THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION CLEARED, By Animadversions on Mr. John goodwin's Animadversions upon Mr. George Walkers Defence of the true sense of the Apostle, Rom. 4. 3, 5 etc.  
Together with an examination of both parts of his Treatise of Justification.  
Wherein the imputation of faith in a proper sense is denied, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness Active and Passive affirmed, against that Treatise.  
By Henry Robrough, Rector of Leonards Eastcheap London.  
Respondio: Luthero calumniam facit, non enim hoc sensu quo ipse fingit dixit fidem id est qualitatem fidei esse formalem nostram justitiam, sed Metonymico sensu dixit fidem, id est, Christum fide apprehensum, esse justitiam nostram.  
Quem sensum (metonymicum) si oppugnat adversarius, certe non Lutherum impugnat, sed Spiritum sanctum blasphemat, qui Christum express vocat nostram justitiam, Jer. 23. 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30. Pareus Castig. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 4. p. 418.  Justitia meriti seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est tantum sanguis & mors Christi, sed complectitur totam obedientiam humiliationis ab articulo conceptionis usque ad mortem crucis, ad Parens de act. & Pass. just. P. 186. Etiam Evangelica justitia est legis impletio, neque pugnat cum lege: per Evangeliumenim Lex non aboletur, sed stabilitur, Urs. Cat. p. 391. 
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. 2 Cor. 8. 9  
LONDON, Printed by R. C. and are to be sold by John Bellamy and Ralph Smith, at the sign of the three Golden Lions in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange. 1643.   

To his Worshipful, loving, and well beloved friends, Alderman Bunce and his loving Consort Mistress Sarah Bunce.  
ADAM'S sin was a great one doubtless, I think the greatest of all; some except the sin against the holy Ghost. I am sure the whole Creation groaneth under it, and traveleth as in pain for it at this day, especially the little world, mankind: The evils which are upon our bodies, souls, goods, names, are hence. Hence diseases on and in the body innumerable, the freeing us from which, and putting it in an equal temper, taketh up the Art and industry of the Physician; and when he hath done all, there will be a dissolution of that earthly house. Dust thou art, and into dust shalt thou return again.  
The divine is God's special ordinance for the soul, & (blessed be God) there is a complete remedy in that way for the foul, the saving of the soul, beginning, consummation, and body too in the glorious resurrection, the salvation prepared to be revealed in the last times.  
A main part of salvation is Justification, just making, by it such as believe are holy, unreprovable, unblamable in God's sight, white as Snow, and whiter, perfected for ever; so are all those that are sanctified God dealeth with them as such, pardoneth all sins, freeth from guilt and punishment properly so called, whatsoever is compensatory or fatisfactory, and giveth them eternal life.  
Hence peace with God, rejoicing in hope of glory, glorying in tribulations, against Adam's sin, the death caused by it, servitude to sin, freedom from righteousness, the power that was, and the relics, yea and those of omissions, & commissions, against the world's accusations, condemnations, the Devil and conscience. It is God that justifieth, who can condemn, who canlay any thing to their charge? Physicians agreed not about the cure of the body, nor Divines about this of the soul. Some differences there are about other things. 〈…〉 i● about that by which, the form, or what is instead of it; some give it faith imputed in a proper sense, so the Animad versor I deal with sometimes, sometimes remission of sins, both which he calleth righteousness, (righteousness is confessedly necessary 'to justification.) Papists to faith, hope, and charity; both make Christ the meritorious cause. It is his merit whence faith is imputed and juctifieth, saith one; his merit, that faith, hope, and charity, justify, so the other.  
I deny faith, hope, and charity; yea, faith alone in a proper sense Though I allow faith to be the instrument applying, that by which, I profess myself a friend of imputation of the Active and Passive obedience of Christ; that, as that obedience is the meritorious cause, so the matter, and that imputed, given or applied by God, the formal cause, or that which supplieth the place there of: whilst some have been busy about other controversies of our times, and others in an eager pursuit of war; I (having a little more leisure than ever before, not used to be idle) have laboured in this controversy the clearing of it. My first and last thoughts of some to whom I should Dedicated this, pitched on you both, and I desire you to take it as a pledge of unfeigned love and thankfulness for many loving kindnesses, for constant friendship. I hope the cause (being the constant tenet of all Protestants against Arminians and Papists) will defend itself; It is jesus Christ's cause, he will never leave it. If in your perusal of it, it shall contribute to your establishment, to your peace and comfort in life & death, to your boldness in standing before God's tribunal here and hereafter which was Sc. Paul's desire, and the practice of all that did ever so stand) I shall have mine aim in this mine in tituling it to you both, whom I truly love, which I earnestly desire and pray for, resting ever yours in all services of love to be commanded,  
HENRY ROBROUGH. April 3. 1643.   

To my Reverend Brethrens, the Ministers of God's Word in the City of London, with all others labouring in that work of the Lord in other parts of this Kingdom.  
Reverend Sirs,  
YOu have here presented unto your view, Animadversions on Mr. J. G. Animadversions, and an examination of his whole Treatise of Justification; He hath appealed to some of you, and I appeal unto you all. He asserteth the imputation of faith for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to Juctification.  
Though he granteth faith imputed, to be that whose object is Christ, p. 6. Tr. 1. and that it is its office to bring us to fellowship with Christ, and of that justification and redemption which Christ hath purchased, p. 5. ib. and that it is essential to it to lay hold on Christ, p. 14.  
Yet he asserteth this faith not to be taken figuratively by a Metoy my or Metalepsis with respect to the object, because it layeth hold on Christ or Christ's righteousness, Tr. 1. p. 14. but properly and formally, p. 22. 36. 41. & 44. etc. Yea, he saith, neither is the righteousness of Christ, the object of faith as justifying, p. 43. And that the righteousness of Christ (in the variety of the objects of faith used in Scripture) is not to be found in the lest mention, p. 38. The Scriptures make not the lest mention, or give the lest intimation of such a thing, p. 43. there is no found or intimation of the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, p. 39  
And though he saith (with what agreement to himself, let him look to it) Not but that the righteousness of Christ is and aught to be believed as well as other things revealed and written in the Scriptures, and is of nearer concernment than other things to the main, p. 39  
And that the Scriptures propound the righteousness of Christ or his obedience to the Law, as that which is to be believed, and that, so it may be termed a partial object of faith, that as somewhat that aught to be believed, p. 43.  
Yet it may be believed by such a faith as the Turks and Jews have, p. 39 and so the creation of the world is propounded to be believed, and that Cain was Adam's son, p. 43.  
When as he denieth the righteousness of Christ, that that is imputed to us for righteousness, he addeth, But it is that for which righteousness is imputed, p. 17. that is, it procureth that our faith should be imputed for righteousness unto us, p. 101 plainly. The merit of Christ or of his righteousness hath so far▪ prevailed with God on our behalf, that by or upon our faith we shall be accounted righteous before him, which in effect is the same truth which we maintain, viz. That God for Christ's sake, or Christ's merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousness unto us, p. 11. and than, in this sense only, and not any other, may the active and passive obedience of Christ be said to be the righteousness by which we are justified, p. 13.  
This faith (not in a figurative, but propersense) is required and accepted for righteousness, and hath the same favours, rewards, and privileges upon the tender of it that should have been given to men in regard of that legal righteousness had it been fulfilled, etc. p. 15. 16. It is as good, p. 6. as available and effectual to justification, p. 15.  
It is all that God requires of men to their justification in stead of the righteousness of the Law, p. 92. And therefore if God shall not impute or accounted it unto them for this righteousness, it should stand them in no steed at all to their justification, p. 92. Yea,  
He calleth it from Phil. 3. 9 a righteousness which God himself hath found out, and which he will own and countenance & accounted for righteousness unto men, and no other but this, p. 86. the righteousness there mentioned is as being and standing in faith, etc. and he calleth it a righteousness which will certainly carry it, notwithstanding all the unlikelihood and seeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God accordingly, ib.  
This is the Helena he contendeth for, in Preaching first, and now in Print. The condition appointed by God, and required on man's part, in opposition to Christ's righteousness, the object; which he deneith the object of this faith as justifying, p. 38. In this which is but inherent righteousness, a weak and imperfect righteousness, which must have help to make it accepted, if ever it be so, in this I say will he be found not that which is by faith as an instrument, received and put on, and would have us to be so too, which God forbidden. It will not steed us before God's tribunal, his friend Pareus calleth it Blasphemy against the holy Ghost, as in the front is showed; the Apostles text is for faith of Christ, and his righteousness, his righteousness being that which is imputed, Rom. 4. 6. 11. as I shall fully show.  
It is observable, that this which is here by him established, is notwithstanding by him also in effect confounded with remission of sins which with him formally justifieth. This he calleth the imputing of righteousness. To show that God hath no other righteousness to confer upon a sinner, but that which stands in forgiveness of sins, Tr. 2. p. 7. That righteousness which God is said to impute unto men through faith, is nothing else (being interpreted) but the forgiveness of sins, Tr. 1. p. 75. this (he saith) hath the privileges, though not the nature of a perfect righteousness, p. 76. But let that pass, being fully considered in d●e places.  
Again, the thing he mainly opposeth, is the active obedience or righteousness of Jesus Christ, of this he saith, amongst the variety of the objects of faith in the Scriptures, there is not the lest mention as before.  
And (establishing the passive obedience as the meritorious cause imputed in its effects, now faith, now pardon of sins) telleth us, That if Christ had fulfilled the Law for us in our steed, there had been no occasion of his dying for us, and that there is no light clearer than this, Conclus. 7. Tr. 2. p. 10.  
Yea though he calleth it an efficient remote; not immediate, qualifying him to, but having no immediate influence, Tr. 2. p. 69.  
Yet it is not causa sine qua non, with him; Causa si●e qua non, is causa stolida & ociosa, only present in the action, and doth nothing therein, as Dr. Abbot against Bish. p. 497. Causa sine qua non, non est causa, as the Logicians. This is a remote efficient confessed, and so causa.  
And for the active obedience of Christ in the production of this effect, Justification, Mr. John Goodwin, seemeth to me to say enough to establish it in good earnest, and to have no cause▪ of excluding the same, which yet he often doth.  
We deny not the righteousness of Christ in itself, rather we suppose and establish it, p. 16, neither the absolute necessity of it; neither the meritorious efficiency or causality, in respect of the Justification of a sinner, p. 16. but believes, etc. we are justified for the merits sake of Christ's righteousness, there being a full consideration in it, why God should justify those that believe in him. It is true, he meaneth the Passive righteousness chiefly, p. 16. which doth not exclude the Active.  
Yea, that it falling into the Passive, and considered in conjunction with it hath influence into, and contributeth towards the justification of a sinner, as acknowledged on both sides, p. 7. That, together they may be called a righteousness; for which; but at no hand with which we are justified, p. 62. Wherhfore they must be both together included or excluded, and in the same sort.  
He will not have the Active and Passive righteousness separated in respect of this common effect justification, p. 132. and saith, as the Active separated will not profit; so neither will the Passive itself be found itself, that is an atonement or expiation of sin according to the wili and purpose of God, except we bring in the Active to it, p. 132.  
And elsewhere, Though it be not satisfactory simply and directly in itself, nor contributing any thing by way of merit towards the justification of a sinner, so that God is moved thereby to justify any man, (these are his hungry and cold; if consistent, expressions) Yet it cannot be denied— but it hath a moving efficiency— qualifying in part the Sacrifice of Christ for the fullness and height of acceptation with God, Tr. 2. p. 81. It was of absolute necessity to qualify and fit the Sacrifice for the Altar, to tender him a person meet by his death, and Sacrifice to make an atonement.— The absolute holiness and righteousness of the humanity itself was of necessary concurrence thereunto, p. 201.  
There is great weight and moment in the righteousness of Christ's person, to assure or secure the consciences of men concerning their justification by his death.— It qualifieth his person at lest in part for that meritoriousness of his death, which may stand the world in steed for their justification, p. 204.  
He acknowledgeth the infinite perfection and worth of it, p. 87.  
And that the habitual holiness of his person and moral righteousness or Active obedience of his life— are essentially and directly requisite to make his death and sufferings, Justification and life and salvation to them as hath been further opened in the former part of this Treatise, Tr. 2. p. 54. These are to be considered.  
It is true he teacheth us, that Christ's Active obedience, that of nature and life were due for himself. But will not consider that what is due cannot merit, he that doth all is but an unprofitable servant, he hath done but what he aught. And if the merit be destroyed, how can it make Christ a Priest, or his Sacrifice an atonement? how is it, in its self an atonement or expiation of sin as before?  
And what is become of our justification and salvation, yea of the glory of Christ?  
You shall read dangerous doctrine about the imputation of Adam's sin, that it is ours but in the effect, not the sin itself, as his opinion is also of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as if our spiritual death in which we were borne, supposed not our sin, Adams, ours sinne by imputation.  
Of Adam's sin he saith, (extenuating it much though he saith he doth it not) It is a sinful s●●mbling or miscarrying. Not out of envy, malice, or other sinister end or intention, which are the main aggravations of a sin, and raising the offensiveness of it to the greatest height; but out of an inconsiderateness or incogitance, which though it be no cloak for sin, yet is it a root of the lest bitterness or provocation from whence it is lightly possible for sin to spring, Conclus. 10. p. 19 20. 2. Tr. Are you of this opinion of Adam's sin? I think otherwise, and in due place show it.  
And what do you conceive of this in his foureteenth Conclus. The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed on Christ in his death. But his death was a ground or consideration to God whereby to dispense with his Law, to let fall or suspend execution of the penalty or curse therein threatened.— Neither did God require the death and suffering of Christ as a valuable consideration whereon to dispense with his Law, towards those that do believe more, or so much in a way of satisfaction to his justice, than his wisdom▪ for God might with as much justice have passed the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction, p. 33.  
What I conceive I tell you in due places. I beseech you interpose yourselves to the settling of our brother. I persuade myself and know many of you are the same with our learned reformed Divines, who whether they are for that I oppose, and in that name enemies of this imputation, I leave also the world to judge.  
I profess myself amongst the friends of Imputation (as Mr. G. calleth us, 2. Tr. p. 147.) of the Active and Passive obedience of Christ; the opinion he holds, I also hate, (I thank Christ) and as yet see no cause to change my judgement.  
If Mr. Goodwin hath yet more to say in this cause, if he be more succinct, replying in a Christian and brotherly manner (which I earnestly desire) he shall find me cedere nescium, ready for a further trial; and if in any thing I shall not agreed with others, my reverend Brethrens, and they shall lovingly advertise me of it; they shall find me a lover and imbracer of the truth shown; Homo sum, nihil humanum à me alienum puto. I do not willingly err, against all my failings. Thanks be given to God for our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord our righteousness.  
Your weakest Brother and Companion in the work of Jesus Christ, HENRY RODROUGH.   

The Contents of the first Part.  

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

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

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

The Doctrine of justification cleared by Animadversions on M. John goodwin's Animadversions upon M. George Walkers Defence of the true sense of the Apostle Rom. 4. 3, 5. etc. containing the two first Chapters of his Treatise of Justification.  
Sect. I THe Doctrine of free Justification is 
The worth of the doctrine of free justification.  worthily, highly esteemed of, by all Orthodox Divines. As by Heretics, 
a Praecip●è in controversiam vocatur.  it is principally called into controversy: so by the other against them hath it been maintained. When'as they have entered lists with them, they have set the same amongst the chiefest Articles of Christian religion. The truth thereof professed and maintained in the Reformed Churches against Romanists, I find styled by one, 
b Doctrinam Christi & Apostolorum de praecipuo salutis articulo Dr. Prid. Lect. 5. de justif p. 143.  the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles of the chief Article of Salvation: who afterwards leaveth this also upon record concerning it. 
c Justificatio principium est & cardo (ut ingenuè cum Pighio agnoscit Bellarminus de Justif. l. 1. c. 4. a quo pendent, vel in quo versantur omnes inter nos & Pontificios controversiae. ib. p. 148.  Justification is a principle and hinge (as Bellar. with Pighius ingenuously confesseth) on which depend, or in which all contraversies between us and the Pontificians are enfolded. Pareus calleth it, 
d Praeter caeteras maximè necessatiam.  besides others most necessary; and giveth this reason. 
e Est enim quaestio haec (de formali causa Justificationis) una ex maximis quibus sacra theologia a Philosophia humana, Evangelium a Lege, Ecclesia Christi a Judaeis, Turcis, Paganis; Evangelicia Papatu separantur.  For this question (of the formal cause of justification) is one of the greatest, in which sacred Theology is separated from Philosophy that is human, the Gospel from the Law, the Church of Christ from Jews, Turks, Pagans'; Protestant's from papists. 
f Castigat. de Justif. p. 364. Potissima fuit & est causa divortii, quod Ecclesiae Evangelicae annis ab hinc 97 a Romano Papatu facere coach suemnt. ib. p. 364.  It was, saith he, & is the chief cause of the divorce which the Protestant Churches were enforced to make from the Roman Papacy. Learned Junius calleth it 
g Velut nucleus Evangelii & Consolationis caput. Thes. 11.  as it were the kernel of the Gospel, and head of consolation. 
h Gerhard. l. de justif p. 435 in fol. p. 2. Hic locus est tanquam arx & praecipuum pro pugnaculum totius doctrinae & religionis, quo vel obscurato, vel adulterato, vel subverso, impossibile est puritatem doctrinae in aliis locis retinere: salvo autem hoc loco, corruunt per se omnes idolomaniae, superstitiones & quic quid est corruptelarum in omnib. aliis locis. Ger. ubi supra, ex Clem. & Luthero.  Gerhardus, This place is as a Castle and chief Fort of the whole doctrine and religion, which obscured, or adulterated, or overthrown, its impossible to retain pureness of doctrine in other heads; this being safe, idolatries, superstitions, and all corruptions else, fall to the ground by themselves. 
i Hic locus est praecipuus in doctrina Christiana. Chemnit. exam. 231.  This head is the chief in Christian doctrine, as Chemnit. It especially setteth forth the free grace of God, and declareth his righteousness. It is the chief of those that glorify Jesus Christ; It setteth and keepeth the Crown on his head. It's a foundation of solid peace and comfort to Christians whilst on earth. In sanctification the streams run very muddy at the best, here they are liquid, always very clear, from hence peace and comfort flow; inflow into the heart and defuse themselves through their life: the soul is at peace with God and with its self, and hence it glorieth in the saddest condition, as appeareth by the word of God, examples in Scripture, and the sweet experience of God's Saints. If ever the soul did leap, was of good cheer, and comforted, that was the time when as God justified it; when as that was discovered unto the soul, with the bottoms and foundations thereof. Here all doubts are answered and scruples satisfied and removed: for hereby such a man is not only invested with the great privileges of a man perfectly righteous, deliverance from death and condemnation, acceptation into favour with God, as Mr. John Goodwin. 1 cap. p. 55. Edit. Walk. to which I may add a Long, etc. But also made white, though before as black as a coal; though before as Scarlet, as Crimson: as Scarlet in regard of the bloody Die of sin, yet than white as wool, white as snow, whiter than the snow. Christ's 
k Cum nigra essem peccatis & per opera affinis essem & conjuncta tenebris, me pulchram secit per dilectionem sua pulchtitudine commutata cum mea turpitudine In so enim translatis sordibus meorum peccatorum, me sua puritate impertiit, efficiens participem suae pulchritudinis. Hom. 2. in Cant. Greg. Nissen.  beloved is wholly fair, and there is no spot in her; they that are Christ's are presented holy, unreprovable, and unblameable in God's sight, exactly just and perfect; perfected for ever, complete in Christ, and hence sins are pardoned. I cannot say, they are 
l In statu quo.  in the state they were before; the state of innocence, by pardon (as some) which cannot be in regard of inherent righteousness in this life; which if it were in them would be but justification by inherent righteousness, Popery; but by that which is fare exceeding, even the most perfect and exact righteousness and obedience of Jesus Christ. By this is the true believer Just before God as Christ is, the believer in him. 
m Aeque justi sumus (saith that learned Dr. out of the Chair) quia eadem justitia, licet non aequaliter, & eodem modo; Ille subjective, nos imputative; ille de proprio, nos de illius largitate. Dr. Prid. ubi supra p. 171. See Master John Goodw. as by Mr. W. & Mr. W. from p. 55. to 62.  We are alike just, because with the same righteousness, though not equally, and in the same manner: He subjectively, we imputatively; He of his own, we of his bounty. This judging of God and account, is according unto truth: deliverance from sin and condemnation and acceptation to the favour of God follow righteously here; God's just in justification: Here fears, questions, doubts, etc. which are and may well be where there is nothing but inherent righteousness or faith in a proper sense, which are and arise in the minds of men, still moving men to ask where is the righteousness, are calmed and answered rationally. Here (if I be called to an account) I have to answer to scrupulous conscience, to the Devil, to God which will serve before God, and is good in his righteous sight: a strong ground of comfort both in life and death. All Christians have experience 
n In ago; in ago quanti Papistis? saith Pareus, castig. de Justif p. 363.  in a conflict; of how great esteem to papists themselves in a confiict?  
In all which names as a Christian, as well as a Minister of God's word, I (the least of many thousands) may not be blamed if in this cause, for keeping the Crown on the head of the Lord Jesus Christ I appear and encounter gainesaiers.  
When as the whole world standeth engaged in this controversy i'll not withdraw myself. I'll give this golden Apple to none but Christ. If ever there was in me that which is as new Wine, bubbling and striving to have its vent; If ever any word of the Lord was in me as fire, it is this, and it must have its went. I have believed and spoken comfort to others from hence, and I cannot but speak in this cause, especially being called thereunto.  
