the Precept, or preceptive part thereof, which is the Rule of mans living, and doth constitute debitum Officii, that which is due from man to God. 2. To the Sanction, or Retributive part of the Law( the Promises and threatenings thereof) that doth constitute debitum Praemii& Supplicii, what shall be mans due from God in the way of reward and punishment.  
Now( to apply the distinction) when I say, that Forgiveness of sin is a Righteousness of its kind, and oft-times meant by the word [ Righteousness] in Scripture, particularly in Rom. 4.6. I must be understood, that it is a Righteousness of this latter kind, i.e. as it imports not mans Duty, but divine Mercy; not our Work, but Reward; not as denominated from the Preceptive, but from the Retributive part of the Law; in which sense pardon of sin is frequently in Scripture styled Righteousness, two or three places whereof have already been made instance in, to which many more might be added: For in this sense it seems to be taken Rom. 6.16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Where, as sin and obedience, so death( the punishment of sin) and righteousness( a right to impunity, or deliverance from the punishment deserved by sin) are opposed; and therefore Righteousness must in all reason be taken in such a sense, as is directly opposite to death( the wages of sin;) and what can that be in effect, but the remitting, or remission of it? This is that which St. Paul doth elsewhere style The gift of Righteousness, Rom. 5.17. If by one mans offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. What he there styles The gift of Righteousness, he doth in the verse foregoing style The free gift of Offences, i.e. the free forgiveness of Offences: For as sins are styled Debts, and we thereupon are said to give men that Debt, which we do forgive them: so the forgiveness of Offences is there styled The gift of Offences, he retaining the word gift, v. 17. and what he doth elsewhere oft-times style Righteousness, he doth there style The gift of Righteousness; and it seems worth the noting, that it is a thing not unusual with the Penmen of Scripture( as some Learned men have observed) to accommodate or svit their expressions one to another, of which among many other which might be produced, are the instances following, viz. Jer. 33.17. where, upon mention of the word [ Liberty] follows the expression [ liberty to the Sword;] and Rom. 14.13. where the Apostle having said, Let us no longer judge, i.e. censure one another, he suits thereunto his following expression, saying, But judge this rather; and Matth. 5.19. where our Saviour having spoken of them, who break the least of Gods Commandments, he accommodates his following words thereunto, saying, He shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven; as also in Matth. 12.50. where, upon the mention of his Mother and Brethren seeking him, Christs reply thereunto is in a suitable phrase, saying, Whosoever doth the will of my Father, the same is my Brother, and Sister, and Mother. But to return: As Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness, so a person pardonned is upon that account said to be Righteous, Rom. 5.19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous; where, as by the word Sinners is meant guilty, or obnoxious to condemnation, so by the word Righteous( which is directly opposite thereunto) the plain contrary to it must necessary be understood, i.e. not obnoxious to condemnation, pardonned or justified, as appears also by the context. And in this sense is the word Sinner, as opposed to Righteous in the said sense asserted, taken oft-times in other Scriptures, i.e. as importing subjection not to the power of sin, at least not it directly and immediately, but subjection to the guilt of sin; in which sense our Saviour Christ doth vindicate the Woman in Luke 7. from being a Sinner, as she was charged by one of the Pharisees, v. 39; this he doth by proving in his discourse( whether with Simon the Pharisee, or Simon the Apostle) the direct contrary, viz. that her sins were forgiven her: this he proves by her love to him, and therefore she was no longer a Sinner, but Righteous, i.e. not obnoxious to condemnation. And in the like sense the word seems to be taken in that saying of the Apostle Rom. 3.7. Why am I judged as a Sinner? that is, He in that saying personating our objecting against his doctrine concerning our own Righteteousness commending the Righteousness of God, says, Why am I judged, complained of and dealt with as one obnoxious to punishment? Thus the word [ Sinner] is also taken in 1 King. 1 21. where Bathsheba taking a course for the future security of her self and hers after Davids death, says thus unto him, Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my Lord the King shall sleep with his Fathers, that I and my Son Solomon shall be counted sinners, i.e. shall be dealt with as obnoxious to suffering. Why Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness, will be declared in the following Chapter. I will only add, As righteousness and unrighteousness are measured by the Retributive part of the Law( the Promissory and Comminatory part thereof) he is unrighteous, who hath no right to impunity, but is obliged to the punishment threatened, both of loss and sense; and he is righteous, who is disobliged from this punishment threatened, or hath right to the contrary( both Privative and Positive) good promised. And in this respect, I say, Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness; and a person pardonned said to be Righteous.   

CHAP III. Q. Why is Forgiveness of sin in Scripture styled Righteousness, or a person pardonned there said to be Righteous? Answ. The Question for the more clearness of understanding is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively. A Caution to prevent the misconstruction of some places in Scripture, and two Rules suggested as conducing to a right interpretation thereof. A few brief Animadversions upon some passages in Mr. Will. Bradshawes Latin Dissertation concerning Justification.  
Q. WHy is Forgiveness of sin styled Righteousness, or a person pardonned said to be Righteous?  
Answ. 1. Negatively, The Reason is not, because it doth make a sinner to be righteous in such a sense, or in that very sense as Righteousness is taken for Holiness, for a Non reatus culpae, i.e. for a conformity to the Preceptive part of Gods Law: for as he, who was always thus perfectly Righteous, is not naturally capable of pardon; so it is impossible, that any unrighteous person should by any means whatsoever be made righteous, i.e. no sinner, or a person who never sinned.  
2. Although an unrighteous person may cease the practise of his former unrighteousness and become righteous, i.e. holy for the future; yea, although every pardonned sinner doth in that sense become righteous; nevertheless it is not the pardon of sin, that doth make or constitute him righteous in that sense: For in order of nature an unrighteous person doth thus become righteous, i.e. he breaks off his sins by righteousness before he is pardonned, or is in a proximate moral capacity for pardon.  
3. It is by Sanctification, and not by Remission of sin( by that change, which is commonly by Divines styled Real, and not by this styled Relative) that an unrighteous person is in this sense made righteous. These Answers, together with the foresaid distinction of Righteousness, are the rather to be minded, because the not heeding thereof seems to be the cause of some, error in the Papists, who still taking the word Righteous for Holy, and Righteousness for Holiness, have wronged themselves and the truth in confounding Justification and Sanctification, and making Remission of sin to consist not only in taking away the guilt of it, but also in the change of our depraved qualities and conversations, whereby of unrighteous we become inherently righteous. Whereas the truth is, that although this change be required in order to Forgiveness of sin( for that God may have mercy upon the wicked in his abundant pardon, the wicked must forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, Isa. 55.7, 8.) nevertheless it is not effected by a pardon; yea, because it is an external recruit thereunto, therefore in reason it cannot be conceived to be effected by it, neither is it any ingredient into pardon as constituting the precise nature of if, I mean as this change is a duty imposed upon us, or a work to be done by us, Ezek. 18.31.  
2. Affirmatively; 1. Because it is equivalent to that righteousness, which stands in a perfect conformity to Gods Law, or which consists in perfect Innocency. It is a Righteousness by account, construction, or interpretation, as having, although not the real substance, yet the legal privileges and benefits of the said perfect innocency and conformity: for he whose unrighteousness is forgiven, is in as blessed and comfortable a condition( as to freedom from punishment) as he, who never did transgress the Law. And for this cause it may well be styled an Imputed righteousness( in that sense as the word Imputed is properly and commonly taken in the writings of St. Paul) that is, a Righteousness by Imputation, or account; because a sinner, whose unrighteousness is pardonned, shall be dealt with as if he were righteous, notwithstanding that he is not righteous as a fulfiller of the Law of Innocency, or as a person who never transgressed.  
2. Because, as in respect of the Preceptive part of the Law Forgiveness of sin is a righteousness interpretatively, so in respect of the Retributive part it is only such. A person pardonned, although he cannot strictly and properly be denominated righteous respectively to the precept of the Law, nevertheless he may truly and properly( without any such terms of diminution as Quasi, or Tanquam) be so styled with respect to the sanction of the Law, the Law having no right to punish him, such an one being disobliged from its punishing power: The Law of God( as to its Condemnatory part) hath no more power over a sinner, when his sin is pardonned, than the Law of the Husband hath over the Wife, when he is dead, Rom. 7.1. for Pardon is the death of sin respectively to its guilt, it gives sin its deadly wound, it slays the enmity of the Law respectively to its sanction, and being thus slain, the sinner is loosed from if, as a Woman once obliged by the Law of her Husband while living, is loosed from it by his death. And upon this consideration a person, whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sins are covered, may well be denominated Righteous.  
Before I proceed to specify any other reason, why Gods pardoning sinners is styled his imputing righteousness to them, be it observed by the way, and by occasion of what was last said, viz. that Forgiveness of sin being considered as a proper righteousness respectively to the sanction of the Law, so Gods imputing it is verily and indeed all one with his imparting it, and implies no more than his giving or bestowing it upon believing sinners, in which improper sense of the word [ Imputing] certain Learned men do conceive it to be taken in some places of Scripture. Any matter of profit, benefit, or advantage( says Mr. J. Goodwin) which any ways accrueth to a man, whether by way of due debt, or of free donation and grant, may be said to be imputed to him accordingly; in which sense he understands the word in Rom. 4.4. where the reward is said to be reckoned or imputed to him that worketh, i.e. that by works deserves or earns it, of debt and not of grace. And so Pareus having distinguished of a threefold imputation of a good thing ( jure, injuriâ,& gratiâ) says, That a thing, when it is said to be imputed of right and of debt, is then said to be imputed in an improper sense of the word, Imputari pro Dari, to be imputed being all one as to be given, or conferred, in which improper sense of the word we are said to impute glory to God, i.e. to give glory to him; and in this sense he interprets that saying of the Apostle, Operanti, to him that worketh is the reward imputed, i.e. is given not of grace, but of debt.  
2. Be it observed, that that Righteousness, which in Rom. 4.6, 11. is styled Justitia imputata, imputed righteousness, is in the following Chapter in effect styled Justitia donata; he plainly styling it Donum,& Donum gratuitum,& Donum justitiae, the Gift, the free Gift, and the Gift of Righteousness, v. 16, 17. i. e. Righteousness freely given. So that whether by Gods imputing this righteousness to believers we are necessary to understand more than his free giving it to them, or bestowing it upon them, I shall not take upon me peremptorily to determine, but will leave to consideration.  
3. Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness, as some judge, for the same reason as they think it to be styled Justification, viz. because it is merited or procured by the satisfactory Righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the reason, which is rendered by the learned and pious Author Mr. W. Bradshaw: For the Law, says he, having two parts( the Injunction and the Commination,) there is a twofold Righteousness, viz. of Obedience in reference to the former, and of Justification in reference to the latter; upon which Satisfaction therefore, as given and taken, a person though a sinner is deemed righteous. And the said Author addeth, saying, By satisfaction made Gods Law is fulfilled, forasmuch as his Will was, either that the Law should be observed, or else the penalty suffered; if therefore the one or the other be done, the Will of the Lawgiver is satisfied, so that he for whose sins a full satisfaction hath been made( either by himself, or by some other for him) and hath been accepted by him, against whom the transgression was committed, is as just and righteous as he that never transgressed; there being as much justice and righteousness in repairing the wrongs and injuries done to any, as there is in abstaining from doing any. E. g. He that by his cattle hath trespassed against his Neighbour in his Grass, or Corn, and hath made him full satisfaction for the spoil done, or damage sustained, is as honest and just a Neighbour, and deals as righteously with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind. Wherefore our pardon coming to us, or being derived upon us in the way, or by means of satisfaction made by Christ to the Justice of God for the breach of his Law, may fitly for that reason be styled Righteousness, and a sinner pardonned may be denominated Righteous upon that account.  
Thus have I related the reason, as rendered by the fore-named Author, the force whereof I leave to the judgement of others; only saying, that for my own part I shall not much urge or insist upon it for these two reasons: 1. because the pardon of sin Quocunque modo, whether with, or without satisfaction given and taken, doth take away the guilt of punishment, and disoblige from suffering, and doth consequently so far forth make the Delinquent just and righteous. 2. Because I judge, that the two first reasons before speci●ied are sufficiently satisfactory to the Question in hand, Why Forgiveness of sin is styled Righteousness. I would thereupon now immediately close this Chapter, were it not, that I think it my part for the truths sake, and prevention of error, to Animadvert upon somewhat, that is cautiously to be understood in the forecited passage from the Author before name. E.g. Whereas the said Author speaks of a Righteousness resulting upon satisfaction given, and accepted, we must not so understand it, as if a sinner were actually pardonned, and made righteous immediately upon Christs satisfaction given, and accepted: for Christs satisfaction is only the meritorious cause of a Sinners pardon and righteousness, and although God did accept it as such, or so far forth, so soon as given, yea, so soon as undertaken to be made, nevertheless it was not the intent of God, or Christ, that a Sinner should be actually pardonned, or for it immediately be made righteous; but that for the sake of it he should be pardonned, or constituted righteous in his appointed time and way, by or upon the intervention of a sinners sincere faith and repentance. Yea, this Caution, I think, is very expedient to be observed for the due interpretation of many places of Scripture, where pardon of sin is spoken of, they being to be understood not of actual, but of virtual pardon, which some Authors style pardon inchoate, i.e. of pardon Quoad pretium, or Quantum ad Meritum, of pardon so far forth as purchased by a price paid and accepted. E.g. Rom. 5.9, 10. where it being said, That being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; and if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.— We are not necessary there to understand it of actual justification and reconciliation with God( for this belongs not to enemies, while they are such,) but of virtual justification and reconciliation, i.e. that we are, as far as belongs to Christs part as Satisfier, justified, pardonned, or reconciled, the price thereof being by him paid and accepted by his Father; all which may very well be, while a sinner doth remain as is said v. 6. {αβγδ}, weak and deadly sick, or in a state of enmity, as is said v. 10. Yea, all which may be said to be before a sinner be a sinner, yea, before he have an existence in rerum naturâ, even as Creatures, before they do actually exist, are said to be in their existent causes; even so a sinners pardon, before the sinner himself be actually pardonned, may be said to be in Christ, or in the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof; in which respect all the Sinners in the world may in some sense be said to be now justified, or pardonned, i.e. conditionally pardonned, or justified by the blood of Christ, according to that of the Apostle Rom. 5.18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. And for the right understanding of that in Rom. 5.9. with many other the like Scriptures, two things are moreover, as I think, remarkable:  
1. That( as I have somewhere red in the most Learned Dr. Hammond) passive verbs and particles being used in Scripture, are sometimes to be construed as real passives, and sometimes only as nominal, i.e. as denoting sometimes the action with the reality of the passion, or effect thereof in the subject wrought upon, and sometimes importing only the action of the agent without the said effect.  
2. It is the manner of Scripture oft-times to speak of the effect as wrought, when provision is made of a cause sufficient in suo genere, by which it shall or may be wrought. Thus St. Paul speaks of Death as already abolished by Christ, 2 Tim. 1.10. because Christ hath merited the abolition thereof, although Death is not as yet actually and fully abolished, nor shall be till the general Resurrection, this being the last Enemy to be destroyed. Thus also Christ is said by one offering to have perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10.14:  
I have the rather thought meet to Animadvert as above, upon the passage forecited out of the said Author, because it seems to have been the mistake, as of certain others, so of that Learned Author himself, to conceive that a sinner is justified, pardonned, or made righteous upon Christs satisfaction given, and taken, as is too too suspicious by certain of his mistakes in his Tractate of Justification, ch. 26.( Latin Copy) which it concerns young Students in the reading thereof to beware of: he there said( ch. 13.) That our effectual vocation doth follow our reconciliation with God: and( ch. 15. he says) that the reason, why Faith is called Justifying, is, because it doth then first declare us in our Consciences to be righteous in the sight of God for the satisfaction of Christ: and( ch. 24.) he positively asserts, That Faith is the effect of Justification, and therefore that Justification doth not depend upon it. The cause of these gross Mistakes in that Author was, as I think, his mis-conceiving a sinners Justification, or pardon, to exist immediately upon Christs satisfaction given and taken in his behalf, and his not distinguishing betwixt Reconciliation, Remission of sin, or Justification as barely merited, and as actually conferred: And for that cause it is useful to observe, that albeit our effectual Vocation doth follow our Reconciliation quoad meritum, or as it is nudè parta, i.e. as barely purchased by the Blood of Christ; yet it goes before it quoad efficaciam, or as it is actually conferred. And be it further observed, that the reason of Faiths being called Justifying, is not either primarily, or principally, and much less only, because it doth manifest us in our Consciences to be justified, but because it doth suo modo, scilicet per modum conditionis praestitae, i.e. as the condition of our Justification actually performed, it doth introduce our Justification, or actually justify us by, or in the virtue of Gods promise, Faith being therein constituted the condition thereof, and consequently our Justification depending upon our Faith, as Res conditionata doth depend, or is suspended upon that, which in any promise is constituted the condition of enjoying it. But I aclowledge this a digression from the matter in hand.   

CHAP. IV. Q. What peculiar Names have certain Modern Authors used to give to the said imputed, or imparted Righteousness( the Non-imputation of sin) whereby to distinguish it from that other kind of righteousness, which doth consist in a practical conformity to the Law of God? Answ. They have distinguished them by such Names, or epithets as these, viz. Active and Passive; Negative and Positive; Proper and Improper; Literal and Interpretative; Legal and Pro-legal; to which is added, Primary and Secondary, with the Authors Opinion concerning the fitness of the said diacritical, or distinguishing Titles.  
Q. ARe there any peculiar Names, or Titles given to the said imputed Righteousness, i.e. to forgiveness of sin, whether by human Authors, or in the Sacred Scriptures, whereby to distinguish it from that other kind of Righteousness said to consist in a conformity to the Precept, or Precepts of the Law.  
Answ. Yes: the truth of which Answer I shall exemplify by instances of both kinds, the former whereof shall be the Subject of this Chapter. I have observed, That the righteousness of pardon is for distinctions sake by certain Modern Writers styled a Passive righteousness, and the other Active: And I do judge them very fitly so denominated, because respectively to the one we are Patients, or the Subjects recipient; and with respect to the other we are Agents. And thus is the matter expressed in Scripture. Wrought righteousness, Heb. 11.33. Worketh righteousness, Psal. 15.2. Receive righteousness, Psal. 24.5. Receive forgiveness of sin, Act. 26.18.  
2. It is styled a Negative, or Privative righteousness, and the other Positive. And I do judge the former word no less fit in its application than the latter, because forgiveness of sin is in Scripture expressed by a Not-imputing it, and said to be a righteousness without Works; as will be declared more at large in the following Chapter.  
3. It is by some Author, or Authors styled an improper Righteousness; and this among others is the denomination given to it by the Learned Mr. J. Goodwin, who calls the other kind of Righteousness a Proper righteousness. But whether this denomination be so fit, I doubt: for seeing there are two parts of the Law, the Precept and the Sanction( as was said in the Chapter immediately foregoing) and forasmuch as a person may be denominated righteous respectively either to the one, or to the other; I therefore judge it to be justly questionable, whether a man may not properly be denominated righteous from the one, as well as from the other, or whether a dis-obligation from punishment be not in propriety of Speech a Righteousness of its kind, as Non-obligation to fault is a proper Righteousness of another kind If any Reader therefore be dissatisfied with those distinguishing terms( Proper and Improper,) he will, I presume, be better pleased with the terms, which I will here suggest instead thereof, viz. Primary and Secondary. Although I do not remember, that I have red the Terms thus used, and applied in any other Authors; nevertheless as the Terms are obvious to be thought upon, so I think them in this case to be very fit, forasmuch as that Righteousness, which doth consist in a conformity to the precept of the Law is primely intended, there being no place for the other, but upon the defect of this, for which cause that other may be said to be Secunda tabula post naufragium justitiae prioris.  
4. It is by some called a Righteousness constructively, or by interpretation, and the other a Literal or Text-righteousness; and by these terms( to my remembrance) doth the said Learned Author Mr. J. Goodwin distinguish them. But this expression of his doth( I think) need Explication, and must be warily understood: for although forgiveness of sin respectively to the preceptive part of the Law be a Righteousness only by interpretation, or imputation( in the strict and proper sense of the word imputed,) or in loco, i.e. a Righteousness instead of a Righteousness; nevertheless respectively to the Retributive part of the Law( destroyed, abolished, or spoiled of its damning power) it is truly, properly, and literally a Righteousness.  
5. Forgiveness of sin is somewhere( to my remembrance) in the Writings of Mr. Baxter styled our Justitia Pro-legalis, our Pro-legal righteousness; and( if I do not mis-remember) Christs satisfaction, or Satisfactory righteousness is by him so styled also: and, I think, that both of them may well and rationally be so called, because both of them do bestead us( Sinners) instead of that primary Righteousness, which doth consist in a conformity to the Precept of the Law; yet with some difference, each of them after their manner, in a divers way, or upon an account peculiar to each, viz. our pardon itself as the matter, which doth constitute that our Righteousness, and Christs satisfactory Righteousness as the Meritorius cause thereof. And be it observed, that I do not say, as Christs Righteousness is in itself immediately imputed to us( for this is that Doctrine, which hath been professedly opposed, and at large refuted in the foregoing part of this Discourse) but as the Meritorious cause of it, Jesus Christ having by his Satisfaction procured our Pardon, and such a Pardon, as doth effectually bestead us instead of that other kind of Righteousness, which consists in a perfect conformity to the Law.  
6. I have observed also, that as some Authors do call Pardon of sin a Legal righteousness; so Others, if not the same also, do style that other Righteousness, which consists in a perfect conformity to the Law, a Legal Righteousness: and for this cause it behoves us, in matters of controversy specially, intently to observe the meaning of what is written, and the mind of the Writer, lest by mistaking his true sense we fall to strife about words, a thing to be detested, and with much care to be avoided. But for the warranting of the term [ Legal] as applied to both the said Righteousnesses, be it known, That those, who call Pardon of sin a Legal Righteousness, do take the word [ Legal] sensu forensi, in a judiciary or Court-sense, they meaning thereby, that a Sinner pardonned shall in judgement, and before Gods Tribunal be discharged, or legally acquitted, i.e. by the Law of the Gospel; and therefore do they call his Pardon a Legal righteousness, a person so discharged being Rectus in Curiâ, and in account of that Law righteous. On the other side it concerns us to know, that they who style our inherent qualitative Righteousness by the name of a Legal righteousness in way of contradiction to Pardon of sin, do take the word [ Legal] in sensu morali, in an Ethical, or Moral sense; not in a Jural or Court-sense, and as Lawyers, but in a School-sense, and as Philosophers take the word, the word [ Legal] being all one with them as Moral, and as corresponding to the Laws Precept in the Letter thereof: And thence it is sometimes styled by them a Literal, or Text-righteousness, the Text itself, or Letter of the Law, as the Rule of Duty, requiring it. Yet this I must needs say, That albeit Pardon of sin may in a well explained sense, as aforesaid, be called a Legal righteousness; yet conceive, that they who call the other kind of Righteousness, which is contrary to Pardon, a Legal righteousness, do express themselves in language more agreeable both to reason and to the Scriptures, wherein we red conformity to the Precepts of the Law styled by the Apostle {αβγδ}, a Righteousness which is in the Law, Phil. 3.6. or the Righteousness of the Law; and Pardon of sin is styled a Righteousness {αβγδ}, without the Law, Rom. 3.21. as I shall have occasion to declare in one Chapter or another of this Discourse, and wherein I shall intimate, by what distinguishing words or phrases this imputed Righteousness ( Forgiveness of sin) is held forth, or expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, and this will, in part at least, be the Subject of the next Chapter.   

Q. By what distinguishing words is the said Imputed Righteousness styled in Scripture? Answ. It is styled a Righousness without works. Hereupon it being questioned, how, or in what sense it is, or can be so said to be( forasmuch as the expression, a Righteousness without Works, is in sound like the expression, a Righteousness without righteousness) the Question is answered more at large, 1. Negatively, 2. Affirmatively.  
Q. BY what distinguishing Names, or phrases is Forgiveness of sin expressed in the Sacred Scriptures?  
Answ. It is styled by the Apostle St. Paul, a Righteousness without Works, Rom. 4.6. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Now what he means by this Righteousness without works( for a Righteousness without works sounds like a contradiction) he doth plainly express in the verses immediately following, quoted from the Psalmist, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. I need not prove, that forgiveness of sin is the thing itself, or that very righteousness without works, which is there said to be imputed by God to believing sinners; for, besides that the Apostle doth presently, so soon as the expression had dropped from his pen, interpret the matter( making forgiveness of sin, or a non-imputation thereof, a description of righteousness without works) I have already more at large made proof of the same in the first Chapter of this second Part of this Discourse. The onely thing therefore that is here needful to be done, is to manifest the reason why S. Paul doth style forgiveness of sin by a name so seemingly uncouth and strange, ( a righteousness without works;) which words from the mouth of an ordinary Speaker would be thought to be of affinity with these, ( a righteousness without righteousness.) The reason or reasons hereof I will endeavour to manifest in answer to the following Question.  
Q. How or in what sense is it true to say, That forgiveness of sin is a righteousness without works? or upon what grounds or in what respects doth S. Paul so style it?  
Answ. 1. Negatively: The reason is not because no manner of work at all is to be done by sinners,( Gods helping Grace inclining and enabling them thereunto) that this righteousness may by God be imputed to them, or for the righteousness sake of Christ conferred upon them: this cannot be the reason; for nothing is more plain and evident by the current of Scripture, than that the work of Faith, of Repentance and Conversion, is required of sinners, and by the Law of Christ made absolutely necessary in order to the forgiveness of their sins. See Luke 13.3, 5.& 24.47. Acts 3.19. And it concerns us the rather to take heed of thinking, that pardon of sin is styled a righteousness without works, as if no good work were to be done by sinners, that they may be morally capable of having it for Christs sake bestowed upon them by God, because such an imagination is an error of most dangerous consequence, yea so dangerous, as that should it be practically entertained, a sinner could not possibly be saved. As was said by the Comedian concerning the Family of a profuse Spend thrift, Ipsa si cupiat salus sorvare hanc familiam, prorsus non potest: In like sort may it be said concerning such sinners, who imagining or presuming as aforesaid, do practise accordingly. The Saviour of the world( all things considered) cannot save such sinners, i.e. during such. Onely I must say, that Gods Grace and Mercy is wonderful towards some Christians of better Hearts than Heads, in preserving them from living up to their unsound Opinions, which yet they are not contented to hold onely to themselves,( like that private Faith spoken of by the Apostle, Rom. 14.21.) but do also openly hold forth in Press and Pulpit, and do zealously contend for( under pretence of Christs Sceptre Advanced) Christ alone Exalted, the Freedom of Grace, and Gratuitous Justification Vindicated; with the like specious pretences prefixed as glorious Titles to their Books.  
2. Affirmatively. Forgiveness of sin may well and truly be styled a righteousness without works, because no works at all of ours did purchase or procure the grant thereof, according to the Terms expressed in the Covenant of Grace, being the sole Purchase of Christs own righteousness, without any work of ours, yea without so much as a request from our lips, Gods pardoning Covenant being granted without any Petition from Man, God in Christ having prevented Man with that blessing of his goodness.  
2. It may be truly styled a righteousness without works, because no work of ours doth ingredi naturam rei, i.e. is any ingredient into it, or any constituent cause of it, i.e. this kind of righteousness doth not lye in or consist of works done by us, it being wholly and solely the work of God done upon us, or a work of Divine Mercy exercised towards us; briefly, it being Gods blessing conferred upon us. I call this righteousness a blessing, because the Apostle not onely says, ( Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven;) but he doth also style it {αβγδ}, v. 9.( cometh this blessedness on the Circumcision onely—) and {αβγδ}, a blessing, the blessing of Abraham, Gal. 3.14. because it is that wherewith God blessed believing Abraham. And it seems worthy of Observation, that herein lies a notable and grand difference betwixt the righteousness of Sanctification and this of Justification, or remission of sin; in that the former is a righteousness of works, made up of Mans works constituting the same( I must here be understood to mean Sanctification Actual, and not merely Habitual;) whereas this other kind of righteousness is of no such complexion or constitution. For although the work of Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience,( in full purpose of heart at least) be an external requisite unto it; nevertheless this righteousness itself is entirely the work of God, and consisteth in this acquitting or absolving a sinner from the guilt of his sins, or( as the Apostles expression is) it is Gods not imputing sin to a believing sinner; the said Absolution and Discharge, or non-imputation of sin, being the very formalis ratio, the quiddity or essential nature of this imputed righteousness, and to which Faith itself is said to be imputed, as will be afterwards declared. But although pardon of sin may be truly styled a righteousness without works, for the reason in this Paragraph specified: nevertheless I have not alleged it as the genuine reason, upon which S. Paul doth in the Text so style it: for Faith itself doth not ingredi naturam rei, is no ingredient into remission of sin, or any constituent cause of it; and the Apostles intent in this Chapter is far from insinuating a sinners righteousness or justification to be without Faith; yea his scope is to prove the contrary, viz. that Faith is imputed to us for, or unto this righteousness. I will therefore allege the following reason as that, which doth( I doubt not) directly and plainly svit with the mind and meaning of the Apostle.  
3. S. Paul styles pardon of sin, or Gospel justification, a righteousness without works, in opposition to those works, the necessity whereof to the salvation of sinners was in those days taught by the false Apostles; against which as not necessary to the justification of believing sinners, he doth designedly argue in that and in other of his Epistles. So that the Apostle styles it a righteousness without works, because there are a certain sort or sorts of works, that are not at all by any standing Law of God now required of sinners, in order to the imputation of this righteousness, viz. such works as are opposite to the Faith of Christ Incarnate,( these being the works excluded by the Apostle in the foregoing verses) and such works as do( really or reputatively) make the reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace, as is manifest by the preceding v. 4, 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith— Now what these works so excluded by the Apostle are, I shall somewhat more distinctly specify in some other Chapter. In the mean while be it observed what works are not excluded, viz. not Faith in Christ, the work of Faith, or the works of Faith; for by worketh not, v. 5. we may not, ought not, cannot( agreeably to the analogy of Faith) understand the Apostle to have excluded all and every Christian good work: as if he had said, To him that repenteth not, converteth not— For such a construction would make S. Pauls Doctrine not onely contrary to Christs and other his fellow Apostles, but would also set him at odds with himself, and that not onely in what he writes in other of his Epistles to other Churches, but also in this of his to the Romans, particularly chap. 8 13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. And Chap. 2.10. Glory, honour, and peace to him that worketh good. And Chap. 6.16. where he expressly speaks of obedience unto righteousness, intimating thereby the necessity of a Christians sincere obedience, in order to the partaking of that righteousness which I am now speaking of.  
Finally, forasmuch as that righteousness which God is said to impute to believing sinners, Rom. 4.6. is there styled a righteousness without works; I shall offer two things to the consideration of those, who do assert the imputation of Christs righteousness itself to Believers; and that this is the imputed righteousness meant by the Apostle in that Scripture. I desire them to consider, how or in what sense Christs righteousness can be styled a righteousness without works: for is not Christs righteousness a perfect legal righteousness, made up of works, and consisting( his habitual righteousness being supposed) in his fulfilling all righteousness, to speak in his own words, Matth. 3.15.  
2. How are those capable of pardon of sin, who have a perfect righteousness of works imputed to them? or whether forgiveness of sin and imputation of the said perfect righteousness be not utterly inconsistent? For if we are perfectly righteous with a righteousness of works, whether in our persons, or by imputation of that righteousness of works wherewith Christ was righteous, we have( as I think) no need of forgiveness; and if we need forgiveness, it from hence follows, that God doth not impute the said righteousness of works unto us, accounting us thereupon perfectly righteous, and upon that account, or as such, acquitting us; but that we are justified( for so indeed we are) as Malefactors by a Pardon purchased by the righteousness of Christ.   