Sect. 2. I take not upon me the honour to be a defender of him who hath engaged himself in this cause, he is an old Soldier, and I think his work will bear him out. But as a wellwisher i'll offer my mite; and do humbly crave leave of Master John Goodwin, to consider his reply to Master Walker, as I find cause in his Animadversions, to animadvert, 
p Veniam petimus dabimusque vicissim.  We crave leave and will give it in like manner. In this let me be pardoned if I do not walk in the same steps of Master Goodwin, that I profess the contrary in the beginning, (it is what he desireth in his second book) that I Animadvert not on some and those the loser and fouler passages of his reply, as he professeth in the Frontispiece of his book, and promiseth to do to Master W. I conceive that evilly to conduce to the cause, as well as to the Authors honour and worth, and respect in the world, and that it is but an indirect way to steal hearts after the Author of the Reply.  
It is no praise in a Reply to meddle but with some passages, 
a.  much less with the loser & fouler passages: That is but a kind of cowardice, as the falling on lame, wounded, straggling parts of an Army: to leave the Army we should oppose in full strength. Little honour is gotten by the Captain that doth and glorieth in this. These might have been neglected with more honour. The soundest and fairest passages in which strength lieth, should have been his ambition, not lose and foul ones, much less the fouler and loser passages. It is ominous, indeed a stumbling on the threshold.  
O that there were not too manifest a truth in that passage 
b.  of your Animadversions, and that so much pains had not been spent about foul and lose passages, there had not been so foul and lose a Recipe, the reply had not been so full of foul and lose passages, much labour might have been spared by him that replied, and those that read and answer the same. I know not who can read with comfort, or content. It suited not with a grave Divine, or so weighty a matter as the chief Article of salvation.  
It was not now a time in that manner to laugh or 
See the Front of Master G. book.  dance, in that manner to speak, to war with such weapons; the Scriptures cited in the front are but abused. It was not a time of love, it relisheth of somewhat else, it will have a time of weeping and mourning before there be solid peace; such veins, how rich soever, yield much vanity; such jesting is not comely: the Prophet's practice will not patronage such ironies as abound here. Our times have been times of licence under the name of recreation: and man's nature is foully degenerated that can recreate itself thus: It is not wisdom to make a pastime of sin. The labour and strength to which, may well be suspected that is thus repaired. It were evil in transient words, for which yet we must give an account; it is worse in published books, which may continued with the world. It is an evil example, some adversaries will laugh, others blaspheme, the Lord give repentance for it to him that did it, and those that take pleasure therein.  
You will say, he was provoked: It should not have been, had it been so, wise men should have borne with such as they accounted fools; and it was neither wisdom nor strength to be overcome to such evil; evil should have been overcome with good; this had been to be approved of men, and acceptable to God. My profession is not to meddle with impertinencies, or to rake in fouler and loser matters, but in a humble manner to follow the cause, as God shall enable.  

Nunc itaque & versus & caetera ludicra ponam;  
Quod verum atque decens curo & rogo, & omnis in hoc sum.   
Neither will I be a Patron of any evil word in any man, words against the person of a brother, or Christian man, let evil words be applied to evil things, and so fare forth I cannot much blame Master Walkers language. M. W. 
The censure of others.  hath written or spoken little that way which hath not been written long before.  
I could present the Reader with a large catalogue of such speeches.  
Sibrandus Lubbertus against Bertius, that Prince of the Arminian band as you phrase him; holding Justification by faith in a proper sense against the figurative sense, which is yours, calleth it 
q Detestabilem & abominabilem doctrinam, Epist. p. 1.  Detestable and abominable doctrine. 
r Damnatam Serveti haeresin, p. 5.  The damned heresy of Servetus. 
s Socini blasphemiam, p. 29. 33. 58.  Socinus his blasphemy. 
t Damnatos Serveti surores, p. 26.  The damned frenzies of Servetus. 
u Tradidit ante vos Servetus, fecit idem Socinus, & Osterodus, ubi etiam Arminium secum sentire testem citat Bertium, p. 6.  Servetus before you delivered it, so did Socinus and Osterodus, where he also citeth Bertius a witness that Arminius jumpeth with him. 
x Ex Blasphemiis Serveti & Osterodi, quas omnes Ecclesiae nostrae detestantur, desumptae, ib.  Taken out of the blasphemies of Servetus and Osterodus, which all our Churches detest. 
y Abominabilem & execabilem Serveti & Socini haeresin quae papisticis erroribus deterior est, p. 116.  The abominable and accursed heresy of Servetus and Socinus, which is worse than Popish errors. 
z Dico esse blasphemam & ●e●que quaterque execrabilem haeresin, p. 121.  I say it is a blasphemous and thrice and four times execrable heresy. 
a Haec tua thesis est causa quare statuam vobis, si ramen vobis ipsis constare vultis, necessario eo tandem deveniendum esse ut cum Serveto, Socino, Osterode, meritum sive satisfactionem pro nobis factam omnino tollatis, dicatisque neque Christum nobis justitiam peperisse, neque nos ipsius justitia imputata justificari, p. 85. Illi negant Christi mortem esse satisfactionem pro peccaris nostris, ut denique negant illum satisfactionem nobis imputari, & nos illa nobis impurata justificari. Ita tibi faciendum est, p. 87. Quorsum enim justitia Christi si non habet in se vim justificandi, & si nos non justificat? ib.  This thy position is the cause why I conclude, if you will be like yourselves, you must at length with Servetus, Socinus, and Osterodus, destroy wholly the merit or satisfaction of Christ, and that you say that Christ neither attained righteousness to us, nor that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, for to what end is the righteousness of Christ if it hath not in it force to justify? 
b Ponis illa in tuis literis ex quibus impia illa & blasphema Serveti, Socini, & Osterodi bdelugmata necessatio sequuntur, p. 87.  You writ those things from whence those wicked and blasphemous abominations of Servetus, Socinus, and Osterodus, do necessarily follow. 
c Passim audimus viros doctos dicere Authores hujus opinionis Papismum non satis exuisse; quin disette dicunt justificationem ob fidem proprie sic dictam, hoc est, ob opus nostrum, esse ex reliquiis Monachalis Pharisaismi. Hoc certum est Socinum & ante eum Servetum hoc à Papistis mutuatum esse, etc.  We hear every where learned men say that the Authors of this opinion have not enough put of Popery, they plainly say justification by faith in a proper sense, that is, our work, to be the relics of Monkish Pharisaisme. This is certain that Socinus and Servetus before him borrowed this of the Papists. 
d Non nego Authorem hujus scripti nobiscum & cum Papistis sentire Christum pro nobis satisfecisse: Sed quod dolendum est, dum hanc justificationem per fidem proprie sic dictam probat; talia adhiber argumenta per quae meritum & satisfactio Christi prorsus evertitur, p. 98.  I deny not the Author of this writing to think with us and Papists, Christ to have satisfied for us; but which is grievous, whilst he proveth this justification by faith in a proper sense, he giveth such arguments by which the merit and satisfaction of Christ are overthrown. 
e Qui haec diligenter expendunt vident facillimum transitum esse ab hoc novo Samosatenismo ad Papismum, p. 98.  Those that wright these see the passage easy from this new Samosatenisme to Popery.  
Consider how nearly these may concern you Master G. who deny professedly the imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification as Socinus doth, which yet Bertius professeth, p. 104.  

f Si sequerer non veritatem sed mendacium neque Deum sed Socinum, Servetum, & Osterodum sequeret, p. 117.  If I should follow I should follow not the truth, but a lie, not God, but Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus. 
g Ego autem ut me vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat, quam admittam, etc. p. 117. So Sibrandus.  I wish the earth might open is mouth and swallow me up rather than I admit it.  
Beza (as Master W. citeth him) calleth it blasphemy, Master Forbs de justificatione, gross impiety in placing it either in whole or in part in our righteousness as it is our own work, seeing by no work of his own can man possibly be justified, p. 78. and p. 80. he saith, by this we may perceive that the opinion of these men who place our righteousness in faith properly taken as it is the act of our heart, without relation of it, as an apprehending instrument to Christ, is much more pernicious than the opinion of the Papists, p. 80.  
Now it is certain that if God should justify us either by the works of the Law, or by faith as it is a work or habit in us, God could never be seen to be just in justifying of us, p. 29.  
Which opinion can never be maintained with God's honour, p. 163.  
He calleth it a dangerous error, p. 171. and a manifest error, p. 193.  
Harken to Pareus 
h Quem sensum (Metonymicum) si oppugnar Adversatius, certe non Lutherum impugnat, sed Spiritum Sanctum blasphemat qui Christum express vocat nostram justitiam, 23. ler. & 1 Cor. 1. 30. Pareus Castig. p 419.  who saith, Which (Metonymicke) sense if our Adversary (Bellarmine) opposeth, truly he doth not impugn Luther, but blaspheme the Holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressly our righteousness.  
I myself cannot speak well of your cause, it were to call evil good, to procure a woe. The justification of wickedness, abomination to the Lord. This is my judgement, I will endeavour to make it good by answering this reply, which I desire to do without passion.  
Sect. 3. It offendeth you that Master Walker calleth his interpretation the true sense; there was no cause until he be refuted, and do not you the same of faith in a proper sense?  
What you, therefore, say they did of the golden Calf, and of the practice of those that adulterate Coin, serveth yourself as well as Master W. and may be returned; but of this let them judge who read when they come to the end.  
Neither doth he abate of the true sense or his confidence by adding, according to the common judgement of the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines of the best reformed Churches, that argument is your own. You take upon you to prove a proper sense by authority, as of Ancient, so Modern Divines, and thereby pretend confidence; Master W. might have so much leave as you take to yourself, without the lest diminution of his confidence. He may be fare more confident, if this be a ground; the authority of judicious and godly Divines, they are not for you, but Master W. I think I shall make it good by the time I shall come to the end of this work, what you say.  
That there may be as great a difference between the true sense 
Mr. G.  and meaning of the Scripture, and the judgement of most godly and learned Divines, as is between Heaven and Earth, and is in examples.  
1. Is not to purpose, unless what may be, be a truth of 
Answ.  these Master W. meaneth.  
2. It is evilly urged against M. W. when as yourself use them to prop your own cause, with such confidence.  
3. It argueth weakness on your side in the argument, and self conviction, when you urge Authors, you do but pretend it and make a show.  
4. In my weak judgement your wisdom will be to give over that argument in this Name. I advice you to it, if it be not too late.  
Whom Master W. meaneth by Divines you need not curiously to inquire, they are no secret pack, when he cometh to that part he nameth the men. Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, are of those men, neither are they made by him.  
When I found these mentioned by you in this cause, it put me in mind of the practice of Bertius that Prince of the Arminian band, he for faith in a proper sense maketh the world believe that Luther, etc. were for his cause; but how vainly, Lubbertus showeth, who disputing against that proper sense, for that which is relative and figurative, proveth it out of the same and other Divines. Let it please you to hear him, it may be what he saith concerneth you, though he be dead, to this purpose in that book doth he speak unto you. 
See Gerhard the justificatione, p. 180. & p. 201.   

i In co consentiunt omnes Doctoresnostri, Lutherus, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Cytreus, Hemingius, Calvinus, Zuinglius, Oecolompadius, Gryneus, Bullingerus, Gnulterus, Simlerus, Beza, Daneus, Zanchius, Martyr, Musculus, Vrsinus, Marloratus, luellus, Perkinsus.  In that (the Relative sense) agreed all our Doctors, Luther, etc. 
k Tu & Arminius negatis, provoco igitur ad omnes Doctores nostors an non aliquid novi in Ecclesiam nostram introducere velitis, p. 12.  Thou and Arminius deny it, I appeal to all our Doctors whether ye would not bring in some new thing into our Church. Where also he addeth. 
l Jam peto abs te, ut unum, unum, unum, inquam, Doctorem reformatarum Ecclesiarum producas qui idem doceat.  Now I entreat thee to produce one, one, I say one Doctor of the Reformed Churches that teacheth the same.  
He giveth the testimonies of Pareus, Duneus, Vrsinus, etc. p. 15. 16. etc. The Palatinate Catechism, Chemnitius, Musculus, Hemingius, Bucanus, p. 17. Hesuchius, Martyr, Piscator, p. 18. the Augustane and Belgike Confess. and Musculus, p. 19 Bucer, p. 20. Melancthon, p. 53. 54. and 60. Zanchie, p. 62. and 76. Pezelius, p. 63. 64. Where also he repeateth his challenge to the same purpose as before. 
m Experire virestuas & vide an vel unum, unum, unum, inquam, locum qui hoc claris & perspicuis verbis doceat adducere possis, p. 61.  Try thy strength and see whether thou canst bring forth but one, one, I say one place which teacheth this in clear and manifest words.  
I will transcribe one passage more thence, and I entreat you consider whether it doth not concern you in the same cause. Sibrandus having examined that argument of authority saith: 
n Si haec dicta quae a doctoribus a te allegatis exscripsi expendes, indicabit tibitua conscientia te hic vel ex inscitia impegisse, & ho●um scripta nunquam legisse, aut ex malitia hanc sententiam illis per calumniam attribuisse, ut imperitosatque incau●os ●alleres, illisque persuederes summos illos vitos Lutherum, Malarcthonem, etc. appro●asse & sovisse Serveli & Socini furores, quos vos calide & occulte in Ecclesiam introducere conammi. Rectius dixeritis vos, spretis doctoribusnostris, haec a Serveto & Socino didicisse. So Lubbertus.  If thou wilt weigh these say which I have written out of the Doctors you allege, thy conscience will tell thee that here either thou haste stumbled out of ignorance, or out of malice by a calumny given this opinion to them that thou mightest deceive the unskilful or negligent, and mightest persuade them, those chief men, Luther, etc. to have approved and fomented the mad conceits of Servetus and Socinus, which you slily and secretly endeavour to bring into the Church; you should more truly say that you despising our Doct●●s, learned these things of Servetus and Socinus.  
Pareus saith, 
o quae omnium Evangelicorum est sen●en●ia, castig de justif. p. 368.  Which is the judgement of all Protestant Divines. And thus before I am ware I am come to consider whether the contrary exposition and cause built on it are not Socinian and Arminian?  
Sect. 4. And here I profess it my judgement, that if the assimulation of you to Socinus, etc. be the inhuman practice of the tyrant Mezentius, it is not Master W. but your own fault, for your faces answer faces, and hands hands, in this question; and yourself have coupled yourself with these in this cause. Master Walker is but a discoverer of what he found, and in part is showed to have been in Bertius by Sybrandus, as in his judgement of your opinion, and the last passages cited out of him in this cause. The shame that is in it, is from yourself, and sorrow, which if you take not to yourself, you may with sorrow and shame also go down unto the grave (as you speak.) If his Withs are green (as you say) they will hold you the stronger, your Art in Withs did fail here, they are dry ones that snap asunder, they do so without fire. Your Knife truth, (but why do you reprehend it in Master W. and offend in the same thing?) is error at the lest, and will never deliver you, and though you be never so cunning (as you speak) in stretching on Tenter-bookes, and do your utmost, Daedalus sis, liceat, mediocritatem excedis & ad ruinam tantum ingeniosus videberis.  
When as you tell us what you could do if you sought revenge on the man, and of your confidence that you could make him hold up his hand to the Bar, to answer the crimes of Heresy and Blasphemy; none believe you but your own Disciples, I do not; you do but beg him to be erratic, the intelligent Reader will judge these strains, militis gloriosi, and say, projecit ampullas, etc.  
But (say you) what if Socinus and Arminius were of the same judgement with you in the interpretation of the Scriptures in question?  
I should think that cause sufficient to say, that erratic Arminius (to speak softly) and that heretic Socinus and yourself in this opinion are coupled, face to face, and ●ands to hands, that you are ad hoc gemelli, and what the earned in this have laid to their score, lieth on yours also, ●nd must stand there until you be acquitted.  
Neither is it Popish Mountabankery for M. W. to put you ●n their company, to number you amongst them. Sibrandus ●id so by the opinion before him, and it was your own ault to be so indeed. Your being so is rather Popish Mounabankry in the judgement of learned men, as before out of Sibrandus, as after shall appear through our discourse; the weapons you use are for the most part merely Po●ish, you may be noted for it. We read some taxed for ●oing in the way of Cain; others for walking in the way of ●alaam: so long as there is a real agreement between you ●nd them, a man may say it.  
Daniel was not by choice with the Lions, he was with ●hem as Lilies amongst Thorns, as the Lord Christ between two Thiefs, by God's heavenly disposition. You ●ight have been so with these. No man would have accounted you a Papist had you been cast amongst Priests into the Gatehouse, or a Separatist for being in the same room with them, or for suffering simply with them; Contraries may be in ●he same subject, asflesh and spirit in the godly. You are brothers in the same evil, the man that runneth may see you the same in judgement, and speech, and opinion, in this Exposition of Scripture, as it is showed afterwards. It were not absurd to say, Daniel & the Lions agreed in animality, or the Lily with the Thorns in being vegetative. It is not affirmed of you that you agreed in all opinions, and it troubleth us it is in this, this, we do judge too much.  
But Master W. did not first prove it erroneous before those imputations. That I confess should be done. Did we not do both in one work? hath he not done it since? was it not done to his hands by Divines of the reformed Churches? by our own Divines in Print, as well as in Pulpit, moved thereunto by your Preaching? If none of these be, the imputation is just so long as there is a real agreement.  
Have you not read it theirs before this, nor that it is censured as erroneous?  
I think you have, and cannot be ignorantof this controversy between us and Arminians, I, us and the Popish party. Have you not read their hatred against this Tenet of imputed righteousness? read Gerhard. de justif. p. 234. 
p Doctrinae huic de imputatione justitiae Christi admodum iniqui sunt Pontificii: Adeo ut appellent imputativam & imaginariam justitiam. Andradius in defence. ●id. Trid. p. 477. vocat amentissimam insaniam. Stapeltenus in Antid. Apost. p. 97. nominat spectrum cerebri Luthe. Cens. Colon. dicit, à seculo non esse auditam. Will Rainold in l. contra Whitak. p. 314. vocat mathematicum solifidianorum commentum, etc. Andradius hanc Mediatoris justitiam fide nobis imputatam blasphemat esse commentitiam, adumbratam & fictitiam, sic Chemnit. exam. p. 266. Osius dicit novam & a seculo in auditam esse vocem justitiae imputativae. Item justitiam Christi nobis imputari, nec inCanonic is nec in Orthodoxorum libtis reperiri, p. 270. ib   
Have you not read that the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by God apprehended by faith is the formal cause of our justification before God? Have you not read it affirmed and proved by ours against Papists?  
I think I heard it from Doctor Davenants mouth, and I am sure he hath left this on Record to be 
q Communis omnium nostrorum sententia, neque quod ad rem attinet quisquam è nostris aliter scripsit aut sensit, De justi. hab. p. 312.  The common opinion of all ours, neither for the substance hath any one written or thought otherwise. And doth he not prove the same? p. 363 etc. he doth by many arguments.  

r Disp. 8. Dicimus imputationem justitiae Christi esse formam nostrae justificationis ex parte Dei, adversarii negativam in se suscipientes, etc. p. 334.  Johannes Crotius, We say the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be the form of our justification of God's part, our adversaries taking the negative part on them, etc.  
It is manifest by the state of the question laid down by 
See Bellarm. de justis. l. 1. c. 17. p. alterum argumentum, p. 997. & l. 2. c. 9 106●. See Dr. Dan. p. 370. 371. Joh. Croc. de justif, imput. p. 358. & 420. & 335. & 343. non relative Papanis D. Prid. p. 162.  Papists and Protestants, and in this you agreed with them. Have you not read faith to justify against them in a Relative and figurative sense? and that as it taketh in the object, the obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ? See Master Perkins, Master Wotton, def. p. 166. stating the question between us and Romanists.  
Did you never read Romanists in this controversy of justification, urging, Rom. 4. with your interpretation of a proper sense, against the Relative se●se which the Protestants urge? Do you not agreed for the proper sense of faith against the Relative, and against the imputation of Christ's righteouseesse?  
Until you have answered all the arguments of the Protestant party, and so fare made good the Papists cause, you must be coupled with them. Sibrandus showeth what men said of this opinion before, and I shall do it often in this work.  
Did you never read in Festus Hommius this proposition gathered out of Arminius, 
s Ad Hip. Fidem pro prie loquendo, seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere nos justificare, seu esse justitiam qua coram Deo consistimus & justificamur. Dico ipsum fidei actum, id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, imputari ad justitiam, idque proprio sensu, non metonymice, ib. Fides pro justitia habetur per gratiosam dignationem Dei. Declar. p. 65. Quaestio movetur de verbis Apostoli Pauli ad Rom. c. 4. hisce vid. fides imputatur ad justitiam, utrum ea debeant proprie intelligi, sicut ipsa fides tanquam actus, juxta mandatum evangelii praestitus imputetur coram Deo, in, sive ad justitiam, idque ex gratia, cum non sic ipsamet justitia Legis, an vero sic intelligi debeant, ut justitia Christi per fidem apprehensa nobis in justitiam imputetur, idest, figurate & improprie: ego priorem sententiam secutus sum in thesibus de justificatione sub me disputatis.  Faith, speaking properly, or that act of believing to justify us, or to be the righteousness by which we stand before God, and are justified. And, I say the very act of faith to be imputed unto righteousness, and that in a proper sense, not metonymically, faith is accounted for righteousness by God's gracious esteem.  
A question is moved of the words of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 4. faith is imputed for righteousness, whether they aught to be understood so as faith itself as an act performed according to the commandment of the Gospel, be imputed before God in or unto righteousness, and that by grace, seeing it is not the very righteousness of the Law; or whether that aught so to be understood that the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith be imputed to us for righteousness, that is, figuratively and improperly: I indeed followed the first opinion in the theses of justification disputed under me.  