CHAP VI. Another distinguishing Phrase, whereby the said imparted or imputed righteousness( forgiveness of sin) expressed in the Writings of S. Paul, is a righteousness of God, and without the Law, the Reasons whereof are specified in the Chapters immediately following.  
Q. BY what other distinguished Title or Titles is the said imputed righteousness( the non-imputation or remission of sin) styled in Scripture?  
Answ. It is styled A righteousness of God without the Law, Rom. 3.21. But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. By the righteousness of God is not there meant that righteousness of God wherewith he is righteous, or which denominates him righteous,( in which sense it is taken in other verses of this Chapter, ver. 5, 25, 26.) but a righteousness wherewith( as the gift of God) we are righteous; which righteousness here meant is that righteousness which I am now speaking of, and which doth consist in a sinners justification, or the remission of his sin, as doth appear by the following verses, ver. 22, 29, 25, 26. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe— Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, that are past through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, {αβγδ}, as it is in the Original, which word for word being rendered is, him who is of the faith of Jesus, i.e. of the Christian Faith. There is a kind of righteousness, which in another Epistle S. Paul styles a righteousness {αβγδ}, in the Law, and {αβγδ}, of the Law, ver. 9. and for distinctions sake, or in opposition thereunto he calls the righteousness which I am here speaking of, the righteousness of God without the Law, and the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ; by which righteousness of God, though I do interpret justification or remission of sin,( the righteousness promised in the Law of Faith) to be meant thereby: nevertheless I would not be understood as excluding, but as including that righteousness also, which in the Law of Faith is commanded; the said Phrases, ( the righteousness of God without the Law, and the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ) being in my opinion comprehensive of both the said righteousness, as well of that which is commanded, as of that which is promised in the Law of Faith. As for this later phrase ( the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ) it being one of those Phrases, whereby the righteousness which I am now speaking of( Justification or Remission of sin) is expressed in Scripture, I will speak of it distinctly and more at large in a peculiar Chapter. In the mean while I will answer two or three Questions referring to the title in hand, viz. Why is this imputed righteousness( forgiveness of sin) styled the righteousness of God? and, Why without the Law? The Answer to which Questions shall be the subject of the Chapters next ensuing.   

CHAP. VII. Q. Why is the said imputed righteousness styled the righteousness of God? Answer hereunto, It is answered both Negatively and Affirmatively, What is, and What is not, the Reason thereof.  
Q. WHY is this imputed righteousness styled the righteousness of God?  
Answ. Negatively, not because it may not in any commodious or fitting sense be truly styled Mans own righteousness: for this gift of Grace, or gift of righteousness,( as the Apostle styles it, Rom. 5.15, 17.) is verily a mans own, and so to be accounted, as any other gifts of God are, that are by God freely and graciously bestowed upon him. And in this righteousness of his own a sinner need not fear to appear before God, or at the judgement seat of Christ, no more than a Malefactor at the Bar with the Kings Pardon in his bosom: for though an ungodly or impenitent sinner shall not stand in the judgement; nevertheless a penitent believer, being one of the congregation of the righteous, may assure himself that it shall then be well with him, and that he shall not come into condemnation, Isa. 3.10. Joh. 1.24. and this upon account( under Gods mercy in Christ) of his own righteousness.  
2. Affirmatively, it is styled the righteousness of God in opposition to one kind of righteousness, which the Apostle styles our own righteousness, Rom. 10.3. They being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. And in a like opposition to our own righteousness doth S. Paul call it the righteousness which is of God, Phil. 3 9. Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Where it is very considerable, what that righteousness is which S. Paul doth there style his own, and as such rejects even as loss and dung, that he might gain the righteousness of God, or that righteousness which is of God by Faith. Now that we may understand the Apostles meaning, he doth so far interpret himself, and the matter in hand, as to give a description of that his own righteousness, saying, {αβγδ}, which is of the Law; and which he styles ver. 6. {αβγδ}, which is in the Law; which what this righteousness is, because it doth greatly concern us to know; I will therefore endeavour to manifest in answer to another Question, which will be the subject of the next Chapter.   

CHAP. VIII. Q. What Law doth the Apostle mean in styling pardon of sin a righteousness without Law? Answ. In answer hereunto it is specified both what is and is not the reason thereof. A large explication of Phil. 3.9. wherein is manifested what righteousness that is, which he calls his own, and yet doth disown; and a vindication of the said Scripture from the misconstruction of divers Brethren.  
Q. WHat Law doth the Apostle mean, where speaking of his own rejected righteousness, he defines it to be a righteousness, which is of and in the Law?  
Answ. This is a Question( as hath been already intimated) of great moment; and therefore I will answer to it more punctually, and that both negatively and affirmatively.  
1. Negatively, he doth not mean the Law of the Gospel, and consequently by his own righteousness he doth not mean a righteousness comform thereunto, either that kind of righteousness which is promised in it, or commanded by it; neither of which is meant by the Apostle 'tis easy to demonstrate.  
1. Then be it considered, that under the phrase( his own righteousness, which is in or of the Law) he doth not mean a righteousness promised in the Law of Christ, or Gospel, is evident: for this righteousness so promised is justification itself, or remission of sin for the righteousness sake of Christ: and to renounce this is in effect to have renounced his part in Paradise, and the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Crown of Life, as dung.  
2. Nor was the renouncing of this his Evangelical righteousness the way to win Christ, make what construction we will or can of that phrase; which if construed( as well it may) of the favour of Christ, and those high privileges that come by Christ, it may be truly said, that the Apostle in renouncing his Evangelical righteousness promised in the Gospel, had renounced pardon of sin, and justification by Christ; for even this is that high favour and privilege,( that favour of favours, that privilege of privileges, that mercy of mercies) that is promised by Christ in his Law of Grace to all penitent Believers.  
2. That by his own righteousness, which is in or of the Law, the Apostle doth not mean that righteousness which is commanded by the Law of the Gospel, is no less evident than the former: for, 1. The righteousness there commanded is believing in Christ, love to Christ, repentance for sin, in a word obedience to Christ. 2. This righteousness is not onely commanded in the Gospel as matter of duty, but it is thereby constituted the condition of enjoying that other kind of righteousness which is therein promised.  
3. Consequently, to slight the having of this righteousness, or to renounce this, is interpretatively to renounce the other:( even as to despise the means, is constructively to despise the end;) for it is so far from being the way to win Christ, i.e. his favour, as that the neglect of that Evangelical righteousness is the direct way to miss or lose Christ and his favour; God having in his Word of Life( the Gospel of our Salvation) entailed the righteousness therein promised upon the peformance of the righteousness therein prescribed, as the Condition thereof.  
4. Consider the words of that verse 10. That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death. In which two things to my purpose in hand are considerable: 1. That by the knowledge of Christ, the power of his resurrection, the fellowship of his sufferings, and conformity to his death, is meant that Evangelical righteousness, consisting in a Christians both active and passive obedience, which is commanded by Christ in the Gospel Law, in order to the enjoyment of the righteousness therein promised by him.  
2. Consider that the Apostle was so far from renouncing that branch of his Evangelical righteousness as loss and dung, as that he doth highly value it, and so highly prise it, and the excellency thereof, as to suffer the loss of all things that stood in competition with it, and to account them as dung, ver. 8.  
3. Yea thirdly, from the verse and verses immediately following it is considerable what the reason was, why S. Paul did not renounce, but incomparably prise, that his Evangelical righteousness, viz. Because he well knew,  
1. That without this righteousness he could not be found in Christ, i.e. be a true member of Christs body. Where note, that S. Paul say; not, that I may be found in ●●s righteousness, much less in his righteousness imputed to him; but simply in him, in Christ himself, this being the description of the spiritual estate of a Believer oft times in the New Testament, he there being said to be one in Christ, Rom. 8.1.& 16.7.  
2. The Apostle knew full well, that there was no winning of Christ without that his Evangelical righteousness, and that this was the mean● by God appointed for the winning of him: for, says he ver. 15. If by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. To attain to the resurrection of the dead, is in the language of the Apostle elsewhere to obtain a better, i.e. a most blessed resurrection at the last day, Heb. 11.35. or in the language used by him in the 14 ver. of this chapter, it is to obtain that, which in allusion to the olympic Games( a thing frequent in the Writings of this Apostle) he styles the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, i.e. of our Christian calling. Now to attain to this, or to obtain this, what is it in effect, or true construction of the Apostles meaning; but to win or gain Christ, whom we cannot be said in the most full and complete sense to have won, till we have so attained or obtained? And that the pursuing of the said Evangelical righteousness was the means of attaining the said price, appears by his saying, {αβγδ}, If by any means I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Which because as yet to that time he had not( confessedly ver. 12.) attained, he acquaints us therefore with his present and constant pursuit of the means, saying ver. 12, 13. I follow after, if that I may apprehended— And this his practise in the constant pursuit of the means of winning Christ, of attaining or obtaining the prise at last, he exhorts the Philippians, and in them all Christians, to imitate, saying, Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and ver. 17. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which so walk as— The righteousness which S. Paul did there renounce, he doth express in one repeated word( flesh, ver. 3, 4.) the meaning of which word he doth presently interpret, ver. 5, 6. he meaning thereby his Pedigree, as a perfect Jew by Descent, Pharisaism, Circumcision, and the Observation of all that Law, to which Circumcision did oblige him, i.e. the Mosaical Law; for Gal. 5.3. by Circumcision a person became a debtor to that whole Law.  
2. Having been so copious in the Negative branch of my Answer to the Question in hand, I shall now answer thereunto Affirmatively, viz. That by the Law in those words, ( not having mine own righteousness, which is in or of the Law) the Apostle means the Mosaical or Ceremonial Law, that Law which was peculiar to the Jews, and therefore by us commonly styled the Judaical Law. In this sense the word Law is frequently taken in the Writings of this Apostle, especially in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein he doth purposely argue against the necessity of the works of that Law, and the obligingness thereof. See Rom. 3.21, 28.& 7.4. Gal. 4 5.& 3.23.& 4.21. And that the word Law is thus to be taken in the place under debate, doth manifestly appear by the precedent verses( ver. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) and by the scope of the Apostle therein, which was to arm the Philippians against the insinuations of such dividing Teachers, who maintained judaisme, especially Circumcision, to be necessary to the Salvation of a sinner. Now this righteousness of the Judaical Law S. Paul calls his own righteousness, because it was not at that time a righteousness of God, or any branch of righteousness commanded by him as then to continue in force, or in statu quo prius. True, time was when it might have been styled a righteousness of God, because it was commanded by God in his Law,( styled the Law of commandments, Eph. 2.15.) and promises by God were made thereunto, Rom. 9.4. but that Law by the death of Christ being abolished, a righteousness conformable thereunto was no longer a righteousness of God, but purely their own: it was indeed {αβγδ},( to use the Apostles word, Col. 2.23.) Will-worship, not Gods worship.  
2. If any one shall add to that Answer, saying, That by Law may also possibly be meant the Law of works, or innocency as given to Adam in Paradise, the truth thereof is not to be denied: for,  
1. A righteousness conformable to this Law no flesh living could be found in, all having sinned, and come short of the glory of God, the Scriptures having concluded all under sin, as says the Apostle, Rom. 3.19, 23.  
2. Even the righteousness which is of or in this Law, although it cannot be denied( speaking simply) to be a righteousness of God; nevertheless it may in some respect be denied so to be, i. e. respectively to the justification or salvation of lapsed man as the end thereof: for perfect righteousness conformable to that Law is not now commanded of God as the condition of a sinners justification and salvation, that Law as a covenant of works being now abolished, repealed, abrogated,( as some use to express the matter; or as others) relaxed and dispensed with, or( as others choose to express the thing) ceased. Where by the way be it observed, how most intolerably it is said by Mr. Ferguson,( of which I spake somewhat, but too too sparing, and as some perhaps will say over mildly; for that saying of Mr. Fergusons doth in the consequence thereof subvert the Gospel of Christ, the saying being understood according to the sound and most obvious sense or meaning thereof; in the former part of this Discourse, chap. 8. p. 34.) that notwithstanding the introduction of the Law of Faith, the Law of Perfect Obedience doth remain still in force: for although this Law being now become the Law of lapsed Nature, doth in some respect remain in force, i.e. doth continue still as a Precept obliging to future perfect obedience, and makes punishment due for all future disobedience; nevertheless upon the main, or to speak simply, it is utterly to be denied, that this Law doth to lapsed Nature still remain in force; for,  
1. The promissory part with its condition is expired, cessant capacitate subjecti, as Casuists say of the Obligation of an Oath, that it ceaseth, cessant materiâ juramenti.  
2. The preceptive part thereof is now ceased:  
1. As it commanded absolute innocency, both actual and habitual, as well in habit as in act.  
2. As it commanded the seeking of the reward( the justification of Life) on the condition, and by the means of perfect personal innocency. I have suggested these things as an Antidote, whereby to prevent the evil of Mr. Fergusons intolerable saying.  
3. But to return, that by Law in the Text aforesaid may very well and truly be meant the Law of works, is manifest by this reason, viz. Because a righteousness conformable to the Law of works is incompossible and utterly inconsistent with that righteousness which S. Paul( a convinced sinner) and every man being a sinner, is by Jesus Christ, and through his bloodshed, to seek after, i.e. forgiveness of sin: for where there is no sin, there is no place for pardon: that which is not, cannot be pardonned. And forgiveness of sin may very well therefore be styled by the Apostle a righteousness without works,( as hath been said in the 5. chap. of this Discourse;) because it is a righteousness altogether without the works of this Law, i.e. works exactly thereunto conformable; for as much as such works are incompatible with remission of sin, there being in that case no sin to be remitted. And some of the Apostles Arguments against justification by works do directly and forcibly conclude against the works of this Law, these making the reward to be of debt, and not of grace; and also making a sinners blessedness to be another manner of blessedness than David spake of, i.e. a blessedness not consisting in remission of sin.  
I have been the larger in answering the Question touching the righteousness which S. Paul calls his own righteousness, which is in and of the Law; because what hath been said may serve to rectify the common mistake of the true mind and meaning of the Apostle in that Scripture; the mistake particularly not onely of Dr. own and Dr. Grew mentioned in the foregoing part of this Treatise, but also of the Author, whom since the printing thereof I lately red,( styled Anti-sozzo, whom Mr. Baxter in the detection of several his Errors doth style a person of great wit and piety) who would persuade us, that by Law is there meant any Law indefinite; and that by the righteousness of Law is there meant that righteousness which any Law urges, presses, and prescribes, p. 547. and he pursues this his mis-interpretation in many pages, to which it were no difficult work punctually to make a satisfactory Reply, and I would do it here, were it not actum agere, and that I have said already what is sufficient for the satisfaction of any of my Dissenting Brethren, as to the true sense and meaning of the Apostle in that Scripture. I shall now proceed to intimate some further reason or reasons, why the said imputed righteousness is styled the righteousness of God: but having so amplified the first reason,( he so styling it in opposition to his own righteousness, which is in and of the Law) I will be so much briefer in the rest. Onely let me add this to that which was before said, viz. That by his own righteousness, which is in the Law, the Apostle doth not onely mean that righteousness, which( when time was) was commanded by God in the Judaical Law, but also all those Privileges and Prerogatives, that therein were promised to the Observers thereof. This, I doubt not is one part of the Apostles meaning comprised in that his Expression, mine own righteousness which is of the Law.   

CHAP. IX. Further Reasons added to those in Chapter VII. Why the said Righteousness is styled the Righteousness of God: wherein it is commended to observation, that there is a twofold righteousness mentioned in Scripture, one which is so our own, as that it may and must be called the Righteousness of God; and another which is so our own, as that it may not, ought not, to be styled the Righteousness of God: and what these two kinds of Righteousness are, is plainly specified. Whence it is inferred, that Jesus Christ did not, in reference to the justification of a sinner, keep the Law in his stead.  
THE said imputed righteousness( the non-imputation or forgiveness of sin) is styled the righteousness of God, because as God doth promise it to us, so it is he who doth actually impute it unto, or bestow it upon us; even as the Apostle says from the Psalmist, Rom. 4.6. ( As David describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness—) And Jesus Christ being the meritorious cause of this righteousness, he is said to be of God made unto us righteousness, i.e. made such unto us causally, i.e. made to us of God the cause of righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. And thence it is that this righteousness is styled justitia ex Deo, a righteousness which is of God, Phil. 3.9. and the gift of righteousness, Rom. 5.17. i. e. a gift of Gods free grace through Christ, ver. 16. And thence it is that those who are made righteous by Gods pardoning or not imputing their trespasses unto them, are said to be made the righteousness of God in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.21. the abstract ( righteousness) being put for the concrete ( righteous) as is frequent in Scripture, circumcision for circumcised, Phil. 3.3. and uncircumcision for uncircumcised, Rom 2.26. Ye are made the righteousness of God in Christ, i.e. by God through Christ, he not imputing your trespasses unto you, ye are made very righteous.  
1. Possibly it may be styled the righteousness of God, because it is that which God will own and countenance, and which will bear a man out before God, and bring a sinner off before Gods Tribunal as clear from guilt, i.e. guilt of punishment, as if he were perfectly righteous, with a righteousness of his own wrought by himself in person, according to that celebrated saying of one of the Ancients, which oft times I have seen quoted in Authors, Omnia mandata Dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non sit, ignoscitur: It is in Gods account, as if all his commandments had been kept and done by us, when whatsoever hath not been done is forgiven us. At the close of my Answer to the Question,( Why the s●id imputed righteousness is styled the righteousness of God?) and in answer whereunto it hath been declared, that it is so styled by the Apostle in opposition to that which he calls his own, and what that righteousness is which he styles his own, having been also amply declared, I desire the intelligent Reader to observe from the premises, that there is a twofold righteousness mentioned in the Scriptures, viz. one that is so our own, as that it may and must be styled the righteousness of God; and of this sort is a sinners Evangelical righteousness, I mean, both that which was commanded by, and that also which is promised in the Law, or Gospel of Christ, viz. holiness of life and remission of sin. These truly are a mans own righteousness, and yet are the righteousness of God, and so styled in Sacred Writ.  
2. There is another kind of righteousness, which is so our own, as that it may not, ought not, cannot be styled the righteousness of God, but must be denied to be such, either simply or respectively at least, e. g. a righteousness conformed to the Judaical Law is simply to be denied to be a righteousness of God, the Law itself formerly requiring it being now expired; and a righteousness conformed to the Law or Covenant of works, being also respectively to be denied to be a righteousness of God, i.e. respectively to the justification or salvation of Man now in his lapsed estate: for although it once was a righteousness of God, with respect to the justification of Man innocent; yet now it is not so with respect to the justification of Man in his lapsed condition, it being now not commanded of God for any such end or purpose, as hath been plainly declared in the foregoing Chapter. Whence by the way be it observed, how groundlessly it is said by too too many Brethren, that Jesus Christ in reference to our justification did keep the Law in our stead. It may be truly said I readily aclowledge, that Christ did keep the Law for us, that we might be justified, i.e. pardonned, or not condemned for our breaches thereof: but it is false to say, that he fulfilled the Law in our stead, that we might be justified as fulfillers thereof in or by him; for this sense of the word ( instead) doth pregnantly import, that the fulfilling of the Law was primarily required of every man since the Fall for his justification, and that God in regard of the personal disability of mankind for the fulfilling thereof for such an end, did sand his Son Jesus Christ to fulfil it in their room and place: which Supposition is a manifest and notorious untruth; for,  
1. Man having once broken the Law, is become from thence forward a Subject naturally uncapable of being justified by any future obedience to it, although he should perfectly keep it to the worlds end.  
2, God hath since the Fall of Man opened another way( a new and living way, to speak in the language of the Apostle, Heb. 10.19.) for the justification of sinners, yea for their justification of another kind, i.e. for their justification from the guilt of punishment contracted by their sin, and this by Faith in Jesus Christ. So that to assert( as many do, who have gotten to themselves, whether designedly or by hap, the prime name of Gospel Preachers with the Vulgar both in City and Country) that the fulfilling of the Law is required of any man now in his lapsed estate, whether by himself or by any other in his stead, is in the consequence thereof to subvert the Gospel of Christ, and in effect to preach another Gospel than we have received from him and his Apostles; the embracing whereof by too too many is yet the less to be marveled at, seeing there were those, even in the primitive times, while the Apostles of our Saviour were alive, who were soon removed unto another Gospel, Gal. 1.6.  
Again, be it considered whether this Assertion( that Christ hath fulfilled all the righteousness of the Law in our stead for our justification) doth not overthrow their grand Gospel Doctrine,( as it is mis-called) of a sinners justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness, which they usually affirm to be one integral part of justification; for if he did it in our stead, it seems to become ours ipso facto without an imputation. If we suppose that Christ did undertake, and that God did accept of Christ to be our surety and Mediator to act in our stead, what needs any imputation to make it ours? Would not his righteousness become ours by his bare precise acting in our stead; even as whatsoever is done by our Proxy appointed and allowed to act for us, becomes ours immediately even in strictness of Law, and without any imputation of grace to make it so?   

CHAP. X. Q. Why is the said imparted or imputed righteousness of God styled a righteousness without the Law? Answ. The Question is answered, 1. Negatively, What is not: 2. Affirmatively, What are the Reasons thereof.  
Q. WHY is the said imputed righteousness( the non-imputation or remission of sin) styled a righteousness of God without Law, a Law, or the Law? For a righteousness without a Law sounds alike harshly as a righteousness without works.  
Answ. The Question being of moment, I will therefore make answer to it as I have done to many others, both Negatively and Affirmatively.  
1. Negatively, not because it is universally without any manner of Law whatsoever: for,  
1. Without all manner of Law whatsoever there can be no manner of righteousness at all; for all righteousness hath reference to one Law or other, as the rule thereof, the Law being the rule both of Duty and of judgement. As, Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.14. no unrighteousness, so nor righteousness. There is not any thing that can deserve the name of righteousness, much less the righteousness of God, which is absolutely and universally without any Law.  
2. This imputed righteousness accrues, is conveyed to us, or comes upon us( as is the frequent language of the Apostle in his Epistle both to the Romans and Galatians) by Law, even that Law which for distinctions sake is called the Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. As there are two sorts or integral parts of our Evangelical righteousness, which are so our own, as that withall they are in Scripture said to be the righteousness of God; so neither of them are simply without Law, but both of them are indeed according to Law, i.e. the Law of Faith, or of the Gospel, the one kind of righteousness, as a sinners duty being thereby commanded, and the other as Gods merciful favour and divine blessing being therein promised.  
2. I answer Affirmatively:  
1. It is called a righteousness without Law for the same reason as it is called a righteousness without works, these Phrases( without Law, without works, without the works of the Law) being equivalent and of promiscuous use with this Apostle in several places of his Writings, wherein there are many things hard to be understood, and very dangerous being misunderstood; so that the Apostle by( without the Law) doth mean without the works of the Law, there being an elegant Antanaclasis in the word Law repeated, Rom. 3.21. and there used in a different sense; for whereas in the later part of that verse it is taken for the Books of Moses, in the first part it is taken for the Works of the Law; S. Paul herein being his own Interpreter, saying ver. 18. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.  
2. S. Paul styles it a righteousness without the Law, in opposition to that which in other places he styles a righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3.9. and a righteousness which is ex lege, by the Law, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given, that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. See the same opposition Rom. 10.3. with ver. 5. Moses describeth the righteousness which is {αβγδ}, of, from, or by Law, or the Law. And if the question be demanded, What Law is it that is meant in that forecited saying of the Apostle, Rom. 3.21. The righteousness of God without the Law. I answer, in the same restrained sense as the word Law is to be taken in those sayings of his, Phil. 3.9. wherein he speaks of a righteousness which is of the Law, i.e. it is truly to be understood, as hath been already said, chap. 8. of that Law which is opposite to the Law of faith, or belief of Christ incarnate, viz. concerning the Judaical Law, and the law of works, i.e. the law of innocency, this being most frequently in the Writings of modern Authors styled the law of works.  
1. When S. Paul styles our imputed righteousness( the non-imputation of sin) a righteousness without law, by that law truly is excluded the law or covenant of works: for,  
1. This law hath no promise of pardon of sin, nor affords any ground of hope of pardon to sinners.  
2. The works of this law are incompatible with forgiveness. He that is righteous according to this law, is not in a natural capacity of pardon, and he is justified by, or with another kind of righteousness than this imputed righteousness of forgiveness of sin.  
3. His justification is of debt, and not of grace, as hath been before insinuated.  
2. When S. Paul styles the said righteousness a righteousness without law, or the law, he doth directly mean the Judaical law, as hath been already said chap. 8. that law, for the continued obligation or necessary observation whereof, not onely the unbelieving, but also thousands of the believing Jews, were blindly zealous, and not according to that knowledge, which by the light of the Gospel was afforded to them, as appears Acts 21.20. Rom. 10. beg. yea so zealous, as to think they did God service in persecuting the Apostles, and other orthodox Christians, for their non-compliance with them in adhering to the Mosaical law. I need not prove that this law is the law designedly and directly excluded by the Apostle in those words of his ( without the Law:) for,  
1. The occasion and scope of several the Apostles Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and the Hebrews, is so well known, as that it cannot rationally be doubted of by any man, it being to take them off from adhering to that Law.  
2. If we take Faith or believing in Christ in that sense, wherein the Apostle speaks of it, viz. for believing in the messiah as already come in the flesh; so faith in Christ is inconsistent with that Law and the Works thereof. For, to uphold or adhere to that Law and the Works thereof, is by consequence to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, or to deny the Faith of Christ Incarnate; for as much as that Law, and the Works thereof, were but a shadow of good things to come, Coloss. 2.17. Hebr. 10.1, Whereupon the retaining of them was virtually or in Works to deny, that those good things( the Body) were already come.  
I shall instance in another Scriptural Phrase, whereby the said imputed righteousness is expressed, and this shall be the subject of the next Chapter.   

CHAP. XI. Another Scriptural Title given to remission of sin is, in its being styled the righteousness which is of, by, from, and through Faith; divers Reasons whereof are rendered. The Authors Opinion touching the pardonableness of sin, or placability of God in the question, Whether this was any part of the {αβγδ}, i. e. A thing discoverable by the light of Nature.  
THE said imputed righteousness( the non-imputation or forgiveness of sin) is styled the righteousness which is of Faith. Thus in two places, Rom. 9.30. The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of Faith. And Rom. 10.6. But the righteousness which is of faith saith on this wise— And Rom. 3.22. it is styled, the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ. And Phil 3.9. A righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. In which places before cited the Apostle doth not use one and the same Greek Preposition, but various, saying, {αβγδ}, Rom. 9.30. {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, of, from, by, or through faith, the faith of Christ. Whence observe by the way, that the righteousness which is by God imputed to sinners, is not Christs righteousness itself; for if so, the Apostle would have said so, even the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself, or Christs own righteousness; whereas he says once and again, yea four times over, the righteousness which is of, by, from, or through faith, the faith of Christ.  
Q. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness which is of, by, from, or through faith, the faith of Jesus Christ?  
Answ. 1. It is so styled in opposition unto that kind of righteousness which the Apostle doth oft times, and sometimes in the self same verse, style a righteousness of the Law, it not resulting from, or being obtained by the observation of the Law, but by faith in Christ. This opposition we red expressly in several Scriptures, Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ. Thus also Rom. 3.21. with v. 22. and Rom. 9.30. where having asserted the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, to have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith, he doth in the verse following oppose it to another kind of righteousness, saying, But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness. Where by the Law of righteousness, which Israel is said not to have attained to, is meant the righteousness of the Law, there being in that saying the Figure called by Rhetoricians Hypallage.  
Now from the said opposition we may, as I think, unerringly conclude what manner of Works the Apostle doth mean in any of his Writings, wherein he opposeth Faith and Works, viz. not all manner of Works whatsoever, but Works of Law,( for so it may be rendered out of the Original, the Article {αβγδ} therein being wanting or not expressed, Rom. 3.28. and 9 31.) a law, the law, i.e. Works not consistent with, but opposite unto, the Faith of Christ Incarnate, or Works of law( any law whatsoever) opposite to the law of Faith. Now what that law or laws are, and what those Works are, which are inconsistent with, or opposite thereunto, hath been at large declared in the foregoing Chapter.  
2. It is called the righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, because God in his law hath constituted Faith in Christ to be the condition of a sinners enjoying this righteousness, which law is for this reason styled the law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. I need not bring Scriptures to prove the said legal Constitution. As S. Paul tells us, that this righteousness was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3.21. so S. Peter tells us, that all the Prophets did witness faith in Christ to be the condition of enjoying it, Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin. And thence it is that faith is said to be imputed to us to this righteousness, as hereafter will be said at large, because it is the Condition of enjoying it.  
3. Consequently because it is through the faith of Christ that we are to seek and follow after this righteousness, if ever we mean to attain it. For the reason of attaining and not attaining it, the Apostle shows to be the seeking and following after it in a right and wrong way, i.e. by faith and not by faith, Rom. 9.30, 31, 32.  
4. Because it is through faith to be expected, and as to the completion thereof waited for, Gal 5.5. We through the spirit wait for hope of righteousness, i.e. righteousness hoped for by faith.  
5. Consequently because it comes upon us, or is actually derived to us upon our believing in Christ, or faith in him, according to that of the Apostle, with many other such sayings in Scripture, Rom. 10.10. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.  
6. As for the foresaid Reasons it is styled the righteousness which is by faith,( faith being taken for fides quâ, the grace of faith, whereby or wherewith we believe;) so if we take faith for fides quae creditur, the object of faith or thing believed, I answer to the question so intended, that it is styled the righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ, because it is the Gospel of Christ,( the word of faith, as it is styled Rom. 10.8.) that doth reveal this righteousness to be through Christ, and through faith in him; according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1. where having mentioned the Gospel, ver. 16. As the mighty power of God through faith to salvation; he adds saying ver. 17. Therein is revealed the righteousness of God, from faith to faith. I cannot deny that Gods placability or merciful nature, in his readiness to pardon penitent sinners, is a branch of the {αβγδ}, one of those things which was revealed to the Heathen by the light of Nature, and experience of Gods Providential Dispensations, Gods patience and long-suffering being of a native tendency, in itself apt to led all sinners( the Gentiles as well as the Jews) to repentance, Rom. 2.4.  
Again, if Gods placability had not been made known to the Heathen World, they would( as I think) undoubtedly never have sought by any means or sacrifices whatsoever, whether of the flesh of Beasts or Men, bad men or good men, the best or worst of men, to have appeased God, whom they were so sensible they had provoked. But although I cannot deny, as aforesaid, nevertheless that this righteousness of pardon was purchased, or to be purchased by Christ, or to come upon us through faith in him, whereupon justly to be styled a righteousness which is through faith in Christ; this they did not know by any light which they had, nor could it be known by any without supernatural revelation. Yea this is that which was but darkly, and not so clearly made known to the Jews themselves by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, to which purpose the Apostle speaks in several of his Epistles, Rom. 16.25, 26. 2 Tim. 1.10. And for this cause I do concur with that which Dr. own doth frequently assert in his Book styled Communion with God, viz. that the Scripture reveals no pardon of sin, but by and through Christ, and faith in him. And I do absolutely presume, that if we speak of Gospel pardon, and according to that description which the Doctor gives of it, saying p. 91. Pardoning mercy is Gods free gracious acceptance of a sinner upon satisfaction made to his justice in the blood of Jesus. Amyrald himself, yea every Christian, who confesseth satisfaction made by the blood of Christ to the justice of God, will aclowledge with the Doctor, that the discovery of this pardoning mercy is not in the least glimpse discovered by the light of Nature, but solely by the Scriptures. Yea the Socinians themselves, who although they deny pardon of sin to be upon satisfaction made to Divine Justice by the Blood of Jesus; yet forasmuch as they do not deny it to be in and through Christ, they also will concur in asserting, that pardon of sin in, by, and through Christ, is not discoverable by any other light, than that of Scripture. But if we speak of Gods pardoning mercy indefinitely,( not so and so circumstantiated as in the Doctors description) I must say again as before, viz. that I cannot deny, but that the Heathen World had some glimpse thereof, and that they did know,( however imperfectly, and who can say but that they might have known it more perfectly?) viz. that there was pardoning mercy with God, that he might be feared.   