Where also you may find other like passages taxed, and cited out of Vorstius, Bertius, and Arnoldus himself, who there p. 41. saith, 
t Arminius dicit fidem justificate ut actum, qui opus illud Dei est, Joh. 6 atque ipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in Christum, nobis in justitiam imputati.  Arminius saith, faith justifieth as an act, which is that work of God, John 6 and the very believing in Christ, to be imputed unto us for righteousness.  
Doth not Peltius in his 
u Harmoniam Remonstrantium & Socinianorum.  Harmony of Arminians and Socinians instance in this point, 
w 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere nobis imputati p. 151. 152. 153  the believing to be imputed to us out of both? and show in the next Paragraph the agreement of both in this, 
x Fidem gratiose pro justitia haberi, etc.  Faith graciously to be accounted for righteousness?  
Do not both show their agreement in this, 
y Justitiam Christi non imputari in nostram justitiam co●am Deo. Hom. p. 84. Pelt. p. 148. etc. through the whole three Paragraphs. P. 33. de justif.  That the righteousness of Christ is not imputed for our righteousness before God?  
Doth not that worthy Scholar Master Pemble show the Authors of this tenet, Servetus, Socinus, Osterodus, Arminius? doth he not give it to Bertius, Vorstius, Episcopius, and Bellarmine? You could not but read this in Doctor Prideaux, for you cite him. 
z Lect. 5 de justif. p. 157. Asserimus nos, negant pontificii una cum Socinianis & Remonstrantibus.  We assert it, the Pontificians, together with Socinians and Arminians deny it, where he stateth the question.  
In Mr. Wotton I find those 
* Fidem formalem causam statuentes, vel in solidum, ut Arminius aliique eum sequnti tradiderunt, vel pro parte, quod Ecclesiae Romanae placuisse intelligo; de recon. p. 102  That teach faith the formal cause, either wholly, as Arminius and his followers have delivered, or in part, which pleaseth the Church of Rome.  

a Justitia imputata quam a Christo habemus justitiari nos cum ipso contra Socinum ex aequo agnoscimus. Gat. pars ult. p. 8. n. 36. p. 84. 4.  We with you equally acknowledge ourselves justified with imputed righteousness which we have in Christ against Socinus.  
Let these passages out of the Censura of those praised Theologs of Leiden by you, p. 13. be observed, and it will be seen whether they are not of the same judgement with you.  

b Moliuntur (Remonstrantes) quod Pontificii & Sociniani, etc. Ita ut fide justificemur non ratione quadam Metonymica, qua fides sit instrumentum, apprehendens justitiam illam quam Christus nobis obedientiae suae merito acquisivit, quod quidem fidei officium ha ctenus in omnibus Ecclesiis reformatis tanquam ei proprium agnitum fuit, p. 143.  Arminians do the same with the Papists, and Socinians, etc. so that we are not justified by faith, metonymically as an instrument apprebending that righteousness which Christ got for us by the merit of his obedience, which office of faith as proper to it, hath been hitherto acknowledged in all the reformed Churches.  
Paul said, only faith to be imputed to righteousness, and 
Paulus dixit tantum fidem imputatam ad justitiam, at illi de suo addunt, ipsam, ut locutionem figuratam in propriam transforment, & suam interpretationem aut potius commentum pro ipsis Paull verbis obtrudant, ne vid. fides accipiatur Metonimice aut correlative cum suo objecto, nempe justitia Christi fide apprehendenda, sed pro fide ipsa in se quae apud Deum habetur pro justitia, etc. p. 146. Christi justitiam nobis imputari negat quidem Socin. iid. Episcopi .. us alibi id expresserit non esse justitiam Christi propri● id quod imputatur. Disp. 12. thes. 4. ib.  they add of their own that, that they may transform a figurative speech into a proper one, and obtrude their interpretation, or rather error, for Paul's words, jest saith should be taken by a metonymy or relatively, with its object, that is the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, but for faith itself, in itself, which is accounted for righteousness by God. Socinus truly denieth Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. Episcopius elsewhere expressed it, that it was not the righteousness of Christ properly that which is imputed.  
By this time I hope you may be abundantly satisfied in this, neither is Mr. W. the only censurer of your opinion, others have said as much of Arminius for the same as he doth.  
Sect. 5. But when as 
* Mr. Walker not Arminian.  Mr. W. crieth out of Arminianism, is not he himself the Arminian? surely (say you) no two judgements ever jumped better together, the judgement of Arminius the Heretic, and Mr. W. the Erratic in the point of imputation.  
Why, what saith Arminius? 
c Arminius in resp. adart. impoes. Justitiam Christi nobis imputari, & fieri nostram gratuita aestimatione Dei. & arbitrari se id ipsum contineri verbis Apostoli, Cor. 5. Christum fecit Deus pro nobis peccatum, ut nos essemus justitia Dei in illo.  He saith the righteousness of Christ to be imputed unto us and to be made ours in the gracious account of God, and that he supposed the same thing contained in the words of the Apostle. 2 Cor. 5. God made Christ sin for us that we might he the righteousness of God in him.  
1. I answer, yet Mr. W. is no Arminian: First, suppose he fully held the same with Arminius. It might not denominate Mr. W. seeing the tenet is his in common with all of the reformed Churches. Neither in that name, had it been a fault in Mr. W. to hold the same Arminius did, how faulty soever Arminius else, it is the substance of your own answer.  
2. Arminius himself in that agreeth not with himself, etc. Yourself confess him and some of his followers much more to express themselves on the other hand, and to affirm the imputation of faith for righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ.  
3. You say sometimes, if so, it is more than once, name another time if you can; you might have said always, else: So that there is fare more reason denomination should be from what is ever his fault (being so indeed) you constantly speaking with him, than that Mr. W. should be so styled from his once.  
4. Again, do you not clip his words? and doth not Arminius say more than you report in that point? and would he have these two, Christ's righteousness to be imputed unto us, and faith to be imputed unto us for righteousness to be the same? and did he there approve that phrase the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us for righteousness? which yet is Mr. Walkers, and of all Protestants. Those praised Divines of Leiden, having repeated what you do out of Arminius, truly observe and add. 
d Sed non voluit idem esse Christi justitiam nobis imputari, & fidem nobis imputari ad justitiam. Imo nec phrasin illam volebat probare, justiam Christi nohis imputari ad justitiam.  But he would not that Christ's righteousness to be imputed unto us, and faith to be imputed to righteousness, should be the same. Neither would be prove that phrase, Christ's righteousness to be imputed to righteousness. Both which Mr. W. would have done. So that Mr. W. and he jump not together. Nay Arminius faith (
e Fieri nequit, Deus Christum ejusque justitiam nobis imputer ad justitiam. Epist. ad Hippol. Justitiam Christi imputari ad justitiam, mihi non probari dixi. Quicquid imtatur ad justitiam, vel in justiti●, vel pro justitia, idipsum non est justitia strict & rigid sumpta: at Christi justitia quam ille praestitit, est ipsissima justitia strict & rigid sumpta: ergo non imputatur ad justitiam.  It cannot be that God should impute unto us Christ's righteousness. He professeth he followed the contrary in his Theses, in his Declaration, and ad art. 31. he saith, I said I approve not the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us, whatsoever is imputed to righteousness, etc. that is not righteousness strictly and rigidly taken: but Christ's righteousness which he performed is righteousness itself straight and rigidly taken: therefore it is not imputed unto righteousness.  
For my part I conceive that by his imputation of Christ's righteousness, he meant not that, in itself, but in its effect, faith, the imputation whereof is the effect of Christ's righteousness. Forsooth Christ by his righteousness merited that faith should be graciously accepted in the place of righteousness. So he constantly, and in the same sense answering to the question of a proper or figurative sense, he denieth the latter and asserteth the former, with an, I plainly think so, wherein he agreeth 
Ita plane sentio.  not with Mr. W. but yourself; you are the men that jump together. These are a sufficient defence of him, they show he doth not (as you charge him) directly maintain what Mr. W. doth; there is palpable difference. Mr. W. saith that the right teousnesse of Christ is imputed to righteousness. Show me the same in Arminius, than I will yield they jump, till than you come short of your undertaking.  
Sect. 6. But Mr. W. in this, Fairy-like, leaves a chanleging to the Arminians, better favoured than their own, giving them 
Mr. G.  an opinion rather, than relating theirs, to make the Arminian tenet and yours to meet: forsooth the Arminians mean by faith not as Mr. Walker saith that grace only consisting in confidence and assent, but an universal obedience to the will of God in all those duties which be requires of men in the Gospel.  
Answ. For the practice of Fairies, I never read of it, and if it be so I shall think better of them than I did. Those that tell tales of them, seem to say otherwise, and I never heard of a wellfavoured changeling before. But how prove you that to be the Arminian tenet? you answer from those Divines of Leiden, c. 10. Who challenge them for affirming the word faith to be sometimes taken in Scripture 
g Pro tota & universa illa) voluntate Dei.  for that whole and universal will of God, which before they said God would have performed by us, in which sense they would be taken and understood in this Chapter. 2. They are charged with Pontifician friendship, 
h In eo quod opera inter justificationis causas numerant, aequali cum fide jure.  In that they number works amongst the causes of Justification with faith by an equal right. And after to have drawn this their notion of faith out of the Socianin lakes. 
i Memin isse debemus fidem hanc sc. qua justificamur, Dei obedientiam esse.  We must remember this faith by which we are justified to be obedience of God. And after, in Christum credere, nihil aliud est, quam Deo ad ipsius Christi normam & prae scriptum obedientem se praebere: and after that by faith which they hold to be imputed for righteousness, they understand and mean fidem ipsam in se quae apud Deum habeatur pro justitia, quatenus fidei nomine comprehenditur p●nitentia, resipis●entia & in universum obedientia hominis Christiani.  
Answ. To answer. First, were there a difference in Explication, yet there is agreement in the same thing faith; neither can you blame men for disagreeing in Explication who are therein notorious for agreement with Bellarmine, and disagreement with reformed Divines.  
2. Though I might let them stand or fall by their Explication. Yet I must do them right. Those Divines you name say that they involve all in ambiguities, as their manner is, so as one cannot easily attain their mind; so that one may mistake them.  
They do not peremptorily as you, but doubtfully as inquirers affirm. 
k Id tamen videntur velle, & videntur cum Sccino accipere, p. 142.  Yet they seem to mean that, and they seem to take it with Socinus.  
Thus the Remonstrants in their Apology answer those Divines, and observe the same. 
l Istud aperte profiteri non audeant: ubique enim suum istud videtur ingeminan, & conclusio tandem est eos propio●●s S●●●●● quam Ecclesi● Reformantae videri posse: quae locutio quam sit, circumspecta & solcita, quis non vider?  They dare not plainly profess it, for they every where double that there, they seem, and conclude at length they may sceme nearer to Socinus than the reformed Church; and much more to that purpose, which you would not or did not see.  
To that question, 
m An Remonstrantes' ●dei formam essentialem faciant obedientiam & quidem operum lega'ium atqu● imprimis Evangelicorum.  Whether the Remonstrants make the essential form of faith to be obedience, that of the works of the Law, and especially of the Gospel; they seem to clear the matter whilst they answer. 
n Haec prima manifesta ca'umnia est. Ausquam id a 〈◊〉 in confession ecrum factum prohabitur. C●ntrarium ●atet in termiais Nam obedienr am no vamsive obedientiam proprièdictam, quae in Scholis ita vocatur, s●mp●r & ubique distingunt à fident effectum à causa sua, à qua ●manat ut rivus à lcnte, ut 〈◊〉 à matre, contra quam So●inus faciendum esse sentit, p. 110.2.  This is a manifest calumny, this will not be proved done in their Confession, the contrary appeireth in terms, for they always distinguish obedience properly called from faith, as the effect from the cause from which it fla●●eth, as a River from the Fountain, as the Child from the Mother, where is Socinus thinketh otherwise. Arminius himself disclaimeth it, ad artic. 5.  
And when as they join works with faith in instification, they say it is but a Grammatical or Logical controversy, and that the confessions of all reformed Churches acknowledge faith to be 
o Vivam.  living, not 
p Mortuam, fidem quaeconjuncta sibi habet bona opera, imo quae sine bonis operibus nec est, nec esse potest, esse fidem illam veram justificantem, ut vocant, quae ista proprietate ab historica & temporanea ac miraculorum fide ut ajunt, distinguitur.  dead, faith which bath joined with it good works, yea, which neither is without good works, nor can be, to be that true justifying faith as they call it, which by that property is distinguished from historical faith, temporary, and that of miracles, as they speak. Where also they urge out of those Censores, p. 11. 
q Diserte obedientiam operum aecessatiam esse asserunt ad justificationem, non quidem necessitate efficientiae, sed praesentiae.  They plainly assert obedience of works necessary to justification, not indeed with necessity of efficiency, but of presence.  
So that you say they say it, and your witnesses that they seem, and themselves deny it. Judge now whether Mr. W. giveth them a better opinion than they have to make you meet with them.  
If they did so, Mr. Walker telleth you that they are more tolerable herein than yourselves: you and Master Wotton: for it is more agreeable to justice and reason that God should count all graces of renovation for righteousness rather than faith alone in the proper sense, which is but one grace, and so Mr. Forbs also.  
Finally, whosoever shall read that Chapter, and the answer, and compare some passages with your opinions, will see you meet indeed; and that you desire not leave to descent from those learned men for nothing. I could find much observable. But I pass to what you relate out of Doctor Prideaux concerning Vorstius. Who saith:  
He holds 
r Fides imputatur immediate & formaliter, & meritum Christi mediate & effective.  Faith is imputed immediately and formally, and the merit of Christ mediately and in effect.  
What is this but your own opinion? You say faith is imputed immediately, and the merit of Christ but mediately, if at all. Roundly, you, in its effect, that is faith, which is imputed.  
But there he addeth. 
s Per fidem ulterius ostendit se observationem Christianismi solumodo intelligere, quia credere idem est quod observare Christi praecepta, nec dispuduit tandem concludere fidem justificantem illam, esse illam inhaeientem justitiam quam Papistae urgent.  By faith be sarther showeth be only underst andeth observation of Christianisme, because to believe is to keep Christ's precepts, neither was be ashamed at length to conclude that justisying faith, to be that inherent righteousness which the Papists urge.  
This is given unto him alone by the Doctor, and with a 
t Ulterius.  further; belike, in this he went beyond Arminius. So Arminius himself, and so the Remonstrants as before.  
And I pray you is not faith obedience to Christ's commandment and Gods work? (as you both love to speak, in opposition to the moral Law, out of the 1 John 3. and Job. 6. of which after.) And is not faith that justifieth in a proper sense the inherent righteousness the Papists urge in this cause by the same text? Rom. 4. The difference is.  
Papists make it a part, the beginning, and give it to all the graces, you to faith alone, both are for a proper sense against the Relative one.  
Ours call it gross impiety to place that righteousness, whereby we are justified in faith, in whole or in part, Forbs 78. And of faith properly taken, and without relation he saith, it is more pernicious than that of the Papists, p. 80. Ne● dum dispuduit.  
But, a little before he saith out of Corvinus, that Arminius was not pleased that faith should be called the instrumental cause of justification, which is against what you teach.  
It is true he saith not so; you do, and yet that which the Doctor there speaketh to Arminius, appertaineth to and toucheth you both. 
u Bona igitur side dic Armini pro tuo acumine, qua ratione fides justificat? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, hoc est actum fidei (dicit Arminius) imputa●i in justitiam, idque proprio sensu non Me●onymi●●, quatenus objectum apprehendi●. Epist. ad Hippol.  Tell us in truth Arminius out of thine acute judgement how faith justifieth? The act of faith (saith Arminius) is imputed for righteousness, in a proper sense, not metonymically as it apprehendeth the object. If not as an instrument, How? So the Doctor answereth himself. So he denying, so you calling it an instrument, both teach the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in a proper sense imputed, for righteousness; both deny the figurative sense; you that teach it an instrument, deny justification by it as an instrument receiving and applying Christ's righteousness to justification; The agreement being such, it had been wisdom to conceal this disagreement.  
You say he citeth Bertius, another Prince of the Arminian band; that he acknowledgeth 
w Hanc sententiam meritum Christi exclude●e.  this opinion to exclude the merit of Christ, which is contrary to what you have taught and profess.  
If he be a Prince of the Arminian band; you are no common Soldier, but ad ho●, a Prince, as he, above him, a King. That he derogateth not from Christ he showeth, (with what agreement to himself let him look to that) 
x Fides ista meritum Christi respicit, atque hoc modo verum est quod dicitur, fides justifica ●non per se, sed correlative, quatenus nimi●um apprehendit Christium ejusque justitiam, Sib. Ep. p. 144.  That faith respecteth the merit of Christ, and thus it is true which is said, faith justifieth not by itself, but relatively as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousness: he is nearer the Protestant tenet in this than you, and if descent will make it, he leaveth you to be a King, you are lower or higher in that band. That faith in a proper sense is imputed, etc. he saith, and therein is but one of the Princes with you.  
When as the Doctor saith 
y Hanc sententiam.  this opinion; he hath no relation to Vorstius, or that his opinion, of which before, of faith so taken. When as he saith Arminius his opinion to exclude Christ's merit, it concerneth you. Sibrandus said to Bertius. 
z Haec tua thesis est causa qua●e statuam vobis (●i tamen vobis constare vultis) necessario tandem eo de veniendum esse ut cum Serveto, Socino, Osterodo, meritum sive satisfactionem Christi pro nobis sactam omnino tollatis dicatisque neque Christum nobis justitiam peprrisse. Ne● nos ipsius justitia nobis imputata justitiari, p. 85. Talia enim ponit fundamenta per quae meritum Christi necessario eve●titur, ib.  This your thesis is the cause why I conclude, if you will be like yourselves, at length necessarily to come to it, that with Socinus, Servetus, Osterodus, you altogether take away the merit or satisfaction of Christ made for us, and say that Christ neither brought righteousness for us; (when you with Arminius preach ye are not justified by any righteousness at all) Neither that we be justified by his righteousness. Bertius said not the latter; Arminius and Socinus, etc. did, Bertius must come to it. Bertius saith it of Arminius. For he layeth such foundations by which the merit of Christ is necessarily overthrown. For either it must be by faith in a proper sense imputed and Christ's righteousness imputed, or one of them: If it be by faith in a proper sense as in your Doctrine, justification by Christ's righteousness imputed, is excluded; and it is your Doctrine as this latter excludeth the proper sense of Faith. Indeed at best the merit of Christ, as a remoter thing, must be established, meriting that faith should be imputed, which is Socinianism as Sibrandus showeth out of Osterodus, p. 10. & p. 97. and that which was taxed by the Doctor in Vorstius, but even now; see your 15. p.  
As for your charge on Mr. W. that he by his opinion 
Mr. G.  of imputation of the active obedience of Christ's righteousness doth more trench on the merit of Christ's righteousness than your opinion, it is arresting, arraigning, and finding full of guilt.  
Answ. You show not at whose suit, nor at what bar, nor in what. Neither can I divine which way it will appear, less you be the accuser, the witness, and the Judge in that Assize; open it when you please. Look at home, you deny it to Christ's active obedience; as being Christ's 
☞  debt, and Christ's passive obedience also, when as thereunto you do call his active obedience as an essential requisite, though not without contradiction. Seeing nihil dat quod non habet, that which meriteth not, being debt, cannot make his sufferings to be so, of this in the answer to your treatises.  
The other things which you say you could improve, p. 16. I pass and leave to the Readers to judge whether there be not Arminian blood in your tenant apparent, which is that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere of Abraham in a proper sense is imputed denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification: these are yours, they are of Arminius and Arminians, as before. In the words of Sibrandus I will add. 
b Hoc ipsum ante ●e docuit Servetus, scribit enima. libro de lege & Evang. ut est apud Calvinum in refutatione errorum Michaelis Serveti, p. 903. suum credere reputatum fuisse Abrahae ad justitiam.  This same thing Servetus taught before thee, for he writeth, his faith was reputed to Abraham for righteousness. 
c Sed & Socinus hoc ipsum docet de Christo servatore, p. 388. ejus verba haec sunt, cum fides nostra nobisad justitiam imputatur, sensus est, fidem nostram pro justitia habe●i. Cum justitiam Abrahae exemplo imputari docet, etc. sed ideo (nos justos coram Deo) quia Deo visum sit fidem nostram justitiae loco nobis ducere.  And Socinus teacheth the same. When our faith is imputed to us for righteousness; the sense is, our faith is accounted for righteousness, when he teacheth righteousness to be imputed to us by Abraham's example. But therefore, because it seemed good to God to accounted our faith to us in the place of righteousness.  
Socinus in one place writeth 
d Ne syllaba quidem in sacris monumentis exter, de Christi justitia nobis imputanda. Utapud Sibrand in censuris p. 463 & credidit Abraham Deo, & ob eam causam ab ipso justus habitus suit, p. 463.  There is not a syllable in the Scripture of Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. Abraham believed God, and for that cause was he accounted just of him.  
And when as you detract not justification from the blood and merit of Christ, but give it the blood and death of Christ, what do you more than Osterodus? these are his words. 
e Quatenus sanguis ille & mo●s in nobis efficiunt eas res propter quas Deus nos justificat, nempe fidem. Ex his quilibet videre poorest t● & Arminium ●dem docere de fide jus●●ican●e quod an●e vo● Fervency, S●cinus, Ostero●us, de illa script● l●●eris & viva voce docuerunt.  So fare as that blood and death work in us those things for which God doth justify us, forsooth faith. I will conclude in Sibrandus words to Bertius. Out of which every one may see thee and Arminius to teach the same of justifying faith, which before you, Servetus, Socinus, Osterodus, wrote and p●ea●hed. And if you desire to see farther agreement, see it in Peltius his Harmony de justif. par. 3. & 4.  