CHAP. XII. Q. Whether doth a Sinner need ought more than the righteousness of Christ to justify him in the sight of God? Answ. Yes. The Authors professed Dissent as from certain other Brethren, so in special from Dr. Grew, late of Coventry, wherein is manifested, that although a Sinner needs nothing of the same kind more than Christs righteousness to the said end, i.e. In genere causae meritoriae, as a meritorious cause; nevertheless( simpliciter loquendo, to speak the truth absolutely) he needs many things, and those of several kinds, to justify him before God; and what those things are is specified at large.  
FOrasmuch as the said imputed righteousness is styled so often in Scripture the righteousness of God, which is of, by, from, or through the faith of Christ, I shall think it not amiss thereupon to propose two or three Questions, and answer thereunto.  
Q. Doth a sinner need ought more than the righteousness itself of Christ to make him righteous, or to justify him in the sight of God?  
Answ. It is most apparently evident, that he doth, even from the said iterated description of a sinners justification, it being styled the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ. It is observable, that the Apostle doth not style it simply the righteousness of God which is by Jesus Christ,( although this is a truth worthy of all acceptation;) neither doth he always style it a righteousness which is by faith simply: but he styles it explicitly a righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, Phil. 3 9. and which is by faith of Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.22. I do the rather commend this to observation, because it may serve to prevent an evasion, or answer an objection, that some I well know are apt to make, saying, that where our imputed righteousness is styled a righteousness which is of, by, or through faith; there the word( Faith) is to be taken relatively or objectively, i.e. not for the grace of Faith, but for the object of it; not for Faith itself, but for Christ Jesus the object of it. Now be it observed, that the apostle adds to the word( Faith Christ) Phil. 3.9. and( Jesus Christ) Rom. 9.22. the Apostle therein interpreting what he meant by Faith in those other sayings of his, where he styles it a righteousness which is of Faith, that is, that by faith he meant Faith, not Christ simply, or the object of Faith merely, but faith in Christ. And to make the Apostle to have meant otherwise, is to make him to have spoken non-sense in saying( a righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ;) as if he had or meant to say, a righteousness which is through Christ of Christ, or which is of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ; even as to make the like construction of the word( Faith) for the object of Faith, in that saying Rom. 3.25. Through faith in his blood, is to make the Apostle nonsensically to have said, Through his blood in his blood. And yet this is( not without shane and sadness of heart be it spoken) that work which some, to the reproach of Protestancy, and to the hardening of our common Adversaries, do make of the Scriptures, as if by faith itself, and the object of faith, one and the same thing were to be understood: or as if in that saying of S. Peter( Acts 3.16. His name through faith in his name hath made this man strong) the name or person of Christ, a●● faith in him, did mean the self same thing, faith being not to be construed as meaning the thing itself( Faith) but onely the object thereof, Christs name or person.  
The premises considered, it undeniably appears, that faith in Jesus Christ is as well necessary to justify a sinner in the sight of God, as is the righteousness itself of Christ; even as faith in Christs name was as well necessary for the working of Miracles, as was his name or power itself. And I desire this the rather to be minded, because it may serve to detect and rectify the mistake of Dr. Grew, who in his late Book styled the Lord our righteousness,( Sermons upon Jer. 23.6.) says p. 200. even as others have said before him, viz. That a sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness to justify him in the sight of God. I grant indeed, that in some sense the saying is very true, forasmuch as Christs righteousness is in suo genere, i.e. in the sphere or series of a meritorious cause all sufficient to justify a sinner, even all and every sinner in the sight of God, and nothing more of that kind is needful for that purpose.  
But forasmuch as, 1. A saying, which is onely true respectively, or in a certain limited sense, may be well said( speaking simply and absolutely) to be false.  
2. Forasmuch as it is not fit and good for edification, but of native tendency to deception, to affirm that concerning a thing in simplo and absolute terms, and without due explication, which is onely verified in some one limited sense or other, I cannot justify the Doctors so saying.  
3. Forasmuch as it doth not appear, that the Doctor did onely intend the said true meaning in that saying, but rather the contrary( it being his intent, as it is indeed of too many, to insinuate, that no righteousness of our own, but onely the righteousness of Christ himself, is needful to justify a sinner in the sight of God;) I am so far from justifying him, that I shall altogether leave him with the rest of the Brethren in that saying to their own defence. For I can say no less, than that there are many things needful to justify a sinner in the sight of God, and each of which do suo modo, after their own manner, or in their own proper place and kind, justify him, something ex parte Dei, something ex parte Christi, something ex parte Evangelii, something ex parte nostri; on Gods part, Christs part, the Gospels part, our part; Gods mer-mercy, Christs merit, the Gospel Law, a Sinners faith: all which do in their kind or rank, and after a way peculiar to each, justify a sinner in the sight of God. Exempli gratiâ: Gods mercy as the inward moving, Christs merit as the external impulsive cause, the Gospel Law as the instrumental cause of conveyance, a sinners own faith in Christ as the condition thereof. I add also, pardon itself, the imputed righteousness I am now speaking of, is intrinsically needful to the justification of a sinner before God, it being the form or thing itself, which doth constitute a sinners justification, or wherein it doth consist: and as the form of a thing is absolutely necessary to its being, and without which it is not ( forma dat esse;) so is pardon of sin absolutely necessary: and as the other( Gods mercy, Christs merit, the Gospel Law, and a sinners faith) are extrinsically, so this is intrinsically necessary to justify a sinner in the sight of God. Hereupon it abundantly appears, that it is a saying too too loose and extravagant to say, That a sinner needs no more than the righteousness of Christ to justify him in the sight of God.   

CHAP. XIII. Q. In what sense is the word( Faith) to be taken in those Scriptures, wherein forgiveness of sin is insinuated to be the fruit or consequent of Faith, and wherein it is styled the righteousness of God which is by Faith? Answ. It is not taken strictly, as excluding all other Evangelical graces in a Sinner, viz. Repentance and sincere Resolution for amendment of life; but in a large sense as comprising them, these being of the very essence of Faith, as justifying, or as taken( though not in a strict Philosophical, yet) in a Scriptural construction or importance of the word.  
FOrasmuch as in that iterated saying of the Apostle, wherein he styles a sinners imputed righteousness the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ or through Christ, he doth unquestionably mean as he spake, by Faith meaning Faith, and by Christ Christ. I shall next propose the following Question.  
Q. In what sense is the grace of Faith to be taken in the said sayings, wherein a sinners imputed righteousness is insinuated to be the issue, product, or consequent of his believing in Christ? Whether is faith there to be taken in a strict sense, as excluding all other Evangelical graces?( Exempli gratiâ: Repentance for sin, an holy resolution to return to God in new obedience—) or else in a large sense, as including and comprehending them?  
Answ. It it most evident by the current of plain Scripture as plain can be, that a sinners imputed righteousness( the non-imputation or remission of sin) is promised unto, and doth depend upon, his repentance and amendment, as well as upon his faith or believing: and for that cause we cannot in reason, or agreeably in any wise to the Analogy of Faith, construe the grace of Faith in the said sayings, in a strict but in a large sense, and as it is not unusual in many Scriptures, viz. not as excluding, but as in●luding, supposing or comprehending other Evangelical duties, virtues, or graces.( It hath been already said in chap. 5. that remission of sin is not styled a righteousness without works, because it is without the works of repentance and amendment.) It is matter of sadness, that a Minister of the Gospel should( by any Protestant Professor) be put to prove, that repentance and amendment is one part of the condition of his pardon, or discharge from the guilt of his sin. Let this his discharge be expressed by what Scriptural name soever, Redemption, Reconcilianion, Justification, Non-condemnation—) as well as Faith in Christ strictly taken; and consequently that his pardon or discharge is by virtue of Gods gracious promise in Christ, the issue, fruit, or consequent of his repentance and amendment, and not of his faith alone, as strictly taken and exclusively to them, or in contradistinction from them. The Question in hand is, I confess, of exceeding great moment, and for that cause● it would be very expedient to make answer thereunto more at large, were it not of very easy resolution. But because of the common prejudices, which too too many Brethren have conceived against it, some perhaps will deem, that much more than I have as yet said, is very necessary to be spoken in the matter, and of which necessity if I shall be convinced, I may not improbably( God sparing my Life, and continuing Health to me in my old age) endeavour a more copious Discourse concerning that point. Mean while I will conclude this Chapter onely by asserting it as a most indubitable truth, viz. That in all such sayings as before cited faith is to be taken in such a large sense as in all those Scriptures, wherein th●y are said to be blessed who trust in God,( a saying frequent with those Sacred Writers David and Solomon;) by which trust such a trust in God is meant, as doth imply other graces or duties consequent thereunto, and virtually therein contained; even as the fruit is in the seed or root, faith being indeed a radical grace, or a principle of all religious actings. And in this large sense it is taken in those two Scriptures recorded in the Book of Daniel, where nabuchadnezzar speaking concerning the miraculous preservation of the three Children says, That God did deliver his Servants that trusted in him, chap. 3.28. and wherein Darius also speaking of a like miraculous deliverance of the Prophet Daniel, says, That no hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God, chap. 6.23. in both which places the Antecedent is put for the Consequent,( a manner of speaking usual in Scripture, as also the Consequent oft times for the Antecedent, things of useful observation;) I mean the Antecedent in those sayings is used as implying what was Consequent to their faith and trust in God, and upon which their preservations or deliverances did mainly and more immediately under God depend, viz. their renouncing of the Idol-worship set up by nabuchadnezzar, and the not renouncing of the true God, no not for a day, which was commanded by Darius; for such in effect I conceive to be the intent of Darius his command: and so would Daniels omitting to pray to God for the space of the time interdicted have been interpnted, viz. a renouncing pro tempore the true and living God. As to the sense wherein faith is to be taken in the said Scriptures, or in any other wherein Justification, Remission of sin, Imputation of righteousness, or Salvation, is attributed unto it as the fruit or consequent thereof, there will be occasion to speak somewhat more of it in some other Chapter towards the later end of this Discourse, whither I shall refer the Reader. See chap. 29. at large.   

CHAP. XIV. Another Scriptural Title given to the said imputed righteousness is in its being styled, The righteousness of the faith of Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised, Rom. 4.11. the whole Verse being opened more at large, and vindicated from mis-interpretation too commonly received. Caution given for a due understanding as well of the Authors full as true meaning, in his asserting Justification or Remission of sin( a righteousness promised in the Law of Faith) to be it which S. Paul doth style the righteousness of God, and which is by faith, the Author in that his assertion must not be understood as excluding, but as supposing and including that other branch or kind of righteousness, which in the Gospel or Law of Faith is commanded.  
I Shall instance onely in one other Scriptural Phrase, whereby the said imputed righteousness is expressed, although in effect it be but the same which was specified in chap. 11. See Rom. 4.11. wherein it is styled, The righteousness of the faith which Abraham had, yet being uncircumcised.( And he received the sign of Circumcision, that is, the sign Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them th●● believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. By the righteousness of Abrahams faith I do conceive there to be meant the reward of his faith, viz. justification or imputed righteousness, which as it was promised to him not through the Law, but through Faith, ver. 13. so it did accrue to him upon his actual obediential faith, even as it shall likewise accrue unto all other sinners( both Jews and Gentiles) upon such a faith as his was before Circumcision; for this righteousness, says the Apostle, shall be imputed to every Child of Abrahams faith, though he be not circumcised, i.e. to every one who walks in the steps of that faith which Abraham had, being yet uncircumcised, ver. 12. Whether S. Paul doth there speak of Circumcision( received by Abrahem primarily in its Institution, and secondarily in his Body) as mans seal is a question, but without all question he speaks of it as it was Gods seal, and God doth not seal, that any man believeth, he sealeth onely what himself saith, testifieth, or promiseth, viz. his own part of the Covenant, viz. that upon the performance of the righteousness( the righteousness of faith) therein commanded, sinners shall partake of the righteousness( the righteousness which is by, from, or through faith) therein promised. And it seems observable, that the Apostle there doth not say, that Circumcision received by Abraham was a seal of his faith,( as if God did thereby testify that Abraham believed;) but of the righteousness of his faith, i.e. of the validity to righteousness of that kind of Faith, or specifical Faith, which he had being uncircumcised. In this sense the word( Faith) is taken in, 2 Tim. 1.5. S. Paul there saying, That that faith which was first in Timothies Mother and Grandmother, was also in process of time in Timothy himself: where he doth not mean the same personal individual faith which they had,( for Accidentia non migrant à subjecto in subjectum;) but a faith of the same sort or species, that is, and as the Apostle doth there specify it by that differencing Character, a faith unfeigned. And in this sense also must that expression( the faith of Abraham, in ver. 16.) be understoo, as also in ver. 24. where in the expression( it shall be imputed) by the Relative( it) is not meant Abrahams personal individual faith, for this was imputed to Abraham in person, to him alone, and to no Child of his;) but to such a kind of Faith as Abraham● was, i. e. to a working faith, albeit without such works as were there intended, and related unto by the Apostle. Briefly then, S. Paul in saying, that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised, doth mean, that it was a seal of his righteousness, pardon, or justification, upon condition of believing with such a kind of faith as he did, or had while uncircumcised, i.e. a faith without the deeds of the Law. It was a seal of the truth of this promise or covenant, and of Gods faithfulness in performing it. He that believeth like a Child of Abraham, i.e. that so believeth as to walk uprightly before God, although not circumcised, shall be made righteous, pardonned, justified, or( to speak in the very words of the Apostle in that verse) shall have righteousness imputed to him, even as it was to Abraham, even that righteousness which God is said( ver. 6.) to impute without works unto that man, whom David doth pronounce blessed.  
I need not here move the question, why the said imputed righteousness is styled the righteousness of the faith of Abraham: for the reasons hereof are obvious; and if they were not so, yet may they be collected from what hath been at large answered to the question indefinitely proposed, chap. 11. why this imputed righteousness is styled the righteousness which is of faith. Onely I desire it may be observed, that the Apostle in styling the said imputed righteousness the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised, doth plainly interpret his own meaning, in his having styled this righteousness a righteousness without works, i.e. without Circumcision, or any such legal works, without which he says in the close of this ver. 11. that righteousness shall also be imputed to all Abrahams Children, even as it was to Abraham their father.  
Q. Is not Christs righteousness itself meant in that expression of the Apostle, wherein he asserts Circumcision to have been the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith, faith being there to be taken for the object of faith, which object is Christs righteousness?  
Answ. No. For, 1. I remember no place of Scripture, where Christs righteousness is styled the righteousness of faith. Yea, I remember onely one place, viz. Rom. 5.18. wherein by the word righteousness is meant the righteousness of Christ; and this onely according to our last English Translation of the Bible; for as the word is in the Original, not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}( it being rendered by divers latin Translators not justitia, but justificatio;) so by the Genevah Translators it is rendered not by the righteousness of one, but by the justifying of one; or as agreeably to the Original, {αβγδ}, it might be rendered, By one justifying, i.e. by one means, or meritorious cause of justifying, styled in the verse following {αβγδ}, the obedience of one, i.e. of one Jesus Christ, ver. 17.  
2. Although the righteousness of Christ being a thing revealed in Scripture is to be believed, and so may be called an object of faith( as whatsoever the Scriptures do reveal may be said to be an object of faith;) yet was it onely a partial object of Abrahams faith, the word of God being the full or complete object thereof: so that if we take faith here for the object of faith, we may as well, yea must( for ought I know) as necessary take it for the whole object, or any other part of the object of Abrahams faith, as for this part of its object, the righteousness of Christ.  
3. To construe the word( Faith) in the said figurative sense for the object of Faith( Christs righteousness) seems to be a senseless contradiction to the Apostle: for whereas the Apostle says plainly, that Abraham received circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised; This construction makes him to have said, Abraham received circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the righteousness, which he had yet being uncircumcised.  
Having hitherto spoken of that righteousness, which is expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing sinners; I shall now proceed to inquire, whether any thing be expressly said in Scripture to be imputed unto them for, or to righteousness: and touching this inquiry, together with the resolution of such material questions as are incident thereunto, the residue of this part will be taken up.  
Onely at the close of this chapter, and indeed of all that I have to say at present concerning remission of sin as that righteousness, which is said in Scripture to be for Christs sake imputed to believing sinners, I shall think it necessary for the prevention of mistake, and for the due understanding as well of my full as true meaning in the premises, to request the Reader to take notice, that whereas in certain of the foregoing Chapters I have spoken of a twofold branch of a sinners Evangelical righteousness, the one being officium, duty commanded; the other beneficium, mercy or benefit promised in the Gospel or Law of Faith: And whereas having proved, that neither of these two parts or kinds of righteousness are meant by that righteousness, which S. Paul styles his own, in opposition to that which he styles the righteousness of God, and which is of, from, by, or through faith; I have withall asserted, that justification or remission of sin( this being the righteousness promised to sinners conditionally upon their faith) is it, which S. Paul doth style the righteousness of God, and which is by faith: whereas I say, this hath been asserted by me, I must not in that express assertion be understood as excluding, but as supposing and including that other branch of righteousness which is commanded in the Gospel. For as I am persuaded, that by that righteousness which S. Paul calls his own, which is of the Law, in opposition to that by him styled the righteousness which is of God by faith, he doth not onely mean the righteousness which( when time was) was commanded in that Law, but also all those Privileges, Prerogatives, Emoluments, or Advantages, which were therein promised to the Observers thereof; so I do readily aclowledge, that both that righteousness which is promised, and that also which is commanded in the Gospel or Law of Faith, are to be understood as comprised in that righteousness which S. Paul styles in those various phrases, The righteousness of God, The righteousness of Faith, The righteousness of the faith which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised, with the like expressions to this purpose. Yea, if any one that affirms, that the righteousness commanded in the Law of Faith is the prime thing, or that which is most immediately to be understood by the said expressions of the Apostle, I shall not gainsay; it being sufficient for my purpose, that the righteousness which is promised in the Law of Faith( viz. Justification or Remission of sin) be acknowledged to be one part of that righteousness, which S. Paul styles the righteousness of God which is by faith, and included therefore in the said expressions of the Apostle, where he speaks of this righteousness in opposition to that righteousness which he calls his own, which is of the Law. And I shall think it here not amiss, to commend to observation the difference betwixt the said two parts or kinds of righteousness, the one commanded, the other for Christs sake promised in the Gospel or Law of Faith; how that they differ as the way to an end, and the end itself of that way; righteousness promised in the Gospel being the end, or scope, the reward, the {αβγδ}, or prise to be attained( so the Apostle styles it, Phil. 3.14.) and righteousness therein commanded as the condition, being the means of attaining it, as is the Apostles expression, saying ver. 11. If by any means I may attain— Both these( the Means and the End) seem evidently to be comprised in that expression of the Apostle, Rom. 9.30. where speaking concerning the believing Gentiles he says, that they attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of Faith, i.e. they did take the right way, and they obtained thereby their desired end, viz. they followed the way of righteousness prescribed in the Gospel( the way of Faith without the works of the Law) and in the pursuit of that way they did attain to, or obtain, the righteousness therein promised: whereas the Jews by missing or avoiding the way, and taking another course, attained not the end, as is said in the following verses.  
And as I have in the foregoing Chapters shewed several reasons, why the said righteousness promised in the Gospel( Justification or Remission of sin) is styled the righteousness of God, and which is by or through Faith; so it were easy to suggest several considerable reasons, why that other branch of Evangelical righteousness( commanded in the Gospel, and in the said expressions comprised) may very fitly be styled the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Faith, or which is by Faith. But it being not so pertinent to my purpose in hand, to insist upon those reasons, I will therefore forbear here to specify or suggest them; and the rather because I think it sufficient to have proved, that whether by the said expressions of the Apostle( The righteousness of God, The righteousness of Faith, The righteousness which is by or from Faith—) we do understand precisely the righteousness in the Law of Faith promised, or the righteousness therein commanded, or both the one and the other to be therein comprised( neither of them according to my persuasion being to be excluded) I have manifested, and I hope it is apparently manifest, that by that righteousness wherein S. Paul desired to be found( by him styled the righteousness which is of God by Faith, in opposition to that which he styles his own, which is of the Law) is not meant the personal righteousness of Christ, or the imputation thereof, in opposition to our Evangelical righteousness, whether that righteousness of duty which is commanded, or that righteousness of reward and benefit, which is promised in the Law of Faith; it having been a mistake too too common, and for the commonness of it the more to be privately lamented and openly opposed, in such sort to interpret that so much vexed Scripture. And therefore let that Note in the Assemblies( so called) Annotations upon the said Scripture, Phil. 3.9. be no otherwise noted, than as a mistake to be avoided: where by our being found not in our own righteousness, but in that which is through the faith of Christ, the Annotator would have us to understand our being clothed with the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. As for that Metaphorical expression of the said Annotator( our being clothed with the righteousness of Christ) I have at large declared my thoughts in Chap. 30. of the former part of this Discourse, by way of answer to the Question, Whether Believers may be truly or fitly said to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ? wherein hath been manifested the unfitness of that unscriptural and unedifying phrase, it being a phrase as purely of human invention, so also taken up or occasioned by the mis-understanding of the true sense of that other unscriptural phr●s●, wherein Christs righteousness hath been ordinarily s●id to be imputed to us, and the asserting of a sense of that saying contrary to the Scriptures; it having been also the manner of some popular Preachers to direct and exhort their Hearers to live out of themselves, i.e. out of their own personal graces, and gracious dispositions, upon a naked Christ, or the naked righteousness of Christ( imputed to them) for righteousness and salvation. This is that new mode of language of later times I have observed from the Mouths and Pens of some Preachers, particularly from Mr. Edward pierce, in his late printed book, styled The Great Concernment, and said to be the last Sermons that he preached before his death: because he hath miserable abused and mis-interpreted every Text of the Sacred Scriptures alleged by him for his said purpose; I will therefore relate his words, and make a short reply thereunto.  
This living out of our own graces, says he, upon Christs naked( imputed) righteousness, is that which is called the readiness of the Lambs wife, Rev. 19.7, 8. and by the righteousness of the Saints is there meant the righteousness of Christ imputed to us— And he says also, That this is that rob mentioned Luke 15.22. and that this imputed righteousness of Christ is meant in Phil. 3.8, 9. and also in Isa. 61.10.  
In all the said Scriptures he hath erred exceedingly from the true sense and meaning of them, having expressly ut●er'd the dreams and imaginations of his own brain and fancy. One of the said Scriptures I have already copiously vindicated in this second part of my Discourse, having therein manifested, that by the Righteousness, wherein St. Paul desired to be found( in opposition to that styled his own, which is of the Law) is not meant Christs personal Righteousness, and much less Christs Righteousness as imputed to us; but that Righteousness, which is commanded and is prom said to Sinners in the Gospel. As for those two Scriptures( Isa. 61.10. and Lev. 19.7, 8.) I have vindicated them from the same misconstruction made of them by others in the thirtieth Chapter of the first part of this Discourse. And as for that other Scripture( Luke 15.22.) my Reply to this Author is, That he had no more reason, colour, or shadow of reason to say, that Christs Righteousness imputed is the thing meant by the rob there mentioned, than by the Ring, and Shoes, and fatted Calf, which together with the rob were alike ordered by that glad Father for the welcoming home of his lost Son.   

CHAP. XV. Q. Is there any thing expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to us for righteousness? Answ. Yes, viz. Faith, it being thus recorded in the Old Testament, Gen. 15.6. and the record thereof produced in the New Testament once by S. James, chap. 2.23. and twice by S. Paul, Gal. 3.6. and Rom. 4.3. in which chapter he doth assert little less than ten times over, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him, and that the like or same specifical faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, ver. 3, 5, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24.  
Q. IS there any thing expressly said in Scripture to be imputed to believing sinners for righteousness?  
Answ. Yes: their saith is said both in the Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament to be so imputed. For thus it is reported concerning Abrahams faith, Gen. 15.6. And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness. This saying is once quoted by Saint James, chap. 2.23. and once by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 3.6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted( or imputed) to him for righteousness. And more than once by the same Apostle the same is asserted, chap. 4.3,& 5, 9, 10, 22, 23. in which verses Abrahams faith is five times over asserted to have been imputed to him for righteousness. And lest it might be thought to have been the peculiar privilege of Abrahams personal faith, to have been accounted to him for righteousness; for as the Jews said to our Saviour, Art thou greater than our father Abraham? so possibly may it be objected by a Christian, specially of the weaker sort. Is my faith as strong as was Abrahams, or comparable in degree to his? The Apostle therefore doth not content himself to have s●id, ver. 11, 12. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also: And the father of Circumcision to them, who are not of the Circumcision onely, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised: but he doth also plainly and explicitly again assert the same imputation touching the faith of every one to the worlds end, that shall be a true Believer, saying ver. 23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.  
'tis true indeed, that circumcision spoken of ver. 11. did seal the righteousness of Abrahams personal faith, faith subjectively and individually taken, yet not as his faith, i.e. not simply, and precisely as his( for if so, it would seal righteousness, blessedness, justification, or remission of sin to none else;) but exemplariter, for examples sake, as his faith without circumcision, and the deeds of the law was to be a pattern of the way of justifying sinners( both Jews and Gentiles) under the Gospel, Abraham being the Father, i.e. the exemplar of the Gospel-way of justifying sinners( for so father is taken ver. 12.) that so, as the Apostle expresses it, Gal. 3.14. The blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Briefly, it did not seal the said righteousness to his faith as his individually, but as it was such a faith, as the promise, which was sealed was made unto, i.e. a true, lively, operative, and working faith. Although circumcision did seal his justification, he having that sort of faith, which the general promise was made unto; yet it did not seal his justification primarily, but consequentially, i.e. by sealing the general promise. It sealed the righteousness of his faith as he was the designed farther, or pattern( for in this sense the word Father is taken, ver. 12.) as his faith was to be a pattern to believing sinners, respectively both to the nature, as also to the privilege of his justification, or righteousness consequent thereunto; which righteousness, justification, or remission of sin, even as Abraham is called the Father of the Faithful, so is it styled their Fathers blessing, common now to believing Jews and Gentiles.  
The premises considered, let it be observed, how much a late learned Author was out of the way of truth in saying, That the sound of the imputation of Christs righteousness to believers is as loud in the Scriptures, as was that of the trumpet upon Mount Sinai, it being sounded forth almost ten times in that forecited Chapter, Rom. 4. Whereas in truth, it is the imputation of Faith, for righteousness that is there spoken of; but of the imputation of Christs righteousness there is not the least whisper in all that Chapter.   