Here is Arminian blood, neither have you proved the same in Mr. W. nor can you, sift and examine as throughly as you william. When as you say Arminian faith imputed includeth obedience to the Law of God. You hear they distinguish it from works, and you know, it is called by them and yourself, the work of God, the commandment and condition of the Gospel Mr. Ws. faith in the Relative sense indeed includeth the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to Gods Law.  
You say Arminian faith is performed in their own person. So is yours: you say it was Abraham's faith in a proper sense as before. Mr. W. teacheth the righteousness of Christ applied by faith so to constitute us just as if we had performed it in our own persons.  
You say the Arminia● faith excludeth Christ's merit from justification. So doth yours as before; as that which is immediate, as that with which imputed we are just. You cannot say Mr. W. faith doth little less; perfect righteousness is that which faith applieth in Mr. W. Doctrine, by which we are justified before the Lord.  
When as you ask, if Christ's righteousness and obedience be imputed to righteousness, what need there is of any satisfaction or atonement by blood.  
Mr. W. will answer you, both are debt, full satisfaction consisteth in them both.  
Mr. J. Goodw. will tell you it is an heinous crime to divide Christ's righteousness: and that his active obedience infloweth, and is in a sort satisfaction.  
When as you tell us you have wrung the best weapons out of the adversaries hands, you are but Miles gloriosus, (to continued your Metaphor) It was sine host, tua te jact as in aula. And me thinks those that teach this doctrine should not be professed enemies to you. The Church of England teacheth the same in her Homily, and the Articles of Ireland. As great and as godly as the lively faith is (saith the Homily) yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth, or appointeth us unto Christ for to have only by him remission of our sins or justification, 3. part. hom. salv. p. 18. 19  
When as the world was not able to pay, etc. It pleased God to prepare for us the most precious Jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby the ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied, p. 15. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him, he for them paid the ransom by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that now in him and by him every true Christian man may he called a fulfiller of the Law; for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied, etc. p. 15. Is this tenet your adversary? It is the tenet of your Mother: It is not to know or acknowledge your Mother; to be her adversary, and an adversary to yourself.  
And though you thus part with Arminianism now in words; you are found not to do so indeed, and shall be showed to do so, to the end.  
For the other grand heresies Socinus holdeth which you do not; I know not that Mr. Walker layeth them to your charge directly. It is good you should look to consequences. Sibrandus gave Bertius good cautions, p. 85. 87. 122. etc. In the imputation of faith in a proper sense, and denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness you agreed, as Sibrandus to Bertius, of which before; these he called blasphemous heresies.  
Sect. 7. Here (passing many vain words, impertinences 
P. 21.  ●nd froth) you say Mr. W. granteth p. 7. that Abraham re●ing on the Lord by firm faith for the performance of the promises made unto him, the Lord counted it to him for righteousness; and after, even faith was rockoned to him for righteousness; and after p. 11. whereby faith (he saith) he ●●eaneth the holy spiritual faith and belief, which is before ●ewed to have been in Abraham, and which is proper to the ●ect and regenerate. What of this? It agreeth not with his ●●inion, it is not his tropical or metonymical faith, it is ●aith in the proper nature and direct signification; and so ●hat have we to do with the discourse following? he holds the ●ame interpretation of faith with you.  
Softly Sir, his interpretation is out of your mouth tropical, in this I see no agreement with you, nor disagreement with himself.  
By faith in Christ Abraham rested on God for performance of the promises, the word to him was, In thy seed ●all all the Nations of the earth be blessed, in him all promises ●re Yea and Amen. He must rest by faith in Christ, on God for them; indeed in him he was Abraham's God, to ●im the promise is made first, in him, to us, if ye be Christ's, ye be Abraham's seed and heirs, etc. Gal. 3. ult.  
This faith in Christ he saith was reckoned to him for righteousness, and the faith which apprehendeth and applieth the righteousness of Christ is proper to the elect ●nd regenerate, and is an holy spiritual faith and belief: ●ere is no opposition to himself, or agreement with you, ●ou do but flatter yourself, and deceive your Reader.  
But faith so often said to be imputed for righteousness, 
P. 22.  Mr. W. cannot understand a tropical or metonymical faith, ●iz. the righteousness is evident (say you) because immediately after, p. 11. interpreting the word righteousness, he saith, by it is meant the righteousness of Christ, etc. so that if by faith we understand the righteousness of Christ, and by righteousness, the righteousness of Christ too, we must make the Apostles meaning to run thus. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to a believer for the righteousness of Christ, an hyper absurdity.  
The Remonstrants Apol. p. 113. giving a reason why they used not the phrase (
f Christi justitiam nobis imputari. ) Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us, give this reason, (
g Necesse est justitiam Christi dicamus nobis imputari propter justitiam Christi, quae locutio non modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed manifestam in sese habet absurditatem. ) We must necessarily s●● that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for the righteousness of Christ, which is not proper but absurd. It was borrowed, Discipulum t● facile agn●sc●●.  
1. Faith in a tropical sense is that which Mr. Walk teacheth with all the Reformed Churches.  
2. The explication of Mr. W. is of righteousness imputed, which he saith is that which faith layeth hold of, no● those words, to righteousness, which you might observe to have a distinct interpretation given it by Mr. W. His words are by imputing and accounting that faith for righteousness to Abraham, and every one of his faithful seed is be● mea●● Gods setting of Christ's righteousness on the score and putting it on the account of the believer, his judging them perfectly rightness.  
By that phrase for righteousness, is not meant the righteousness of Christ as you would fasten on him, no● perfect conformity to the Law, as in the first Covenant, personal righteousness of Abraham, but a righteousness by which the believer is as if be had perfectly performed the Law in his person, in such a state, and had never sinned, by which the believer is just in the sight of God.  
A believer is not so by faith in a proper sense, that is not perfect righteousness, and cannot make a man so▪ But in a relative sense as it applieth the righteousness of Christ active and passive, by which imputed, set on our score, it is that we are righteous, and so accounted.  
Sect. 8. But let us come to the phrase of imputing, or 
Mr. G.  ●●●●ting, and here Mr. W●. first fault is. He makes a supposition, that to impute and account are universally termini aequipollentes, to run always hand in hand.  
Answ. 1. He hath no such words in that place, there i● neither universally, nor always.  
2. If he did so, there is no misprision from his own Scripture instances,  
It had not been good English (you say) I and my son Solomon shall be imputed offenders, and yet you must acknowledge to have offence imputed is to be accounted an offender.  
Yourself confess in some cases and falls of speech, they may be of indifferent use and signification, and in the case in hand to be expressions of good propriety, and that there is not ●uch difference between them, except a man hath a mind to ●avill and wrangle about words. The man than that quarrels these words must be conceived ex confessis, to have a mind to cavil and wrangle. Who than layeth on tongue ●nd multiplieth discourse? it is your phrase.  
But this is his great fault indeed, namely, the description ●e layeth down of the sense of the phrase, imputing a thing ●o one, which description is this. The phrase of imputing or counting a thing to one signifieth both in the Old and New Testament, an act of judgement and estimation by which a ●hing is judged and esteemed, reckoned and accounted to be as it is indeed.  
These are his words, but he calleth it not a description once, as you do twice, and so usually afterwards: forsooth, that you may examine it by the rules of a right definition, or description, as in your 2. exception, where you try it by that Law.  
But the bore giving of the sense of a word cannot be termed a description, neither is every description to be ●ried by the rules of a true definition, much less every explication of the sense of a word; pass that, What say you to it?  
Capiat qui. potis est ●aper●, and confess his eloquence to 
Mr. G.  pass your intelligence.  
Answ. Which surely is a wonder, when as he seemeth to explain his speech to a common capacity. Do not you know what it is to judge a thing to be as it is indeed? I would not have said so of you, his words following spell them more plainly when as he addeth, than it is just and according to truth. The judgement is so not when it is judged as it is not, but as it is, for that is unjust judgement and not according to truth. He addeth, God's thoughts are always just, and his judgement is according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. therefore a just imputing and counting is here meant, saith Mr. for God doth account of all persons and things, as they are. He giveth instance of an unjust account and false imputing, 1 King. 1. 21. and of true counting, Neb. 13. 13. and Levit. 17. 4. and Psal. 22. 30. and do you not yet understand it?  
Why do you dispute against it, and condemn Mr. W. for it in the entrance, saying, The man is not where liker himself than in the description? Surely you can never justly judge him or his cause in dispute, if so be that you do not understand him: you might have spared your 1. 2. 4. and last onset against what is said, and first have required Mr. W. explanation, that you might understand him.  
These are but words; the fault is in your will: he putteth you to it, as we shall see in examination of your opposition.  
You say, I should have thought that Gods imputing faith for righteousness (take faith in what sense you will) had been an act of grace and mercy in God, and not an act of judgement.  
1. By an act of judgement in Mr. W. sense you should understand, an act of understanding.  
2. But I suppose you take it for an act of justice, for judgement the exercise thereof; and if, why may there not be in justification a concurrence both of mercy and judgement? and both not be exercised in making men just? I should have thought there is sweet agreement between them. I have read in one of our Homilies, that God in our redemption and justification, with endless mercy joined his most upright and perfect justice. Homil. salv. 1. part. That God's mercy did not deliver us without a just ransom, p. 14. that when as it lay not in us to do, he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear— who besides his ransom sulled the Law for us perfectly, ib. that in this the justice of God and his mercy did embrace together, ib. so that in our justification is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Law calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom, and fulfilling the Law. The grace of God shutteth not out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of, man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be means of deserving our justification, ib.  
I have read of Justification freely by grace through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth a propiriation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness— in it God is just and the justifier, Rom. 3.  
When as faith is taken in a relative sense with its object, Christ and his perfect righteousness, and is imputed to Abraham for righteousness, Abraham is made just perfectly, God judgeth justly in accounting him so, in pronouncing him so, with this he may stand in judgement and be as if he had never sinned, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law in his own person.  
It is not so where faith is taken in a proper sense, neither is that accounting faith for righteousness a righteous judgement; or that which is in truth. Faith thus taken is a work of the Law, (some think) a part of inherent righteousness, as charity, an imperfect grace, it cannot stand in judgement.  
Faith in the relative sense establisheth the Law (as you shall see) bringeth in what it requireth, and so justifieth, and so justification is a work of mercy and judgement.  
I profess I could never endure what I read in Mr. Wotton and Socinians, that 
h Poena & venia sunt adversa.  punishment and pardon are adverse, in some, nay in itself it is joined with denial of the satisfaction of Christ, and a destroyer of God's justice. Look you to it.  
Justice shineth through mercy, Mr. Forbs, p. 92. and this 
Perkinsi verba Wots. in Bish. p. 174.  of faith in a proper sense is against the justice of God, (as he) When as we are before God's judgement-seate to be judged in the rigour of justice; than we must bring some thing that may countervail the justice of God, not only acceptation in mercy, but also approbation in justice. 
i Justos ess● oportet si simus ei accepti, Cal. in Rom. 5. 1●.  We must be just if we be accepted of him. 
k Simul qualis si● Christi justitia interpretatur, tum vocat obedientiam, ubi nos abnotemus quaeso, quid nos afferre inconspectum Dei opotteat si velimus operibus justificari, nempe legis justiti am numeris omnibus absolutam, Calv. in Rom. 5 19 Sed quia offerimus per●ectam Legis gratuito donat, Calv. in Gal. 3. 6.  The Apostle showeth what Christ righteousness is when be calleth it obedience. Observe what we must bring into God's sight if we will be justified by works the righteousness of the Law complete. But because we bring th' perfect obedience of the Law— because we have it not in us, God freely giveth it. 
l Non asia justitia admittitur in Coelis, quam integra Legis observatio, Calv. instit. 1. 3. c. 14. p. 13.  No other righteousness is admitted in Heaven than the entire observation of the Law. 
m Justitiam Dei quae apud Dei tribunal approbabitur, Calv. in Gal. 3 9  The righteousness of God which shall be approved at God's Tribunal. 
n Non vivimus coram Deo sine justitia, Calv. in Rom. 1. 17.  We live not before God without righteousness. 
o Primam justification is nostrae causam non ad hominum judicium referri, cum ad Dei tribunal ubi nulla justitia censetur perfecta absolutaque Legis obedientia, Calv. ib.  At God's Tribunal no righteousness is so judged but perfect and absolute obedience of the Law. 
p At justitiam quae examen rigoremque judicii sustine at nobis omnibus, integram perfectamque necesse est, Aret. in Phil. 3. 9  We have need of righteousness which will bear the examen and rigour of justice entire and perfect.  
2. When as you tell us, p. 24. every Act of judging and esteening a thing to be as it is, is not an imputing or accounting it to another, which yet must be if it be rightly defined by the rules of a definition.  
The Answer is Mr. W. did not define it, he said not it is, but it signifieth, which is not the manner of him that defineth. Neither hath he a word of imputing it to another, upon which what you tell us of the Sun and Moon, etc. are built, they are Castles in the air.  
3. You say, when God imputes either my faith to me, or Christ's righteousness (the one being the Scripture phrase, the other Mr. Ws.) for my righteousness; he doth not judge any thing to be as indeed it is: for neither is my faith, nor the righteousness of Christ indeed my righteousness, but my faith in that grace which God hath consecrated and ordained to bring me into communion and fellowship of that righteousness that is of that Justification, etc. which Christ by the merit of his life and death hath purchased for m● and for all those that believe in him. Therefore the phrase of imputing doth not signify an act of judgement, etc. by which a man judgeth a thing to be as it is.  
1. The Scripture, and what hath been spoken are directly against you, which show God's judgement according to truth. I oppose it to your bore negation.  
2. For the Scripture as it mentioneth imputation of faith, which you confess is not righteousness, and truly as in a proper sense, so it saith righteousness is imputed, which is also against your assertion that it is not righteousness indeed, and elsewhere I shall make good to be Christ's; you shall not name a third.  
3. The righteousness of Christ is mine, he is my well-beloved, mine, he is the Lord my righteousness. Sir, whether you will or no the Lord saith it, this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23. 6.  
4. Faith in a proper sense bringeth not into communion with the righteousness of Christ, as yourself, though here you say it, elsewhere you deny it, & here you confounded righteousness and justification as if they were one; if so, why do you deny it elsewhere? if it be different, indeed it is an effect of righteousness imputed (so is justification) the matter, by imputation that by which) Why do you confounded them?  
And here we may see what a goodly effect faith hath, and what a bringing into communion you mean, when as you deny communion with Christ's righteousness, but in the effect of it, to which after.  
5. Faith in a relative sense setteth all at rights, it causeth communion and fellowship with Christ, and his righteousness to justification; by this Christ's righteousness is our own; the judgement of God is according to truth; when as the Lord imputeth it to righteousness, as the stream of Protestants runneth.  
4. When as you say, Mr. W. instances from Scripture, ●●●ply not naturally with his description of the word Imputing. It is but a denial; a denial will answer it. To omit, it is you, not Mr. W. that made it a description.  
Vlt. You say, some instances contradict that description of his according to his own interpretation, of the phrase imputing, as that of Shimei, Let not my Lord impute iniquity to me, he doth not (saith Mr. W. truly but contradictingly to himself) that David should not judge his iniquity to be none, and therefore it is against all reason be should say, still it so signifies; and so for that of Job 33. 10. whence you deduce it, doth always so signify.  
To which the answer is easy. The words universally and always, before, still and afterwards repeated now again are not in Mr. W. they are your own, as these, definition and description; devised to serve a turn. Where he saith it was so, he saith, it is taken sometimes in other senses there named, when used by a trope, a metonymy of the cause for the effect, etc. a metaphor, etc. see his instances; neither hath Mr. W. yet delivered you his application.  
When as to show the contrary you instance in Rom. 4. 8. & 2 Cor. 5. 19 Where God is said not to impute sin, the meaning is not that God doth not judge a believer to have sin in him, and to judge as it is, but that God absolving men from guilt and punishment, and so imputing righteousness, that it is of a full different nature from judging it as indeed it is.  
For my part I know not, but when as God imputeth not sin, he judgeth as it is, for there is neither guilt nor punishment properly so called to them that believe in Jesus Christ; which is therefore true, because they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, truly given them and applied by faith, by which as they are accounted righteous, and are so indeed.  
When as you say Mr. Ws. own tenet showeth it, that God imputeth Christ's righteousness for the righteousness we should have performed in our own persons, which is not our own personal righteousness. You misse-report it. Mr. Ws. words are, when God imputeth Christ's righteousness to a believer, he counteth him perfectly righteous by that righteousness, and so he is indeed.  
And because you judge Mr. W. for that passage (which a reason why imputing signifieth an act of judgement) Gods ●oughts are just, and his judgements according to truth, Rom. ● 2. as if Gods imputing righteousness to him that is a inner, and hath no righteousness, were an act of injustice ● him, and contrary to truth.  
Answ. I suppose he did it with good cause. Than when ● a man is accounted righteous for the righteous for the righteousness of ●hrist imputed by God, applied by faith, as he is righteous indeed, so the judgement or account is true and righ●ous. Which not being a truth of faith imputed in a pro●r sense, if it should be imputed, doth therefore tender ●ods accounted not true nor just. So that directly you deny ●e one and other in this exception.  
Neither is it a new practice of Mr. W. or his alone, but ●dinary to be found in the learned.  
Mr. Forbs, condemning imputation of faith in a pro●er sense, (which is your opinion) and calling it pernicious, ●d more pernicious than that of Papists, showeth the same ●hus.  
For when faith is not Relatively or instrumentally taken, ● respect of Christ apprehended by it, it can never contain peract righteousness, and so the Lord can never justify us ●y it; for the judgement of God is just and according to ●uth, Rom. 2. v. 2. 5. etc. They wittingly lay a ground ● themselves touching justification, wherein it is impossible that ●ods judgement can be according to truth, seeing they make him ● justify them, by that which in their own confession is ne●er answerable to the justice of God, p. 91. so he.  
If God should justify us— or by faith as it is a work or abit in us, God could never be seen to be just in justifying of ●s, etc. p 92.  
(
q Sybrandus to Bertius: Deus est justus & judicium ejus secundum veritatem; fides autem, non est tota legis justitia, sed tantum exigua pars illius, p. 10. Sed Dei judicium est secundum veritatem, Rom. 2. 2. scimus, etc. Num autem ille qui judicat secundum veritatem, & qui in judicando errare nequit, quique nec fallere nec falli potest, exiguam justitiae portionem, eamque imperfectam, & multis peccatis contaminatam, habebit aut habere poterit pro perfecta legis justitia? p. 30. ) God is just, and his judgement according to truth, faith ●● not the whole righteousness of the Law, but only a little part ●hereof.  
But God's judgement is according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. We know, etc. Will he who judgeth according unto truth, and who in judging cannot err, who cannot deceive nor be deceived, account or can be, a small portion of saith imperfect and much defiled, for the persect righteousness of the Law.  
(
r Quando Deus nosre putat justos ex fide, veritas quae huic reputationi divinae respondet, nonest justitia Christi formalterinhaerens in nobis, sed justitia Christi reali●er participata & donata nobis ordinationedivina. Si Deus ex eo quod nobis imputat Christi justitiam existima●e● nos inhaerenrer justos (quod nesas dictu) erraret Dei judicium atque esset in ment divina existimatio cui veritas rei non respondet, Bish. Dau. c. 28. p. 171. ) When God doth accounted us just by faith, the truth which answereth this divine account, is not the righteousness of Christ formally inhering in us, but the righteousness of Christ really communicated and given us by divine ordination. If God should esteem us inherently just from that, that he imputeth unto us Christ's righteousness, his judgement should err, and there should be in the mind of God an account to which the truth of the thing answereth not (which is wickedness for a man to speak) (
s Fallit ig●tur & fallitur Bellarminus imputationem justitiae Christi vocans nudam existimationem sive opinationem sine re, cum sit realis acceptatio peccatoris credentis pro justo in judicio Dei, Pareus Castig. de justif. p. 485. Ut Cham. n. c 5. Sect. 24. ) Therefore Bellar. deceiveth and is deceived, calling th●● imputation of Christ's righteousness, a naked esteem or thought without the thing, seeing it is a real acceptation of the believing sinner for a just man in God's judgement.  
Papists and Protestants agreed that in justification God's account is true and right. Bellar. and Becanus urge the judgement of God according to truth, to which Cham. (
t Judicium Dei sateor esse secundum veritatem. Vere justi facti sunt quicunque justificantur a Deo, sed aliter per inhaerentem aliter per imputatam justitiam, p. 865. 866. ) I confess that the judgement of God is according to truth, they are truly made just who are justified by God, but one way by inherent, another way by imputed righteousness. (
u Esto, imputare non simplici●e● existi mare, ut cum fallitut intellectus, & videtur hypocrita bonus qui tamen malus est: esto potius conjunctum cum ●●● veritate, sed sua: nimirum ut cuique Christiano, vere & realiter imputetur Christi justitia● hanc nos veritatem imputationis absit ut oppugnemus, c. 13. Sect. 14. p. 20. ) Grant that to impute is not simply to suppose, as when the understanding is deceived, and an Hypocrite seemeth good, who is wicked. Let it rather be joined with the truth of the thing, but it's own truth, that Christ's righteousness be truly and really imputed to every Christian; this imputation God forbidden we should oppose.  
Mr. Pemble to Becanus, urging Rom. 2. 2. saith. We embrace this rule, and the reason of it, acknowledging that wheresoever there is justification, there is justice, one way or other in the party justified. The question still stands in the manner, etc.  
We affirm that it is by imputing unto him the perfect righteousness of Christ, accepting Christ's obedience for ●is.  
We here take up the forenamed rule, laid down by our adversaries. 
De justif. p. 13.  Whomsoever God pronounceth to be perfectly just, be must needs be made perfectly just, for God's judgement is according to truth, p. 9 and elsewhere. God accounts that only for perfect righteousness of the Law which is so indeed and truth, but faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law: therefore God doth not accounted it for such.—  
The major must be proved that God accounts not that for perfect justice, which is not perfect indeed; this appears, Rom. ●. 2. the judgement of God is according to truth. When therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect, there God esteems it not truly good and perfect, ib. p. 37.  
Gualther (you say) an orthodox Interpreter findeth grace and favour not strictness of judgement in the phrase of im●utation. It teacheth us that God might indeed have dealt in ●rictnesse of judgement with us, and that we are indebted to ●is free gra●● that he dealeth not with us as we have deserved.  
Who denieth but God might have dealt in strictness, equired and exacted personal obedience, and have executed death on us for our sin? and that it is mercy that God imputeth or giveth Christ's righteousness: the Apostle showeth Christ and all his, gifts, and so effects of ●race, and yet in that there is strict justice, and that is answered by the L. Christ our surety by his perfect righteousness, so that God's righteousness is declared thereby. He is just in justifying, and so Orthodox interpreters, our twne, and others, as before. I may add more.  
The Law must be satisfied, or else we cannot be just, for the Lord doth allow no other righteousness but the very same which ●s described in the Law, which whosoever cannot attain are pronounced guilty of eternal death; therefore if we will be righteous and saved, such a righteousness must be sought out, than which the Law cannot require a more absolute— and where ●hall we find it? Our faith is but begun and we must always pray it may be increased in us— but righteousness must be of that kind as that nothing at all may be added thereunto. 
Dr. Whitak. against Camp. Englished by M. Stoke, p. 224. & p. 229. 230.   
The justice that freeth us from the Law, neither increaseth nor groweth, but is ever most perfect and absolute, that is, Christ his obedience imputed to us by faith;— what that righteousness is see there. I will not make application. (
w Ad Dei tribunal, ubi nulla justitia censetur nisi persecta legis obedientia, Toss. in Rom. 2. 21. ) At God's tribunal nothing is accounted righteousness but perfect obedience of the Law. (
x Nihil imperfectum aut maneum potest dici justitia Dei justificans, Id. ad Rom. p. 173. 7. Deum verè & summè justum in sponsore, Beza. ad Rom. 4. 25. ) Nothing imperfect or lame can be called the justifying righteousness of God. (
y Nam ut alibi dixi nullos pro justis approbat Deus, nisi quos prius verè ac summè (non in ipsis sed) in Christo suo, seu imputata Christi justitia justifica●et, ut Pro. 17. 15. Bek. ad Rom. 4. 21. 5. ) God is truly and most just in the surety. God, as I have elsewhere said, doth approve none for just, but those whom first he maketh just truly, and in the highest degree, not in themselves, but Christ's righteousness imputed. (
z Junius. Sola Dei Patris mi●ericordia justificari peccatorem ita profitemur, ut Christum cum Officio Mediatoris causam proximam agnoscamus, qui sibi non natus sed nobis, Jes 9 5. ita offensi Patris sempiternam justitiam absolutissimae persectionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 miseris hominibus reconciliavit, ut Deus justitiae laudem in media misericordia non amitteret. Et si ut agens liber●imum quos & quomodocunque velit justificare potuit; obedientiam tamen filii necessariam fecit, tum natura ipsius qua infinite justus, tum patefacta in Lege voluntas quae in Deo est aeterna & immota justitiae regula (sic & Calvinus instit. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 15. quae insuper immutabiliter requirit satisfactionem pro peccato, & Legis impletionem per obedientiam, cum justificare impium sine ulla justitia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dixerit, Pro. 17. 15. facta est igitur translatio Legis, Heb. 7. 12. quae non potuit vivifica●e, Gal. 3. 2. in Christum qui pro nobis sub Lege factus, Gal. 4. 4. Legi omnimodo ●atis●ace●et, Thes. Theol. 35. p. 689. ) We so profess a sinner to be justified by the only mercy of God the Father that we acknowledge Christ with his office of a Mediator the next cause, who being borne for us, not himself, Jes. 9 5. who by the ransom of most absolute perfection so reconciled the eternal justice of his offended Father to miserable men that God lost not the praise of justice in midst of mercy. Though as a most free agent he could justify whomsoever, and in what manner soever he would, yet both his Nature as he is infinitely just, and also his Will revealed in the Law, which in God is the eternal and immovable rule of justice: which moreover, in immutably requireth satisfaction for sin, and fulfilling the Law by obedience, seeing to justify a wicked man without righteousness he hath ●alled it abomination, there is therefore made a translation of the Law which could not give life on Christ, who being made for us under the Law might every way satisfy the Law for us.  
(
a Hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro●sus suit complendum etiam in nobis, ideoque Christus induens nostram carnem nostro nomine persecte praestitit legem, Matth. 5. non veni— & 16. hic facilius est coelum— pertinet hoc membrum ad beneficii Christi applicationem ad nos, Art in Rom. 8. 4. ) This righteousness was altogether to be fulfilled in us, therefore Christ putting on our flesh in our behalf perfectly performed it. I came not, etc. Matth. 5. & 16. here it is easier for the Heavens to pass, this member appertaineth to the application of Christ's benefit to us. (
b Nam tum demum redderetur inanis si illi non satisfiere●, vel per nos vel nostro nomine per alium▪ atqui id per Christum est satisfactum, qui non venit solvere sed implere, Matth. 5. & eam in ca●ne nostra implevit ad Rom. 8 Tossa●. p. 26. Beza in Rom. 8. v. 4. ) Than should it be vain if not satisfied by us, or in our name by another, and that is satisfied by Christ who came not to dissolve, etc. and he did fulfil it in our flesh. (
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illud ipsum quod requitit Le● ut ex ejus praescripto justi & integ●i coram Deo censcamur: nam tum ad peccatorum remissionem & impletionem justitiae accesserit etiam hoc tertium, id est, perfecta naturae nostrae integritas (quae omnia gratis consequimur in Christo per fidem apprehenso) ut in omnes facies se convertat Satan, justi sumus coram Deo, etiam ex illa absolutissima Legis formula quamobrem dixit Apostolus supra, c. 3. 31. se Legem non evertere sed stabilire. ) That very righteousness which the Law required that by its prescript we may be thought just and entire before God, for when as to forgiveness of sins and fulfilling the Law this third shall come, the perfect integrity of our nature, (all which we freely attain in Christ apprehended by faith) let Satan do what ever he can we are just before God, and that from that most absolute form of the Law, therefore the Apostle said he came not to destroy the Law, but to establish it, Rom. 3. 21. (
d ●ustitia Jesu Christi, per quam justificamur coram D●●est perfectissima totius Legis divinae obedientia— justitia in Evangelio pa●esacta est impletio Legis a Christo facta pro nobis, Polan. synt. l. 6. c. 36. p. 2947. per Evangelium Lex non aboletur s●d stabilitur, R●● 3. ●●. ) The righteousness of Jesus Christ by which we are justified before God is the most perfect obedience of the whole Law of God— the righteousness manifested in the Gospel, is the fulfilling of the Law made by Christ for us. (
e Calv. hunc scrupulum optime discurit cum ex ipsa Legis doctrina 〈◊〉 Legis ju●●●tiam. Calv. ad Rom. 10. v. 5. Stabilimus, merito hoc dixit Apostolas, nam Christ satisfactio quid aliud quam Legis minas ostendit, min●●e irritas esse, quum 〈◊〉 lucre Christ●●● oportuerit? Sed & Christi justitia quid aliud est quam plena Legis praestatio: doctrina igitur ex fide quum non prius nos servet quam justificet (idest, Christum nobis pe● imputationem applicet his omnibus virtutibus Legis ornatum) certe justitiam 〈◊〉 non modo non evertit, sed potius stabilit in nobis, Bez. ad Rom. 3. ult, ) He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as out of the doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousness of the Law. (f) The Apostle well said we establish; for what doth Christ's satisfaction but show the threats of the Law not void when as Christ must endure them? and what is Christ's righteousness else but a full performance of the Law. The doctrine therefore of faith seeing it doth not save us before it justifieth us, (that is, it applieth Christ to us by imputation, adorned with all these virtues) surely it doth not only not overthrew the Law, but rather stablisheth it in us.  
Hitherto may I refer that eternal rule, Do this and live, see Mr. Perkins argument. That which must be our righteousness before God must satisfy the justice of the Law, which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live, but there is nothing that can satisfy that justice of the Law, but the righteousness and obedience of Christ, ergo. See Abbot. p. 387. see Abot. p. 389. See Sybrand against Bertius, p. 140. & 144. and Mr. Pemb. p. 149.  
By all which much may be noted by you if you will put the same to use, and that not only mercy, but justice, exact satisfaction to the Law, are by Orthodox Writers established in free justification.  
Sect. 9 You go on, and say (when as Mr. W. by righteousness 
P. 27.  saith is meant Evangelicall righteousness— even the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of Christ our Mediator and surety, which he the Son of God, in man's nature performed to the Law.)  
Riddle me, riddle me, etc. and that faith in any sense cannot be 
Mr. G.  imputed for the righteousness of Christ.  
1. If it be a Riddle, how can you solve it without explication? your arguing is a beating of the air.  
2. And in the rest you do but trifle, that which is imputed is the righteousness of Christ, so Mr. W. truly; that is Evangelicall, Dan. 9  
3. That for the righteousness of Christ is not Mr. Ws. but your own before answered, see his explication.  
4. To that question, (though impertinent) whether any thing may properly be said to be truly and indeed the same with itself, and your reference of it to Mr. Walkers own determination when his Logic returns again unto him.  
I Answer, that I should think any thing may truly and properly be said to be the same with itself; neither do I conceive any thing more truly and properly the same than the thing itself: other things may be like, are not the same. Every thing is every way the same with itself, identity is the sameness of a thing in my Logic. Your own immediately preceding words may answer your question, which are, surely there is nothing truly, really, and indeed the same with the satisfaction of Christ, but this satisfaction itself.  
So that what Mr. W. said is a truth, that which God accounteth for righteousness is so indeed and maketh the person righteous indeed.  
So is faith (not in a proper sense) in a figurative sense apprehending the righteousness of Christ, righteousness indeed, and your inference, p. 28. but a formerly destroyed Remonstrant device.  
When you comprehend not why Mr. W. should call the 
2.  righteousness of Christ evangelical righteousness, opposed to legal, and yet define a legal righteousness to be every man's fulfilling the Law in his own person.  
I take it no difficult thing; take it as performed by himself, it was his performance and legal; take him to be our surety, and consider him so performing the same, and it graciously given unto us by God in the Gospel, it is Evangelicall and rightly so called: Christ and all his benefits are Evangelicall, such is his everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9 (
g Nec desunt apud Prophetas loca de justitia justificante in Christi Regno, ut Isai. 45. & 53. & Dan. 9 Tossan ad Rom. p. 173. ) Neither are there places wanting amongst the Prophets of justifying righteousness, as,  
You say legal righteousness of works cannot be inherent, because they are matters transient. 
3.   
1. Though the works pass, the habit whence which also is strengthened by the work, is inherent.  
2. As sinful acts passing, leave a stain and scar as well as guilt on the soul, why may not acts of righteousness a contrary lustre?  
3. The acts of righteousness of Christ pass not simply, they remain with God to whom they were offered to the ends and uses for which they were performed as in the effects thereof.  
4. Habits and acts in the Apostles disputes are enfolded, neither doth he dispute against transient acts alone, but inhering habits, the habit is actus primus, neither is it the love of God, or faith in Christ that acteth not o● him, conjoining the soul and the object thereby.  
You demand why he should say, that to be inherent in every 
4.  man which was never in any but Christ.  
That may have a fair account. Legal righteousness was inherent in Adam, as well as in Christ. God made man just, what Adam had, the whole nature had in him, and so it was in every man. There is also a proportion to the Law in every Christian, the Law of God is in his heart, though it be imperfect and given by the Gospel.  
You know not why he should affirm Evangelicall righteousness 
5.  to be a satisfaction performed to the Law. Why not? You grant it of the active obedience of Christ, but how the passive obedience of Christ which Mr. W. intendeth should be a satisfaction to the Law you apprehended not. You say the Law was satisfied in that perfect and entire obedience which Christ exhibited to it, and did not require of him (not more than it doth of any other man that shall fulfil it as he did) that he should be made a curse and die the death.  
1. I answer, both make up full satisfaction in our behalf, the Law said, Do this and live, and, Accursed is every man that abideth not in all the Commandments of the Lord to do them: both are our debt: our surety must do both in these names. God required doing, he must fulfil all righteousness; as God threatened death, Christ must suffer these things; he was accursed for us, he died for us.  
2. The Law requireth full satisfaction of the surety as well as the principal, and punisheth the surety as well as the principal.  
But he setteth himself against the wrath of the Law, and 
Luther ad Gal. p. 160. 2.  taketh it away, and satisfieth the Law in his own body by himself, I satisfy the Law for thee.  
But the Law doth not require that an innocent person should 
Mr. G.  die, but the transgressor, so you; he should not, considering the innocent person per se, in himself, & qua, as a surety, it is not so: so considered he was and might be numbered with transgressors. He was made sin for us, the iniquities of us all were laid on him. They, sins were on his account, on him, he bore our sins; hence guilt, hence punishment; Satisfactory it was (you say) but not to the Law, it knows no satisfaction, but to God, because he required it.  
Answ. Whose Law was it, but Gods? you say God required 
Bez. ad 2 Cor. 5. ult. Etsi peccatum victima ex Hebraeorum idiotismo, etc. Tamen ratio Antithesis poscit ut potius Christus dicatur factus esse peccatum pro nobis, idest peccator, non in se sed ex omnium peccatorum nostrorum reatu ipsi imputato.— I pse peccatum & nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobjs factus est— sic ergo sumus justitia Dei in ipso ut ille peccatum in nobis▪ nempe ex imputatione. Luther. ad Gal. c▪ 3. 15. 13. p. 136. 137. C. 53.  it, Was it not in the Law? satisfy God requiring, and satisfy the Law: in it he requireth death on the transgression thereof.  
Now that our Surety was by imputation a transgressor, harken to Divines. Although sin be taken for Sacrifice in the Hebrews speech— yet the reason of the opposition requireth rather that Christ should be said to be made sin for ●●s, that is a sinner, not in himself, but by the guilt of all our sins imputed to him— where he citeth that of Augustine.  
He was sin, and we righteousness, not our own, but of God, not in ourselves, but in him, as he is made sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but in us;— We therefore are so the righteousness of God in him, as he was sin in us, forsooth by imputation.  
Christ is innocent concerning his own person, and therefore he ●ought not to have been hanged upon a tree. But because according ●o the Law of Moses every Thief and Malefactor aught to be ●anged, therefore Christ also according to the Law aught to be ●anged, for be sustained the person of a sinner, and of a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thiefs.— Therefore it behoved that he should become a transgressor, and as Jes. the Prophet saith, to be reckoned and accounted amongst transgressors and ●respassers. And this no doubt all the Prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, blasphemer, that ever was, or could be in all the world. For he being made a Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins, is not now the Son of God borne of the Virgin Mary, but a sinner which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor: of Peter which denied Christ: of David which was an adulterer, a murderer, and caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord. And briefly which hath and beareth all the sins of all men in his, body that he might make satisfaction for them with his own blood.— He verily is innocent, because he is the unspotted and undefiled Lamb of God: but because he beareth the sins of the world, his innocency is burdened with the sins and guilt of the whole world.  
Whatsoever sins I and thou and we all have done or shall d●● hereafter, they are Christ's own sins as verily as if he himself had done them.— But what is it to bear? The Sophister's answer to be punished. Very well, but wherefore is Christ punished? 
☞  Is it not because he hath sin and beareth sin?— So Luther. 
See Gerhard de justif. p. 207▪  I pass others for the present.  
Lastly, you call him a Dedalian Divine, and say he makes 
6.  no clever work when he jumbles together the active and passive 
Mr. G.  obedience of Christ and subjecteth them to the same consideration in respect to their performance to the Law.  
Answ. Call him as you please, he hath not exceeded his mediocrity, here you prove it not. I find no jumbling. What if he had put them together? they agreed, and are his obedience. What was his taking our nature, what he did and suffered, his making himself of no reputation, his taking on him the form of a servant, his being made under the Law, but his obedience, which lasted even until death? and what but answer to Gods will and commandment on him as our Surety, what the Law spoke to our Surety?  
Less than the whole will not satisfy God's justice, will not justify, procure our freedom from sin, and eternal life. I will try that with you when you please. So that yet he hath quitted himself.  
Sect. 10. But before you leave him you play the Crier. If any man or woman longs for contradictions, or other absurdities of the blood, I can yet relieve them out of this tract of Mr. W.  
Surely that office doth not become you, you wanted an office when you took up that, the Ware you vent is no commodity, it is not appetible, adversaries only desire them in▪ such as they oppose for their own advantage. O how corruption pleaseth itself with them! What a precious dish is it to please your admirers in this your opinion! Let us examine the matter.  
P. 6. He affirmeth, and that truly (as you conceive) faith to 
P. 30.  be the first and radical grace and virtue of renovation. I will 
1.  agreed with you both. Where is the contradiction or absurdity? 
Answ.  you say, yet p. 5. in his definition of faith he supposeth the subject or person in whom it is wrought to be regenerate, which doubtless is as much as to be renewed.  
Sir, are not faith and all graces wrought together, and 
Answ.  at once? are they not together? is the subject than a believer, and not regenerate, and not renewed? Is not faith that which is born of God, & the subject in that name regenerate and renewed? What is regeneration or renovation but works of God by his spirit enabling to believe, etc. and is it not necessary that in order of nature enabling to believe be before faith? This will never save a man or woman's longing, nor tickle the Reader unless he be a believer of you on those terms of Pythagoras his scholars, Ipse dixit, he said it. Let us try another.  
Again, p. 9 he affirmeth that God doth account and judge 
2.  of all persons and things so as they are, and yet p. 11. granath 
Mr. G.  that God accounted Job his enemy, which he was not.  
Mr. W. said not that God counted Job his enemy, but 
Answ.  as Jobs speech: and than it is so asserted in an improper sense, and that distinct to the other which was first named, so that this is no contradiction: had he said the word is so taken, universally, always, still, (which you untruly charge him with before) it had been somewhat to purpose, now it is neither contradiction nor absurdity. Mr. W. professedly layeth down divers senses of the word, and that with a sometimes— as in that eleventh and tenth page. Why did you not make more contradictions as many as he did put different acceptations of the word?  
So p. 5. he defines faith, which is here said to be imputed 
3.  for righteousness to be the supernatural gift and grace of believing, and yet p. 8. that God imputes a righteousness which 
Mr. G.  neither consists in any work or works, nor in any grace or virtue inherent, and p. 12. he saith, by imputing▪ faith for righteousness is meant Gods setting of Christ's righteousness on the score, and putting it on the account of every believer.  
Faith questionless is a supernatural gift, but that it is 
Answ.  imputed in a proper sense, he saith it not, he blameth you for the same, but still in a relative sense, as it apprehendeth and applieth the righteousness of Christ.  
This righteousness imputed is neither any work or work or works, grace or virtue inherent in us.  
By imputation of Christ's righteousness is meant Gods setting it on the score of, or putting it on the account of a believer, he setteth it on his account, or really and truly giveth the same unto him. Here is not a contradiction to save a man's longing. It is well for him, not for your credit who beat up the Drum in Print and cry, If any man or woman, who may say, Parturiunt montes: let the Reader look for itsg Enlish in yourself.  
Defining faith which the Apostle saith is imputed, he defines 
4.  it a strong faith, or faith in the highest degree, so that 
P. 31.  a weak faith is not capable of Paul's imputation for righteousness. 
Mr. G.   
It is true he saith, this faith of Abraham was not weak, 
Answ.  but a strong faith and belief without staggering, in that place. Doth he say the faith that is imputed must be strong or not imputed? Where saith he, that a true faith, if not strong and a weak faithed Christian must to Hell? Not, it is another question. Mr. W. holdeth faith justifying as a hand receiving, so it receiveth the treasure be it never so weakly it inricheth, so it receiveth Christ and his righteousness it justifieth strong, and weak belongs to the more and less, not to the nature of faith simply.  
This also troubleth you, that the spirit of God in working 
Mr. G.  faith confirms the heart with confidence and firm persuasion. 
Answ.  But why are you troubled? Is not the heart by nature weak, and do not the works of such an one show it? Ezek. 16. Do not all graces strengthen, and shall faith, the chiefest, not confirm?  
Doth it trouble you that he saith, the spirit of God working faith confirms the heart with confidence? it needeth not, for whether confidence be of the nature of that mixed habit faith (as I think) or the effect of faith, it must ●eeds confirm the heart. It needeth not that he calleth ●t a persuasion, it was so truly called before you were born, ●nd if it did not persuade, how doth the soul assent?  
And as for firmness, it being a part of the inward and ●idden man which is incorruptible, a part of the everlasting Kingdom of Christ, it must be acknowledged firm; infused habits are so, all: they have more or less firmness in them.  
Lastly, whereas Mr. W. saith that God sets Christ's righteousness on the score, and puts it on the account of ●very believer; you would know whether his meaning be ●●at God accounteth every believer to have done and suffered; the ●ings which Christ did and suffered; or other tolerable construction.  
I answer, his putting to account is such a valid dona●●on of the same to a believer, that he by faith in Christ 〈◊〉 as if himself had satisfied. We by him died, we by ●im fulfilled the Law. He for them paid the ransom by his ●●ath, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life: so that now in ●im and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulller of the Law. Thus the Church of England in her Homily.  