CHAP. XVI. Q. What is meant by faith in those Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, wherein it is said to be imputed to Believers for righteousness? Is it to be taken properly for faith itself, or figuratively, i.e. objectively, for Christs righteousness the object of faith? Answ. Properly for the thing faith, or faith itself, the truth of which answer is proved by many reasons, and cleared from certain objections, with the suffrage of the very learned and most industrious Mr R. Baxter, and reflection upon a passage of Dr Grew in his Sermons upon Jer. 23.6.  
Q. WHat is meant by faith in the said iterated saying of the Apostle[ Faith is, was, and shall be imputed to Believers for righteousness?]  
Answ. It is famously known, that there are some learned Authors, and of those no small sum, who would have us to believe, that by faith[ so expressly and frequently there said to be imputed] is not meant faith, i.e. the grace of faith, or any act thereof, but the obedience, satisfaction, or righteousness of Christ believed on, or apprehended by faith. And because it is a thing, that having discovered itself to the world, cannot be hide, it must be therefore acknowledged, that this construction is formed into an Article of the faith of two Assemblies in time of the long Parliament and reign of the late Protector( so called) the one sitting at Westminster, the other at the Savoy, that consisting for the greatest part of presbyterial, and these altogether( for ought I ever heard) of Divines styled Congregational and Independent, who however differing each from other in other things, did too too unhappily accord in the misconstruction of the word[ Faith] in the said celebrated saying of the Apostle, which they would have to be taken not properly and formally for faith itself, but figuratively, or objectively for the righteousness of Christ believed, or restend upon, which appears not onely by the Printed Confessions of their faith, but also by that Catechism styled The Larger Catechism agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. But blessed be God▪ that this is none of the Articles of the Church of England, to which subscription is required; and therefore as for those confessions, how good and wholesome in other things they may be, as I am not required, so neither am I able to assent to them in this matter, although owned by them as an Article of their private faith, yet was not in their power, nor in the power of any man, or Assemblies of men to make it any Article of the Common faith of Christians; Faith therefore in that known, and common saying of the Apostle( faith is imputed to believers for righteousness) is to be taken properly and formally for faith itself, or believing, not figuratively or objectively, i.e. for the object of faith, the righteousness of Christ believed on, even in the like propriety of construction, as indeed it is to be taken in any other Scriptures, wherein any privilege whether pertaining to this life or the life to come is( under Christ) attributed to faith, as in that wherein our Saviour says to the diseased woman, Mat. 9.22. Thy saith hath made thee whole( it being in very dead faith in his name, that did it even no less, when it was done by Christ in person, than when a like miracle was done by him through the ministry of St. Peter Acts 3.16.) and in those Scriptures wherein we are said to be saved through faith, justified by faith, and the like. I do the rather instance in the phrase of our being justified by faith( an expression frequent with our Apostle) because these his phrases [ Faith is imputed to us for righteousness, and we are justified by, through, or from faith] are perfectly equipollent, so that look in what construction the word[ Faith] is taken in the one, it is to be taken in the other, and in very dead it is in all the said phrases to be taken properly, it being the scope of the Apostle by that word to give us to understand, that faith itself( the grace of faith) hath a certain interest, place, or office, in the justification of a sinner; and under what notion, and upon what account it doth operate, or prove effectual to that end, will be declared in answer to certain Questions in the sequel of this Discourse, which in that behalf will be proposed. I will only say here, that it was the scope of the Apostle in all the said phrases to intimate the necessity and the effectualness of faith as a means( of one kind, or other) to the righteousness, or justification of a sinner.  
Obj. Is not Christs righteousness the merit●rious cause of a Believers righteousness?  
Answ. Yes: For he was made our substitute so far forth as to be made sin for us, or to bear the punishment of our sins, whereby to purchase righteousness for us, or that we might be made righteous; but it will not follow from thence, that his righteousness itself is imputed to us for righteousness.  
Obj. Hath not faith an object, and is not Christs righteousness the object of that faith, which is imputed to us for our justification?  
Answ. 1. In the way of concession, I grant, 1. That as every act doth imply one object, or another, about which it is conversant; so doth faith: and as a man cannot be said to see, except he see something; so not to believe, except he believe something: and it is altogether a thing unreasonable to conceive, that those, who do affirm, that faith properly taken doth justify us, or is imputed to us for righteousness, do thereby mean faith as divided, or severed from its object.  
2. I grant, that the righteousness of Christ is a main thing to be believed, as well as other things revealed in the Scriptures, and that it is of far greater concernment to believe it, than many other things therein written and made known unto us.  
2. Nevertheless in the way of opposition I answer, 1. The righteousness of Christ is but a partial, not the adequate, or ultimate object of that faith, which was imputed to Abraham, and which shall be imputed to us for righteousness; for it is said of Abraham, that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, Rom. 4.3. so that God, or the promise of God was the object of that his faith; and that faith, which the Apostle says shall be imputed to us, is said to have for its object Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, i.e. God the Father, Eph. 1.17, 20.  
2. We may believe the righteousness of Christ, even as well as other Articles of the Christian faith, and yet not be thereby justified, or have that faith imputed to us for righteousness.  
3. For which reason possibly it comes to pass, that( as some have observed) whereas the object of faith as saving is expressed with great variety of phrase in Scripture, there is not to be found in all that variety any express mention of the righteousness of Christ, e. g. Sometimes Christs person is made the object of this faith, John 3.16. So God loved the world, that he gave— that whosoever believeth in him— Sometime Christ in his word, or doctrine, John 5.46. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person; sometimes as he stands related to God as his only begotten Son, John 20.31. These things are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that— Sometimes as he stands related to those ancient promises of God, recorded in the Old Testament, concerning the messiah as the off-spring of the Jewish nation, John 8.24. Except ye believe, that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Sometimes the raising of Christ from the dead is made the object of this faith, Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Sometimes God himself is solely specified as the object of this faith, Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Sometimes God through Christ, 1 Pet. 1.21. Who by him do do believe in God, who raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God. Sometimes the record or testimony of God concerning his Son is made the object of this faith, 1 John 5.10. Sometimes no object at all of this faith is expressly mentioned, where yet the Gospel is to be understood as the object thereof, Mark 16.16. with ver. 15. He that believeth, i.e. that Gospel, which the Apostles had in commission to preach to every creature, ver. 15. shall be saved— The premises considered, it may seem strange, why those, who do assert, that by faith is meant Christs righteousness( an object thereof as justifying never expressly mentioned in Scripture) should not as well, or rather assert, that by it is meant God, or Christ, or some object of faith in express terms specified in Scripture.  
4. Although the righteousness of Christ be one part of the object of faith, nevertheless it will not follow, that in the said assertion of the Apostle( faith is imputed to believers, and was imputed to Abraham for righteousness) the word faith is to be taken not formally for faith itself, but objectively for the righteousness of Christ, no more than it will from thence follow, that it is to be taken for God himself, or Christ in person the objects thereof. But that by faith is meant faith itself( the grace of faith) seems manifest by the consideration of these two things, viz. by the scope of the Apostle in that chapter, as also by the description of Abrahams faith, which was imputed to him, and of that faith which the Apostle says shall be imputed to others for righteousness.  
1. The thing, which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is said by the Apostle to be that, which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised. Now that, which the Apostle said, that Abraham had being yet uncircumcised, is not the righteousness of Christ, but faith; for which see Rom. 4.11. And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.  
Obj. The antecedent to that relative, is not the word faith, but righteousness, and so the meaning is, which righteousness i.e. of Christ Abraham had being yet uncircumcised?  
Answ. In the way of concession; forasmuch as the words[ {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}] are bath of them of the feminine gender, I grant that the pronoun relative[ {αβγδ},] which may in true construction of Grammar indifferently refer either to the word Righteousness, or to the word Faith as its antecedent.  
2, In way of exception, 1. Although in Grammatical construction it may possibly refer to either of them, nevertheless it doth truly refer to the word faith, as appears by the Apostles interpretation, or construction thereof in the verse immediately following, where speaking of the believing Gentiles, he d●s●ribes them to be such, as do walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. So that if we will believe the Apostle, the Relative which in verse 11. doth not refer to the word righteousness( as if he had meant, which righteousness Abraham had being yet uncircumcised) but to the word faith: Hence it follows unavoidably, That if the thing said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness be that, which he is said to have had being yet uncircumcised, i.e. faith, hence I say it follows necessary, that the thing imputed to Abraham for righteousness was his faith, and not the righteousness of Christ.  
2 I answer Ex abundanti, By the righteousness of faith in Rom. 4.11. is not meant the righteousness of Christ, but that righteousness which is the fruit of faith, or doth acc●ue to sinners by faith in Christ, as hath at large been manifested in the 14th Chapter of this Discourse.  
2. That faith, which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is that, by which he believed in God, who quickeneth the dead, and verse 17. But Christs righteousness cannot in any tolerable construction be called that faith, by which Abraham believed in God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things that are not as though they were.  
3. It is said to be that faith, wherein Abraham was not weak, verse 19. But the righteousness of Christ cannot in reason be conceived to be that, wherein Abraham was not weak.  
4. It is opposed unto doubting of the promise of God through unbelief, verse 20. to which doubting the righteousness of Christ carries no opposition, it being a thing predicamentally differing, or of a different kind from it.  
It was that faith, by which he was fully assured, that he, which had promised, was able to perform. Thus it is described verse 21. and the imputation thereof so described, is affirmed verse 22. But no such thing can be affirmed concerning the righteousness of Christ, viz. That by it Abraham was assured, that he, who had promised, was able to perform it.  
2. Consider what the Apostle says concerning that faith of other believers, which, as he asserts, shall be imputed to them for righteousness, e. g. 1. He says verse 5. That to him, that worketh not, but believeth on him, who justifieth the ungodly, His faith is imputed to him for righteousness. Hence it is evident, that that faith( whatsoever we understand by it) which is imputed to a believer for righteousness, is somewhat, that may be truly and properly called His, before such imputation of it be made unto him. Now it cannot be said of the righteousness of Christ, that that is any mans( even our adversaries in this controversy being judges) before the imputation of it be made unto him; but faith properly taken is the believers( at least in order of nature) before it be imputed.  
2. That, which shall be imputed to others for righteousness, is said to be our believing on him, that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. ver. 24. But the righteousness of Christ is not our believing on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Therefore it cannot be the Apostles meaning, that Christs righteousness is the very thing, which is there said to be imputed to us for righteousness.  
Lastly, That the word faith here is to be taken properly for faith, and not figuratively for Christs righteousness is sufficiently apparent by the drift of the Apostle in his whole discourse concerning justification, which evidently was to direct unto and assert the true way of being justified, in opposition to that wrong way( through works and legal performances and not by faith, Rom. 9.32.) which was embraced by many in those times, according to the doctrine of their false Teachers. We may well suppose the Question to be the same with that of the jailers. What shall I do to be saved, or justified? Must we be circumcised and keep the law of Moses of necessity to justification, and salvation, or is it enough for that end to believe in Christ without such works? Thus is the Question stated Acts 15, beginning. This Question the Apostle determines in this Chapter, as in the Chapter foregoing, affirming constantly, That that which God now requires at our hands in order to our justification, or salvation, is not legal performances, works of the Judaical law, but faith in Christ. As for the righteousness of Christ, this is not the thing required at our hands( as Dr own says) for our justification; this is it, which God required of Christ, and Christ did perform to the uttermost of what was required, and this righteousness of Christ so required, and performed, the Apostle in his discourse concerning justification always supposeth, and sometimes intimateth in such places where he mentions the blood of Christ, Rom. 3.25. and justification by his blood. Chap. 5.9. and his being delivered for our offences, Chap. 4.25. But the thing required of us, is our faith in Christ himself, or in God through Christ, as the Apostle most agreeably to the occasion and drift of his discourse doth determine. And verily for the Apostle to have certified them, that the righteousness of Christ should be imputed to them for righteousness, or barely to have informed them, what Christ hath done for the procuring of righteousness for them, had been, if not quiter beside, yet marvelously short of the thing designed by him, which was plainly and directly this, viz. to make known unto them what was required of them, or to be performed by themselves( through Gods gr●ce assisting and enabling them) for their being justified, or made righteous by Christ, which he affirms to be by their faith, or believing without the said works of the Law. And thence it is, that speaking concerning justification, redemption, and salvation by Christ, he doth so expressly and frequently mention faith as the duty, or means required by God of us, or on our parts for the enjoyment thereof, Rom. 3.25. and 5.1, 2. Eph. 2.8.  
If my one shall desire to hear, what more can be said in th●s point, I shall refer him to what he may red, as in other Authors, so especially in Mr Baxters late great Volume, styled his Cath. Theology, Par. 3. p. 252, wherein he hath purposely and to very good purpose answered this Question, Whether faith itself be imputed to us for righteousness? I will only transcribe the following words of his, and leave them to the Readers impartial consideration.  
If good men, and wise men( says he, p. 253, 254) and men, that cry down the Papists and others for adding to Gods word, and corrupting it and calling it a nose of wax, and introducing new Articles of faith, will yet own such expositions as these( they saying, that by faith is not meant faith at all, but Christs righteousness in all those Scriptures, where faith is said to be imputed to believers for righteousness, Rom. 4.3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) and accuse those, that own them not, they are as great instances as most I remember, except the defenders of Transubstantion, how far education, or custom, or human dependence, or faction, or partiality, and prejudice may blind the reason of professed Christians, and godly men. And that man, that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justification, and life upon such expositions of Gods word, should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others, and reproving them that build upon the sand.  
Quest. Are there any such as Mr Baxter here speaks of, who do lay their comfort and hopes of justification and life upon the righteousness of Christ alone, and not at all upon faith, or ought else in man, or done by man?  
Answ. This is( for ought I know) ordinary with those, who deny faith properly taken to be imputed for righteousness, among whom I shall instance in Dr Grew for one of the said daring Adventurers, as doth evidently appear by many passages in his late Printed Sermons on Jer. 23.6. Some whereof I shall recite, as followeth.  
Holiness and holy duties( says he, p. 86.) in the point of justification are but as ciphers, here we must deny our best as well as our worst. Our eyes fixed on Christs righteousness made ours( he means by imputation of the thing itself) settles us on a firmer rock, than mount Sion, but fixed on ourselves and our own righteousness within doors, as in a leaking vessel— and therefore( says he, p. 88.) count all your own righteousness( he means, all our holiness and holy duties) loss and dung. And p. 90.( says he) many would be in commission with Christs righteousness( he means, Christs righteousness imputed in his own anti-gospel sense) and Gods free grace for their peace and comfort, but this is to have one foot on the firm ground, and another in a boat; but here is no standing. And p. 72. he makes a sinners being made righteous with the righteousness of Christ imputed to him to be Articulus stantis,& cadentis ecclesia, for which he quotes the authority of Luther, mentioning the same also( if I do not misremember) in the Epistle prefixed to his book. And he doth so enhance the comfort of Christs righteousness in his own heterodox sense imputed, as to say( p. 204.) That upon account thereof the obedience of one Believer is more acceptable with God, than the obedience of all mankind in the first covenant. And in p. 120. he m●kes as if nothing will quiet our consciences, but the imputation of Christs righteousness in his sense as aforesaid.  
Mr Baxter needs not to go far in seeking to find those bold Adventurers, who dare lay their comforts and hopes of justification and life upon such misexpositions of Gods word as aforesaid, for here is one who dare( as it seems) do it with open face, and with superlative confidence.   

CHAP. XVII. Q. Whence comes it to pass, that so many very learned and most pious men have so much and miserable mistaken the true meaning of the word[ Faith] in its being said to be imputed to Believers for righteousness, they interpreting by faith not to be meant faith, but the righteousness of Christ? Answ. Four things are assigned as the causes of it, wherein much is spoken for the removing of them out of the way of truth, whereby they may no longer obstruct the free current thereof.  
Q WHence comes it to pass, that so many godly and learned men have so mistaken the true meaning of the word Faith in its being said to be imputed to us for righteousness?  
A. Not to mention the common infirmities of our degenerate nature( though regenerate) nor the hand of Satan our common Enemy, who is still sowing tares among the good seed in Gods field, I humbly conceive, that such things as these may be main causes or occasions thereof.  
1. As the misexposition of one Scripture doth oft times occasion the misconstruction of another: so I do humbly conceive, that their misexposition of all such Scriptures, wherein we are said to be justified by faith, hath occasioned their misinterpretation of that word in other Scriptures, wherein faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousness: for these two things are apparent.  
1. To be justified by faith, and to have faith imputed to us for righteousness are phrases synonymous, signifying the self same thing as hath been already said, and as is improvable from Gal. 3.6. compared with ver. 8. where having said ver. 6. That Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, he interprets the saying to be all one, as Gods justifying Abraham by faith, ver. 8. And the Scriptures foreseing, i.e. God foreseing, as the Scripture testifies, that he would justify the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations( believing Gentiles as well as Jews) be blessed.  
2. Consequently hereupon it sufficiently appears by those Synonymous expressions, that the word faith is to be taken in the same sense in both the said phrases. And indeed, would the adverse party grant, that it is faith itself properly taken by which we are justified, they would not stick to yield, that our faith itself is the thing, which is imputed to us for righteousness. But forasmuch as they do professedly maintain, that in the former sayings( we are justified by faith, and saved through faith and the like) the word faith is to be taken relatively, or objectively( not for faith itself, but for Christs righteousness the object of faith;) they have thereupon obliged themselves to make the like misconstruction of the word in all those many Scriptures, wherein faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousness. But it is commonly objected, that the habit or act of faith is sometimes taken for the object of faith.  
Adsw. 1. Though that he supposed, or granted, yet it will not follow from thence, that it is so to be taken in those Scriptures, wherein we are said to be justified by faith.  
2. As in some Scriptures we are said to be justified simply by faith, so in other Scriptures, where that saying is interpnted, We are said to be justified by faith in Christ( Gal. 2.16. knowing, that a man is not justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.) Whence observe, that the grace or act of faith are both of them there expressly mentioned. Now when the act and object are name together, and the act expressed and specified by an object suitable to it, and somewhat moreover immediately ascribed to this act, in this case to make a mere cipher of the act, and to ascribe the thing solely to the object, or as the onely thing to be understood by the act, is altogether against reason and without parallel in the Scripture.  
I shall onely commend here these two things to observation, viz.  
1. That the Scriptures speaking concerning a sinners justification, do sometimes express onely the grace of faith, ascribing it thereunto, as in Rom. 5.11. Being justified by faith.— Sometimes they do express onely the object, So Gal. 3.16. That the blessing of Abraham, i.e. justification, might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Sometimes there is made express mention both of the grace, or act of faith, as also of its object. So in the Scripture occasionally forecited, Gal 2.16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.  
2. From the said Scriptures compared together▪ I shall commend it to observation as a very safe rule, and very necessary for the deciding and preventing of needless contests, viz. That where the act of justifying faith is onely mentioned, there the object thereof is not to be excluded, but implyed. And on the other side, where the object of that faith is onely expressed, there faith itself is not to be excluded, but understood. And where both are expressly mentioned, we are there to preserve distinct notions of them, neither construing the object of faith for faith itself, nor faith itself simply or precisely for its object. This rule well observed, is, I humbly conceive, a special means for the due interpretation of many Scriptures, which treat of the matters I am now speaking of, and for the ending of needless controversies.  
2. Another thing which I conceive to be a cause of these misinterpretations of the word faith, is( as I am persuaded) a certain jealousy of derogating from Christ, and arrogating to ourselves; which jealousy being causeless is of a most mischievous nature, and hath done much hurt in the Churches of Christ, as we have sadly experienced in those called Antinomians, who have entertained many false doctrines, because of that {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}( as are the words of Scripture in like cases, Col. 2.23. Acts 17.30.) I mean, that show, which they have of humility and self-denial, and honouring Gods free grace and the merits of Christs. The causlesness of this jealousy I shall take occasion to discover, in answer to one Question or other, which for that end shall be proposed in the sequel of this Discourse. In the mean time for the preventing, or removing of such causeless jealousies in the case before us, it may be sufficient to commend to observation that 22d Canon of the most excellent Glassius in his Philologia Sacra de verbo, p. 586. Activa verba tribuuntur illis, quae non propriissime,& influxu proximo id agunt, quod verba significant, said certâ tantum ratione concurrunt. Sometimes matters, or effects are in Scripture ascribed to those things, which are no principal causes thereof, but onely instruments under God, yea which are no causes at all thereof[ strictly so called,] but onely in means or conditions in one sort or other, concurring to the matter. It were easy to multiply instances of this kind, besides those which are specified by the said expert Linguist and learned Author. Thus is Timothy by his life and doctrine said to save Himself and his Hearers, 1 Tim. 4.16. And sinners are said to make themselves new hearts and new spirits, Ezek. 18. lat. Thus is baptism i.e. the answer of a good conscience towards God, said to save us, 1 Pet. 3.21. Not that this Renovation[ the thing meant by the answer of a good conscience towards God] is so much as a cause( in propriety of speech) thereof, but because it doth suo modo, or quadam ratione, in some sort morally concur thereunto, i.e. as a certain means, or condition of a sinners salvation, at least by divine order and appointment extrinsical thereunto. Where by the way be it observed,  
1. That S. Peter thought it no derogating from the grace of God, or merits of Christ, to attribute our salvation to the answer of a good conscience toward God, i.e. to real holiness. In like sort there is no just cause to think, that the adscription of a sinners righteousness, justification, or remission of sin to his faith properly taken, is any sinful arrogating to ourselves, or derogating from God, and Christ.  
2. Be it observed, that this same jealousy, being given way unto, must necessary cause us to make some such strange construction of that expression of S. Peter( the answer of a good conscience towards God) how that by it is not meant the answer of a good conscience towards God, but God himself, who alone doth save us, and by whose free grace sinners are saved.  
3 Another cause of the said mis-interpretation, as I judge, is, because it is in appearance full of comfort, and as such by too too many swallowed down even as the marrow and fatness of the Gospel, as if this were that feast of fat things, that feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full marrow foretold by the Prophet Isaiah chap. 25.6. This indeed is a most woeful calamity, that the true comforts of Scripture are with the most of sinners, so small, as that they are not at all affencted therewith, and that when the Ministers of God do mourn to them i.e. do denounce the threatenings of God against them, they will not lament, nor when they pipe, i.e. proclaim to them the comfortable doctrines of the Gospel, they will not dance. But if we pipe and preach such doctrines as these[ in show and appearance to a fleshly eye most comfortable] That Jesus Christ hath done all for our salvation, and we have nothing to do for that end, That it is the righteousness of Christ himself, that is imputed to us for righteousness, nothing that is done by ourselves is capable of any imputation in order to that end: this is the piping and preaching, which makes sinners dance; but alas they dance to the music of a siren, a Doctrine that charms them onely to destroy them; for although while they live it may bear them up in their sins, against the natural temper of their own consciences, yet for certain in the end it will leave them desperate and miserable.  
4. Another cause of the said mis interpretation of the word( faith) is, as I am persuaded, the not understanding the nature of Gospel justification, they misconceiving,  
1. That by it a sinner is freed, not onely from guilt of punishment, but also from guilt of fault; which error hath been at large refuted in the first part of this discourse.  
2. They falsely supposing, That justification doth consist of two integral parts, whereof, say they, Remission of sin is one, and the imputation of Christs righteousness, or Christs righteousness itself imputed( for so some do express the matter) is the other; and they do usually say( as doth Dr own and Dr Grews Sermons upon Jer. 23.6. p. 55.) that we have the one from Christs passive, and the other from his active obedience, upon which latter account onely( as to me seemeth) Dr Grew would have him to be called, The Lord our righteousness. Whereas the truth is, that Christs righteousness however it be the meritorious cause, yet it is no part at all of a sinners justification; yea because it is the meritorious cause, and a thing for that reason wholly extrinsical to it( for so are all efficient causes to their effects) it cannot therefore be any part of justification itself, remission of sin being it, that doth Totam naturam justificationis Evangelicae absorbere, i.e. doth wholly constitute justification( I mean, that justification, which was merited by Christ, and promised by God to believing sinners, or to sinners conditionally, upon their sincere believing) and that itself is Ipsa justitia imputata, ceu donata, that very righteousness, which is said in Scripture to be imputed, or imparted to believing sinners, and that faith itself is the very thing, which is imputed to them in hanc, or ad hanc justitiam, to, or for this righteousness. Nor do I think it a thing more to be doubted, that by faith is meant faith in that so oft repeated saying of the Apostle( Faith is imputed to us for righteousness) than that by Believing is meant Believing in that his saying, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10.10.  
There be other causes, or occasions at least of the said mis-interpretation of the word( Faith) useful to be known; but because I have enlarged myself beyond my first intention upon those already intimated, I shall forbear to lengthen this Chapter by the addition of any other, but shall proceed to the Answer of some other Question pertaining to the matter in hand, which will be the Subject of the next Chapter.   

CHAP. XVIII. Q. What is it for Faith[ the thing itself Faith] to be imputed to Believers for Righteousness? Answ. There being a twofold righteousness, viz. Legal[ commanded in the law of works, or innocency,] and evangelical( promised in the law of faith;) and there being also a difference betwixt these two sayings( Faith, is imputed to us {αβγδ}, instead of righteousness, and {αβγδ}, To righteousness, this being the Apostles literal expression of the matter;) it is thereupon declared, How faith may be truly conceived and asserted to be imputed to believing sinners, both To Righteousness and instead of Righteousness. The Authors humble opinion touching the genuine sense of the phrase, and the reasons thereof rendered.  
HAving manifested in the foregoing Chapters, that faith is expressly said to be imputed to us for righteousness, and that by faith so said to be imputed, is meant faith itself in the propriety of the word, and having withall declared the main causes, or occasions of the contrary misconstruction, as if by faith were meant the righteousness of Christ[ the object of faith,] I shall next put it to the Question( the matter being now ripe for it.)  
Quest. What is it for faith to be imputed to a Believer for righteousness?  
Answ. According to a twofold sense of the word( righteousness,) so a twofold construction may possibly and agreeably both to reason and to the truth of Scripture, be made of the said phrase, e. g. There is a twofold righteousness, which in modern Authors is usually for distinction sake expressed by the name of Legal and Evangelical; by the former is meant obedience absolutely perfect, such as that, which was made the condition of the covenant of works or innocency, and by the latter is here meant not that righteousness, which is commanded in the Gospel( although this must be acknowledged to be one kind, or branch of a sinners Gospel righteousness and therefore fitly called Evangelical) but that righteousness, which is promised in the Gospel upon condition of the righteousness therein commanded, these two branches of a sinners Evangelical righteousness differing the one from the other( as hath by occasion been before said) as Officium,& Beneficium, as Mans duty, and Gods mercy, mans duty consisting in the former, and his felicity in the latter; that having the nature, and to be therefore conceived under the notion of a means, and this of an end, to which that means doth( I do not say efficiently, but) effectually conduce.  
Now( to apply the said distinction of a twofold righteousness to the matter in hand) if we take the word Righteousness for Legal righteousness, it may be well and truly said, That faith itself is imputed to believing sinners, 'vice, or in Loco, instead of the said Legal righteousness, i.e. faith doth stand a believing sinner in a like saving stead, or is available to a like saving purpose unto him, as the said Legal righteousness would have done, or been, if man had never become a sinner. This being a safe and true construction, I shall for the clearing thereof, and for the prevention of mistake commend to consideration, how the phrase of accounting, imputing, or reckoning is taken in certain other Scriptures( apt for the purpose in hand) it being there used to manifest the accepting of one thing for another, or to the like purpose as if it were another, for which see Num. 18.27. where the Levites heave-offering is promised to be reckoned, counted, or imputed to them, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress; and ver. 30. Where God speaks to the same purpose concerning their gifts, as was said of the heave-offering of their tithes ( When you have heaved the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing floor and as the increase of the winepress.)  
Quest. How, or in what sense was it thus accounted, or promised to be so accounted?  
Answ. Not that the said heave-offering was judged, esteemed, or simply thought to be the very corn of the threshing floor, or the very full fruit of the vine. Not so: for as the Papists by making use of any of their three senses( tasting, feeling, seeing) may unerringly know, that the consecrated bread in the Lords supper( by them commonly called the Host) is not Ipsum Corpus, the very body of Christ, so might the Levites by their eye-sight have perceived the contrary, viz. That the heave-offering of both those kinds of tithes, which by divine law were made due from them to the Priests, wa not the very corn of the threshing floor, and the very fruit of the vine: But the meaning is( as the learned do interpret it, and which indeed is an interpretation obvious) it shall be alike acceptable to God and available to the like purpose, as if it had been of their own proper fields, or vineyards. In like sort may the imputation of faith to Believers for Righteousness( the said Legal righteousness) be truly and safely understood,  
1. Negatively, not that God doth account, or reckon faith to be that, which in itself it is not, or to be any other thing, than in its true nature and in very dead it is, e. g.( To speak more punctually)  
1. Not that God doth account, or repute it to be our very fulfilling the law of innocency, whether in our own persons, or in Chr●st: for as Christ by fulfilling the law did satisfy for our sin, so by fulfilling it himself( I mean the whole law of Mediatorship, whereof the law, that obliged us, was one material part, and which he did fulfil not in our persons, but in his own as Mediator for us) he did merit, that no such fulfilling of the law should be required of us in order to the attaining of righteousness. Thence that saying of the Apostle, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2 Cor. 5.19. Where it is observable that St. Paul says not, We were in Christ reconciling our s●lves to God; which yet he might have said, yea and more might he have said, viz. We were in Christ reconciling the world to God, if it were one, That we in Christ fulfil the law. I conclude therefore, that as by faith is not meant Christ, or his righteousness, so neither by Gods imputing faith to us for righteousness is it meant, that our faith is reputed by God to be ipsa legis impletio, our legal righteousness, i.e. our fulfilling of the law of innocency, whether in our own persons, or in and by Christ.  
2. Not, that God doth reckon, or account our faith itself to be absolutely perfect, or without any the least sinful defect: for such is not the faith of any Believer, the best of all, though being able to say with him in the Gospel( Lord I believe) yet having need with him also to pray, Lord help, yea and the Lord pardon my unbelief. If such a perfection of faith had been made the condition of a sinners righteousness or justification in the sight of God, what man living had been justified? But our Christian comfort is, That the promise of righteousness by faith is made to the reality, or sincerity, not to the perfection thereof. So that as God cannot account our imperfect faith to be perfect( for this is repugnant to his nature, and his judgement is never otherwise than according to truth:) so we have no need, that he should do so, because the law of faith requires no such perfection of faith to the foresaid end, or as the condition of our justification.  
3. Not, that God doth repute faith to be of that intrinsical value, worth or merit, as the perfect fulfilling of the law of innocency would have been, or as if it would serve to the self same end and purpose, I mean, to the self same kind of righteousness, or justification. Not so I say: for if man had continued in innocency, he should and would have been justified for that his innocency, or perfect obedience, and this would have been the meritorious cause of that; so that this his justification would not have been,  
1. Gratuitous, and for the righteousness sake of Christ.  
2. It would have been a justification of another kind, than that of sinners by faith in Christ, i.e. It would have been a justification, A reatu culpae, from guilt of fault, whereas the justification of a sinner onely is, yea can be A reatu poena, from guilt of punishment, not from the guilt of fault simply and absolutely, i.e. from the guilt of all, or all manner of faults.  
2. Affirmatively I make answer, That faith may be truly said to be imputed to us for Legal righteousness, because it is promised by God, in some certain sense to be reckoned to them, as though it were; even as the heave-offering of the tithe was promised by him to be reckoned to the Levite, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor and the increase of the winepress( that is) that it shall be accepted with God, and prove alike available to the salvation of a sinner, as a Legal righteousness consisting in perfect obedience would have been to the salvation of an innocent man; That as a Legal righteousness should, and would have availed a person innocent to justification from guilt of fault, so faith in Christ shall avail a believing sinner to justification from guilt of punishment, this being fully answerable to a sinners necessity and hearts desire.  
Briefly, Gods reckoning faith unto us instead of a Legal righteousness is in plain sense and construction Gods looking upon a sinner, who truly believeth, with as much grace and favour, and his dealing with him as graciously and bountifully( so far as concerns his eternal salvation) as if he were a man of perfect righteousness, and had entirely fulfilled the whole law.  
I shall somewhat further exemplify the truth of what hath been here asserted by this familiar instance, As a Creditor upon a promise made to accept from a Debtor a p●nny in a shilling, or twelve pence instead of a pound legally due to him, may be said to reckon it( being paid) to the Debtor, as if it were the full payment of the whole sum due by law, or to count that as paid, which in strict construction according to law was not paid, but of courtesy according to promise is remitted; even so I can perceive no reason, why it may not be with safety of truth and with fitness of expression said, that God imputeth faith to believing sinners for legal righteousness, in that he doth accept it in its stead, i.e. doth deal with them as if they were perfectly righteous, pardoning all their unrighteousnesses, and acquitting them from all that punishment, whereunto upon that account they were obnoxious. The Apostle oft times saying [ We are levied by faith] doth give us to understand, that we are some way or other justified by it, and the way of its justifying he says, is by imputation, or account from God for righteousnes●, which imputation of faith may well and truly be asserted, because it is all that God requires of men to th●ir justification instead of the perfect righteous ess of the law. Hitherto I have spoken of the meaning of the phrase( Gods imputing faith to us for righteousness) upon a rational supposition, that by righteousness is meant legal righteousness, and supposing that by[ for] is meant( instead) in which sense the word( for) seems to be taken in Exod. 13.9. where it is said, That the paschal solemnity should be for a sign to them upon the●r hand, and for a memorial between their eyes, i.e. it should be in●tead of such signs and memorials, as men use to carry about them to preserve, or renew the remembrance of any thing.  
I shall now proceed to specify another safe construction of the phrase on supposition, that by righteousnes● is meant Evangelical righteousness.  
2. By that righteousness, for which faith is said to be imputed, most probably is meant that Evangelical righteousness, which is promised in the Gospel to believing sinners, and which is styled in Scripture( as hath been already said and proved) the righteousness of faith, and which is of God by faith. My reasons for this construction are such as these,  
1. Because his words in the original are not {αβγδ}, instead of righteousness( this particle properly signifying Vicem, instead) but {αβγδ}, unto, or into righteousness. And thus it is literally rendered by several Authors; In justitiam, into righteousness( s●ys Calvin) Ad justitiam, unto righteousness, says Piscator. I grant indeed, that St. Paul in his expression( {αβγδ}) doth follow the Septuagint, as was usual with him and the rest of the Apostles, together with our blessed Saviour, in their quotations from the old Testament: for in the Hebrew, Gen. 15.6.( Whence that sentence is quoted by the Apostle) it is not said explicitly, that Abrahams faith was accounted to him, either for, or to, or into righteousness, but simply without any preposition particle, Righteousness. Nevertheless the Apostle did warrantably follow the Septuagints Translation of the said Text in Gen. 15.16.  
1. Because the particle, or letter ( lame) is in some other Scriptures wanting, where necessary it is to be understood, an instance of which defect that great Rabbi, Mr H. Ainsworth doth specify, viz. Lebeith in the house, Jer. 52.17. is written onely Beith, 2 King. 25.13.  
2. Because the said letter ( lame) is in another Scripture( viz. Psal. 106.31.) prefixed to the word Righteousness, where the act of Phixeas is said to be counted to him for righteousness.  
Now although our Translators( together with Beza and others in their latin Translation of the New Testament) do render the particle[ {αβγδ}] not to, but for, as also doth the Genevah translation, nevertheless we may not necessary conclude from thence, that they would have the particle( Pro, or For) to be understood in the same sense as {αβγδ}, instead, as if it had been said, Instead of righteousness: for it is ordinary with our Translators to render the said particle( {αβγδ}) by the word( for) in many Scriptures, where the word( for) cannot in reason be understood in such a construction as is evident by the following Texts Acts 3.38. ( Repent and be baptized {αβγδ} for the remission of your sins) And Heb. 11.7. Where Noah is said to have prepared an Ark {αβγδ} for the saving of his house, So Luke 3.3. Where John the Baptist is said to have come into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance {αβγδ}, for the remission of sins.  
2. I am much assured; that by righteousness in the said sentence of the Apostle concerning Gods imputing faith to, or for righteousness is not meant Legal, but Evangelical righteousness, because for a sinner to be justified by faith and for his faith to be imputed to him to, or for righteousness, are phrases equivalent and of the self same importance, they being promiscuously used by the Apostle, as was before said: for he proves the justification of a sinner to be by faith without legal works from the witness of Scripture touching the manner or means of Abrahams justification, wherein it is testified That Abraham believed God, i.e. without the said works of the law, and that his faith was accounted, or imputed to him for righteousness.  
3. Because there is no other kind of justification, or righteousness promised in the Gospel to sinners upon their faith in Christ, or in God through Christ, than the said Evangelical righteousness, which consists in the pardon of their sins, they being not in a natural capacity of that other legal righteousness, as hath been already said upon occasion more than once.  
The premises considered, I am persuaded, that the genuine sense of the Apostles saying, That God imputeth faith to a believer for, or to righteousness is this, viz. That God doth accept of faith as the only requisite condition of a sinner being made righteous, i.e. of his being justified or pardonned for the sake of Christ. Briefly, To say, that a sinners faith is imputed to him for righteousness is the self same thing as to say in those other words of the Apostle else where, That sinners are justified by faith, or, That with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, So that, he who understandeth rightly what is meant by faith or believing, and what by righteousness in the said assertions, and what it is to believe unto righteousness, cannot but rightly know the meaning of every simplo term in this proposition( faith is imputed to us to righteousness) and the true sense of the proposition itself.  
But because various ways of expressing the same thing may not be altogether needless, but in many cases, and as to many persons useful rather, I shall, although still to the same purpose, add,  
Forasmuch as there is a twofold righteousness, the one commanded in the Gospel, or law of faith( faith itself being this Righteousness and the Ipsum Quod, the thing itself said to be imputed by God) and the other in that law promised thereupon( justification, or remission of sin being this righteousness, the Ipsum ad Quod, the thing to which it is imputed:) and forasmuch as the righteousness, which is commanded in the law of faith is that, which doth by Gods designation qualify us for enjoying the righteousness therein promised, it is faith, which by virtue of the promise doth entitle a sinner to this promised righteousness, which to say is all one as to say, A sinners faith is imputed to him for, or unto righteousness. Hereupon it is true also to say, That in the Gospel of Christ the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, i.e. from the righteousness of faith therein commanded to the righteousness, which is of faith, and is therein promised. This I say is a truth, and a commodious construction of that saying, Rom. 1.17. Let the genuine sense of it prove, or be proved to be otherwise what it will, or can.  
Having declared the true sense and meaning of that saying( Faith is imputed to us for, or unto righteousness) both of the simplo terms, and of the entire propositions, I shall in the next place address my discourse to the clearing and disentangling the true construction thereof as aforesaid, from such objections as usually are, or possibly may be made against it: And this I will do by the resolution of several Questions, which will be the subject of certain Chapters next following.   

CHAP. XIX. Quest. Upon what account, or from what cause, or causes is it, that faith( properly taken) is counted to Believers for righteousness, or proves to them effectually available unto righteousness? Ans. The Question is answered, 1. Negatively, Not ab intrinseco, from ought, which is in the intrinsical nature of faith, or the value and merit thereof. 2. Affirmatively, The causes assigned being wholly ab extrinseco, viz. Gods mercy, Christs merit and the Gospel-covenant. Hereupon it is made apparent, that those Protestant Writers, who do assert faith itself to be imputed to Believers for or to righteousness, do not dethrone the righteousness of Christ, or set up any branch of mans own righteousness in its stead.  
Q. UPon what account is it, that faith is accounted to us for righteousness, or proves to us effectually available for, or unto righteousness?  
Answ. 1. Negatively, The cause is not Ab intrinseco, e. g. 1. Not from any meritorious worth, that is in the grace of faith, or in any act, or work of ours therein comprised, name, or thing.  
2. Not merely from any thing that is natural, or essential to it, or its peculiar actings, viz. the apprehending of Christ, the laying hold upon Christ and his righteousness and the like: for were there not some other cause of the thing here in Question, our believing, or laying hold on Christs righteousness( although his righteousness be a most enriching treasure, sufficient in itself and kind to enrich the whole world of sinners) would do us no good, or turn to any profit unto us, no more than a poor mans bare laying hands upon the gold and silver, which is in a rich mans bag, or chest, would enrich him.  
2. Affirmatively, The cause, or causes thereof are wholly ab extrinseco, taken from what is extrinsical to the essence, or nature of faith, viz. from God and Christ, and the Covenant of grace, and 1. The inward moving cause is Gods gracious good will and love and pleasure. This is the will of him that sent me( says our Saviour Joh. 6.40) that every one that seeth the son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life, See Joh. 3.16.  
2. Christs merit, or meritorious righteousness is the external impelling cause thereof. It is Christ, who died and by his bloodshed hath procured righteousness, or the justification of life for sinners upon their sincere faith, Rom. 5.19. As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. See both these causes( God free grace and Christs merit) expressed together, Rom. 3.24, 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood—  
3. The Covenant of God and his fidelity thereupon engaged to perform the same, is the cause why a sinners faith is available unto righteousness. God was pleased for Christs sake to put his gracious purpose to pardon and justify believing sinners into a faithful promise, or covenant so to do, which promise, or covenant of God with sinners concerning faith, is called the law of faith, Rom. 3.27. And this law is that, which gives that force, efficacy, or power, which faith hath to our righteousness, or justification. As sin hath its strength to condemn from one law( the law of works) 1 Cor. 5.56. So faith hath its strength to justify and save from another, The law of faith, or covenant of grace. To this purpose are we taught( by those words in the eleventh Article of our Church, saying, We are accounted righteous before God, for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith. Where observe, that it is not said, We are accounted righteous with his righteousness, or merit, but for it by faith, i.e. the merit of Christ, or of his righteousness hath so far prevailed with God, that by, or upon our faith we shall be accounted righteous before him; which is all one indeed as to s●y, That God for Christs merits sake doth impute our faith to us for, or unto righteousness, requiring no more at our hands for our just fication in his sight.  
These are the true causes( all of them extrinsical to the precise nature of faith) of faith its being imputed to us for, or unto righteousness, God thus effectually imputing it for his mercy and faithfulness sake, and for his Christs sake.  
I have purposely proposed, and answered this Question, and reserved a peculiar Chap. for it, for the more abundant satisfaction of many my dissenting Brethren, who will by no means allow faith in that saying( Faith is imputed to us for righteousness) to be taken properly, i.e. for believing, but figuratively for the object of faith[ Christs righteousness,] they pretending, that the said propriety of construction doth derogate from the honour of Gods free grace and mercy, and from the merit of Christs righteousness. But the foresaid answers to the Question in hand, do sufficiently manifest the vanity of such pretences: for what just cause of suspicion can there be, that we derogate from God and Christ, and arrogate to ourselves and our own acts, in our asserting, That God doth impute our faith itself to us unto righteousness, we withal openly declaring, that it is for his mercies sake and his son Christs sake, that he doth so? I desire therefore, that the foregoing Answers to the Question in hand may be the rather taken into consideration and remembered, because they may serve to discover, how causelessly those Protestant Writers, who maintain faith itself to be the thing imputed to sinners for righteousness, are accused by their disse●ting brethren, as if they did dethrone the righteousness of Christ, and in the place thereof set up mans own righteousness: for they do professedly and constantly maintain, that it is for the sake of Christs righteousnes●, that this privilege is indulged unto, and by divine promise entailed upon faith; And therefore be it known, That the brethren here impleaded do not thrust Christs righteousness out of its due place, nor do they place mans righteousness in its stead, although God hath designed( they still say) a proper place fo● it. The peculiar seat for Christs righteousness is under the head or title of a meritorious cause, and so long as we do reserve this honourable and eminent place for it, and it alone, we do preserve it sartam tectam in its throne of glory.  
The matter by Gods gracious covenant for Christs sake being ordered, as aforesaid, What remains, but that upon consideration of this his divine and merciful disposition, we do make acclamation, saying( as of old in another case, Zech. 4.7.) Grace, Grace unto it? What reremains, but that we utter forth the high praises of God and Christ in words like those of David, 2 Sam. 7.20, 21. And what can we poor sinners say more? for thy words sake, and according to thine own heart hast thou done this great thing, this wonder of goodness, and free favour? What remains, but that we breath forth our thanksgiving to God in the words of our Saviour, Mat. 11.25. We thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that whereas the Devil and his Angels can have righteousness imputed to them upon no terms, being left hopeless in their unrighteousness, thou hast graciously promised for Christs sake to impute to sinful men their faith for righteousness, Even so, O Father, because it seemed good in thine eyes? What remains, but that as Scipio Africanus being arraigned before the Roman Senators, as having done disservice to the Commonwealth, did call them away from the Senate-house( the place of judicature) to the Temple, there to sacrifice to the Gods for the victories obtained by his conduct, In like sort that I bespeak, and beseech my dissenting brethren, that they would cease all that quarreling, which they have taken up against faith itself, its being imputed to sinners for righteousness, and that they would let fall that svit, which they have causelessly commenced against their Brethren upon the score aforesaid, charging them as back-friends to the merits of Christ and freedom of divine grace, and that instead of farther contendings in this needless quarrel, we all would unanimously hasten to build an altar and there sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, saying as did the multitude of that heavenly Chorus, Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2.14.   

CHAP. XX. Q. Can ought, that is imperfect, possibly be by God imputed to a sinner for, or to righteousness? Answ. Yes. The Authors professed dissent herein from certain other Brethren, whereof two only by name are instanced in, whose words are recited, and a reply made thereunto.  
Q. CAn ought, that is imperfect, possibly be by God imputed to a sinner for righteousness?  
Answ. Yes. God forbid, that it should be otherwise. There be many indeed, who do assert the impossibility of this thing, and upon that mistake they have perverted, as is before expressed, the meaning of the Apostle in that saying of his so oft inculcated by him( Faith is imputed to us for righteousness:) among whom I shall onely in this Chapter instance in two, Dr Andrew Ryvet, and Dr Obadiah Grew, and having recited their words shall reply thereunto.  
Nov●mus( says Dr Andrew Ryvet in his Exercitations upon Genesis, p. 400) nihil adeo nobis imputari ad justitiam, quod vere,& perfect justitia non sit— We know, that nothing is imputed by God to righteousness, which is not truly and perfectly a righteousness, therefore if faith be not a perfect r●ghteousness, it cannot Adeo haberi, be by God acc●unted or imputed for righteousness.  
But ( place tanti viri) 1. Why may not a sincere faith be made by God the condition of Gods imputing, or imparting righteousness to sinners, i.e. of justifying them, or constituting them righteous for Christs righteousness sake, and thereupon so reputing them as well as faith in perfection? Why may not God make a sincere faith available, and count it as available to all saving purposes, as a perfect faith? I mean, Why may not God reward the one, as well as the other with righteousness? Is the Lords hand shortened, that he cannot? or are his bowels straitned, that he will not save, justify, or make righteous a sinner without a faith absolutely perfect? With God, says the Archangel to the blessed Virgin, nothing is unpossible, Luke 1.37. and to say that this is( to my seeming) a constructive denial of Gods power to pardon the sinful imperfection of our good duties, or( to speak in the language of Scripture) to take away the iniquity of our Holy things: for if God doth pardon the imperfection of our faith, or of any other our graces, surely it ought not to be denied, that God doth Eodem loco habere, account, or reckon them to the sinner, as if they were perfect. Yea, God having in his law of grace, or act of oblivion( as will be said in another Chapter) constituted a sincere faith, however otherwise imperfect, the condition of our attaining Righteousness, how can it be otherwise, but that God( who cannot deny himself) should according to his promise Eodem loco habere, account it to the sinner as perfect, i.e. reward it with righteousness?  
2. I answer Ex abundanti, That true faith, i.e. such as S. James says, is made perfect by works, although as a moral virtue, or a grace of Gods spirit it be imperfect, and although the works, whereby it is said by S. James to be made perfect, be in themselves imperfect, nevertheless is in another sense( very fit to the purpose in hand) most perfect, viz. In sensu Legali, civili, or In genere medii, i.e. as it is the constituted condition of a sinners justification, it is Vere,& perfect justitia( to speak in our Authors own words) both truly and perfectly a righteousness, and accounted by God no otherwise, than in truth it is: for it is Tota conditio, the whole condition, Yea I will say( the word, Faith, being rightly, and in its due latitude understood according to the full importance thereof as frequently used in Scripture) it is the whole of that condition, which God doth now require of sinners by the law of Faith, in order to the obtaining of that righteousness, which is said to be by Faith without Works. Now be it impartially considered, what hinders, that a thing imperfect in itself, yet being perfectly the full of all that God requires for such and such ends and purposes, should by God be esteemed, reckoned, or imputed, as if it were in itself perfect? Whereas therefore it is the saying of this learned Author, that faith properly taken Nec est justitia, nec justitia loco habetur, I cannot but upon account of the premises think, and say the contrary, viz. That faith is truly of its kind a righteousness( it being commanded in the law of Faith and styled therefore by our Saviour the work of God, John 6.19.) and that it is imputed for, or to that righteousness, which is therein promised, so that we may not onely with safety, but we must also of necessity say, if we mean to speak the truth, That fides& est justitia,& justitia loco habetur, and this with a non Obstante to any imperfection of faith, provided it be sincere.  
Thus I have endeavoured to remove that great stumbling block out of the way of truth, which occasioned this Author to turn aside from it in his mis-exposition of that saying of the Apostle.  
I shall in the next place reply to a few passages out of Dr. Grew, in his Sermons on Jer. 23.6.  
In p. 51. as he reasons against the imputation of the {αβγδ} credere, because it is imperfect, so his words are p. 38. The righteousness which justifies a sinner, is not in, or of himself in any gracious dispositions in him, or acts done by him, because being imperfect they are unable to justify, but it is the righteousness of another, yet by grace and favour accounted his.  
Answ. 1. It is falsely supposed by this Doctor, that there is any righteousness, which a sinner hath of himself: for although it be truly presumed, that there is a righteousness, which a sinner hath in himself, nevertheless it is not asserted by any Authors( for ought I know, or ever heard of) that this righteousness is of himself. And it is uncharitably here insinuated by the Doctor, that there are some, who do maintain, that there is a righteousness, which a sinner hath of himself, and that this righteousness will justify him, for none are so senseless, as to assert, that ought, which is not, can justify.  
2. Though the righteousness, which doth justify a sinner per modum meriti, i.e. doth merit his justification, be the righteousness of another, nevertheless a personal righteousness, which consisteth in certain gracious dispositions in a sinner, and acts done by him, may be made of God the condition of a sinners justification for the merits sake of Christs righteousness.  
3. Although these gracious dispositions and acts done by a sinner are not able because of their imperfections to justify him from guilt of fault, or as one legally righteous, i.e. as no sinner, nevertheless their imperfection hinders not, but that through the mercy of God in Christ promised in the Gospel, a sinner may thereupon be justified, or absolved from guilt of punishment, th●s being by God required of every sinner in order thereunto.  
4 Gods grace and favour doth not consist( as this Author and other much mistaken Brethren would have it) in reputing, or accepting Christs righteousness to be ours, but in accepting it as a valuable consideration, whereupon to pardon, or justify us through faith in him, and in his conferring upon us those saving effects, and benefits, which were purchased by that his righteousness.  
And whereas the Doctor says, p. 45. Mens repentings makes them not righteous before God. O take heed of setting sorrow for sin in Christs room.  
I answer, 1. Mens repentings and sorrow for their sins are a part of that Evangelical righteousness, which in the law of grace is required of sinners in order to their being made righteous, or justified, i.e. this being that righteousness, which for the righteousness sake of Christ God hath promised in the Gospel to penitent sinners, which for that cause in the name of Christ is by the Ministers of christ to be preached to all and every sinner.  
2. To maintain repentance and godly sorrow for sin to be a requisite condition in order as aforesaid, is not to set it in Christs room( as this Doctor here in several places of his Sermons doth odiously and erroneously insinuate) nor in any other room, or place, than where Christ himself by his law of grace hath set, and settled it.  
3. Hereupon I shall in the way of caution and admonition to the Doctor himself, and all those who are taught by him, and to all such Teachers, say, O take heed, Sirs, of setting Christ in the room of repentance, as Saltmarsh, and divers others have done to the destruction of souls, it being alike hazardous to set Christ in the room of repentance, as to set repentance in the room of Christ: for as repentance will not supply Christs room, so nor will Christ supply the vacant room of repentance, it being as well impossible for a sinner to be saved without repentance, as for a penitent sinner to be saved without Christ: As repentance without Christ cannot; so Christ without repentance will not save a sinner. This we may and ought to believe; for he hath  told us over and over. That except we repent, we shall all perish, his righteousness notwithstanding, Luke 13.3, 5.  
Of any Author almost that ever I red, this Dr seems to me to have need of the said Caution( O take heed) This I say seems to me by many dangerously seducing passages dispersed in his Book▪ he saying( p. 173.) Some will not venture their souls on Christ alone, they will have two strings to their bow, something of their own, at least for a reserve, and dead lift. These he resembles( in the following page.) to that harlot, who would have had the the living child divided, saying, They would have their justification before God to be partend betwixt Christs righteousness and their own. And says he p. 200. A sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness to justify him in the sight of God. Many other passages there be in his Sermons to this purpose, which forbearing here to relate, I shall in few words reply to these forecited.  
1. No wise adventurers will adventure their souls on Christ alone without repentance for their sins: for if they do, they will be sure to lose their venture: for Christ will save no impenitent sinner, who although he may hope in Christ, and after a fashion put his trust in Christ, yet he and his hope shall perish; Nor would Christ have any sinner to make a fool of himself by thinking otherwise, he having  told us all, what we are to trust unto in that forecited text, Luke 13.3, 5. And yet alas! how many foolhardy Adventurers are there in the world, who will adventure their all in all( I mean) their souls salvation upon Christ alone without repentance? Such foolish adventurers were those, whom Christ speaks of in Mat. 7.22. who in their impenitency venturing their souls upon Christ alone, or upon naked Christ, according to the late devised phrase in the Books of certain popular Preachers, our Saviour there resembles to that foolish man, who built his house upon the sand, which when the floods came and the winds blew, and did beat upon it, fell with a vengeance.  
2. Although sinners are to venture their souls upon Christ alone as one that hath done his own part, i.e. hath finished the work, which God gave him to do, whereby to merit their salvation, conditionally upon their return to God by Faith and Repentance to be conferred upon them, nevertheless they are not to venture their souls upon Christ for the doing of their own work, i.e. which God hath imposed upon them in order to the saving of their own souls. It is mad venturing further than Christ would have us to venture.  
3. Forasmuch as Christ would have no sinner to adventure his soul upon him without repentance for his sins, it did ill become this Author in a kind of a gibing fashion( as is obvious to be construed) to say of those, who dare not be so fool-hardy as to run such a desperate venture, That they would have two strings to their bow.  
4. Although a sinner needs no more than Christs righteousness for the satisfaction of Gods justice, for the expiation of his sin, or for meriting his justification upon terms revealed in the Gospel, nevertheless that a sinner may be actually justified in the sight of God, there is more needful than Christs righteousness: for to this end he needs that righteousness, of which our Saviour Christ says, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall i● no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Although a sinner needs nothing in co-ordination with Christs righteousness to justify him before God, yet in subordination thereunto he doth need a personal, or evangelical righteousness, which consisteth summarily in repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, of which see more at large in Chap. 12. p. 39.40— If the Publican had not repented, he had not departed to his house justified. So that if the Dr. be minded to make others, or himself merry by calling Christs righteousness and a sinners repentance two strings, I shall endeavour to spoil the sport by retorting the common Proverb, which as to the purpose in hand is very considerable and applicable,[ It is wisdom to have two strings to ones bow:] He will prove himself at last to be no wise Bowman, who shall trust to the single string of Christs righteousness without the said personal righteousness, which consists in a sinners repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; which if he doth, he will be sure to miss the Mark he aims at, I mean, justification, or remission of sin, or( to speak in the language of the Apostle) the prise of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.  
But I do assuredly hope, that the Citizens of Coventry are much wiser men, than Dr Grew took them, and taught them to be; at least I cannot but take notice what great need some people have to pray, that God would make them wise as David, i.e. wiser than their Teachers.  
5. To assert the necessity of the said personal righteousness in order to a sinners justification in the sight of God, is not to part our justification betwixt Christs righteousness and our own( as this Author doth ignorantly and odiously word the matter) that is, It is not to ascribe one part of our justification to Christs righteousness, and another part thereof to our own, nor is it either in whole, or in the least part to ascribe our justification to our own righteousness under any such notion, or respect as to the righteousness of Christ, but it is in truth to ascribe the whole of our Justification to Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause, whereby alone it was purchased, and to our own evangelical righteousness as the condition, upon which according to Gods gracious promise in Christ, it is to be actually enjoyed, and without which it cannot be had. He, that says, That Christ by his righteousness doth deliver the souls of sinners, yet says withall( as doth the Prophet Ezekiel, ch. 14.14.) that sinners do deliver their souls by their own righteousness, cannot be justly charged for parting their souls salvation betwixt Christs righteousness and mans own: for in so saying he doth attribute his whole salvation to both, yet ●nder such different notions, habitudes, or respects( rationally to be understood) as are peculiar to each, i.e. to Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause, and to a sinners own righteousness, only as to the condition, but no cause at all thereof, as partly hath been already said, and will be more at large declared by way of answer to a Question, which will be the subject of the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XXI. Q. Under what notion, specifical conceptus, or formal consideration is faith( properly taken) imputed to sinners for, or to righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered at large clearly and distinctly i.e. both Negatively and Affirmatively. An objection answered.  
Q. UNder what notion, specifical conceptus, or consideration is faith itself imputed to sinners for, or to Righteousness?  
Answ. 1. Negatively( besides what hath been by occasion already said chap. 18. and 19. I add) That faith is not so imputed to us as it is a moral virtue, or grace of Gods holy Spirit, or as it acts in a peculiar manner in relying, laying hold upon, apprehending, or applying to ourselves the righteousness of Christ, the object of this faith: for, 1. Christs righteousness is not proposed to our faith in order to our justification merely as an object to be apprehended, or relied upon, nor is righteousness, or justification promised to faith precisely as it acts by way of apprehending, or laying hold upon Christs righteousness: for nothing is more apparent both by Scripture, and sad experience, than that many wicked persons going on in a wilful course of sin do act faith so far forth as to apprehended, lay hold upon, or lean themselves on the righteous- of Christ; nor otherwise is it easily, if at all conceivable, how a professed Christian should be guilty of that sin, which we call Presumption, did he not lean upon Christs righteousness to be saved by it, or him.  
2. The object of justifying Faith as justifying, is not simply the righteousness of Christ by Faith to be restend, and relied upon, but Christ himself in person to be by our faith accepted, or received as our Saviour and governor, or( as we do usually express the matter) to be received in all his offices, both as Prophet, Priest and King, this being that reception, or acceptation of Christs to which the saving benefits of justification, remission of sin, and adoption are promised in the Gospel, John. 1.11, 12.  
3. As for that unscriptural phrase in great vogue( applying Christs righteousness to ourselves) I humbly conceive,  
1. That Christs righteousness is not in itself at all imputed, imparted, or applied to us, otherwise than in the saving effects and benefits procured by it.  
2. The application of Christs righteousness to us in this true construction of the phrase, is not any act of Faith, but it is the act of God consequent to, or upon our Faith: for this application of Christs righteousness to us in the saving effects thereof being all one with the collation of them upon us, it is God himself, I say, who according to the tenor of his promise consequently upon our Faith applies them to us, or confers them upon us, it is not we sinners, that do apply them to, or confer them upon ourselves.  
2. Affirmatively, Faith is imputed to us for righteousness under the same notion, or formal consideration, as we are said to be justified by it; for as to be justified by faith, and to have faith imputed to us for righteousness are but varied expressions of the self same thing( as was aforesaid,) So I do conceive, that under what considerations of the word[ Faith] we are said to be justified by faith, under the same conception must faith be understood to be imputed to us for righteousness; and this is, As it is the performance of that duty, which in the law of Faith is made the condition of our being made righteous, or our being justified for the righteousness sake of Christ. Though faith be in propriety of speech no cause of a sinners righteousness, or justification( having no natural, or meritorious, or any proper efficiency to that effect, as which is indeed aliundè, or from other causes;) nevertheless it is by law constituted of God a Cause sine qua non, a thing without which it shall not be obtained; which divine constitution doth entitle it to the nature of a Condition, and as such a condition of divine appointment it is imputed to us by God for righteousness, and we are justified by it under that notion, or consideration.  
Hereupon to prevent all misconstruction, I desire, it may be still remembered, That in asserting a sinners Faith[ properly taken] to be imputed to him for righteousness, we do not say, That Faith is instead of perfect obedience Quoad meritum, as to the merit or value of it( for so we do assert Christs righteousness to be instead thereof;) All that we say( I speak for myself and other my Brethren) in effect amounts to this, That whereas perfect obedience was in the Covenant of Works made the onely condition of life, it is now quiter otherwise in the Covenant of Grace( God having since the fall a new modeled the government of mankind by new laws) wherein for Christs righteousness sake Faith in him is constituted the condition of attaining righteousness, the performance of which condition God hath promised shall be imputed to us for, or unto righteousness, i.e. shall be available unto us for that righteousness, or justification of life, which is spoken of by the Apostle, Rom. 5.18.19. And therefore I can perceive no just cause, why it may not be truly said( although I know that Doctor Andrew Ryvet with several other dissenting Brethren, will not allow the saying) Quod fides habetur pro justitiâ perfectâ, quae lege continetur, ex gratuitâ acceptatione, i.e. That Faith is accounted for that perfect righteousness, which is contained in the law, through Gods gracious acceptation: for Gods mercy, Christs merit, and the law of Faith thereupon enacted, being considered, what hinders it from being so accounted? specially it being withal considered, that according to the tenor of the new law God doth for Christs sake pardon the imperfection of our Faith and of all our sincere evangelical obedience; the imperfections whereof being covered with a gracious pardon, Why may it not be said, Quod fides habetur pro justitiâ perfectâ— That Faith through Gods gracious acceptation in Christ is accounted for the righteousness of the law, or instead of it? The true meanining of such sayings being no more than this, viz. That in point of Conditionality( not in value, or merit) Faith is instead thereof, and that it will thereupon stand a sinner in a like saving stead, or prove is sure a title of life unto him, as the perfect righteousness of the law would have been to man continuing innocent.   

CHAP. XXII. Q. Is there any personal righteousness, which God sees in a sinner himself, upon the intuition whereof God is, or may be said to be moved to justify him? Answ. Yes, in maintenance of the truth of which answer a copious reply is made to a contrariant passage in Doctor Grews Sermons upon Jer. 23.6.  
Q. IS there any thing, that God beholds in a sinner, upon the sight whereof he justifies him, or upon intuition of which he accounts him righteous?  
Answ. Yea, though many, I confess, will say, No; among whom I shall onely instance in Dr Grew, who says in his forecited Sermons, p. 76. God is not moved by any thing out of himself in our justification; for proof whereof he quotes Deu. 7.6. and Mat, 11.26. and says, So God justifies a sinner by the righteousness of another made his, because it is his good pleasure so to do: for we are justified when ungodly, Rom. 4.5. and loved when in our blood, Ezek. 16.8.  
Answ. 1. There are several external requisites to justification, I mean, external to God, and external to justification itself▪ and also external, both on Christs part and ours, e. g. On Christs part his righteousness is requisite as the meritorious cause thereof, and on our part evangelical righteousness( styled faith, the rightteousness of faith, obedience to the faith, obeying the Gospel, with the like Scriptural expressions) is requisite thereunto as the condition thereof.  
2. The al seeing God in the justification of a sinner doth not Ad unum, but Ad omnia respicere, he casts an eye of intuition upon all the requisites thereunto, and as they are, whether themselves by his appointment, or are made of him, he beholds and regards them, even according to their several natures and formalities: exempli gratia, He beholds and regards Christs righteousness as the meritorious cause, and the sinners own righteousness as the condition of his being justified.  
3. Although this Doctor affirms( as aforesaid) that God is not moved by any thing out of h●mself in our justification, nevertheless he doth not exclude Christs obedience( page. 78) from being the motive of our justification; Whereupon I reply, that, As God in the justification of a sinner may be said to be moved by the righteousness of Christ( we speaking of God after the manner of men, as it is necessary we should;) so he may be said to be moved also by a sinners own righteousness, moved I mean according to the different nature of those motives, i e. by the one as the cause, and by the other( although not as any cause, yet) as the appointed condition of his justification.  
4. As for the Scriptures alleged by this Author to prove, that God is not moved by any thing out of himself in our justification( he means by any thing in us) they do indeed prove no such matter, the justification of sinners being not so much as spoken of in two of the said Scriptures, Deut. 7.6. and Mat. 11.26.  
5. Although God justifies a sinner for the merits sake of the righteousness of another, nevertheless he doth not justify him by the righteousness of that other made His in this Authors meaning, i.e. in itself or essential nature made his.  
6. Although it be a Gospel-truth to say, That God doth justify a sinner upon his faith, 
Although God doth justify us freely by his grace in Christ, nevertheless it is through Faith as the means thereof, or motive thereunto( Rom. 3.24, 25.) els● God would alike justify all sinners, and not any one sinner more, or rather than another.  because it was his good pleasure to constitue this his faith the condition thereof, to promise it thereunto: nevertheless it is notoriously false to say simply, That God justifies a sinner, because it is his good pleasure so to do, and that he is not at all moved thereunto by a sinners performance of that duty, which was of his own good will and pleasure made the condition of obtaining that saving mercy. And this Doctor in saying as here he doth, hath spoken most strangely of God and for God, as if God were moved by nothing out of himself in justifying, and saving sinners: for if he doth justify sinners merely, because it is his good pleasure to justify them, it will, I think, follow, that he damns sinners, because it is his pleasure to damn them, whereas he says and swears the contrary, Ezek 33.11. and withal tells the righteous, 
Ezek. 18.28.  saying, Because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions, that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. The Doctors words do to my savour relish of that, which some Authors style Turcismus, and God forbid, that it should be owned by any of our Protestant Writers, of what denomination soever, whether Lutheran, or Calvinist.  
7. Although it is said, that God justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. yet it is not there said, or meant in the Doctors sense, that we are justified when ungodly; as if nothing but ungodliness, or an emptiness of all godliness were antecedently requisite to our justification: for though sin, or ungodliness be naturally necessary to render a person capable of Gospel-justification, i.e. of remission of sin( forasmuch as where there is no sin, there can be no place or possibility for remission:) nevertheless holy faith, or obedience to the faith is legally necessary to make a person morally capable thereof. So that( to speak the true sense of the Apostle) although God doth justify the ungodly Sensu diviso, i.e. those, who once were ungodly, yet in sensu composito, i.e. he doth not justify them in their ungodliness, or when ungodly, but when they become believers, or when godly and not before: Whereupon I can say no less, than that this Authors Exposition of this Scripture( oft times inculcated in his Sermons) is an ungodly exposition, it being both in itself a falsehood, and of a native tendency to ungodliness.  
8. Whatever be the importance of that love of God to his Israel of old there mentioned in that expression ( thy time was the time of love,) most undoubtedly by it cannot be meant Gods love of reconciliation, his pardoning, or justifying them in their blood, i.e. when they were, or while they were in their blood, i.e. in their sin and ungodliness, as the Doctor would have it understood: for till sinners repent and are converted, God will not justify, or pardon them, or actually be reconciled to them, as appears by the current of Scripture, particularly by Isa. 1.16, 17, 18. and 55.6, 7, 8.   