To your ifs.  
If God puts the righteousness of Christ itself upon a believers 
Mr. G.  score, he puts the merit of Christ's righteousness up●● his score also, for these are inseparable: If he puts the me●t of Christ's righteousness upon his score, he must put all the ●uits and effects of his merit also, for these likewise are inseparable as the other, and so God shall have accounted every ●leever to have redeemed, justified, and saved the world.  
I answer, God putteth the righteousness of Christ on ●he score of a believer and the merit also, and so the effects of his merit are communicated. So that hereby man 〈◊〉 just, hath what to answer God requiring doing to life, ●nd threatening death for sins, Christ his righteousness ●nd merits, and hence is he justified, saved, etc. And yet followeth not that God should accounted every believer Saviour of the world. Your consequence is an absurd Popish one, reasons are given by our learned Protestants answering 
Sivere imputaretur nobis justitia Christi, profecto non minus justi haberi censerique deheremus quam ipse Christas, proinde redemptores & salvaroresmundi, quod est absurdum. Nos autem absurdum dicimus. Tantum praecario, id est aliunde & in alio. Rursus fieri non potest ut qui imputative justus est, sit redemptor mundi & servator, sed tantum servatus & redemptus. Cham. de justif. c. 20. P. 23 24. Ejusdem causae omnia effecta in unum individaum consundere. Quis neget solis calorem applicatum arboribus, esse causam generatorum fructuum omnium, neque tamen quisquam adeo insanit, u Piro applicaret generationem omnium sructuum, quia piro vidit applicatum solis calorem Causa est, quia longe differunt calor & applicatio coloris. Calor consideratur in ipso sole unde manat in omnes at bores, sed applicatio attenditur omnibus arboribus, ut non s●● omnibus idem actus communis, revera alius actus est cum calor applicatur Pito, & alim cum Pomo & cum nuci & deinceps. Eadem ratio est justitiae communis est servandis in viram aeternam, quandoquidem nulsum est aliud nomen sub caelo m quo nos oporter salutem assequi, sed sua suit Paulo justitiae impuratio, sua Petro. Johanm, jacobo. Absurdissuna ergo consequentia, imputari Pauls redemptionem Petri, Iohann●, jacobi, & aliorum Id. c. 21 P. 3. In an answer to an objection of Salmeton.  Bellarmine, whose it is against imputed righteousness. If the righteousness of Christ (saith Bellarmine) should be truly imputed unto us, truly we aught to be accounted and thought not less righteous than Christ himself, and therefore Redeemers and Saviour's of the world, which is absurd. Cham. answering him, denieth the consequence in these words. We (Protestants) say it to be an absurd thing, and denieth us equally just, for as much as he hath it inherently, a se, from himself, and is per se justus, just of himself, when as we inherently are unjust, and have our righteousness only by favour, that is elsewhere and in another: and addeth. Again, it cannot be that he that is just by imputation should be a Redeemer of the world, and Saviour, but only redeemed and saved.  
Elsewhere he answereth this to be, to pour all effects of the same cause into one individual thing. Who would deny the heat of the Sun applied to trees to be the cause of all fruits brought forth? Yet none is so mad as to give unto the Peartree the bringing forth of all fruits, because he seethe the heat of the Sun applied to the Peartree. The reason followeth. The reason is, heat and application of heat have a far difference.  
Heat is considered in the Sun itself, from whence it passeth to all the trees; but the application thereof is given to all the trees: so that it is not the same common act to all, indeed it is one act when as the heat of the Sun is applied to a Peartree, another when to an Appletree, and when to a Nut-tree, and so for the rest. This he applieth. There is the same reason of the righteousness of Christ which is common to all that shall be saved to eternal life, for as much as there is no other name under Heaven in whom we aught to attain salvation. But Paul had his imputation of righteousness, Peter his, and so John and James. It is therefore a most absurd consequence, that the redemption of Peter, James, and the rest, should be imputed unt Paul. Doctor Ames answering the same objection, layeth down the Protestants tenant.  
1. Christ's righteousness to be so 
1. Christi justitiam, eatenus nobis imputari ut cjus virtue, nos perinde justi censeamur coram Deo, ac si nosmer ipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi coram ipso censeamur.  fare imputed unto us, that we by the virtue thereof should be accounted so just God, as if 
2. Justitiam Christi imputati singulis fidesibus secundum eorum particularem necessitatem, non secundum universalem quem habet valorem, sicut gemma maximi pretii, quae datur pro variis captivis redimendis, applicatur singulis non secundum universame aestimationem, sed secundum cujusque captivi necessiratem: absurd igitur fit mentio mandi in applicatione singulari.  we ourselves had that by which we are accounted righteous before the Lord.  
2. The righteousness of Christ to be accounted to particular believers according to their Particular 
3. Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis, sed ut subjectis tantum: ineptissime igitur insert Bellarminuss nos posse dici redemptores aur salvatores, quia sumus redempti & salvati. Ame. Bell. enerv. 10. 4. p. 139.  necessity, not according to all the worth of it, as a precious stone of great price, which is given for ●he redeeming of divers Captices, is applied to particulars, not according to the universal worth, 
Ridicula illatio nam redemptor & salvator est non qui accipit redemptionem & salu tem alterius opera sibi impulata: sed qui praestitir alteri redemptionem & salutem sua opera efficaci. Abimputatione igitur hujus insliti●● redempti & salvati recte affirmamur, sed redemptores a nemine qui mentis compos est appellamut. Postremo, & illud perpenden dum, Christi justitiam non imputari huic aut ●isti credenti, secundum totam latitudinem efficaciae, fed prout unusquisque illa opus habet. Non igitur Petro imputarur ut generale pretium redemptionis pro omnibus, sed ut pretium qua illius anima in particulari redimatur, cujusque merito ille in particulari ad vitam gloriae euchatur. Ex tali autem impuratione hujus justitiae neque colligi potest nos aeque justos effe ac Christum, neque omnino tedempteres dicendos. Dr. Dau. de justif hab. c. 24 ad arg. sextum p 331.  but according to the necessity of every Captive: mention therefore of the world is absurdly made in particular application.  
3. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us as causes, but only as Subjects thereof. Bellarmine therefore most unsitly inferreth us to be capable of the name of Redeemers or Saviour's, because we be redeemed and saved.  
Our late Learned Bishop of Salisbury answereth the same argument, and to that part saith, It is a ridiculous inference, for he is a Redeemer and a Saviour, not who receiveth redemption and salvation, another's work imputed unto him; but who performeth redemption and salvation by his own effectual work. Therefore we are rightly affirmed redeemed, and saved, from the imputation of this righteousness, but we are called Redeemers by none that are in their right wits. Last of all, that also is to be considered, Christ's righteousness, cannot be imputed to this or that believer according to the whole latitude of its efficacy, but as every one hath need of it. It is not therefore imputed to Peter a the general price of redemption for all, but as the price by which a soul in particular is redeemed, and by whose merit he in particular is exalted to eternal life. But from such an imputation of this righteousness, it can neither be gathered that we are equal'y as just as Christ, nor at all to be called Redeemers.  
If we look on the truth of the righteousness which is imputed 
Si veritatem justitiae nobis imputatae spectes non minus justi censemur coram Deo ac Christus, nec tamen redemptores. Luc. Trel. p. 94.  to us, we are accounted no less just before God than Christ, and yet we are not Redeemers. See the place.  
Thus what you oppose to imputed righteousness as absurdity is opposed by Papists, and the inference shown to be most absurd by the learned Protestants against them, to their Bar you stand and must make an answer. In a word, though every member hath communion with the head Christ, and partaketh for, and according to his need, as a member of a natural body from the natural head, yet hath he not Christ's merits to give to others, more than a member in the body, suppose the finger, hath life from the head and heart, to give to the feet and toes: and this you may take as Master Walkers own answer.  
Sect. 11. Come we now to the confirmation of the exposition Mr. W. gave, neglecting what you fasten on him before sufficiently cleared; and many vain lines together, p. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. for, debent neg'igi, they aught to be neglected.  
Mr. Walker judging the Apostle the best interpreter of himself, argueth for a tropical sense, from Rom. 2. 26. etc. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be accounted or imputed, is first used. If the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his Uncircumcision be accounted for Cirumcision? from whence he gathereth that as by a double trope (at large explicated) Uncircumcision taking in with it and comprehending the righteousness of the Law shall be accounted and accepted for the state of an holy and righteous man, one circumcised in heart, though he be uncircumci●and in a Gentle outward estate.  
So by Aorobams believing by a Metalepsis or double trope the Apostle doth understand Abraham's standing in the state of a true believer united by one spirit to God in Christ, and having communion of his satisfaction and righteousness, faith comprehending the perfect rightebusnesse and full satisfaction of Christ to be accounted to him given to him for righteousness, or that which makes him righteous.  
To this. (Passing what you say this Scripture would do 
Mr. G.  if managed to throw down his interpretation, and the slight sum of all granted, being but a cipher in your account, apparently such (as you say) because you do but say both.)  
1. By way of answer you demand, What if he could prove 
Mr. G.  that here were trope upon trope, and mountains of metonymies? Doth this prove a necessity either of the same kind of tropes or figures in other Scriptures, which yet is the strength of the argument?  
Answ. Mr. Walkers intent is not to prove a necessity by this argument, but that the Apostle (the best expounder of himself) thus useth the phrase in another place in the same Epistle as is here interpreted, that it is not therefore so strange, harsh, and uncouth an expression, and figure of speech, and not to be found in all his writings besides, as you charge the figurative interpretation to be. See Mr. W. book p. 352. Tropical speeches are usual, and that is manifest place suiting with this.  
And this may suffice for this argument, your answer unto it, the rest p. 34, 35, 36, 37. are but impertinencies, which I may neglect without giving you advantage or the lest damage to Mr. W. cause: there is nothing unsound but might well be maintained against your many words.  
Sect. 12. Mr. Walkers first argument is taken from the fourth verse, and is framed by you thus. That thing which is counted for righteousness bringeth with it a reward to the believer, not of debt, but grace, viz. eternal life. But it is the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, not faith in a propo sense, that bringeth this reward, eternal life with it; therefore it is the righteousness and satisfaction, and not faith that is imputed for righteousness.  
To the proposition you answer by distinction. A thing 
Mr. G.  may be said to bring with it a reward either of voluntary and free covenant or compact, or by way of merit and just retribution. In the former sense the proposition is granted for truth because faith brings with it a reward in this sense, as well a● the satisfaction of Christ doth in the other.  
If he meaneth by way of merit, the proposition is false, so tha● which is imputed doth not necessarily bring with it a reward 〈◊〉 such terms, or in such a way. God in a gracious and free covenant hath promised the same (if not greater) reward to those that shall believe in Jesus Christ, which he hath promised to those that shall keep the whole Law.  
Answ. For answer. First, for you distinction of free convenant, and merit in this our business, I suppose things in it are divided and set in opposition which God hath joined together. For the merit of Christ is the confirmation of the free covenant. God is so, by Jesus Christ the just, and the covenant is in his blood, he and his righteousness are the promise of God. What is offered and tendered in all ordinances for eternal life to faith, or receiving of him, as Acts 10. 43. by believing and receiving him he is made the Lord my righteousness, righteousness to me, to which the Lord performeth life. The Apostle showeth them subordinate, when as he saith we are justified freely by grace through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith his blood, Rom. 4. 24 Your distinction is human merits, not the merits of Christ, the Surety of the Covenant.  
2. I assert, Mr. Walker intendeth such a gracious way of merit, and so doth the Apostle disputing against our works, this doth in this way infallibly bring with it the reward, eternal life; which faith in a proper sense, not taking in the righteousness and merit of Christ, doth not, cannot more than man's works.  
3. There is nothing else can do it saith Mr. W. It is a gracious way satisfying justice, the Apostle saith, the spirit is life, that is, the soul liveth eternally, because of righteousness, the righteousness of Christ imputed, Rom. 8. 10. 
Hanc ipsam quam nos asse●mus justitiam imputatam. Cham. de just. c 2. Sect. 59  there by righteousness the Apostle meaneth this same imputed righteousness which we assert againsi Papists.  
4. Hence the assumption is sound, for howsoever faith ●n a relative sense and Christ's righteousness imputed, (faith ●eing but the hand, the applying instrument, Christ righteousness applied that alone which justifieth as the meriorious and formal cause) have a sweet and harmonious greement in our justification. It is not so when as faith ●s taken in a proper sense, though it be faith in Christ. Whence your self, Armimius, and Socinus, asserting the ●mputation of faith, add, and not Christ's righteousness imputed, and so put them in opposition in the matter of Justification.  
When as you lay down the manner of either, viz. that Christ justifieth by way of merit, satisfaction, and atone●nent making with God for sin. Here is a truth, but not ●●l, for there must be imputation of it, real donation also ●f Gods part to make us righteous, and faith must concur ●ot in a proper sense as accepted for the righteousness of ●he Law in itself (as you say) but (as you say also) as it ●ringeth us into communion of Christ's perfect righteousness, by ●hich saith, (as by an hand receiving richeses, richeses do ●ake rich the receiver) receiving the righteousness of Christ that maketh righteous; faith is as the hand, the righteousness that which as richeses corporal that way, do ●ake us thus spiritually rich, that is, righteous in the sight of God. Faith doth it relatively or by a figure not in a proper sense which you stand for: thus much you say, also.  
5. When as you say, the Lord hath promised the same reward, ●r a greater to those that shall believe in Jesus Christ, than which he hath promised to those that keep his whole Law, disputing against the relative sense for faith in a proper sense. What doth result but the Servetion, Socinian, and Arminian tenet, delivered also by Bertius, faith is accounted for the 
Fides habetur pro omni legis justitia quam nos praestare renebamur. See Sybrand. p. 9 ad Bert.  whole righteousness of the Law which we are bound to perform, which also they attribute to gratuide acceptation.  
Sect. 13. Mr. Wrs. third argument is taken from the 6. and 11. v. That the thing imputed by God is properly righteousness, such as being imputed brings forgiveness of iniquity and covers sins, and so maketh the believer blessed. Now there is no righteousness to be found amongst all mankind but Christ's perfect righteousness and satisfaction and that is a perfect propitiation for all sins, therefore it is the righteousness which is imputed for justification.  
Of this argument you say it is built clean besides the foundation it claimeth, and when you prove what you say, you shall have an answer. But to what you answer.  
1. You say, That the conclusion Christ's righteousness must needs be that which is imputed for righteousness in a proper sense, is diametrally opposite unto himself in several examined passages, particularly to that which saith faith comprehending in it the righteousness of Christ is imputed for him, which differ greatly.  
1. Though faith and Christ's righteousness differ, and 
Answ.  are opposed diametrally in your sense and acceptation they are subordinate in Mr. Walkers.  
2. And when faith is said to be imputed taking in the the righteousness of Christ; You know Mr. Walker saith faith is imputed in an improper sense, and that Christ's righteousness is that which is imputed in a proper sense; that is it which alone properly imputed maketh us righteous.  
2. You blame his understanding the Apostles phrase of imputing righteousness, v. 6. supposing a proper pre-existent righteousness for the matter of such imputation which is one of his mistakes.  
I answer, Mr. Walkers understanding had been blame worthy, had he supposed otherwise; for a proper perfect righteousness is necessary to make one so righteous.  
God's people are holy, unreprovable, unblamable in God's sight, perfectly just, can that be without righteousness?  
Mr. Bradshaw showeth, that, the proper matter of Justification is justice or innocency not caused or produced by the act of Justification, but existing some way or other before, for a person is not therefore just because he is justified, but he is therefore justified 
Mr. Bradsh. treat. justif. c. 2. Sect. 10.  because he is just. The justice of the party justified, being the cause of his justification, and not his justification the cause of his justice.  
Papist and Protestant agreed in this, the one putting inherent 
Cum justificationem sine justitia constituere, sit insomnium sine somno cogitare Gerh. de justif. p. 135. Justificationis formam justitia constare cerrū est, quoniam justificamur sive justi constituimur per justitiam nobis a Deo donatam. Wetton, de reconcil. par. 1. l. 2. c. 2. p. 34.  righteousness the formal cause, which being imperfect, is truly rejected by us, and so faith in a proper sense. The other put the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.  
It is certain, saith Mr. Wotton, that the form of Justification consisteth in righteousness, because we are justified or constituted just by righteousness given to us from God, which he showeth out of Papists and Protestants.  
The Apostle saith, by the obedience of Christ we shall be constituted righteous. It is you and Arminius that talk of making just without any justice at all.  
That Mr. W. is mistaken you prove.  
1. Because it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but without the article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which intimateth he speaketh not here of any particular or special righteous. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixed in any subject as the righteousness of Christ is.  
Here you grant righteousness, whether it be fixed in a 
1.  subject or not, you seem so at lest.  
And when as you tell us of righteousness not in a subject, you tell us of an accident without a subject; where was your Logic? There is no righteousness whether it be general or particular, but it is in some subject; so is the inherent righteousness, of which Papists in their opinion, so faith in that opinion, and so the righteousness of Christ.  
To your second, Than the righteousness of Christ must be 
2.  imputed for the righteousness of Christ. We answered before. It is but a borrowed jengle.  
Thirdly, you answer, The righteousness here imputed is 
3.  without works, which Christ's is not; works are the essence thereof.  
To which you know is answered, the works which are excluded are not works simply, and namely of Christ, but our own works.  
Against this you argue, or say, such a distinction as this is, is without any foundation in this or in any other Scripture.  
But not truly, for as the Scripture denieth Justification by the works of the Law, so it establisheth Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19 by this is there a perfect supply of what was not in us, but should have been to life, as the Apostle, Rom. 8. 4. and Rom. 10. 4. and when as the Apostle objecteth, Do we make the Law of God void through faith? He answereth, God forbidden, and yea we establish the Law. So doth faith applying the righteousness of Christ that establisheth the Law.  
The Church of England saw this, you might have learned it there. Where as it lay not in us to do, (that was impossible 
Homil. salv. p. 14.  before) he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ, who besides this ransom fulfilled the Law 
lb.  for us perfectly: and from the third of the Rom. 8. & 10. our Church, there must be on Christ's part to justification, justice, that is the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly.  
So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our Justification, but only shulteth out the justice of man, that is to say the justice of our works, as to be merits deserving our justification. 
lb.   
Whereas all the world was not able of their selves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him, he for them paid the ransom by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that now in him and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which 
lb.  our infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied. Here is the explication of our article of Justification, and thus in the Art. of Ireland, Art. 35. Other Authors are needless, these enough.  
And hence may you perceive the necessity of the distinction; the Lew and justice of God are hereby satisfied, which cannot be where works are simply excluded, that it is not vain and frivolous, our justification else is impossible.  
Sect. 14. You argue that if the righteousness God is here 
4.  said to impute, be the righteousness of Christ, than the description thereof, v. 7. & 8. is impertinent and improper, being laid down, in imputing sins, covering sins, not imputing sins; the imputing of Christ's righteousness in the sense pretended is much more than forgiveness of iniquity or not imputing sin. 
See Mr. Gatak. saepe contra Lucium. p. 9 1. p. 10, l, 11, 21, 45 82. 98. 3. 64. 4. Imo vero hoc nondum à te demonstratum est, nec vero unquam demonstrabitur, par. 1. Sect. 8. nu. I 2 p. 45. He to Piscator. Remissio peccatorum fit per justitiam imputatam perfectan. So Pareus. Castig. Bell. de justif. p. 389. Estque justificatio revera proprius & verus justitiae esfectus, quoquo modo ea justitia imputari sive communicari nobis intelligatur. p. 34 M. Bradsh. p. 34.   
For answer. You must prove that forgiveness of sins, etc. are the description of that righteousness imputed. It is but begged.  
Imputation of righteousness is not the same with forgiveness of sins. It is more, it is the cause of remission of sins, this an effect of righteousness imputed. This righteousness imputed bringeth forgiveness with it, covers sin, making the believer in that respect blessed.  
Remission of sins is caused by perfect righteousness imputed.  
Mr. Wotton confesseth Justification an effect of righteousness, and Justification is indeed the proper and the true effect of righteousness what way soever, that righteousness is imputed or communicated unto us.  
Yea, remission of sins is an effect of Justification. Pardon is neither the whole nor any essential part of Justification, but only a contingent effect of it.  
Finally you say, Gods imputing righteousness (in this place) is meant only his justifying of men, or (as Mr. W. p. 10.) a dealing with men according as if they were righteous.  
It is so, not in deed, but in the effect thereof: indeed imputation of righteousness is the cause, justification the effect thereof. Mr. W. saith not so, but that it is Gods accounting them righteous, and dealing with them accordingly.  
To that which followeth I may say, that, to impute 
See Pareus on Rom. 4. 7. cited elsewhere.  righteousness is not the description of the act of absolution. It is an effect following on that, upon imputation of righteousness, not imputation of sin followeth and no condemnation.  
The same may be said to what is alleged out of the 11. vers. being justified, and righteousness imputed differ as the cause and the effect. Imputation goeth before remission 
Causalitateimputatio praecedit remissionem, & Recessario praerequiritur. Polan. in Daniel. p. 324.  as a cause, and is necessarily pre-required.  
When as you say, being justified, cannot be without righteousness, either it is that which is inherent or imputed; not in herent, it is against the scope of the Apostle denying Justification by works or habits whence they flow, and therefore not by faith, which is a part of inherent righteousness considered in a proper sense: therefore it must be by the righteousness of Christ; the righteousness which is by faith as the word calleth it.  
From thence Tossanus giveth to us as Saint Paul's Thereme. 