CHAP. XXIII. Q. By whom is faith imputed to believing sinners for, or unto righteousness? Ans. In answer hereunto that text in Gen. 15.6. is vindicated from the misconstruction of some of the more ancient rabbis, it being withal asserted, That it is God himself, who doth so impute it: But whether it was imputed to Abraham by God as Benefactor, or else as estimator, or Judge, is left to consideration upon what is said in answer to a Question, which is the subject of the Chapter ensuing.  
Q. BY whom is faith imputed to us for, or to righteousness?  
Answ. Although faith is in the New Testament frequently said to be imputed to us for righteousness; nevertheless I do not remember, that it is in any place expressly there said, By whom it is imputed; and therefore for the resolution of this Question we are to have recourse to other Scriptures, and to consult with right reason.  
1. We may in reason conclude, who it is, that doth impute our faith to righteousness. for forasmuch as to be justified by faith, and to have our faith imputed to us for righteousness are the self same thing( as by occasion hath been before said once and again,) we may thence conclude, that he, who imputes faith to a sinner for righteousness, is the same, who doth justify him; Now says the Apostle, It is God, that justifieth, Rom. 8.33. and 3.30. It is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. We may in reason hereupon unquestionably conclude, that it is God, who imputeth to sinners their faith for righteousness.  
2. Let us for the purpose in hand have recourse to the original Text, Gen. 15.6. which is so oft quoted in the New Testament and rendered [ And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness.] Whence( to intimate this by the way) it is again observable, that the Apostle doth quote that text( as was usual with our Saviour and other the sacred Writers of the New Testament) out of the Septuagint, who render that passively, which stands upon the original record actively expressed. But they did it not without warrant: for it is observed by some expert Linguists, that words of the praeterperfect tense, and active voice in the Hebrew language are of passive construction, instances whereof they furnish us with, such as that in Mic. 1.7. Ezek. 23.47. Esa. 22.8. where the Septuagint do take the same liberty to vary, although from the Grammar, or Letter, yet not from the sense of the Hebrew Text. But still the Question in hand is not as yet expressly resolved from that Text, and therefore it must still be demanded, Who is that He( the Antecedent to that Relative) who must be understood to have imputed Abrahams believing in the Lord for righteousness? Answ. 1. Negatively, by He is not meant Abraham himself, as if it had been said, That Abraham believed in the Lord, and Abraham did impute it to the Lord for righteousness, i.e. Abraham ascribed the promise unto the righteousness, or goodness of God. This is the exposition of certain Jewish Doctors, notwithstanding which there are of their own in later times, who do justly recede from it, so that there needs nothing to be said for the refutation thereof, but to assert and prove the true meaning of the words, as will next be declared in the affirmative branch of my Answer to the Question before us.  
2. Affirmatively, By He is meant the Lord, and by Him Abraham, as if it had been said by the Historian, Abraham believed in the Lord and the Lord imputed it unto Abraham for righteousness. This appears to be the meaning, as otherwise, so by the words following, verse 7. [ And he said unto him, I am the Lord, that brought thee out of Ur of the Caldees to give thee the land to inherit it—] He then, that brought Abraham out of Ur of the Caldees, and by promise gave him the land of Canaan to inherit it, did impute Abrahams faith unto him for righteousness. Briefly, He, who is said to impute righteousness to believers, truly is He, who doth impute their believing in him for righteousness; and who this He is, that imputes righteousness unto believers, The Apostle doth explicitly acquaint us, saying ( Rom. 4.6. David describeth the blessedness of the man, to whom GOD imputeth righteousness-  
The Question in hand, you perceive, is of easy resolution, and there being no controversy about it, or depending upon it( for ought I know) there needs not much to be said concerning it.  
But forasmuch as God is considerable under divers capacities, or relations, viz. as Benefactor, and as Judge, the Question may therefore be demanded, under what capacity, or consideration did God impute Abrahams faith to him for righteousness? Answ. Although this Question may seem too too curious and needless( which if indeed it were, I would not have proposed it;) nevertheless forasmuch as in some respect it may be useful, I will therefore make some brief answer to it; but because the due answer thereunto doth necessary depend upon the refolution of another Question, which will be the subject of the next Chapter, I will therefore refer the decision of it and the Reader for satisfaction in that behalf to what will be there said.   

CHAP. XXIV. Quest. Was not Abraham a Believer and his Faith thereupon actually imputed to him for Righteousness before he believed the promise recorded in Gen. 15.5. and that testimony given to his Faith ver. 6? Answ. Yes: long before, his departure out of his native country ( Ur of the Caldees) implying not onely a local, but also a moral departure.  
Quest. WAs not Abraham a Believer, and his Faith actually imputed to him by God for Righteousness before the Vision recorded in Gen. 15. beg. where in the word of the Lord both in the way of command and promise came to him, as are there( together with his Faith therein) distinctly related?  
Answ. Yes Verily; He was justified certain years before, viz. at his departure out of his native country in obedience to the command of God, and upon his believing the promise of God made to him at that time( it being the same promise for substance which was occasionally afterwards oft times renewed by God) the story of all which( Gods command and promise and Abrahams faithful obedience) is recorded in the beginning of the 12th Chapter of this book of Genesis, and to which those words of the Author to the Hebrews do refer, he saying( Chap. 11.8. that by faith Abraham, when he was called to go into a place, which he should after receive for an inheritance obeied, and he went out not knowing whither he went. Abraham saw full warrant from the command of God to do what he did, i.e. to leave his native country, onely at first though he knew the place from which, yet not knowing for some time the place, to which he was to depart, nor the way to it, till God did afterwards make them known to him. Now by this command of God to Abraham touching the leaving of his country, kindred and his fathers house, there is great reason( as I think) to understand, that therein is implyed, that God did not command him barrly to leave his native soil, but also the sinful fashions of that his country, i.e. to renounce the idols and false Gods, the worship of which his forefathers had been accustomend unto, and wherein as is most likely, himself was at first educated under his Idolatrous Ancestors, Josh. 24.2. And if so, then are we by those words expressive of his obedience( He went out) to understand not simply his parting from his native country and kindred, but also the renouncing of his former sinful course of life which among them he had lived, though together with it he did renounce his nearest and dearest relations, even as every Christian for Christs sake should so far deny himself, as to do the like upon a call from God, this being to walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised( Rom. 4.12.) and in this construction( as aforesaid) the like phrase of leaving kindred seems to be taken in Psal. 45.10. harken O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ears: forget also thine own people and thy fathers house.  
If it be said, That Abraham had left his Idolatry and was become a worshipper of the true God before he had that call from God to leave his country and kindred: I answer, if so, then are we rationally to conceive, That in Gods commanding him to leave his country and kindred there is implyed a command to him from God to persist in his renouncing of the idolatry received from his forefathers, which for sometime he had already renounced, and to continue in that Godly course of life and worship of the true God, which he had entred upon; so that still I think, That it was not onely a local, but also a moral departure( whether then to be begun, or from that time to be continued) which was by God commanded Abraham by the full importance of those words, [ Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred—] Neither do I think, that God did command Abraham to depart from his native soil simply as such, but as a place over-run with idolatry, an infectious place, a place of constant temptation to lewd and idolatrous living.  
Briefly, I think, that God in mercy to Abraham, did command him to get him out of his native country and from his kindred as a snare, and a dangerous temptation, lest he should continue to be infected with that Idolatry, or return to that idolatry, which then did reign throughout Caldea. Yet in this conjecture( having no absolute grounds of certainty) I shall not be peremptory, freely leaving the judgement thereof to others, and the rather, because I cannot at present call to mind any Question of moment, the decision whereof doth depend upon it, this onely excepted, viz. Whether Abrahams obedience to the said command of God ( Get thee out of thy country) is, or may be alleged, as a fit instance of doing, or forbearing of a thing in its own nature purely indifferent upon the command of God? In the decision of which question I can easily suffer every one to abound in his own sense.   

CHAP. XXV. Quest. Forasmuch as Abraham was a Believer, and his Faith imputed to him for Righteousness long before that Testimony given to his Faith in Gen. 15.6. How was it true to say, that his believing in the Lord was then, or at that time imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. The Question is answered several ways. A parallel Scripture concerning Noah( Heb. 11.7.) opened, by occasion whereof 4 Questions, with reference to that clause( And he became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith) are proposed and answered, 1. What kind of righteousness is there meant? 2. What is it to be an heir of that kind of righteousness? 3. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been heir of? or, Wherein did it consist? 4. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness, which is by Faith?  
Quest. FOrasmuch as Abraham was a Believer, and his Faith was thereupon imputed to him for righteousness long before, how was it true to say as in the Text( Gen. 15.6.) that his believing in the Lord, or his faith in that word of his, that came to him in a vision afterwards, was imputed to him for righteousness?  
Answ. The Question, or Objection may several ways be truly answered, and( as I judge) to satisfaction, e. g. 1. The words of the Text in Gen. 15.6. may be referred to Abrahams first believing and to his being justified thereupon, although they are here brought in by the occasion of a relation of another act of his faith in this Chapter; and so the sense may well be, Abraham believed God with that Faith( the same specifical, unfeigned, operative faith) which was from the beginning, even from the command of God given to him touching his departure from his native soil and Gods promise then made unto him( which promise was now renewed) imputed to him for righteousness. There is no necessity to conceive, that this testimony should be precisely limited to, or understood onely of that particular act of his believing, whereunto it is subjoined, but it may indifferently relate as well to the first act of his believing: for it is not said in the forecited Text, that Abraham believed the Lord in this particular promise now made, or renewed unto him, but indefinitely, or in the general, that Abraham believed, or had believed in the Lord and it was imputed to him for righteousness. This answer is the rather considerable, because it seems not to have been the intent of God in this Testimony concerning Abraham to show punctually, or exactly the time when Abraham was first justified, but the manner how, or means by which; I say, to show the time exactly and precisely when he first believed and was justified; for I grant, that Gods intent was to manifest the time in general i.e. not when Abraham was circumcised, but when and while he was uncircumcised.  
Obj, This construction cannot possibly stand; for it is plain by Rom. 4.18. that Abrahams believing in hope, that he should be the Father of many Nations( although against hope and all visible reasons to the contrary) was imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. The interpretation before rendered may well stand this Objection notwithstanding: for that promise in Gen. 15. was no new promise, but a promise renewed to Abraham and the self same in substance with that in Gen. 12.2, 3. ( I will make of thee a great nation: And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed:) so that that Testimony concerning Abrahams faith as imputed to him for righteousness may as well( if not rather) relate to the act of his faith exercised upon Gods promise at first made, as well I say, as upon his promise afterwards renewed.  
2. If we refer the Testimony( as aforesaid) to his first justification, or at first, we must conceive the meaning to be, That God as Benefactor did then impute his faith to him for righteousness, or did then actually justify him.  
3. Supposing Gods donation of righteousntss to, or upon Abraham to have been a thing antecedent( as truly it was) to the story in Gen. 15.6. We may well and truly say, That God did impute the renewed act of Abrahams faith unto him for righteousness as Judge, or Estimator, i.e. he did still account, repute, or had him in estimation as righteous, or in a state of justification.  
4. Upon the said supposition of Abrahams faith its being long before imputed to him for righteousness, we may well and warrantably understand this Text to be meant of Abrahams continued believing and of Gods continued act of imputing that his continued believing for the continuance of his righteousness, or to the continuing of him in a state of justification thereupon. And this interpretation as it is agreeable to the analogy of faith, so I do judge it to be the more rational, because it is agreeable to the language of Scripture, I mean to the manner of Scripture expression of matters, concerning which that rule of the most excellent Glassius among many others in his Philologia Sacra( p. 551) is very observable, Verbum quandoque de continuatione rei significatae intelligendum est, or, Videtur actio aliquando nova, cum sit veteris continuatio, i.e. Things are sometimes in Scripture said to be, when the scope of the place, or speaker is to give us to understand their continuance; Apt instances whereof are divers there rendered by that Learned Author, as Jer. 7.3. Amend your ways and your doings, that ye may dwell, i.e. continue to dwell in this place, John 2.11. And his disciples believed on him, i.e. persisted and were confirmed in the faith of him; for they believed on him before, as appears by the foregoing Chapter, ver. 41, 42. and John 14 1. Ye believe in God, believe also in me, i.e. continue to believe in me; So also Chapter 16.30. According to the measure of this Rule, or Canon may that in Gen. 15.6. very well and aptly be construed, q. d. Abraham persisted to believe in the Lord, and this his faith was continued to be imputed to him for righteousness: for as of one and the same specifical faith there are divers individual acts, so there may be still one and the same substantial consequent, issue, or fruit of them all, which in sufficient propriety of speech may accordingly be ascribed both to the one, and to the other, i.e. as well to after acts, as to the first act of faith. As for the answer, that is usually made by the Papists to the objection, or question in hand( they distinguishing of justification into first and second) I need not here specify; and to avoid prolixity, I shall not at all in this place take it into consideration, and thereupon declare, what may with safety to the truth be granted, and what must be denied in the matter. I will onely specify what is recorded concerning Noah, Heb. 11.7.( this being an instance to my seeming parallel with what is witnessed of Abraham, Gen. 15.6.) where it is said of him, That by faith being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith. That Noah had faith and was righteous before God warned him to prepare the Ark, is most apparent by Gen. 6.7, 8, 9.— So that the same difficulty, or question occurs concerning him as concerning Abraham, viz. Forasmuch as Noah had faith and was justified before his said warning from God to prepare the Ark, how can it be said, that by any after act, or acts of faith in preparing the Ark he became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith? I will make way to the solving of this grand Question by proposing and answering three or four others.  

1. What kind of righteousness is there meant?  
2. What is it to be an heir of that kind of righteousness?  
3. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been an heir of? or, wherein did it consist?  
4. Why is it styled a righteousness which is by Faith?   
1. Q. What is there meant by righteousness? Answ. The word righteousness is taken in a twofold sense, in a moral, or in a jural sense.  
1. In a moral construction it implies duty commanded, this kind of righteousness[ actual] consisting in good works, in which sense its taken in that Scripture, wherein Noah( who in all probability was a great Prince) is said to have been a Preacher of righteousness( 2 Pet. 2.5.) that is of repentance, and amendment of life.  
2. It is taken in a jural, or law sense, viz. for that right, or title, which any one hath to have, hold, or enjoy certain benefits and blessings, which God hath promised to sinners, and the benefits themselves so promised and enjoyed. Instances of this twofold acceptation of the word righteousness, have been more at large specified in the second Chapter of this Discourse. Now the word is here to be taken not in the former, but in the latter sense, as appears by the consequence of it to the word Heir: for men are not heirs to moral righteousness, because such righteousness is not a thing transient, or capable of conveyance from one person to another, and consequently is not inheritable; but men are heirs of jural rights to those persons who have the property, or power to dispose, convey, or grant such rights to others. In this sense the word righteousness is oft times taken in Scripture, specially in the Epistles of S. Paul, viz. for a right of liberty, or exemption from such punishments, or grievous things, which others are liable unto, and in this sense the word is to be taken in the Text before us, Heb. 11.7.  
2. Q. What is it to be an heir of the said righteousness? Answ. To be an Heir of this righteousness is to have, or possess a right, or title thereunto: for heir being a jural word, or Law term, signifies one, who hath a right or title to this, or that privilege, benefit, estate, or the like.  
3. Q. What was that righteousness, which Noah is there said to have been an heir of, or to have been entitled unto? Wherein did it consist? Answ. This is a different question from the first in order, that was proposed, and therefore must receive a different answer: for that question did onely inquire concerning the kind of this righteousness, of what sort it was, and accordingly it was resolved, that it was not of that kind, which we commonly style Moral, but Jural. But this question doth inquire concerning the matter of this Jural righteousness, what it was, or wherein it did consist? to which I answer, it did import something literally, and something mystically,  
1. This righteousness in the literal sense did consist in that right, which God by promise granted to him and his house, to be saved from the 
In this sense the word[ righteousness] is sometimes taken in Scripture, viz. for outward prosperity, temporal deliverances and preservations, Hos. 10.12. Isa. 48.18. although not as excluding Gods saving love and favour.  flood, to which the impenitent world was actually condemned; and from which right these were( as I may so say, meaning the word in a negative, not in a privative sense) dis-inherited.  
2. In the mystical sense it did consist in Noahs deliverance from the deluge of Gods eternal wrath: for the saving of Noah by the Ark from the flood was a kind of type, or shadow of eternal salvation by Christ. Destruction by the flood was but part of that punishment, which the impenitent world did suffer, and deliverance from that flood was but a part of the great reward, eternal salvation being that, which is obtained by faith in Christ. All this seems to be signified by that Doctrine of St. Peter 1.3.21, 22. where there is mention of salvation, together with the causes or means of it, as the water of baptism, the answer of a good conscience towards God( which in effect is true faith and repentance) as also the resurrection of Christ.  
4. Q. Why is the said righteousness styled the righteousness which is by faith?  
Answ. Because the right, which he had to be saved, as aforesaid, did proceed from Gods special grace and free promise, conditionally upon his faith: for as faith and works are opposed, so is a right by faith opposed to that right, which accrues by strict desert, merit of works, or valuable service. The Author therefore by that expression would intimate to us, that Noah had no right to the said benefits by the merit of his works, but all the right he had came from Gods gracious grant in a free promise, which Noah accepting with an operative faith, whereby at Gods command he prepared the Ark, the said right was actually invested in him, or settled upon him.  
These things being thus premised, to the said question( How can it be said, that Noah, being a believer and justified before Gods warning him to prepare the Ark, by an after act, or acts of Faith in preparing the Ark did become or was made heir of the righteousness, which is by faith?) I do now make answer, That Noah being justified before may upon the after acts of his faith be said to be made heir of the righteousness, which is by faith, because as upon these after acts or actings of his faith he had a right conferred upon him to temporal salvation from the deluge, so thereupon he had also his former right to eternal salvation from the wrath of God continued to him. Noahs preparing of the Ark was one special act of that faith, which was from former days habitual in his soul, which if he had not at that time and therein exercised, he had incurred the danger not onely of a temporal deluge, but the deluge also of Gods eternal wrath: so that by this after acting of his faith he escaped the danger of both, and thereupon as he came to Have a right to a temporal salvation; so to Hold his right to eternal salvation, so that as upon it he became an heir of temporal happiness in this world, so he continued to be an heir of eternal happiness in the world to come.  
And this was a fit argument to persuade to perseverance in faith( this being the scope of the Apostle both in this and in the latter end of the Chapter foregoing) perseverance wherein after the example of Noah and the rest name in this Chapter, of whom it is testified, that they all died in faith, perseverance, I say, wherein was the onely way to escape the deluge of Gods eternal wrath, and perdition, which the Apostle in the last verse of the foregoing Chapter tells them would prove the fate of all such as did draw back, and did not continue in faith, in which sense the word( believe) is taken in that verse, viz. for continuance in the faith, it being opposed to a drawing back ( We are not of them that draw back to perdition( says the Apostle) but of them who do believe, i.e. who without drawing back do persist to believe, to the salvation of the soul.   

CHAP. XXVI. Q. What was the object of that faith of Abrahams, which is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness? Answ. Generally those revelations, which God had imparted to him concerning his divine will, i.e. both Mandati and beneplaciti: both what God himself had promised to do, and also what he had commanded Abraham to do, the prime whereof( both the things commanded and promised) are made instances in; Hereupon six things as observable are commended to consideration, with a reflection upon a passage in that very learned foreign Writer, Doctor And. Ryvet.  
Quest. WHat was the object of Abrahams faith, that was imputed to him for, or to righteousness?  
Answ. Without controversy it was Divinum testimonium, certain the Oracles of God, some supernatural revelation, or revelations, that were made known unto him by God, which what they were, will be the subject of the present enquiry; wherein I shall not think it necessary to search, whether that {αβγδ}, that divine revelation touching the promised seed( Gen. 3, 15.) came to his knowledge[ antecedently to his extraordinary call out of Ur of the Caldees] by tradition, as it did to the patriarches before the flood: for whether this can be demonstrably proved, or no, it is fully sufficient to my purpose in hand to manifest, what those supernatural revelations were, which being personally made known to Abraham, were the objects of that faith of his, which was imputed to him for righteousness. The matter of these revelations may upon the main( as I conceive) be reduced to these two heads( divine Commands and divine Promises) as will instantly be made manifest by three special Revelations from God unto him, that are recorded in three several Chapters in the Book of Genesis, viz. Chap. 12. begin. Where God is said to have commanded him to leave his country( by which in probability was meant not onely a local, but a moral departure, as was aforesaid Chapter 24.) and to have promised to make him a great nation, and to bless him, to make him an exemplar of blessing, and that in him, i.e. in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed; herein God having revealed to him more particularly that, which was onely indefinitely revealed to the former ages: for whereas God had onely made known to them, that in the seed of the woman the world should be blessed, he acquaints Abraham, that it should be in his seed. Now in Gen. 15. begin. God doth partly renew the same promise to him, giving him also a command to persevere( for this I am persuaded, is comprised in that inhibition, Fear not) animating him thereunto with these words ( I am thy shield and exceeding great reward,) and partly he makes certain new revelations to him, which are recorded, ver. 13, 14, 15, 16. and may be red at leisure. In Gen. 22. begin, there is recorded another revelation( besides the renewing of the former promise and the institution of circumcision as a seal thereof, chap. 17. and again the renewing thereof, chap. 18.) where God imposeth a new command upon him for the offering up his son to him as a sacrifice, upon his faithful performance whereof( for so it is interpnted Heb. 11.17.) God doth again renew his former promises, both general and special, yea with the addition of an oath for Abrahams more abundant confirmation, and consolation ver. 16, 17, 18.  
Now be it considered, that although these words ( Abraham believed in the Lord, and he imputed it to him for righteousness) are recorded onely by occasion of the second revelation in Gen. 15. nevertheless all the said revelations were the objects of Abrahams justifying faith, and by the same reason as it is said respectively to the second, it may be truly said, That respectively to them all, Abraham believed in the Lord, and he imputed it to him for righteousness. And there is the more reason thus to conclude, because that testimony of Scripture recorded as immediately referring to the second divine Revelation made to Abraham, St James doth apply to the third, saying, That upon Abrahams offering Isaac his son upon the altar the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, Chap. 2.21.22, 23.  
The premises considered, I humbly desire, that the following remarks may be duly observed, and minded.  
1. That the object of Abrahams justifying faith was not only divine promises, but also divine commands, Get thee out of thy country chap. 12.1. Fear not, i.e. be constant, fear not them, that can kill the body and after that have no more, that they can do. Gen. 15.1. Walk before me, and be upright, chap. 17.1. Take thy son, thy onely son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering— Gen. 22. beg. All these are express commands.  
2. Observe, That Abraham did not onely believe the promises, but also perform the commands of God, one command of God, as well as another, seemingly never so harsh and contrary to flesh and blood, yea although the performance of Gods command in the sacrificing of his son did seem utterly to make against the accomplishing of his promise.  
Briefly, Abraham did not onely believe, that God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, but by virtue of that his faith, himself was according to the divine command a diligent seeker of God. He did all Gods commands without murmurings, and disputings.  
3, Be it observed, that the things promised to Abraham were not onely things temporal, viz. a legitimate issue( a seed of God, or a Godly seed as is the Prophets expression, Mal. 2.15.) and this by his old wife, and the Land of Canaan to be his in present right& to be his prosterities in future possession, but things of spiritual and eternal concernment, viz. pardon of sin and everlasting salvation by Christ. This is it, which is implyed in that pro●ise of God expressed in those words to Abraham( I am thy shield and exceeding great reward, or as the Septuagint render them, as well they may, I am thy shield, and thy reward shall be exceeding great,) wherein is comprised( say the Dutch Annotations upon the place) Omnis beatitudo, quae hic incipit,& in futurâ vitâ completur, All that felicity, which is begun in this life, and perfected in that which is to come. And though it be said, that Socinus did confine the promise of God to Abraham unto matters of temporal concernment, yet Crellius, I am sure, doth not so: for in his comment on Hebrews 11.10. He yields, That Abraham hoped to have from God some life and happiness after his death, in regard he knew the great goodness of God toward his Servitors, and the great power of God, that he is able to raise even the dead, and can give his servants a blessing, or reward after their death; and he says expressly, That the promises of God made to Abraham and his seed do in the mystical sense contain this spiritual and heavenly inheritance. And in the same sense the seed of Abraham doth signify the seed of all the faithful, who follow the faith of Abraham: for both these senses are taught us by the Apostle, Rom. 4, 11, 12, 13. and Gal. 3.7. and 4.22.  
Thus that Socinian Author. He doth indeed peremptorily deny, that Abraham understood more than a temporal felicity to be comprised in those bare words of Gods promise to be his exceeding great reward, or that his reward should be exceeding great; and Ryvet also upon the place seems to be of the same opinion with him therein, and upon the same ground, viz. because of Abrahams reply to God in the words following ( Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and—) which he would not have made, say they, if he had apprehended heavenly happiness to be intimated in the words aforesaid. But for my own part, I do not perceive any cogency in the said reason alleged for their purpose: for as for the words of Abrahams reply, though they have in short the form of a Question, or Expostulation, nevertheless they seem to me to have the force of an holy complaint, and fervent supplication( I may warrantably call the complaint Holy, notwithstanding some mixture of human infirmity therein perhaps not to be denied) which may not unfitly be thus more at large paraphrased,  
Lord God, I do well understand that temporal felicity, which thou dost promise me in being my exceeding great reward, but to what great purpose is this, seeing I am like to depart the world childless? I am rich enough already in cattle, in silver and in gold( Gen. 13.2.) and how insignificant a thing would it be for thee to give me more, so long as I have no child of my own body to inherit it after me, the steward of my house this Eliezer of Damascus being in expectation to inherit my estate, when I( now a man so old) am gone? Lord God, I do well understand also that heavenly felicity intimated to me in thy promise of being my exceeding great reward, but how can this be effected and brought about, so long as I do not experience thy promise to be fulfilled in giving me a child, from whose loins the messiah is to issue, in whom myself and all the families of the earth shall be eternally blessed? Except thou hasten the performance of thy promise in giving me a child( I being already so strike in years) how shall the said promised blessedness to me and them ever come to pass? Thou, who art Jehovah Adonai, hasten O Lord God the performance of thy gracious word and free promise.  
Briefly, as the blessed Virgin having heard that message from God by the mouth of the Arch-angel concerning her bringing forth a son( the messiah) replied, saying, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? to the like sense and purpose may Abrahams reply to God be interpnted, without any imputation to Abrahams not apprehending of any more than temporal felicity to have been promised to him in those words, I am thy shield and exceeding great reward. And as upon that reply in the way of question by the blessed Virgin, the Arch-angel did immediately satisfy her saying ( The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee—) Even so upon that reply of Abraham to God question-wise, doth God( who being the searcher of hearts, did know the mind of the Spirit in those words of Abraham, Lord God, what wilt thou give me?) instantly satisfy that his aged servant, saying, This shall not be thine heir—  
But whatever be the due construction of those words ( I am thy exceeding great reward) or whatever the present construction that Abraham did make of them was, it is a thing not to be questioned, but that the things promised by God to Abraham were not onely of temporal, but also of eternal concernment: for  
1. By Abrahams seed in those words ( In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed) St. Peter doth interpret to be meant Jesus Christ, as appears by Act. 3.25. compared with ver. 26. and so also doth St. Paul( as that Text is usually expounded, Gal. 3.16.) He saith not to seeds as of many, but as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ. Thence it is, that Jesus Christ( the true Isaac) is justly as usually styled by us( {αβγδ}) the promised seed. Abraham had in the said promise a prospect of Christ, whereupon Christ says, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced Joh. 8.56.  
2. God is said by the Apostle in that promise to have preached the Gospel to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. which Gospel is of soul-concernment( for were it onely of temporal concernment, it were not worthy in a signal sense to be so called) and thence it is styled the Gospel of salvation, Eph. 1.13. and the word of salvation, Act. 13.26. and The grace of God which bringeth salvation, Tit. 2.11.  
3. That Gospel, or good news, which was in the said promise preached to Abraham, was remission of sin, or justification through faith in Christ to be enjoyed by all the kindreds of the earth, as the Apostle doth plainly interpret the matter, saying,( Gal. 3.8, 9.) And the Scripture foreseing, that God would justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed( that is, By Faith in thee, as the Apostle expounds it in the words immediately following.) so then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. And this is that blessedness, which Abraham is said to have expected, or which( as Crellius construes it) expected Abraham, and which the Apostle sets forth in that Metaphorical expression, Heb. 11.10. He looked for a City, which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.  
4. Observe, That although justification, remission of sin and everlasting salvation through faith in Christ, or his righteousness were the main part of the blessedness therein promised, nevertheless the imputation of Christs righteousness appears not at all promised unto, or expected by either him or his; and therefore was no object of the faith of Abraham, or any of his posterity. And for my own part I am persuaded, that the groundless asserting of such an imputation hath been one great occasion of hardening Socinus with his partakers against the Protestant Churches( not to mention also our adversaries of the Romish Church;) nor do I perceive any more reason, why any Protestant Preacher, or Writer should be had in suspicion as less friends to Christ, for their denying the imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense here opposed, because his enemies the Socinians do deny it, than for their maintaining Jesus Christ to be the Son, or Holy One of God, because the Devil himself did make that confession of him.  
5. Be it observed, that the promise of justification, remission of sin, and everlasting blessedness through Abrahams seed( the true messiah) to all the Nations of the Earth, was no more absolute to them, than it was to Abraham himself. The truth is, that blessedness was not absolutely promised to either, but conditionally to both: to Abraham upon his operative faith, and to all other sinners upon condition of the same specifical faith, such as Abrahams was.  
And thus doth St. Paul himself interpret that promise ( In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;) I mean, he doth interpret it to have the foresaid condition implyed therein, and therefore constructively to be a conditional promise: for which see Gal. 3. Where having mentioned that promise, verse 8. he adds, saying, ver. 9. So then, they, which be of faith, are blessed( he says not simply with Abraham, but) with FAITHFUL Abraham, intimating thereby, That faith( an operative faith, such a faith, as Abrahams was) is the condition of the promised blessedness in and through the promised seed unto all the nations of the earth. This is the faith, which doth speak a person to be like to Abraham, or doth denominate us Abrahams children, as is the Apostles language, saying ver. 7. Know ye therefore( a considerable thing indeed, and therefore to be well known, although to this day many seem to take no due knowledge of it) that they which are of faith( that is of a faith like that of Abraham) the same are the children of Abraham. The inheriting of our father Abrahams blessing( as is the Apostles expression, ver. 14. depends upon our inheriting his faith, I mean, our imitating his faith, as the condition thereof.  
6. Be it observed, that the object of Abrahams faith was not this, or the like revelation, or proposition, Thou Abraham art a person in Christ, Art actually justified, Reconciled to God, Art in his special love and favour— I say, no such proposition, or revelation was the object of his faith, except upon supposition of his faith antecedently thereunto. I put in this exception for the preventing of an objection easy to be foreseen: for may some object, saying, Doth not God in those very words ( I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward) assert Abraham to be a person justified, Reconciled, blessed with his special love and favour? and was not Abraham( fide divinâ) to believe this report, it being uttered by the mouth of God himself?  
Answ. The words in the original are defective, the Verb being wanting, and being word for word rendered, are [ I thy shield and thy exceeding great reward] and they may be supplied indifferently with a verb substantive, whether of the present tense( I am) or of the future( I will be.)  
2. If we supply them with a verb of the present tense, as we find them supplied by our English Translators, then the words must be understood upon supposition of Abrahams faith as antecedent, or of Abraham his being a true believer before this revelation, or affirmation; which we may well suppose, forasmuch as he was truly a believer before this vision, or revelation recorded in this Chapter, as hath been already proved from Gen. 12. beg.  
3. If we supply the words with a verb of the future tense, as do the Septuagint( thy reward shall be exceeding great) or I will be thy exceeding great reward, then are they to be conceived of under the notion of a promise from God to Abraham, wherein God doth promise to him the continuance of his fatherly protection, favour and benediction, he continuing not to fear, or fall back, but still to walk before him and to be faithful unto death. I grant indeed, that God may be said to be the reward of the faithful both in an active and in a passive sense, i.e. he will reward them, and he will be their reward,( he will be their rewarder, and their reward) and it may indifferently be rendered in either sense. Yet I am apt to think, that the words are constructively a promise, rather than an assertion, or affirmation, and that they are to be supplied rather with a verb of the future tense( I will be) than of the present( I am.) My reason is, not simply, because the Septuagint( as was aforesaid) do so render them ( thy reward shall be exceeding great;) but because Abraham himself did understand them under the notion of a promise, as appears by his reply thereunto, saying, Lord God, what wilt thou give me— Hereby it is manifest, that the said words of God did bided somewhat, that was coming towards him, and which God did therein promise at one time or other to bestow upon him, according to Abrahams construction thereof.  
Having thus cleared this sixth particular commended to observation, I shall now recommend it; and much the rather do I desire it to be taken into impartial consideration, because there are some, who would have this, or the like proposition( Thou art a person reconciled to God, Art one in his special love, and fatherly favour-) to be the object of justifying faith, a faith like that of Abrahams; and this is it, which some Protestant Writers do seem to maintain to have been the object of Abrahams faith, and to maintain it both against Papists, Socinians and Arminians, I shall instance only in one, the forecited eminent Author( Dr And. Ryvet in one of his exercitations upon Genesis, p. 403.) and having recited his words with my reply thereunto, I shal freely and friendly leave the judgement thereof to every intelligent, and unprejudicate Reader.  
The said Author having said, that Abraham in the promise did embrace God as a father, he adds immediately, saying, Quâ ratione nos justificat fides, nosque deo reconciliat, non suo quidem merito, said dum gratiam nobis in promissionibus divinis oblatam recipientes, certo persuasi sumus, nos amari à deo tanquam filios, i.e. After the same fashion( or manner) faith justifies us, and reconciles us to God, truly not by its own merit, but while we receiving( or embracing) the grace offered to us in the divine promises, are assuredly, or certainly, persuaded that we are beloved of God as children.  
The truth is, and we all confess it, that faith doth not justify us by its own merit, nor do Arminians or Socinians( for ought I know, or ever heard) say otherwise, but faith doth justify us, as it is the performed condition of the new covenant, or law of faith, which performance materially is such an embracing of the grace and favour of God promised and offered therein, as doth effectually incline us sincerely to do the duty, which in the said law or covenant is required in order to the enjoyment thereof; But it is not true to say with this learned, but herein mistaken Author( with too many other Brethren, specially of foreign Churches) that faith is such an embracing, or receiving of the grace of God offered in his promises, as that we are assuredly, or certainly persuaded, that we are beloved of God as children, and that this is the faith, that doth justify us and reconcile us to God, even as it did Abraham in the same manner. Is it not strange that learned men should not even of themselves discern the inconsistency of such sayings with the truth of Scripture, and right reason, yea how inconsistent they are with themselves? for how can that be said to reconcile a person to God, which doth assuredly persuade him, that he is already, or was antecedently to his believing reconciled to God and beloved of him? Is not this plainly to make a sinner reconciled to God before he be reconciled, making the persuasion of his reconciliation to God the means of his reconciliation? The scandal, that in such assertions as these by some Protestant Writers in extremes hath been given to the common Adversary, is much to be lamented.  
I shall caution the Reader against another of his mistakes in the same Lecture, p 406 Non gaudet aliquis( says he) ob justificationem, cujus se participem esse non sentit, i.e. No man rejoiceth for that justification, whereof he perceives not himself to be a partaker. This saying is far from truth: for a man may and ought to rejoice in a probability, yea a possibility of having that, which at present he hath not. And Gods conditional promises of justifying the ungodly, are just matter of joy to all sinners, and wherein they ought greatly to rejoice, although at present they are not justified, they being yet in the gull of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, or in their ungodliness.  
Having declared more at large in this Chapter what was the object of Abrahams faith, that was imputed to him for righteousness, I will in the next Chap. propose it to enquiry, what was the object of the faith of the patriarches before the flood, that was imputed to them for righteousness.   

CHAP. XXVII. Q. What was the object of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other the faithful patriarches of the old world before Abraham was? Answ. Such things as were made known to them by supernatural revelation, which things are summarily said to be Gods Existence and his Beneficence, proved by Heb. 11.6. Hereupon two Questions are proposed and answered, 1. Whether Gods Existence and Beneficence were not things of natural revelation, or made known by the light of nature? 2. Q. Whether was it made known to the said patriarches before the flood, that God[ in Christ, or for Christs sake] was, or would be the Rewarder of them who diligently seek him?  
Q. WHat was the object of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other the patriarches before the flood, that was imputed to them for righteousness?  
Answ. This Question doth suppose, that those Ancient Fathers had faith, and that their faith was imputed to them for righteousness; and this may securely be presumed to the enquiry in hand: for the Author to the Hebrews,( chap. 11. beg.) doth testify of several of them by name, that they had faith, and that thereupon they became heirs of the righteousness, which is by faith, i.e. of right, or title to life eternal: for this being expressly testified concerning one of them( Noah by name verse 7.) by the same reason we may safely conclude it to be verified concerning the rest, and so much( for ought I know) is imported in that witness, which Abel is said upon his faith to have obtained, viz. That he was righteous; for upon believing to be made righteous, and thereupon to be made, or to become an heir of the righteousness, which is by faith, I take to be phrases synonymous, and of the self-same importance. Consequently hereupon with like security of truth I may presume, that they were under a covenant of grace made to them, and indeed to all men in Adam; and that this covenant was in force to all mankind, before it was renewed to Abraham with the addition of certain great privileges peculiar to him and his natural posterity above the rest of the world upon his extraordinary and most exemplary faith; I say, the covenant of grace was in force to all mankind, before it was renewed to Abraham; for it is most evident, that Cain himself[ one of the Serpents seed] was not excepted, God saying to him, If thou do well, shalt not thou be accepted? If Cain, as Abel, had done well, he as well as his younger brother, had obtained witness, that he was righteous. These things being presupposed as things undubitable, I answer to the Question, 1. More generally, Some divine, or supernatural revelation was the object of their faith. This doth necessary follow from the premises, That if those patriarches had faith, then some supernatural revelation was the object of it: for this is the difference betwixt faith and knowledge, or betwixt that kind of assent, which is called Assensus fidei, and Assensus scientificus, the assent of faith and knowledge, that being a supernatural assent, or an assent to some truth made known by divine witness, or supernatural revelation, but this being a natural assent to such truths as are made known, or revealed to us by the light of nature. Onely it concerns us rightly to understand the reason of the said expressions, why the said object of faith is said to be certain truths testified by supernatural revelation; the reason whereof is not, because it is always so ex parte rei, i.e. because we cannot be said to believe any truth made known unto us by natural demonstration, but the said assent is called supernatural ex parte medii, because the ground, reason, or motive thereof is evermore divine testimony, the witness of God, or supernatural revelation; so that although faith and knowledge may, and do frequently agree ex parte rei cognita, i.e. Although they may and often have the same material object, or objective matter, to which we do yield our assent, nevertheless they do always differ ex parte modi, ceu medii, i.e. in the ground or motive of that assent, natural demonstration being the ground of the one, and supernatural revelation or divine witness being always the ground of the other.  
2. I answer more particularly, The Existence and Beneficence of God were the objects of the faith of those patriarches; as is most evident by what the Author to the Hebrews asserts in the sixth verse of that Chapter, saying ( For without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God, must believe, that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him.) In those words are considerable the subject and the object of saving faith,  
1. The Subject of this faith is one, that comes to God, every one who comes to God. Now to come to God is for sinful man to turn to him, to seek and serve, and please God. This coming( as the Apostle there gives us to understand) always presupposeth faith, and follows it as an effect upon its cause, faith being the principle, or master-wheel of this divine motion, styled Coming to God.  
2. Observe there the object, or objects of saving faith, viz. 1. The Existence of God. God is. As God himself is Prima veritas incomplexa, the first simplo truth, so( God is) prima veritas complexa, the first categorical, or affirmative proposition. As Gods being, or Existence is first and before all other things and Existences, so that God is, or doth exist, must needs be the first truth, and first to be believed in order to our coming to him: for if a man believes not, that God is, or that there is a God, he can never come to him.  
2. The other object of their faith is said to be Gods Munificence, in his being a Rewarder of them, that do diligently seek him, or seek him out( as the word signifies) that is, who do seek him in good earnest, seriously, thoroughly and constantly. This rewarding of them who are diligent seekers of God, doth comprise his accepting their persons, his pardoning their sins, and finally his bestowing upon them life everlasting. Now as the belief of a God is the first ground of all religious service, and first therefore to be believed, so the belief of Gods being a Rewarder of piety, is a second, and therefore in the second place is to be believed; for if sinners believe, that there is a God, and yet are not persuaded, that he will reward them, who diligently seek him, they will have little, or no heart to his service, their religion will be very could, or rather none at all. Thence that of the Psalmist( 130.4.) There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayst be feared. We use to say, that the end is the principle of motion in morals. It is the belief of the final reward of blessedness, which is a prime principle of this moral motion, i.e. of diligent seeking of God. As our Saviour says concerning those two great commandments of the law( the love of God and our Neighbour Mat. 22.34, 40.) they are like one another, and on them two do hang all the law and the Prophets, in like sort may it truly be said concerning those two objects of faith( Gods Existence and Beneficence) they are of a like necessity to be believed in order to salvation, and upon the belief of them hangs all the worship and service of the true, and living God. It being apparent by the premises, that the Existence and Beneficence of God were the objects of the patriarches faith, witnessed, or made known unto them by supernatural revelation. I shall think it expedient thereupon to propose two useful Questions,  
1. Whether Gods existence and beneficence were not known to them by natural demonstrations, or were not revealed to them by the light of nature? to which I answer affirmatively, I doubt not, but that they were some way made known to them, and indeed so they were also some way made known to the Heathen world: for the Heathen by the light of nature knew, That God is, whom their Philosophers styled {αβγδ}, the first being, and {αβγδ}, a certain cause and beginning of all things. And the Apostle puts the matter out of doubt, affirming of the Heathen and of the book of nature, That that which may be known of God, was manifest to them, God having shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, and verse 20. he says, that they knew God although they did not glorify him as God. That the Heathen did not onely know God, but moreover that they in some sort knew him to be a Remunerator of them, that diligently seek him, and that they knew this so far forth at least as to leave them {αβγδ}, without excuse, seems to be evident, from that Scripture; nor can I perceive, how any sinner should be left of God altogether without excuse, if God had not, by one means or other, revealed unto him both his Existence and Beneficence, both that he is and is a rewarder of them, who diligently seek him. It is true indeed, that God( in Christ, or for Christs sake) will reward them, who diligently seek him, is not a thing discoverable by the light of nature, nor can it be known without supernatural revelation, and whether God did thus far forth make it known to the patriarches, is a Question, which before the close of this Chapter I will propose and make answer to. In the mean while let it be observed, that these two Articles( That God is and that he is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him) were Articles, or objects both of the knowledge and faith of the patriarches, they were things to which they did yield a twofold kind of assent, that which in the Schools is called Assensus scientificus, or Scientiae, and Assensus fidei, God having made these things known unto them both by natural and supernatural revelation. Briefly, These were Articles, both known and believed; yea as for the first Article touching the Existence of God, it is true to say, It is in order of nature first to be known, and afterwards to be believed. That faith and knowledge may have one and the same material object hath been already said and manifested, though the assent of the one and the other being of different kinds their formal objects do always differ; by their formal objects I mean, the formal motive, medium, or ground, upon which our assent is founded, the one being founded upon natural demonstration and the other upon supernatural revelation or divine testimony.  
Q. Was it made known to the patriarches before the flood, by supernatural revelation, that God in Christ, or for Christs sake is a rewarder of them, who diligently seek him, and consequently was this any object of their faith?  
Answ. I think it was: for I am persuaded, that as it is said of Abraham, That the Gospel was preached to him, Gal. 3.8. so also, that it was preached to them; and that as it was preached to him in that saying mentioned there by S. Paul( In thee shall all nations be blessed) so it was preached to them in that saying recorded concerning the seed of the woman its bruising the Serpents head; as the Gospel was preached to Abraham under the notion of His seed [ signanter,] so I am persuaded, that it was preached to those patriarches under the notion of seemen mulieris, the seed of a woman[ indefinitely.] And the grounds of this my persuasion are these two, 1. Because, as this is the most received opinion of almost all Protestant, that I may not say also, almost all Christian Writers( for ought I know and from whom I would not willingly recede without evident and cogent reason) so I never hitherto have perceived the cogency of what hath been objected to the contrary. I will not here relate what is objected against the said interpretation by the Socinian, or any other Writers, all of them being( to reasonable satisfaction as I think) answered by several Authors, one of the last whereof, that I have red some years ago, is that Elegant Latinist and very learned man Dr. Arrowsmith,( Tactica Sacra, p. 4, 5.) to whom among many others I shall refer the Reader, who scruples the matter here in Question.  
2. Christs second coming( his coming to judgement) was revealed to some of the patriarches before the flood;) and therefore it is( to speak the least) most highly probable, that his first coming( his coming in flesh) was also revealed to them by God. See judas 14, 15, wherein he affirms, That Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied saying, The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, To execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. It is not material to inquire, how this prophesy came to the cognizance of the Apostle St. judas. It may be sufficient to say, that in all probability he did receive it from common and undoubted tradition transmitted from the patriarches ( whom I am now speaking of) and so handed from generation to generation, till such time as it seemed good to the Holy Ghost by this Apostle to make it a part of caconical Scripture, even as certain other matters of ancient tradition are now made a part of Scripture by the Apostle St. Paul, such as that passage about Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. 3.8. and that about Moses his saying, I exceedingly fear and quake, Heb. 12.21. with several others, which might be name. We have heard of the prophesy of Enoch, and what any of Gods Prophets have spoken, God is said by them to have spoken ( Luke 1.70. As he spake by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began, saith Zachary in his Benedictus;) and that it was the Lord Christ( though not as altogether excluding the Father and the Holy Ghost) of whose coming to judgement Enoch did prophesy, is that, which is beyond all question and not in the least doubted of by any Christian, he who is here styled The Lord, being elsewhere, where his coming to judgement is spoken of, called the Son of man, Mat. 16.27. and the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, Tit. 2.13.  
I shall submit these things to consideration, omitting( for brevity sake) to speak concerning the patriarches offering sacrifices to God, their bloody sacrifices being( as is generally conceived, and as I still do think) typical Gospel instituted by God to typify the bloodshed of the messiah.  
To conclude this Chapter, from what hath been said concerning the object of the faith of the patriarches before the flood expressed in those words of the Author to the Hebrews chap. 11.6. I shall commend this to observation, viz. That the object of their faith was not onely blessedness promised, and expected, but also duty commanded, it being in those words plainly implyed, that they did believe the diligent seeking of God to be a duty incumbent upon every sinner in order to their being made blessed by God as Remunerator of all those, who do faithfully serve him.  
I shall now proceed to another Question, wherein we all under the New Testament are more nearly concerned, and therefore have the greater need to be rightly and duly informed.   

CHAP. XXVIII. Q. What is the object of that Christian faith, which in the New Testament is promised by God to be imputed to sinners for righteousness? Answ. Two remarkable differences in the object of their, and our Christian faith specified, the one styled Modal, the other Material, the object of our Christian faith being of larger extent, than that of the said patriarches. A refutation of those who do assert ens incomplexum, i.e. the person of Christ to be the adequate object of justifying faith as justifying, as also of those, who will not extend the object of justifying faith[ as justifying] so far as to whole Christ in person, i.e. to Christ as considered in all his Offices, but do restrain it to the formal consideration of him onely as a Priest. Three causes of this mistake in a late learned latin Author. The suffrage of that most judicious and impartial Author Le-Banch one of the very learned Professors of Divinity in Sedan.  
Q WHat is the object of that Christian faith, which in the New Testament is promised by God to be imputed to sinners for righteousness?  
Ans. The whole word of God is the adequate object of faith: and as the word of God, for so much as was in former ages made known to the patriarches before the flood& unto Abraham in his days, was the object of their faith, so is the same word of God together with such other revelations as God hath since those times made known unto us, the object of ours, 1 Tim. 1.15. But the more especial object of our Christian faith is the Gospel of Christ incarnate, this was the special object of that faith, which John the Baptist preached, saying, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel, Mar. 1.15. and which our Saviour gave in commission to his Apostles after his resurrection to be preached to all the world, saying, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. He that believeth, shall be saved( Mark 16.15, 16.) Believeth what? Answ. Believeth that Gospel, which was in his name to be preached to every creature.  
By this Gospel life and immortality is said to be brought into light, 2 Tim. 1.10. that is, into much more, and clearer light than by that, which was preached to Abraham and the patriarches before the flood. This Gospel to be preached to all the world, reveals to us the accomplishment of the prophesies and promises of the old Testament concerning our Saviours incarnation, death, resurrection— Hereby two remarkable differences appear to be betwixt our Christian faith and the faith of Abraham with the patriarches before the flood, e. g. 1. The object of their faith was the word of God unwritten; for it appears not, that any part of Gods word was in their days committed to writing, nor till the days of Moses, which was certain hundred years after Abrahams time, as appears by Gen. 15.13, 14. But the object of our faith is the written word of God, it having since those days been committed to writing, styled The Scripture. Whence that saying of our Saviour to the Jews, Joh. 5, 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think, ye have eternal life, and they are they, which testify of me: And that of St John the Evangelist, saying, Joh. 20. ult. These things are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name. This difference ex parte objecti, respectively to the object, is onely Modal, the next following is Material.  
2. The object of their faith was of narrower extent, than that of ours. As the object of Abrahams faith was of larger extent, than that of the patriarches( for Abraham was to believe, that in his seed all nations should be blessed, which is more than to believe simply, or indefinitely, that it should be through the seed of a woman) so the object of our Christian faith is of larger compass, than was that of Abrahams: for besides the Scriptures of the Old Testament written by Moses, and the Prophets, the Scriptures of the New Testament are the objects of that faith, which is, or is to be imputed to believing Christians for righteousness, there being therein new Articles of faith added to the old, upon the belief whereof the salvation of sinners doth depend. It is not enough now to believe, that God is gracious and merciful and will not turn his face from us, if we turn to him, but we must believe also, that Jesus Christ( the son of the blessed Virgin) is the true messiah, is He, by, and through whom we must turn to God, and for whose sake God in mercy will turn to us, according to that of our Saviour, If ye believe not, that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, Joh. 8.24. It is not enough for a sinner now to believe, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him, but he must believe also, that the said Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, if he will have life through his name. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus( says St. Paul Rom. 10.9.) and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And Rom. 4.24. he concludes what he had at large in that Chapter spoken concerning Abrahams operative faith, saying, That as Abrahams obediential faith was imputed to him for righteousness, so it was recorded for our sakes, to whom the like obediential faith shall be imputed, if we believe the additional Articles of the Christian faith, whereof he makes instance in a prime one, viz. The resurrection of Christ, which Article as it supposeth his death, or delivery for our offences, so upon it the belief of other Articles of the Christian faith doth depend; If we believe( says he Rom. 4.24.) on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.  
As for the object of saving faith, as also the acts, or actings of faith conversant thereabout( which will be spoken of in the next Chapter) I shall commend to observation the words of the late Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster in the Confession of their faith, they saying Chap. 14. By this saving faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word for the authority of God himself speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that, which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and for that, which is to come.  
Be it observed, That those Reverend Divines do make the whole word of God to be the object of saving faith, not onely promises, but commands and threatenings also, the threatenings of the word being a part of that Gospel, which was commanded by Christ to be preached to every creature, as was proved in the foregoing Chapter from those words of his to his Apostles, Mark 16.15, 16. The premises considered, it seems to me, that those Authors are mistaken, who do assert the person of Christ to be the adequate object of our Christian faith, as it justifies. This is the assertion of that learned Author and great Schoolman Doctor Ames in his Med. Theol. lib. 1. chap. 27. th. 17. Christus est adaequatum objectum fidei, quatenus fides justificat. Christ, says he, is the adequate object of faith as it justifies; Which he therefore doth assert to be not Ens complexum[ Not this, or that axiom, or proposition] but Ens incomplexum, the person of Christ, or Christ in person. Whereas the truth to my seeming is this, viz. That as Ens complexum( God is, and is a Rewarder of them, who diligently seek him) was the object of the faith of the patriarches, as justifying, and as those revelations, which God made to Abraham( consisting as aforesaid in commands and promises) were the objects of his justifying faith, as justifying, so it is Ens complexum, the Gospel of Christ, or the promise of salvation to sinners upon their sincere believing in Christ as crucified, dead, risen again and ascended, that is the object of justifying faith, as justifying. As this seems to be apparent by what hath been already said in this Chapter, so it may further appear by what will be said in the next concerning those actings of faith, that are made of God the condition of our being justified. In the mean time let it be observed, that those are mistaken, who would not have the object of justifying faith( as justifying) extended so far as to the person of Christ, i e. to whole Christ as considered in all his Offices, but do restrain it to the formal consideration of his person onely as a Priest. I remember this to have been the mistake of Mr Thomas black of Thamworth, To whom Mr Richard Baxter did make a reply( I think truly satisfactory) and which I red many years ago. And I do perceive by my late reading, that that learned Author is followed with another pious, learned, and reverend Thomas, who although he declares himself to be so far satisfied with Mr Baxters definition of justifying faith( it being, as Mr Baxter well says, A receiving of Jesus Christ in all his Offices, as Prophet, Priest and King) as not to deny, that it receives a whole Christ, nevertheless he will not yield, that Christ is the formal object of faith as justifying, being considered in all his Offices, but only as in his priestly function.  
I will relate his mind in his own words, and I will then reply thereunto.  
Christus, says that Reverend and learned Author, est objectum justificationis ut quod, sieve materiale; ut servator tantum formale, sieve ut Quo, i.e. etsi idem Christus sit Dominus,& sacerdos, totusque in justificatione recipiatur, Totus tamen omni sensu, i.e. omnium promiscuè munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter non requiritur, said tantum qua sacerdos,& legi satisfaciens, i.e. Christ is the material object of justification, the formal onely as Saviour, i.e. although the same Christ be both Lord, and Priest, and whole Christ be received in justification, yet the intuition, or consideration of him as such respectively to all his Offices is not required formally to justification, but onely as a Priest and satisfying the law. The reason hereof( says he page. 113.) is, because to be justified is nothing else, but to be freed from the curse of the law, and how are we so freed, but by the satisfaction of Christ? and how did Christ satisfy for us, but as that great Priest and Sacrifice, who died for us? as a Prophet he teaches, as he a King he commands, as a Priest onely he reconciles us to God.  
To these forecited words I reply, 1. It is strange to me, that such an acute Disputant and learned Schoolman as this Reverend Author, 
Memorandum, that these reflections upon this Reverend and learned Author were written before his death, and before Mr Baxters reply to him came forth in Print.  should affirm Jesus Christ to be in any sense the object of justification whether the material or formal: for it is with me an undoubted truth, that it is not Christ under any consideration, who is any kind of object of justification, but it is the sinner himself, who is the material object of justification, and it is the same sinner as Penitent, or believing in Christ, who is the formal object thereof. Christ indeed is most truly and fitly said to be the meritorious efficient cause, which doth procure a sinners justification, and his bloodshed as Priest, or sacrifice may be truly and aptly said to be the thing, whereby he did meritoriously procure the same: But it is neither fitly nor truly said of Christ under any consideration, that he is the object of justification, whether ut Quod, or ut Quo, material, or formal.  
Object. The said Author by Objectum justificationis doth not mean the object of justification, but Objectum fidei justificantis, the object of justifying faith as it justifies?  
Answ. 1. If this was his meaning, it was his oversight, and he did not well not to speak as he meant.  
2. Whatever his meaning was, it is intolerably said, That Christ is the object of our justification, or of any ones justification, but his own, or that of his own person, himself being said in Scripture[ in a peculiar sense] to be justified.  
3. I am verily persuaded, that this Author according as is here pretended in the objection, by objectum justificationis did not mean the object of justification, but of justifying faith, and I doubt not, but that( the occasion of his words being duly considered) this ought to be his meaning, it being Lapsus pennae, not error mentis. And because I conceive this to be his true meaning, I have therefore thought meet in the handling of the present Question, to take the said passage into consideration; and thereupon to his supposed true intent and meaning therein, I shall now reply, that it will not follow, that because Christ did merit our justification formally onely as a Priest, we are therefore Intueri, to behold, consider, or receive him onely as such in order to our actual justification; for it is evident, that God in his Gospel, or law of grace doth to this end require of sinners not onely the intuition, but also the acceptation of Jesus Christ in all his offices, both as Lord and Saviour.  
The main grounds of this Authors mistake in this matter seem to be such as these,  
1. That he doth not mind to distinguish betwixt justification barely as merited and as actually conferred: For though it be granted, that Christ hath merited our justification formally as a Priest, yet he doth not confer it precisely, or onely as such, but as Lord, and Legislator, and this also he doth upon such terms as in his law of grace( the instrument of conveyance) he hath constituted in order to the collation or enjoyment thereof.  
2. In that he doth not duly consider, that it is not Christs satisfaction alone, that doth actually entitle sinners to pardon of sin, or justification: for if the expiation of sin( the thing indeed, which hath been done on Christs part) were the onely requisite to the actual pardoning thereof, it would follow from thence, that all and every sinner had a title to pardon, or that all sinners were ipso facto actually thereby pardonned, and that no sinner is thereby entitled to pardon of sin more than another, forasmuch as Christ by the sacrifice of himself was a ransom for all, even a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.  
3. In that he doth not mind to distinguish betwixt two sorts of benefits, which sinne●s do enjoy by Christ, some whereof are by, or from Christ as Absolutely considered, and some from him onely as received, or accepted of by faith, e. g. Some benefit sinners do enjoy by Christ as absolutely considered, i.e. as considered barely upon account of what himself hath done as a Priest in offering himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and the benefit, which all sinners do hereupon immediately enjoy is a general Act of Oblivion, or a conditional grant of pardon for all their sins. This benefit they do enjoy antecedently to their faith, yea whether ever they believe it, or no. But some benefit( e. g. actual pardon, justification, and reconciliation with God) sinners do not enjoy by Christ barely as so considered, but as received or accepted by faith( for these benefits a sinner doth not enjoy antecedently to, but consequently upon his sincere believing) accepted I mean in all his Offices, both as Lord and Saviour, as our Redeemer and our Ruler. Nothing seems to me more apparent by the Scriptures, than that a sinners actual pardon doth depend upon his acceptance of whole Christ i.e. in one Office as well as in another. See for this purpose, Act. 3.23. where excision is threatened to every soul, that will not hear Christ as the great Prophet of his Church; and Luke 19.27. where sinners are doomed to destruction for rejecting Christ in his kingly function, or because they will not suffer him as their rightful Lord and Redeemer to rule over them.  
Hitherunto I have expressed my dissent or dissatisfaction as to the forecited words of this Reverend Author; nevertheless there are two things in them, wherein I am better satisfied.  
1. In that he doth plainly insinuate the justification of a sinner to be in effect the same thing with his reconciliation to God.  
2. In that he doth expressly assert a sinners justification to be his freedom from the curse of the Law. And I do thereupon crave leave hearty to commend them, specially the last of these true sayings to the remembrance of himself and all my dissenting Brethren: for I do humbly conceive, that a due recognition thereof is enough to cause them to dissent from that Author in his Justificatio Paulina, the design of which is to prove, That God requires no other Evangelical grace, but onely faith in order to the justification of a sinner: for what is more manifest by the current of Scripture, than that Repentance towards God, as well as faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is required of sinners, that they may be delivered from the wrath of God and from the curse of the law? They, who will aclowledge( as all ought to do) that it is a sinners duty to repent of his sins, that he may be delivered from the wrath of God and from the curse of the law, and do withall aclowledge, that to be justified is to be delivered from that curse, cannot without extreme forgetfulness, and self contradiction deny, that it is the duty of sinners to repent of their sins, that they may be justified from them, and consequently, that it is not by faith alone in way of contradistinction from, or in opposition unto all other Evangelical graces, or duties that sinners are justified, but by faith taken in a large, or comprehensive sense as including them.  
I think it not amiss in the close of this Chapter to inform the Reader, that since the writing thereof the Theological Theses of that most impartial and judicious Author [ Ludovicus Le Blanc Professor of Divinity in Sedan] came to my hands, wherein having red his Lecture concerning the nature and essence of justifying faith, I am confirmed in the truth of what I have said in this Chapter concerning the object of justifying faith, and for that cause I shall transcribe the following passage in his said Lecture( Chap. 91.) wherein having denied the promises of the Gospel to be the sole object of justifying faith as justifying, and having asserted( most truly) that faith justifies us, as it is the condition of the new covenant, he adds,  
Fides autem illa— But that faith, which the Gospel requires as the condition, under which it offers salvation to us, doth not onely respect the promises of the Gospel, but also the precepts and doctrines thereof, such as that concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, as is manifest by those words of St. Paul, Rom. 10.9. And therefore that faith, which is the condition upon which God for Christs sake absolves us from our sins and accounts us as righteous( pro justis habet) is not onely that act of the mind and will, wherewith we embrace the promises of grace, but that whereby we assent to the mysteries of the Gospel as true. And therefore we approve not those, who seem to restrain the object of faith as justifying to the promise of grace, although this promise be the chief object.  
I shall conclude this Chapter by minding the Reader, that those Authors, who do confine the object of justifying faith as justifying to the promises of salvation by Christ,( however many of them seem not to intend, but rather to gainsay it) must, whether they will or no, extend it to the precepts of the Gospel: for all the promises of justification, remission of sin, and salvation by Christ are conditional, i.e. they are made upon condition of our obedience to the precepts of Christ, styled obedience to the Gospel, this obedience being styled obedience sometimes to the Gospel of God, 1 Pet 4.17. and sometimes to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thes. 1.8. and sometimes the obedience of faith, Rom. 16.26.   