Unde extruit Paulus istud theorema, justitiam nostram non esse virtutem moralem aut habitualem justitiam, sicut cum Pharisae is Pontificii volunt, sed imputationem justitiae Christi. Toss. ad Rom. c. 4. p. 4.  Whence Paul layeth down that Theorem. Our righteousness not to be moral virtue or habitual justice, as with the Pharisees the Pontificians would have it; but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
To that you believe, that if the best interpreters be consulted, not one will be found to contradict this interpretation of the phrase imputing to righteousness in this place, or by righteousness to understand the righteousness of Christ.  
I hope your infidelity is not invincible, many things are in Interpreters which you do not look after.  
Though Gods imputing righteousness justifieth; yet these differ as 'cause and effect as hath been showed. And  
When you say they understand not the righteousness 
Ad Rom. 4. 3. Ad justitiam. Hic enim finis & scopus fidei ut imputatione justitiae Christi peream apprehensi justificemur. ●b.  of Christ. It is apparently against all Protestant writers, who teach the righteousness of Christ to be that which is imputed, and not faith in a proper sense, as also from this that they denying the proper sense, are for the relative and improper sense.  
Beza to those words, to righteousness. For this is the end and scope of faith, that we should be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ apprehended by it.  
Who also addeth, But there is in 
Sed est in verbis Hypallage, nam pro prie dicitur Deus imputare justitiam per ●idem, ut mox loquitur Apostolus, v. 6. & 11. Quid autem intelligitur justitiae nomine, exposuimus adversus Sophistas; supra, 1. 17. etc. 3. 20.  the words an Hypallage, (a figure so called) for God is properly said to impute righteousness by faith as the Apostle by and by speaketh, vers. 6. & 11. But what is understood by the word righteousness, we have expounded before, against the Sophisters; above, cap. 1. v. 17. & 3. 20.  
When Bellarmine said, our Adversaries 
Nullam in Scriptures aut Patribus locum hactenus inveni●e potuerunt adversarii, ubi legeretur Christi justitiam nobis imputari ad justitiam, vel nos justos esse per imputatam nobis Christi obedientiam, e●go hoc falsum est.  (Protestants) could never hitherto find a place in the Scriptures or Fathers, where it is read that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us for righteousness, or that we be just by the imputed obedience of Christ, therefore this is false. Pareus answereth.  
The Antecedent is false, for it is expressly 
Antecedens est falsum, legitur enim express, Credenti fides sua imputatur; & mox, Beatus cuiDeus imputat justitiam absque operibus. Haec Apostolo esse aequipollentia tam est evidens ut negari non possit; proinde aequipollentia sunt, fidem imputari ad justitiam, & justitiam imputa●i absque operibus. Evidenter igitur habetur justitiam qua credentes justificamur nobis a Deo imputa●i, seu esse justitiam nobis a Deo imputa●i, seu esse justitiam nobis imputatam. Cujus vero est haec justitia, id exponit idem Apostolus, c. sequente, 5. 19— Habet Adversarius ubi leger●mus: inde enim sic, ●ustitia qua credentes ●isicamur, nobis imputatur a Deo, Rom. 4 5, 6. Justitia q●a credentes justificamur est justitia seu obedientia Christi, Rome 5. 19 igitur justitia seu obedientia Christi, nobis à Deo imputatur. Castig. p. 457.  read, To him that believeth, his faith is imputed; ●nd by and by, Blessed is he to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. That these are equipollent to the Apostle, is so evident that it cannot be denied: therefore they are equivalent, faith to be imputed to righteousness, and righteousness to be imputed without works. It is therefore evidently found, righteousness, by which we believers are justified, to be imputed unto us from God, or to be imputed righteousness. Whose this righteousness is, the same Apostle expoundeth in the following chap. 5. 19 Now our Adversary (Bellarmine) hath where we have read it, from thence thus, (we reason) Righteousness by which believers are justified, is imputed unto us from God, Rom. 4. 5, 6. the righteousness by which we believers are justified, is the righteousness or obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19 therefore the righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us of God.  
The same learned man, Neither is 
Nec resert quod Apostolus non dixit beatus cui Deus imputat Christi justitiam: sed absolute, cui Deus imputat justitiam: justitia enim imputata recte dicitur justitia Christi, quia Christus sua obedientia eam nobis acquisivit— imo Christi justitia expresse vocatur, Rom. 5. 18, 19 Pareus Castig. ●●. p. 388.  it any thing that the Apostle said not, he is happy to whom God imputeth the righteousness of Christ; but absolutely, to whom God imputeth righteousness: for imputed righteousness is rightly called the righteousness of Christ, because Christ acquired it by his obedience— I, it is expressly called the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 5. 18, 19 The same Pareus, 
Ad Rom. 4. 3, 5. p. 484.  justitia imputata Christi justitia dicitur, imputed righteousness is called Christ's righteousness.  
Our Aims. We read every where 
Legimus passim apud Paulum justos nos fieri & justificari, per Christum, per Christi mortem, sanguinem, redemptionem obedientiam & justitiam, & illam justitiam imputari nobis a Deo absque oberibus. Bellar. Eneru. to. 4. p. 137.  in Paul, that we are made just and justified by Christ, by Christ's death, blood, redemption, obedience, and righteousness, and that righteousness to be imputed to us of God without 
Justificationem Apostolus describit, non sola remissione peccatorum, sed etiam Justitiae Christi mputatione, ut apparet ex c. 4. ad Rom. v. 6. & 7. Ge●a●d. de just●s. Sect. 63.  works.  
To the same purpose, see Sybran. declare. Vorst. p. 94.  
I will end this with that learned Doctor of our Church, Doctor Whitaker, to Dureus, saying, our Doctrine of imputative 
Whitaker against Camp. & D●reus Englished. p. 224.  putative righteousness to be against the word.  
Thus you speak like a Jesuit, but what doth the Scripture more celebrated? Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. a clear text for it, so that there being more than one such Interpreters, you may believe it.  
When Musculus saith, the righteousness of God which is 
Justitia Dei qu● gratis imputatur est non imputari peccatum.  freely imputed, is not to impute sin; He intendeth not that they be formally one and the same, but in the effect, this as an effect followeth that; so doth he call remission of sins our righteousness, as Mr. W. citeth him, p. 348. the book is not in mine hands.  
Sect. 15. Mr. Walkers fourth argument runs thus, summed up by itself. Whatsoever is here said to be imputed, is, that which serves for righteousness to justification. Christ's righteousness is that which serves for righteousness to justification, Rom. 5. 19 Rom. 8, 4. Rom. 10, 4. Ergo, it is that which under the name of faith is said to be imputed.  
You answer, This was for substance before propounded and answered. To which I, if so, repetition will be vain on both sides. Let it go.  
You add, Though nothing but the righteousness or satisfaction of Christ will serve meritoriously unto justification. Several things do ministerially, the Word, the Minister, and so faith in Christ, etc.  
Mr. Wr. is not about instrumentals in this argument, but that, which imputed, justifieth, which is (saith he) by the Scriptures the righteousness of Christ.  
When as you grant nothing meritoriously serving but the righteousness of Christ, though we take it in part, yet we must have more, it must be also a formal cause, or all one with it; Doctor Davenant may teach you to speak out.  
Truly in Justification such a formal 
Revera in justificatione, talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul & meritoria esse possit nisi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se, propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis causa per quam justificatus existit in conspectu Dei. De instit. habit. el. 22. p. 312.  cause is to be put, which withal may be the meritorious cause: for unless it contain that worth in itself, for which a man may be rightly accounted justified, it will never be the formal cause by which a man stands justified in the sight of God.  
Grant than this meritorious cause imputed to justify, it satisfieth Mr. Walker, and serveth the turn, else not.  
He confesseth and contendeth faith an instrument by which we have fellowship with that righteousness to justification, faith being as the hand receiving and applying the same, by which righteousness it is that we are justified, and not faith in a proper sense; it not being the hand that properly maketh rich, but what is received by it: which you cannot endure (with the Remonstrants) though a common Protestant expression in this controversy against the Romanist denying also the proper sense of faith.  
To omit that faith is not the righteousness of Christ urged, Rom. 5. 19 nor righteousness in which a man can stand before God, be made just, said to be holy and unreprovable, and unblamable in God's sight, perfected for ever, as the man is that is justified, or otherwise than taken in a Relative sense to the object thereof.  
Sect. 16. Mr. Ws. fifth argument is, That this exposition is warranted by other places of Scripture, which he proveth out of Psh. 100 as the only place: see the place.  
This you bring on the stage, and say it hath such a visor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell of what shape it is, only it is evident from his own words, that here he starts, or rather conjures up a new conclusion as fare differing from what be laboured to conclude, as the East is from the West.  
Good Sir, if (by reason of the visor on the face of it) a man cannot tell of what shape it is, how is the latter so evident? may not a man question you for the latter, professing the former, that a man cannot tell of what shape it is; or are you more? this, and what followeth such a profession must be accounted roving.  
But how prove you such a differing new conclusion? he writes (say you) that the imputing or accounting of a thing for righteousness is no more but declaring a man thereby to be righteous, and giving him the testimony of righteousness.  
Thus you deliver him. I find it not so in his Printed Copy, and even there his conclusion is what was to be concluded, therefore this is to be judged the best exposition.  
Besides what he speaketh of declaring is added for farther explication of what God did, when as he imputed righteousness to Phineas as himself. God upon this act gave him testimony and declared and judged him to be a righteous man truly justified. But by this reasoning say you, be seemeth to imply that a man is not constituted or made righteous, or truly and really justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness or satisfaction itself unto him, but only that be is declared to be such, etc.  
There is no such implication. That is necessarily employed by God's declaration, for God cannot give testimony contrary to what a man is indeed, God cannot lie, his judgement is according to truth, and so his testimony; the visor troubleth you. You proceed.  
Neither doth that Scripture prove that heterogeneal conclusion, it doth not import any testimony from God of his personal righteousness or justified estate before God, but only the righteousness of the particular act.  
Surely that act did show him (as Mr. Wr.) united to Christ, and a partaker of righteousness by faith, on which God gave him testimony.  
And I suppose a righteous act importeth personal righteousness inherent, which are inseparable from righteousimputed, by which righteousness imputed, that which is inherent, the acts thereof and person are justified. From this, not inherent righteousness or acts thereof, it is that man is perfectly just and so denominated. And thus Mr. Wr. passeth to the Confutation of the false exposition made by Socinus and other Heretics his disciples, etc.  
Here you charge Mr. Wr. to be an Heretic maker, which Mr. Wr. may easily discharge with repetition of the same words, and resolve his making Heretics into Mr. John Goodwin as the maker of an Heretic maker, etc. The truth is, if the interpretation be heretical (as some have said before Mr. W. as before) not Mr. Wr. but Mr. John Goodwin, etc. have made themselves such by embracing and broaching the same with those Heretics: and though Mr. Wotton be dead, his opinion liveth in his works and such as follow him. His fall is the greater in this by how much the more he is exalted as a Cedar in Lebanen. It is a truth of him and all the Princes of his opinion. That hath been discussed already, and we have seen Mr. Wr. fare from affirming the same, detesting they, constantly denying you his hand:  
And for your appeal to the strong savour of Socinianism in the beginning of his fifth argument, you speak of, you neither there nor here doc show in what that rankness lieth. There, if you remember, it had such a Visor on the face of it, that a man cannot tell what the face of it is, or its complexion.  
Farther you say, none of the 3. etc. conceived or delivered that exposition that is faith is imputed in a proper sense. But it is clear for Socinus; he holdeth the proper sense, and so faith imputed. So doth Mr. Wotton, you cannot but know it, and it is your Helena.  
But now let us come to Mr. Wr. his arguments, by which he proveth the same, and improveth the false exposition; they are 7. You do not so much as lay them down or answer formally to any one of them.  
All the answer you make is by Questions, and they are but of some things contained in them, so that all the rest is left unquestioned and unanswered. I will not do so with your Questions. Let us hear, what are they?  
Quest. 1. You would know from what Fountain Mr. W. drankee that draught of Divinity, that faith Rom. 5. 1, 2. taken in a proper sense, should be a part of our obedience to the moral Law?  
You add, entire obedience to the whole Law was required of Adam, but not to believe in Christ, the Law not being of faith, Gal. 3. 12.  
To the first I answer. That faith which justifieth in relation to its object, considered as a work or virtue in a proper sense, is (as is supposed by such as are learned) commanded in the moral Law. They say:  
Where the L. requireth me to have no other God, and willeth me to have him to be mine by faith; be willeth me to believe in Christ, without whom God never offereth himself to be, nor can be mine, by whom it is I believe in him.  
And where the argument runneth, I am the Lord thy God, there faith in Christ is required, to whom be is first a God, and in whom mine.  
They take faith in Christ to be a special part of internal worship, such as when I perform it to Christ, I perform it not to him alone, but to God, not only himself, but the other persons. He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me.  
And so they take it that the moral Law is the perfect rule of our worship of God.  
I suppose faith in Christ undeniably since the fall prescribed and called for and answered by Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham; by what? but the moral Law. The Gospel giveth indeed, but it is the Law that requireth it. They say:  
That faith is required in the Law, none ever doubted: faith to all that is written, than to the Gospel, to God as revealed in Christ, the lively faith which worketh by love, which is none but faith in Christ; or else the dead faith, that which is in the Devils.  
Again, that that Grace is but one, and so that it is but the Some faith by which we believe in Christ and God. Yea that grace, without which other graces required are not. That radical grace, without which other graces and their works cannot be such as God requireth, such hope, such love, such fear, such joy, such prayer, such praise, as God requireth suitable to him as a God in covenant and a Father, without which they cannot please God, neither aim at or attain God's ends, should not be excluded; the Law that requireth those graces else and their works, requireth that faith; and that, if faith in Christ he not required in the Law, infidelity will not be sin, neither can it condemn him that is under the same.  
That the rule of faith, etc. is God's will contained in his word, and that the manner of worship and faith is ordinarily given to the second Commandment.  
For Adam in innocency, there might be a bond on him to believe in Christ, though not as a Lamb and slain, but as only Mediator between God and man for eternal life. I am sure he was ever the beire and Lord of life, and that eternal life was for ever in him.  
An obediential power to believe what ever word or revelation of God we ordinarily meet with in orthodox Divines, as for obedience to Gods commands simply, those, at lest some, that dispute the contrary, drink deeply of Arminian streams: had you given us reasons against it, we would have considered them.  
When as you say the Law is not of faith, Gal. 3. 12. It proveth not that faith in a proper sense is not required in the Law, neither need I to find out the true sense, it not being to purpose.  
Our Writers are of this opinion, that faith in Christ is in the Law.  
So saith he in this cause to that 
Fides qua opus pertinet ad primam legem neque evadere potes. Sybrand. ad Bert. p. 57 Quin dicas nos opere legis justificari, si dixeris nos fide quatenus opus nostrum est justficari.  Arminian Prince Bertius, Faith as a work appertaineth to the first Commandment, neither canst thou evade it. Thou must say us to be justified by a work of the Law, if thou shalt affirm us justified by faith as a work of ours. He goeth on.  
Great Zanchius proveth our opinion. 
Nostram sententiam probat magnus ille Zanch. de nature. Dei, l. 4. c 2. Legis nomine intelligit omnia quae lex praecipit; praecipit autem, non tantum externa facta sedimprimis internā renovationem, cordis circumcisionem dilectionem Dei, (nota) fidem. Ergo cum Sctiptura dicit per gratiam Dei nos justifica●i, min●me autem per legem, omnem renovationem & omnem inte●nam & externam ●onam actionem nostram ab officio justificandi excludit, & soli gratuito favori ascribit.  By the word Law he understandeth all which the Law requireth, but that requireth not only external works, but chiefly internal renovation, circumcision of the heart, the Love of God, (note it) faith. When as therefore the Scripture saith we are justified by the grace of God, and not by the Law, he excludeth all renovation, and all internal, and external good action of ours from the office of justifying, and ascribeth it only to free grace.  
It is true, the Law of works requires saith. 
Ve●um est legem operum requirere fidem. I'm l 22. c. 2. Sect. 9   
Quest. 2. You require where Wotton or Goodwin teach we are justified (meritoriously, or else the charge vanisheth) by a work, by a work of obedience to the Law?  
Answ. Mr. W. requireth of you where he chargeth you with it in plain words? his words are they that teach that, faith in a proper sense is counted for righteousness, do teach that we are justified by a work of obedience to the Law performed in our own persons: and that God on our behalf requires no other righteousness for justification: which doctrine he saith the Apostle condemneth, that is enough; this, all account inherent righteousness, Popery, and worse than Popery, where all graces else are conjoined with faith.  
To omit that, here you imply justification by a work of the Law, confessed, so it be not meritoriously, in which I suppose you are alone.  
Quest. 3. You demand how Mr. Walker proves that the righteousness imputed to Abraham was perfect conformity to the Law.  
I suppose it is evident, because conformity to the Law is in the definition of righteousness, which if it be not perfect, hath need of pardon, cannot procure it of the Lord, cannot bear a man ou● in God's sight, cannot afford peace with God, or conscience; can never make a man holy, unblamable, unreprovable in the sight of God; white as Snow, and whiter than the Snow; perfect him for ever; all which are true of Abraham by the righteousness which was imputed, and so is it of the Church by God's word.  
As righteousness was imputed to him, Rom. 4. v. 6. 11. so it was perfect conformity to God's Law, which Christ's righteousness is, not faith in a proper sense.  
Quest. 4. How doth it follow that God must needs err, lie, or judge unrighteously, if he imputeth righteousness without works?  
To this Mr. Wolker is not bound to answer, he affirmed it not. But that your opinion, that God counts faith for righteousness, that is, thinketh, judgeth, and esteemeth it to be righteousness in a proper sense, chargeth God with error and falsehood in his judgement, and so is blasphemy.  
Quest. 5. How Mr. Walker proves that the imputation of faith for righteousness maketh the satisfaction of Christ and his perfect fulfilling of the Law a vain and needless thing, which Mr. Goodwin conceiveth it establisheth both the one and the other.  
1. I answer. This, if not proved, yet leaveth the argument in force to that part, viz. that it denieth the means whereby God is revealed to be infinitely just, merciful, and wise, which he urged, which hath not so much as a question to undermine it.  
2. These are done by Christ our Surety, his perfect obedience in our nature; in this wisdom, mercy, and justice, are revealed, as Mr. Walker and our Church in the Homily. With which, though faith in a Relative sense doth consist, yet in a proper sense, excluding the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to justification, it is opposed, yourself putting the one with Arminius say, and not the other.  
Indeed if faith be that righteousness or instead thereof, that of Christ is vain and voided; and if this righteousness of Christ be it, faith in that sense, (as works are) excluded in this matter, and exclude each other.  
This Thesis of thine (saith Sybrandus) 
Faectua Thesis' est causa quate statuam vobis (si tamen vobis ipsis constare vultis) necassario eo tandem deveniendum esse, ut cum Serveto Socino, etc. meritum, sive satisfactionem pro nobis factam omnino tollatis, dicatisque neque Christum nobis justitiam peperisse, neque nos ipsius justitia nobis imputata justifica●i. Ad Be●t p. 35.  is a reason why I may conclude (if yet you will be like ourselves) you must at length come to this, that with Servetus and Socinus, etc. ye altogether take away the merit or satisfaction made for us, and say Christ neither to have brought forth righteousness to us, nor us to be justified by his righteousness imputed unto us— For to what end is the righteousness of Christ, if it hath not in it force of Justifying, and if it justify us not? Which (say I) it cannot, if faith in a proper sense be imputed for righteousness.  
Let the Reader observe the argument and proof of Mr. Walker, and this answer of question (as the rest) will appear not to be satisfactory, but a lying under the burden rather.  
Quest. 6. How Mr. Walker can bring it about that the making of Christ's satisfaction ou●s, as truly as if we had performed the same in our own persons, should be a means whereby God is revealed infinitely just, wise, and merciful? Mr. G. conceiveth that insufficient, because a man having sinned could not be justified by personal performance of the Law.  
1. That the righteousness of Christ's is so truly ours for righteousness as if we had fulfilled the Law, you bogle not at: our Church is clear; so are learned Writers. Indeed by faith he and his righteousness are truly ours.  
2. Your supposition to be a sinner and personally to perform the Law, is a contradiction, to fulfil it and not; none of Mr. Wrs.  
3. When as Mr. Walker putteth Christ's righteousness, his meaning is his perfect obedience to the Law, our full debt Active and Passive righteousness, wherein satisfaction for sin is enfolded, so that the person is wholly fair; God seen to be just, merciful, and wise, this is sufficient.  
Quest. 7. Whether God did not dispense with his justice in passing by the sinner, inflicting punishment upon the innocent, and whether he will call the one or the other an act of Justice? Mr. G. conceives that God's justice led him directly to the sinner to exetute vengeance on him, and that it was his mercy that led him aside from him that deserved death, to another that had not deserved it.  
1. I answer, God was just and merciful in our Justification by faith in Christ, as before is largely showed out of the word of God, and orthodox Writers; neither can either be denied. It is freely by grace to declare his righteousness. It was an act of justice not denying mercy, and an act of mercy not excluding justice.  
2. Though justice leadeth to the offendor, and not to the innocent party, here it cannot be so, the case is altened, the L. Christ cannot be said to be innocent, but as our Surety a sinner, our sins being on his score. He voluntarily accepted it, and undertook eternally to give these eternal life. So is he proposed to us since the fall by God himself, his taking our nature, doing all righteousness, and doing for us, proclaim the same, that he was a Surety, in this name he must fulfil all righteousness. He must die, it was his meat and drink to do, and he offered up himself. God spared not his Son, at his command the sword ar●se and smote Christ, the man that is God's fellow, he declared himself righteous.  