CHAP. XXIX. Q. Is it onely one act, or one kind of acts of faith, or else various acts thereof, and of divers kinds, respectively whereunto it is said, That Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousness? Ans. The most noted distinction of two kinds of the acts of faith, styled elicit and Imperate, being premised, exemplified and explained, the Question itself is perspicuously answered; and this in way of dissent from those Brethren, who instruct sinners to believe, that they are to be justified onely by one act of faith, which act various Authors do use to express by various phrases, some whereof are indeed Scriptural expressions, and some of their own invention. Certain of these Authors are instanced in, and their words being recited, a reply is made thereunto, together with a passage in the larger Catechism of the late Assembly of Divines.  
FOrasmuch as it hath been made apparent, that faith not as figuratively taken, i.e. for the object of faith[ Christs righteousness,] but in proper construction for faith itself is imputed to sinners for righteousness, and forasmuch as the whole word of God, specially the Gospel of Christ styled the word of faith, Rom. 10.9. hath been declared to be the object of faith, the next& last Question shall be concerning the act, or acts of faith, that is, or are imputed to believers for righteousness.  
Q. Is it onely one act of faith, or certain acts of faith onely of one kind, or else various acts of faith, and of various kinds, respectively whereunto it is said, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him, and that ours shall be imputed to us for righteousness?  
Answ. This Question doth suppose, or take it for granted( as the very truth is) that there are divers acts of faith, yea acts of a divers kind, and specificated from the divers objects thereof. The most notable distinction of the acts of faith in the usual terms of the School, is into Acts elicit,& Imperate, i.e. Immediate, and Mediate, i.e. such as are immediately exerted by the habit of faith in the soul, and from thence bubbling( as I may so say) as water from the fountain, or else such as faith dictates to be done through the intervention of other graces, or actings of them.  
An act of Faith of the former kind styled elicit, is an assenting to the truth of what God says, a believing, that such, and such things are promised, or commanded by God, are( to speak in the language of Scripture, 1 Pet. 4.11. and Rom. 3.2.) {αβγδ}, the Oracles of God.  
An act, or acting of Faith of the latter kind styled Imperate, is by virtue of the former act to do the thing, or things by God commanded, so as that we may enjoy the good by him promised, e. g. An assenting to this truth, or truths, That God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, is an elicit act of Faith, and our diligent seeking of God thereupon Is an imperated act of Faith; or rather( to speak the full truth, it is a complication of many imperated acts: for such a constellation, or complication of duty doth the phrase( seeking of God) import both in that Scripture, and in many other texts, it imports, I say, many acts of the soul, yea of the whole man. If the matter be not by this instance made sufficiently obvious to common understanding, I will endeavour to make it more plain( if possible) so that the most illiterate person may perceive the meaning, and this I will attempt by the most familiar instance, that at present I can think upon, e. g. To assent to the truth of this revelation in Gods word( That he, who hideth his sins, shall not prosper, but whosoever confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy) is an elicit, or an immediate act of Faith, and so is our trusting to, or fiducial recumbency upon God, and his faithfulness, that so it shall be both with the one, and with the other; but by virtue of this, or these acts of Faith to discover, confess and forsake our sins, are imperated, or mediate acts of Faith. Now the Question is, Whether God doth impute to us the former onely, or those and the later also for righteousness? To which I do now make answer roundly, and plainly, that both the said kinds of acts of Faith are imputed by God unto sinners for righteousness.  
The truth of this answer is apparent by what hath been already said two ways, 1. In declaring by the most familiar instances, what are the several acts of Faith( styled elicit and Imperate, Mediate and Immediate) for is it rational, or is it not rather most absurd, and senseless to imagine, that God should impute to us for righteousness our bare crediting, or believing barely, that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, or that such shall have mercy, and not at all impute to us for righteousness the things, or duties, which by virtue of that Faith we do, i.e. our actual seeking of God, our not hiding, but confessing, and forsaking our sins? Yea, if comparison were fit to be made, is it not more agreeable to common reason and plain Scripture to imagine the imputation of the latter kind of the acts of Faith to us for righteousness rather than the former? If one of them must be excluded, which in reason do we think should, or ought to be exempted from the privilege, or promise of the said imputation? But we need not to answer, or propose any such Question, it being enough to say, That Scripture excludes neither, but includes both in the word[ Faith] in all such Texts, where it is said to be by God imputed to us for, or to righteousness.  
2. The truth of the said answer hath been already made evident in what hath been said concerning the object of Abrahams Faith, that was imputed to him for righteousness, and of our Christian faith, which shall to the same purpose be imputed to us. The object of both, as hath been manifested, are not onely divine promises, but also divine commands, a practical Faith of which commands by virtue of Faith in the promises was that thing, which was imputed to Abraham, and which shall be imputed to us for righteousness.  
I desire, that the answer to this Question may be observed as matter of my professed dissent from those mistaken Brethren, who have in their Sermons, or Writings divulged the contrary doctrine, teaching people to believe, that a sinner is levied by one act, or one onely kind of acts of Faith, those styled elicit, which by various Preachers and Authors, are in various words expressed, viz. A leaning upon Christ, rolling ourselves upon him, laying down ●ur sins at his across, or upon his shoulders, taking from him his righteousness, an apprehending, or laying hold upon Christ, a recumbency of the soul upon him, an embracing of his righteousness, an accepting his righteousness alone and nothing else for our justification, a renouncing of all our own personal righteousness in order to our justification in the sight of God, a cleaving to his merits alone, and resting upon nothing else for salvation, an hiding of ourselves in his wounds, as Doves in the clefts of the rocks, an applying of Christ and his righteousness to ourselves— Which last phrase( the application of Christs righteousness to ourselves) being an expression full of ambiguity( some Writers understanding one thing by it, 
Of this ambiguity see Lt Blanc in his Theological Theses page. 207. th. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78.  and some another.) I am truly sorry as well for that, as for other reasons, that it ever came into the description of justifying faith as justifying, it being a phrase more fit( as I ever did and still do think, submissively be it said) to amuse, perplex and entangle poor Christian●, than to edify them in the nature of saving faith, as saving.  
As for the refutation of the said mistaken Brethren, besides what hath been already said, I desire the Reader to consider what is written by two Apostles, S. Paul and S James. 1. That of S. Paul, Rom. 4.20, 21. wherein commending Abrahams faith, he says, He staggered not at the promise of God, being fully persuaded, that what he had promised he was able to perform. Was not this in Ab●aham a distinct act of faith from the accepting of Christs righteous●ess to justify him, or a recumbing upon it alone for that purpose? And yet doth the Apostle immedi●tely say upon Abrahams thu● a●ting faith( ver. 22.) And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.  
Again, it is considerable what he says in ver. 24. It was written for us, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Is the belief of Christs resurrection from the dead no distinct act of Faith from lea●i●g upon Christ, accepting his righteousness— And yet doth the Apostle affirm, that faith thus acted is imputed to us for righteousness, or that thus cordially believing( which is to be understood Caeteris paribus, other necessaries corresponding, as I may not unfitly express the Apostles meaning) we believe to righteousness, Rom. 10.9, 10  
2. As it appears by the forecited words of St. Paul, so it seems no less demonstrable from that of ●t. James, chap. 2.21, 22, 23. where, 1. He asserts Abraham to have been justified by works, and he doth exemplify the matter by one eminent work, or Imperated act of his faith, viz. the offering of his son Isaac upon the altar.  
2. He bids us take notice of it, saying, Seest thou? or thou seest, How faith wrought with his works and by works was Faith made perfect, i.e. made perfectly available to its appointed end, i.e. to justify Abraham. As Abrahams Faith, so that Imperated act, or work of his Faith did cooperate( it wrought) towards the self same issue.  
3. He tells us, that thereupon the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now how can it be truly said, that the said Scripture was thereupon fulfilled, if we confine the meaning of the word( faith, or believing God, or believing in the Lord) onely to one elicit act of Faith, or to acts onely of that kind, and do not extend it to that Imperated act, or work of Faith in Abrahams offering his son upon the altar?  
I do the rather desire, that the premises may be taken into impartial consideration, because they are subservient to rectify what we red to the contrary in several Authors, among whom I shall instance in some, and having recited their words, I will shape a reply thereunto.  
In the first place I will recite a passage of Dr. Ames in his Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th. 17. Wherein having justly rejected a bare general assent to the truth of Gods word as not justifying Faith( th. 16.) he adds, saying,( th. 17) Fides illa proprie dicitur justificans, qua— That Faith is properly said to be justifying, whereby we do rest on Christ for the pardon of our sins and salvation: for Christ is the adequate object of faith( Quatenus) as it justifies: faith also doth not justify( aliâ ratione) for any other reason, or upon any other account, but as it apprehends that righteousness, for which we are justified; and that righteousness doth not consist in the truth of any proposition, to which we do assent, but onely in Christ, who was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21.  
But the truth is, 1. Although Jesus Christ be a chief object, yet he is not the sole, or adequate object of justifying Faith as it justifies, as hath been already manifested in the foregoing Chapter. Christ indeed is but the mediate, not the ultimate, and therefore not the adequate object of our faith as justifying; for as it is God, who justifies, so it is through Christ, that sinners are to believe in God, according to that description, which St. Peter gives of those believers, to whom he directs his Epistle, saying, Christ was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet 1.20, 25.  
2. Although a sinner by faith doth apprehended the righteousness of Christ, i.e. doth believe Christs righteousness to be the meritorious cause of pardon of sin, and doth rest, or lean upon it as such, nevertheless that Faith doth not justify him Illâ ratione, as it is such a leaning, or apprehension: for it is not this or that act of faith that justifies us, but all of both kinds as well elicit as Imperate that are in the covenant of grace promised by God to be imputed to us for righteousness, or as they are therein constituted by God the condition of our justification, and accordingly performed.  
2. God in his Gospel of Grace hath not constituted the said apprehension of Christs righteousness, or leaning upon it, or him for pardon the sole condition of a sinners justification, or of their being made the righteousness of God in him, but it is such a belief of Gods word, specially of the conditional promises of salvation through Christ, as doth effectually induce sinners to perform the conditions thereof, i.e. to repent and convert from their sins, and in so doing absolutely to rest, or lean upon Christ for pardon and salvation.  
3. Upon the same reason as this learned Author doth reject a bare general assent to the truth of Gods word from being that faith, whereby we are justified; he ought to have rejected the apprehension of Christs righteousness, and a sinners recumbency thereon from being that faith, whereby they are justified: for as that general assent, so this apprehension of Christs righteousness, or recumbency upon Christ may be in men continuing wicked, as is most manifest by the Scriptures, and by sad experience. Those, whose neck was as an iron sinew, and the●r brow as brass, did notwithstanding stay themselves upon the God of Israel, and lean upon the Lord, saying, None evil can come upon us, as the Prophets Isaiah( ch. 48.2, 4.) and Micah( ch. 3.11.) have testified; and the l●ke is witnessed by our Saviour concerning those, who persisting to be workers of iniquity, will nevertheless lean upon him for salvation, Mat. 7.12, 13. Hence it appears,  
1. That it is not true to say, that a bare apprehension of Christs righteousness, or a leaning upon Christ will justify sinners, or is justifying Faith, or is that faith, which in the Gospel of Christ is made the condition of their justification.  
2. That it is much less true to say with that forenamed Author, that faith doth illâ ratione, therefore justify sinners, as it doth so apprehended, and lean upon Christ and his righteousness.  
I have the rather thought meet to reply to that passage in this Author, because I guess, that by his means( he being a person so famed for piety and School-divinity) divers have been lead into the same, or the like mistakes, among whom I shall instance in two particular persons, by name Dr. Grew and Mr. Thomas shepherd of New England. As for Dr. Grew, in his Sermons upon Jeremy, ch. 23.6.( p. 147, 148.) he asserts, That the act of faith, which justifies us, is an act of recumbence and reliance upon Christ as he is made sin for us and righteousness to us, and thus offered in Scripture to our faith— This and this onely act of faith justifies us— and 149. Thus we see( says he) the Gospel hath brought the justifying act of faith into a little room and within compass. And p. 152, 153. All( says he) even the best of all in man, or which is done by a man, is hereby excluded from his justification, yea every act of faith besides this of recumbence on Christ for righteousness is excluded—  
I need not say much more for the refutation of these most dangerous mistakes, than hath been already said. I shall onely add, That the Doctor doth palpably and shamefully pervert the Gospel of Christ in asserting, that it hath brought the justifying act of Faith into a little room: for it is he himself, who by the hammering of his own brain, or working fancy, not the Gospel of Christ, that hath so reduced it; for the Gospel of Christ makes justifying Faith to be of the same latitude, as obeying Christ, or obedience to his Gospel, these phrases being in the Gospel of promiscuous use, as any one, who will make use of his eyes, may see, and wherein also is plainly to be seen, that Jesus Christ is offered to our Faith, not onely as he was made sin for us, or as our great High-priest, who by his once offering of himself hath expiated our sins, but also as our Teacher, Master, Leader and Ruler, and that our acceptation of him as thus both offered for us and to us is the condition of our being actually justified.  
Yet this Anti evangelical Author proceeds to say further, p. 182. Its a dangerous thing to set up our own righteousness, and graces, and duties and works as a qualification for our faith in Christ; this is but clarified poison. As God hangs the earth upon nothing, Job 26.7. So must we the righteousness of Christ upon our own nothingness—  
Such sayings as these by this Doctor, with many other the like, I do judge to be a great scandal to the protestant Churches, and to Christian Religion, they being more gross and shameful, than( to my present remembrance) I have red in any Author, except in those, who are most notorious for Antinomian Doctrine, such as Saltmarsh, Paul Hobson with their Peers. But blessed be God, that( so f●r as I know) I am able to say, that all the protestant Churches do( even as the Gospel of Christ itself doth) make operativeness to be a Qualification for s●ving faith in Christ; whence it is, th●t they do usually style justifying faith a lively faith, an effectual Faith( this being the language of Scripture) an obediential, or working faith( in opposition to that Faith, which St. James styles a dead Faith) without which qualification they do professedly teach, that the righteousness of Christ will not justify us, nor any Faith in his righteousness. Nor ought sinners to hang their hopes of Christs righteousness, i.e. of their partaking in the saving benefi●s of Christs righteousness upon any Faith, but a Faith so qualified, i.e. a penitential, obediential, lively, effectual, working Faith;& he, that hangs his hope upon any other, doth indeed hang it upon nothing, that will profit him in the day of wrath. So that to instruct sinners to hang the righteousness of Christ( he means, I presume, their hopes of righteousness by Christ) upon their own nothingness, is indeed to tender to them a sweet and gilded poison, which yet because of its sweetness to the taste, and speciousness to the eye is not a jot the less, but much the more dangerous, I mean, in its being apt to be swallowed, and in its being absolutely mortal by being digested.  
The next Author I shall name is Mr. Thomas shepherd( a man of great name in New England) who in his Sincere Convert, page. 151. says, That by the first act of Faith a man glorifies God by obeying all the law at an instant in Christ: that is, as he apparently means, upon this first act of Faith a man so entitles himself to Christs perfect obedience, as that by virtue of that, he obeys all the law at an instant; but this is notoriously false to say, That Believers do by any act of their Faith( first, second, or third, yea from first to last) obey all the law, or any p●rt of the law in, or by Christ, in the sense here intended by this Author with many other Brethren, as hath been already demonstrated in the first part of this Discourse concerning imputed Righteousness, to which I shall now add, That although Jesus Christ did obey all that law, which God gave him in the person of a Mediator to do, nevertheless it is false to say, That believers do obey that law, or any part of that law in Christ( whether in an instant, or in tract of time:) for although Christ did many things, which we sinners are bound to do by the law of God, yet he did them not by virtue of that obligation, that bound us to do them, but by force of an obligation peculiar to himself, i.e. of his fathers command, and of his own voluntary consent, or undertaking: So that the law which he obeied, or fulfilled, was peculiar altogether to himself, as to the formal obligation, although there were some things as to the matter of it, which we by Gods law imposed upon us are bound to do; I say some things: for as we are not bound by the law imposed upon us to do all, that Christ did, so neither was he bound by the law imposed upon him to do all, that we are bound to do; although the expression here of this Author doth imply, that he was; this also being it, which is frequently asserted by Dr. own, and by several other Brethren, the falsehood whereof is of easy discovery, for if Christ did obey, or was obliged to obey all the law, which we are bound to obey, then was he obliged to repent and convert from sin, and to believe in himself for remission of sin: Whereupon Saltmarsh and other his Complices will be found to have been true witnesses of Christ in their dogmatizings concerning him, That he repented for us, converted for us and believed for us, these being duties imposed upon us by the law of God, and which we are to obey. There are many other erroneous and dangerous passages in this Authors book styled ( The Sincere Convert) very fit to be brought to the touchstone with animadversions thereupon; but I shall forbear to lengthen this Discourse by mentioning them at this time.  
Onely forasmuch as I have since the writing of the premises received the Theological Theses of that most impartial and judicious Author Le-Blanc( the learned Professor of Divinity in Sedan) I will, to close this Chapter, transcribe out of that book several passages for the confirmation of what I have said in way of resolution of both the Questions which are the subject of this and the foregoing Chapter.  
In his Lecture, Quomodo fides justificat, his words are( p. 255, 256.) Imo, cum cum solam fidem justificare dicimus— Yea, 
Christian Reader, Observe well the words here of this Author, whereby you may perceive the true meaning, as of other Protestant Churches, so also of the Church of England, in that clause of the 11th Article, concerning the Justification of man, expressed in these words( That we are justified by faith onely, is most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.) And thus is this Article expounded in the Homilies of our Church.  when we say, that faith alone doth justify, we do not signify, that the sole act of faith precisely taken, as it is opposed to the acts of love and hope, and is distinguished from amendment, or repentance is the condition, which the new Covenant or Gospel requireth, that we may obtain the forgiveness of our sins, and for Christs sake be absolved from them. For hope of pardon and the love of God, and also sorrow for sin and a purpose of a new life, and in one word, all the acts requisite to true and serious conversion, are also a certain thing necessary and altogether prae-required, that a man may be received into the favour of God, and may from thenceforth be by him had for a justified person, Yea, that lively faith, and working by love, which we do affirm alone to justify, doth include and involve all those things. And as the Scripture doth frequently assert, that we have remission of sin through faith: so no less frequently and expressly doth it teach, that repentance and the whole conversion of a sinner to God, is the condition, without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained from God, and which is prae-required thereunto no less than faith, although it doth not effect, nor merit it, Prov. 28.13. Act. 2.38. and 3.14. But when the Scripture says, that a man is justified by faith and not by works, or without works, which we call being justified by faith alone, the meaning is simply this, That no man can be justified by performing the works, which the law requireth, that by it he may be justified, but onely by believing in Christ with a lively and effectual faith, which thing the Gospel requires, that we may with God be accounted as righteous. And by works, which the law properly taken and as it is opposed to grace, or the Gospel, doth exact to the Justification of a man, is understood that perfect and by no sin interrupted obedience, which doth exclude every transgression and every sin—  
And( Th. 35. he says) As often as the Apostle affirms, that we are not Justified by works, but by faith, he intends to teach 
The Apostle doth intend to teach one other thing more, than is here mentioned by this Author, viz. That no man is justified by the works of the Mosaical law.  no other thing, than that none can be Justified by such an observation of the law, which the legal covenant requires, that we may have life through it and may escape the curse of God; but that God doth account them as righteous, and doth of his mere grace bestow the pardon of all their sins upon all those, who receive the Gospel with a sincere heart, and do from faith perform true obedience thereunto.  
And according to this sense of the word( works) doth he reconcile the two Apostles, St. Paul and St. James( seemingly opposite) saying Th. 39. St. Paul will deny, that a man is Justified by doing the works, which the law, as it is opposed to the covenant of grace, doth exact to the Justification of a person, which thing St. James doth in no sort affirm; but St. James intends to assert, that a man is Justified not by that bare and naked assent, which is given to the word of the Gospel, but by such a faith as works by love, and which many good works do accompany, which thing St. Paul himself hath expressly taught, so far he is from denying it. And therefore, when St. James says, Ye see, that a man is Justified by works and not by faith onely, it is the same as if he should say, Ye see, that God doth not account him as righteous, who doth simply and nakedly give credit and assent to the word of God, but he, who with his faith doth join good works, and who hath faith efficacious in good works.  
I might for this purpose city much more, were it needful, out of that learned and very judicious Protestant Writer; but I shall allege his testimony for the countenance and confirmation of what I have asserted concerning faith its being imputed to us for righteousness, and under what formal consideration it is so imputed, for which purpose I shall transcribe and translate his words Thes. 22, 23.  
It seems to us( simplicissimum) most simplo, or plain, if we say, that Faith doth justify, because to a man believing, his faith is imputed to righteousness: for so the Apostle explicates his own meaning, professedly treating concerning Justification by faith, Rom. 4.5. To him, who believeth on him, that Justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness; and to this end he cites that of Moses( Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.) Faith also is said to be be imputed to us for righteousness, because God doth, hath and reputes him as righteous, freeing him from the punishment of his sin, and accepting him to life eternal for the sake of Christs death and obedience, who doth with a lively faith believe in Christ: To the same sense or purpose( eodem redit) is the judgement of those, who teach, that Faith Justifies us, as it is the condition of the covenant of grace: for in that their meaning is no other, but that God, that he may account us as, or for righteous( pro justis) and may accept us to eternal glory, doth in the Gospel require no other thing of us, but that we adhere to Christ by a lively faith and working by love; and that salvation and remission of sin is offered and promised to us in the word of the Gospel, upon, or under this condition, and no other; and that this is the reason, why in the Scripture we are said to be justified by faith.  
Now forasmuch as the doctrine held forth in this Treatise concerning imputed righteousness, is so attested by such a most judicious Writer of the Protestant French Church; and forasmuch also as in these latter years it hath been much contended for by that indefatigable Writer, Mr R. Baxter, Dr Henry More, Mr Edward Fowler, Mr Joseph Truman, with other learned men of our own Church as Protestant, I shall leave it to consideration, how causeless the clamours of those are, who in the bitterness of their zeal do cry out against it, as a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of England, even in the highest point of Divinity, and as a piece of Popery, even the worst of Popery. It is upon this account, that a late Author is accused by one of those zealous Brethren, saying, You have given away the better half of the Protestant Religion by contending for Justification by our own works. I had as lief yield to all things else, which the Papist say, or do, as to this one damnable Doctrine, which is the very rats-bane of Popery, viz. That it is not( as Protestant Divines assert it to be) by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us, and applied by faith, but by our own works in conformity to the moral law;( and again says he) They, who say, that men are not Justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them upon their believing, but their own works, or sincere( though imperfect) obedience to the Gospel, do say that the Church of England erreth in the great Doctrine of Justification.  
Deus bone! Such accusations, or declamations as these, I look upon as just matter of great sadness, considering how the Protestant Churches generally, and the Church of England in special is thereby wronged, as if the one half of our Protestant Religion( as distinguished from Popery) did consist in what this Author would make us believe, whereas the foresaid learned Protestant Author Le-Blanc in his Lecture ( Quomodo fides Justificat) among those nine things, wherein he asserts the agreement of Protestants and Papists, doth name this as the third head of their accord,( p. 260.) viz.  
Non solum credendi actum precise sumptum— That it is not the act of faith precisely taken, but that many other acts also which do concur to true repentance and serious conversion to God, are conditions by God pre-required, that a man may obtain of God the pardon of his sins, which is indeed( and as this Author also doth oft times assert) the self thing in effect with Justification. So that whatsoever the opinion of this fervent Author, or of other single less knowing Protestants is, the doctrine contended for by him is so far from being the one half, as that it is not to be accounted any part, or scruple of the true Protestant Religion: For the true Protestant Doctrine is not, That believers are justified by Christs righteousness in itself imputed& in that sense( the sense of this Author) applied to themselves, or by themselves, but that they are justified for the merits sake of Christs righteousness, which righteousness of his is in the saving fruit or effects thereof( justification, or rem●ssion of sin thereby purchased) imputed, imparted, communicated, or( as modern Authors use to speak) applied to believers( not by themselves, but) by God as donor thereof; and this according to the tenor of his gracious promise upon their sincere faith, this being the condition of the grant; in which promise, or conditional grant, the word Faith is not to be taken strictly in opposition to repentance and all other Evangelical graces, or duties, but as including them. And yet the late Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechize in answer to that question, How doth Faith justify a sinner, return this positive answer.  
Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces, which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification, but onely as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth, and applieth Christ, and his righteousness.  
But to demonstrate the falseness of this Answer, I will more particularly consider, 1. What Justifying Faith is. 2. How it Justifies.  
First, What is Justifying faith? To which Question I will make answer, first in my own words, and then in theirs:  
1. I will express my sense briefly in my own words, saying, Justifying faith is a practical assent to the truth of Gods word. If any shall desire a larger Description, I will say, Justifying Faith is a Practical assent to the truth of Gods word, but more especially( I do not say properly) to that part of Gods word, which in a signal sense, or for a peculiar reason, is styled the word of Faith, Rom. 10.8. that is, to the Gospel of Christ, or promise of salvation through him unto the world of sinners conditionally upon their return to him by repentance and faith, or as S. Pauls expressions are, Act 20.23. Upon condition of their repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, or as Peter expresseth the condition, Act. 3.19. Repentance and Conversion, or as our Saviour in one word expresseth it, Luke 24.47. Repentance. He that believes this word of God, with a practical faith, is justified, for this is justifying Faith.  
2. I shall answer to the said Question in their own words, yet not in those of their Catechism, but of their confession touching saving Faith, Chap. 14. and say, Justifying, or saving faith is that, by which a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word for the authority of God speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that, which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justificrtion, sanctification and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.  
This to my seeming is a true and memorable description of justifying Faith, and doubtless he, that doth so believe Gods word as to act suitably to the different passes thereof( divine commands, threatenings and promises) shall be justified; and this I do affirm, Although such a believer never heard, or understood that( for ought I remember) unscriptural or apocryphal expression of applying Christ and his righteousness to himself. It is time now to make answer to the other Question.  
Q. How doth Faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Answ. I need not at this time of day make answer to this Question, because it hath been so plainly and fully already answered in this Discourse, as well in my own as in the words of Le-Blanc: But if it must be answered again, I will still say as before, viz. That faith doth justify a sinner in the sight of God, not for any merit, that is in it, or in any grace accompanying, or good works proceeding from it, but onely for the righteousness sake of Christ, and for Christs righteousness sake it becomes available to our justification in the sight of God, as the imputation of it to, or for righteousness is entailed upon it by the free promise of God in Christ, which is all one as to say, Faith justifies us in the sight of God as it is Conditio novi foederis praestita, i.e. as it is the performance of the condition of life promised in the new covenant.   

CHAP. XXX. A brief reply to a passage in Doctor own, he saying, That in the doctrine by him asserted touching the Imputation of Christs righteousness he hath as good company as the Prelacy and the whole Church of England can afford.  
HAving concluded the former long Chapter, I shall be very much briefer in this, my intent therein being to take into consideration a passage( of less moment indeed) in Doctor Owens Book, styled his Vindication against Mr. Sherlocke, forasmuch as it doth refer to the subject of this Discourse, wherein he doth excuse himself by the company, with whom he errs, if it be an error to maintain the Imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense oppugned in this Treatise, he saying, p. 117. Herein I have as good company as the Prelacy and whole Church of England can afford, sundry from among them having written large Discourses in its confirmation, and the rest having till of late approved of it in others.  
The Doctor doth here make mention of company both Good, and Great, wherein although I allow him to have spoken truth as to the quality of them, Yet as to their quantity, I cannot; to both which distinctly I will speak a few words, Allowing the truth of the former, I do further say, 1. It is matter of good hearing, that the Prelates are in reputation with the Doctor as good company, this being more than many now adays will aclowledge, it being their manner to declaim against that whole Tribe, saying, There is none of them good, no not one, Yea to say of Prelacy itself, as was prejudicatly said of Galilee, Can any good come out of Prelacy? But forasmuch as such things are spoken not in corners, but upon the house top, and cannot therefore be hide from the Prelates, it is therefore in reason to be presumed, that they will be the more circumspectly so to act in their several capacities( both as Christians, Presbyters and Prelates) as to put to silence the ignorance of clamorous and foolish zeal.  
2. As the Prelates are never the better company with some because of their Prelacy, so neither is their, or the Doctors company to boot, ever the better with me, because of their concurrence in a popular mistake, it being my resolution to keep company with the truth, although it happen, that I find it like a Sparrow upon the house top, sitting alone, or like a Pellicane in the Wilderness, mourning for want of friends and followers.  
3. If the Doctor here say true concerning the Prelates, I am truly sorry in the Doctors behalf, but in my own I do rejoice: I am indeed sorry for the Doctor, in that differing from the Prelates in many things, wherein to my seeming they have the truth on their side, and being no companion with them in their Prelacy( as I hearty wish he were) he should be so unfortunate as to light into their company in a certain path, wherein like men( for Humanum est errare) they have gone astray, having reason to make the like acknowledgement with the Church of old, saying, Erravimus cum patribus. But I am glad in my own behalf, forasmuch as I do now perceive, that the Doctor himself cannot but advocate for me, if he happen to hear me accounted as a Time-server, or as one, who wrote this Discourse out of design to please the Prelates, to cury favour with them, or to get Preferment from them: for to detect errors, in the guilt whereof the Prelates are involved, is not( one would think) the way to gain their friendship, or favour. Of a truth I now perceive, that the Doctor is convinced in conscience, that it was not the design of the Author of this Discourse to make him odious more than his good company the Prelates, and much less to make odious the whole party of dissenting Brethren.  
4. I do firmly believe, that the Prelates may be good company, notwithstanding their association in error, as aforesaid: for it is very possible, and I am verily hopeful, that it is a thing ordinary with not a few to hold false doctrines speculatively, but not practically; and I do cordially bear witness with Mr Joseph Truman( in his excellent Book styled The Great Propitiation, p. 137.) That many of the worthiest men, both Prelates and others, that ever England had, held such things( the imputation of Christs righteousness, and certain errors depending thereupon) notionally, yet so as to deny the consequence, but never any good man( says that learned and pious Author) did hold them practically.  
2. I cannot allow the Doctors words as to the numerosity of his companions in those words of his( The whole Church of England,) in which saying he hath out-gone the truth: for( presuming that by the Church of England he meaneth it as Protestant) I cannot but say, That as some Worthies of the Church of Eng. wrote for it, so others of our own( not to mention any of foreign Churches) wrote against it: As I could easily show, had it not been largely done already by other hands, particularly by Mr Bull in his late learned Answer to his Adversaries, and this Mr Joseph Truman takes notice of in his Great Propitiation( p. 95.) Wherein after with several reasons he had refuted the Imputation of Christs righteousness in the sense maintained by the Doctor, and in this Discourse oppugned, he closeth his Arguments with this saying, I am almost ashamed to lay open the weakness of them, that hold these things, after such multitudes of learned Protestants have shown their absurdity.  
But if the good company, with whom the Doctor doth err in this matter, be just ground of ease to his mind, I shall grant it as a thing, that cannot be denied, and( as the said Mr Truman says) is much to be lamented, that many important Doctrines of the Protestant Churches are frequently by too many grossly explained, and that by more than those( says Mr Baxter) who are down right Antinomians, so as to have woefully ill consequences attending them, to the scandal of the Protestant Religion, the heartening and hardening of our common adversaries( both Papists and Socinians) against us, and to the prejudice of the power and practise of Christianity: I mean more especially such Doctrines as do concern faith, and works, justification, and Imputed Righteousness, for a redress whereof, were I able to do any thing more than hath been abundantly already done by others my betters, I could say with the Apostle, I would gladly spend, and be spent; spend I mean, not onely of my time, but my reputation also( as the Apostles meaning there is.) Though the more abundantly I loved, the less I should hap to be beloved of my dissenting brethren, for whose satisfaction I shall now in the closing of this Chapter commend to their consideration the saying of that learned, and most judicious Author B. Davenant De grat. hab. ch. 27. De facto imputantur( extrinseca) quando illorum intuitus,& respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum aque ac si à nobis vel in nobis essent. Then those things, which are without us, i.e. which are not ours in the propriety of the very things, or being properly taken do not belong unto us, are said to be imputed to us, when with respect to them we are equally entitled to their effects, or dealt with upon account of them, as if they had been done by us, or were inherent in us. According to this sense of the word( Imputed) is the true and truly Protestant Doctrine concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness to be expounded, as I have( I hope) made apparent more at large according to my design in this Discourse.   
FINIS.