To exact a debt of a Surety, willingly giving the Creditor the hand, and let the principal not able to pay, to go free, is justice: mercy indeed, did sweetly meet in accepting a Surety, and giving him, and Christ accepting the bargain, and giving himself to be the Surety, whereby that justice was satisfied.  
Quest. 8. What moved Mr. W. to think or say that those that hold imputation of faith for righteousness should deny communion with Christ in his satisfaction, when as Mr. G. still affirmeth that that faith is ordained by God to bring men into communion and fellowship with Christ in his satisfaction, and by virtue of such ordination justifieth instrumentally, or which is the same, is imputed for righteousness.  
1. He might well so think of Master Wotton, who 
Quoniam non revera & proprie sed improprie, & per similitudinem quandam unum cum illo corpus efficimus. De reconcil. p. 16. & p. 110.  though he acknowledgeth vinon, and that by the Spirit; yet he saith we make one body with Christ, not indeed, and properly, but improperly, and by a certain similitude.  
When as he saith it is not indeed, he denieth union and communion, which is so much the more absurd, when as yet he confesseth it caused by faith and the Spirit, than union, by which, there cannot be one more real.  
2. You denying the imputation to our Justification, deny union and communion so fare, nay, both seeing they are inseparable.  
3. The fellowship you affirm is not to fellowship with the righteousness of Christ, but the effect thereof or return, pardon, which is not all.  
4. When as you say faith justifieth instrumentally, etc. yet you deny it as an hand laying hold of and receiving Christ's righteousness which justifieth, that it so justifieth as the hand that receiveth money maketh rich, which though it be an ordinary expressure of the Learned, you slighted and rejected in the Pulpit as the Remonstrants, who give it a nuge.  
5. For my part I suspect your calling it an instrument there is somewhat under it, for if so be that faith be acknowledged an instrument indeed, it cannot justify in a proper sense, which may be the reason that Arminius, etc. deny it, but figuratively.  
No man is ignorant but that by a figure called Metonymia, 
Nemo ignorat instrumento per Metonymiam tribui quod est instrumentati, (as Sybrandus to Bertius.) p. 72. Si dicis penicillum dealbare parietem, omnes per Metonymiam intelligunt hoc dici, Penicillo datur quod est materiae, albedinis. ld. p. 77.  that is given to the instrument which doth belong to that which the instrument subserveth: as if you affirm the pencil to white the wall, all understand this to be spoken by a Metonymy, that is given to the pencil which belongeth to the matter, whiting.  
This he showeth out of Vrsinus. It is commonly said we are justified 
Vulgo dicitur, fide justificamur correlative, hoc est eo justificamur quod est correlativum fidei, nempe merito Christi, ad quod refertur seu quod apprehendit, fides Nam fides & satisfactio Christi habent se correlative ut accipiens & acceptum: recte au●m sic loquimur, quia tunc fides de causa formali Justification is intelligitur, & sensus, est meritum Christi justificat, non fides Apprehensum justificat, non apprehendens instrumentum. Sed justificatio etiam sine relatione recte tribuitur fidei, ut causae instrumentali: fide justificamur, hoc est, per fidem ut per medium. Usitate enim effectus causae efficientis tribuitur instrumento. At cum dicitur, Fides imputata est ei ad justitiam, & aliae ejusmodi propositiones, necessario tantum correlative sunt intelligenda, quatenus nimirum fides est apprehensae justitiae instrumentum & veluti manus, qua justitia Christi accipitur. Sybr. ib. p. 80.  by faith correlatively, that is, we are justified by that which is correlative to faith, forsooth by the merit of Christ to which it is referred, or which faith doth apprehended: for faith and the satisfaction of Christ are correlatives, as the receiver and that which is received. But than we speak rightly, because than faith is understood of the formal cause of Justification: and the sense is, the merit of Christ doth justify, not faith. That which is apprehended justifieth, not the instrument apprehending. But justification is also without relation rightly given to faith, as to an instrumental cause. We are justified by faith, that is by faith as by a means: for usually the effect of the efficient cause, is given to the instrument. But when it is said. Faith is imputed to him for righteousness, and other such propositions, they are necessarily to be understood only correlatively, so faith is the instrument of righteousness apprehended, and as it were the hand by which the righteousness of Christ is received. So the learned man Vrsinus. But to the next Question.  
Quest. 9 To your ninth Question. How your opinion denies the infinite justice of God, to stand in strength or to require such a satisfaction as Christ, God and man, made? when as they conceive no possibility of such imputation, but by virtue of such satisfaction, nor can they imagine such a faith to be imputed without supposing a Mediator, Christ God and man, on which it should rest, who gives it the name and being that it hath. It is true, they deny that the justice of God simply and absolutely required such a satisfaction as Christ God and man made, but on supposition that God would bring many sons to glory, and save what was lost, they deny it not.  
God's justice cannot stand in strength where men are justified by that which is no satisfaction to it, faith in a proper sense. And where the satisfaction which the Law requires, is not so much as imputed to them for their Justification.  
2. Infinite justice requires such a satisfaction as Christ God and man made, to Justification, because in that God declareth himself just, as before.  
3. Imputation of faith by virtue of the satisfaction of Christ, is to say that Christ merited that faith should be imputed (as I conceive) and that Socinianism, Osterodus.  
I do not detract it (Justification) 
Non detraho illam sanguini & morti Christi, sed tribuo illam morti & sanguini Christi, quatenus sanguis & mors in nobis efficiunt eas res propter quas Deus nos justificat, nempe sidem. See Sybran. ad Bert. p. 10.  from the blood and death of Christ, but I give it to the blood of Christ, so fare forth as his blood and death work in us those things for which God doth justify us, forsooth faith.  
4. Though they cannot imagine a faith imputed, not supposing a Mediator on whom, yet they deny faith in a Relative sense, taking in the Mediator, to be imputed, dispute against it for the proper sense, which satisfieth not justice, but destroyeth it, as before.  
5. God's bringing many sons to glory, and to save what should be lost by Christ's satisfaction of his justice was Gods eternal and immutable purpose. The glory of justice and mercy God's main ends required it; as Christ did in time, God determined eternally: thus eternal will determined itself, and to consider otherwise is but the work of idle brain, there is no reality in the Lord to answer it.  
Quest. 10. To the tenth question I answer, it appeareth you hold God can and doth by his Sovereign power and will, things contrary to his justice, in your opinion: Seeing you teach God can, doth, and will justify men, without satisfaction made by the perfect righteoufesse of Christ their Surety, accounted to them, putting faith in a proper sense, a created imperfect grace Imputed for righteousness which cannot satisfy justice, which cannot stand with or declare the same, so that either God's end is not to declare his righteousness against the Apostle in justification, Rom. 3. 26. or else you destroy that end, and so establish such a sovereign power and william.  
Quest. 11. And to the eleventh, to accept for righteousness that which is not so according to God's Law, is contrary to justice, seeing it is a justification of the wicked, abomination to the Lord; the holding of a guilty person innocent, which the Lord will not do; being the Judge of all the world be cannot do, doing right.  
When as God accepts Christ's righteousness for the debt of a believer, and imputeth it to him, that righteousness is not the believers personal righteousness, that is righteousness performed in his own person, so no flesh living can be justified in God's sight; but the righteousness of Christ his Surety, his Head, his by real union and communion, as if it were personal righteousness: the Sureties payment of a debt for the principal is all one as if the principal did himself make satisfaction to the Creditor.  
Quest. 12. Where Christ's righteousness is denied to be the the righteousness of a true believer? I answer, where you deny Christ's righteousness to be imputed for righteousness, and to be that whereby we are made just before God: for those words formally I find not Mr. W. to contend about them, neither are men denominated ever from what is internal and such a form. It may be from that which is outward, as Doctor Davenant largely answereth the Pontificians. Neither is it enough that Christ's righteousness is a meritorious cause of justification, it must be so applied by faith that the believer may be thereby made righteous, which is denied where there is no imputation thereof for righteousness. The word saith he is holy, unreprovable, unblamable in the sight of God, which cannot be but as by that which hath merit and worth, so applied and made mine; all the money in the world will not enrich any man until it be his, enjoyed to that end. But to that which is a common evasion to you and Romanists in this controversy, making Christ only the efficient and meritorious cause, more after in due place, where I shall show Mr. G. sense Apocryphal, Popish, confuted by our learned Protestant's, answering them.  
Quest. 13. To the thirteenth, the insufficiency of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction for all, even Scripture sufficiency is there denied where Christ's righteousness is denied to fit all men and women of all callings and conditions, and counted an unreasonable thing, as that one garment should fit all statures and proportions of bodies, or the same shoe all feet of all sizes.  
And why Sir, should not that fit all which is the Son of Gods fulfilling all righteousness? when as by it all are perfectly righteous that believe, men, women, of all statures and conditions.  
Either it fitteth all, so that all sorts are perfectly righteous by it applied alone, or none, which might have been said plainly; or being so, righteous, they are so by somewhat else, and you must name that. What for men and women of all sorts, of all callings and conditions?  
I thought there had been neither male nor female, but alone in Christ; and that it were vain else for all to put him on in Baptism sacramentally, and by believing really, that the precept was vain (and impossible to some) that requireth it.  
Did we grant faith in a proper sense, that righteousness, or imputed for it, that would serve all, fit all in your opinion, belike; or else it is liable to the same exception, the bride is arrayed with it, and the Builder and Maker of it both maketh it and judgeth it fit: no matter for such curious speculators else.  
And when as you grant an absolute necessity of it, and sufficiency for a world of sinners, to justification, neither man or woman of this or that stature or proportion, not the tallest or biggest have any cause to fear, that if he believe he shall not be fitted. To deny this fitting, is to deny sufficiency, but this crochet savoureth more of the flesh than of the spirit.  
Quest. 14. To the foureteenth▪ that which Mr. Walker saith overthroweth the satisfaction of Christ, hath this reason, that if we satisfy God's justice by our Surety Christ there is no Pardon, for pardon and satisfaction are contraries, 
Pena & venia sunt adversa.  so Mr. W. So some of the stamp, Mr. Wr. disputeth against. In this you are as a Socratical disputant, wisely too, as in all that kind of answer to Mr. Walkers reasons.  
Sir, our satisfaction by Christ to God's justice and God's mercy will stand together in that name, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; what our infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied. So your Mother taught you in her Doctrine of Justification, and to say that I by my Surety have satisfied for myself, or debt, is no more than to say, that in him and by him a believer hath fulfilled the Law; neither doth it deny, but establish, that Christ hath satisfied the justice of God for me.  
Quest. 15. To the fifteenth, It is monstrous to reason 
Bish. Dau. p. 315. & p 330. Tossan. ad Rom p. 38. Luther ad Gal. p. 70. 2. Aret. Rom. 1. 17 & Rom. 3. 21. Mr. Pemble de justif p. 4. & p. 16. Mr. Bradshaw c. 1. Sect. 1. & p. ult. justifying Augustine's speech. Justificationis forma est justitia, Wetten de ree. p. 34. Justificationis formam justitia constare certum est, estque justificatio revera propritis & verus effectus justitiae, quoquo modo ea justitia imputari five communicari nobis intelligatur. Part. 1. l. 2. c. 2 Sect. 1. 2. Neque pontificiorum sed nostrorum Theologorum sententia est. Name ●ine justitia justum censeri perinde esset a● sine doctrina doctum, sapientia sapientem censeri. Ib. Sect. 4. Id ib. Sect. 4.  to deny Legal righteousness to justification, seeing Justification is a making man just.  
This denieth where withal both personal righteousness, and the righteousness of Christ imputed. Mr. Wotton teacheth you, righteousness is the form of Justification; and, it is certain that the form of Justification consists in righteousness, and Justification is indeed the proper and true effect of righteousness, in what manner soever that righteousness is understood to be communicated or imputed to us; of this he saith, neither is this the judgement alone of Pontificians, but of our own Divines. He nameth those words out of Polanus. For a man to be accounted just without justice or righteousness, is all one as for a man to be accounted learned without learning, wise without wisdom.  
That Justification (and in that name) should consist only in remission of sins, excluding the righteousness of Christ imputed is as unreasonable, it is without the cause by which. You tell us you have handled it at large, but not where one may meet with it, had it been put here it should have been considered. The joint testimony of many a worthy Divine is but set us a Wooll-gathering.  
For Calvine it shall be tried. I believe you mention him as Mr. Wotton doth the Church of England. He going about to prove Remission of sins to be the formal cause of Justification, triumpheth in the judgement of the Church of England.  
It saith, Justification is remission of sins; and this Justification 
Justifica●io est remissio pecca● torum.  or justice is received, accepted, and approved of God for our full and perfect Justification. To which he addeth, In which words the whole nature of Justification is comprehended, only in remission of sins, and that it is affirmed the full and perfect Justification of God himself accepting it in judgement: 
L 2. c. 3. Sect. 1.  and than addeth, neither is there in the two other parts of that Sermon, a syllable or letter which signifieth any thing to be wanting, or to be repugnant to this opinion. So he.  
When he yet cannot be ignorant but our Church urgeth the satisfaction of Christ his death and obedience to the Law, not excluding his obedience to the Law, but our works, as before.  
Our Homily showeth a necessary concurrence on Christ's part of justice, that is the satisfaction of his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom and fulfilling of the Law. So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our Justification, but the justice of 
☞  man in our works.— And after laying down our insufficiency, it extolleth God's mercy without any desert or deserving of ours, to prepare for us the most precious Jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied, so that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him, he for them paid the ransom by his death, he for them fulfilled the Law by his life. So that now in and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied. These are added for the more full understanding of what was delivered before, and must not be left out. Nay, Christ and his obedience are established the righteousness of believers, and so that by which we are just before God, as before out of Mr. Wotton.  
But to Calvine, I grant he saith, Justification consists alone 
Sola remissione peccatorum constat, & non alitet fieri justos.  in remission of sins, and that we are not otherwise made just. And yet I assert, that in the exclusive he did not shut out the imputation of Christ's righteousness; but only renovation, inherent righteousness and good works. So to 
Nam si operibus aestimentur  show it he inferreth, for if they should be esteemed by works, he disputeth against the Popish opinion, not against imputation of Christ's righteousness, and for both, read the 23. Sect. where you shall find his dispute to be against 
Sect. 23.  works, in these words.  
That vain conceit vanisheth, that 
Si quidem evanescit nugamentum illud, ideo justificari hominem fide, quoniam illa spiritum dei participat quo justus redditu● quod magis est contrarium superiori doctrinae quam ut conciliari unquam queat.  a man is therefore justified by faith, because by that he partaketh the Spirit of God whereby he is made just; which is more contrary to the former doctrine, than that it can be reconciled. He excludeth works not the righteousness of Christ. One place more there.  
It cannot be doubtful but he wanteth 
Neque enim dubium quim sit inops propriae justitiae qui justitiam extra se quaetere docetur.  righteousness of his own that is taught to seek it out of himself: where 
Vide, non in nobis sed in Christo esse justitiam nostram, nobis tantum ●o jure competere quia Christisumus participes, siquidem omnes ejus 〈◊〉 cum ipsa possidemus.  urging the text, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he addeth.  
See, our righteousness is not in us, but in Christ, only belonging to us by that right, because we are partakers of Christ, seeing with him we possess all his richeses.  
And speaking of Rom 8. 3. saith. And it maketh nothing to the contrary, that in another place, he teacheth that sin was 
Ubi non aliud complemen●● designat quam quod imputatione consequimar. Eo enim jure communicat nobiscum Dom Christus suam justitiam ut mitabili quodam modo quantum pertinet ad Dei judicium vim ejus in nos transfundit. Aliud non sen●isse abund● liquet exaltera sententia quum paulo post posucrat, Quemadmodum per unius inobedica●i●m constituti sumus peccatores, ita per obedientiam unius justificari Quid aliud est in Christi obedientia collocare nostram justitiam, nisi asserere ca sola not haberi justos, quia Christi obedientia nobis accepta sertur ac si nostra esset? quare mihi elegantissime videtur Ambrosius hujus justitiae paradigma in benedictione Jacob statuisse, nempe que●●ad▪ modum ille primogenituram à seipso non meritus, habitu fratris occultatus, ejusque veste indutus, quae optimum odorem spirabat, seipsum insimulavit patri ut suo commodo sub aliena persona benedictionem acciperet: Ita nos sub Christi primogeniti nostri fratris pretiosa puritate deli●oscere, ut testimonium justitiae à conspectu Dei referamus.— Et sane ita sefres habet, nam quo in salutem eoram facie Dei compareamus, bono ejus odore fragrare nos necesse est, & ejus perfectione vitia nostra obtegi ac sepeliri.  condemned of sin in the flesh of Christ, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Where he meaneth no other fulfilling, than that which we obtain by imputation. For the L. Christ doth in such sort communicate his righteousness with us, that after a certain marvellous manner, be poureth the force thereof into us, so much as appertaineth to the judgement of God. It appeareth he did not otherwise mean by the other sentence which he had spoken a little before. As by the disobedience of one man we were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are justified. What is it else to set our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but to affirmthathereby only we are accounted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed unto us, as if it were our own. Therefore me thinks that Ambrose hath excellently well showed how 
Sunt tamen qui existiment justitiam quae ad justificationem flagitatur a Calvino etiam in imputatione justitiae Christi esse positam; ex horum numero est ipse Bellar. qui de Calvino ita scripsit. Johannes Calvinus admittit quidem cum Lutheranis non esse in nobis ullam inhaerentem justitiam & imputari Christi justitiam, & propter eam condonari peccata.  there is an example of this righteousness in the blessing of Jacob: for Jacob not having of himself deserved the preeminence of the first begotten son, hid himself in the apparel of his brother, and being clothed with his brother's coat that savoured of a most sweet smell, he crept into the favour of his father, and received the blessing to his own commodity under the person of another: so we do lie hid under the precious pureness of Christ our elder brother, that we may get a testimony of righteousness in the sight of God.— And truly so it is, for that we may appear before the face of God unto salvation, it is necessary for us to smell sweetly with his Odour, and to have our faults covered and buried with his perfection. So Calvin.  
Now let these parcels be laid together, and no man of conscience not desirous to cavil, can deny, but, though he excludeth works, he doth not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
When Mr. Wotton had forced Calvine, yet he confesseth; There are yet that think that the righteousness which is required to justification, by Calvine to be also placed in imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Of this number is Bellarmine himself, who wrote thus of Calvine. John Calvine truly admitteth with the Lutherans, that there is not us any inherent righteousness, and Christ's righteousness to be imputed, and for it sins to be forgiven. And after: 
Nam cum Calvinus instit. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 22. Et in Antidoto ad Concil. Trid. ad sess. 6. contendit justificationem esse positam in remissione peccatorum, non excludit imputationem justitiae Christi, sed internam re novationem & sanctificationem. Bell. de justif. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. Johann eundem etiam Calv. reprehendir quod causam formalem justificationis du plicem faciat, c. 2. Sect. sed non minori. Who also addeth, Calvino respondet Pareus. Part 1. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 6.   
Calvine when in his Institutions and Antidote he contendeth justification to be placed in remission of sins, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but internal renovation and sanctification. And he reprehendeth the same Calvine, because he maketh a double formal cause of justification.  
And now for Pareus, give me leave to show his judgement of Calvine in this matter. When as Bellarmine urged Calvine, as you do to the same end, Pareus answereth.  
But that vain wrangler (Bellarmine) 
Sed inanis ille vitilitigator ipsum se Calumniae arguit, supra enim satebatur, Calvinum imputationem justitiae Christi non excludete, hic etiam denuo fatetur Calvinum cum Lutheranis agnoscere imputationem justitiae Christi & non imputationem peccatorum. Si igitur Calv. justificationem in remissione peccatorum constituit & imputationem justitiae Christi non excludit, quid a Luth. dissentit?  argueth himself of Calumny, for above he did confess that Calvine did not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. And here again once more he confesseth Calvine with the Lutherans to acknowledge the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and not imputation of sins. If therefore Calvine did place justification in remission of sins, and did not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; what doth he descent from the Lutherans?  
And than answering to that of his Antidote, he saith.  
But in saying this, he doth dissent 
Verum hoc dicendo neque à se neque a Luthero, Melancthone, vel quoquam also evangelicorum dissentir, particula enim Sola, non excludit imputationem justitiae Christi, quod fassus est Bellar. sed excludit reno vationem quam Tridentini in sua definitione cum remissione peccarorum ad justificationem requirunt: hoc respectu etiam Lutherus in sola remissione, & non imputatione peccatorum justificationem collocat; Melancthon quoque, sic Martyr. Castig. de justif. l. 2. c. 6. p. 444.  neither from himself, nor from Luther, Melancthon, or any other Protestant: for that particle Alone, doth not exclude the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which thing Bellarmine confessed, but it excludeth renovation, which those of Trent require in their definition with remission of sins to justification. In this respect also Luther doth plan justification only in remission and not imputation of sinnet— Melancthon also— so Martyr; thus Pareus.  
Doctor Dounbam may be added. For though many of our 
L. de justif. c. 5. p. 4.  Divines as hath been said have taught, that unto justification remission of sins is only required: yet their assertion it to be understood as Bellar. himself understandeth Calvine, as spoken in opposition to Papists, who say that to justification concur, not only remission of sins, but also inward renovation, or sanctification. To contradict them our Divines have said that we are justified by remission only, or not imputing of sin. Wherewith always concurreth imputation of righteousness, and not by renovation or sanctification. Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle Only, was not to exclude imputation of righteousness, which inseparably accompanieth not imputation of sin or Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellar. himself confesseth, but infusion of righteousness or renovation.  
Doctor Davenant answering Bell. 
Quartam recenset Calvini qui (ut ille ait) formalem causam justificationis in sola remissione peccatorum sitam docet. At nemo nescit Calvinum imputationem obedientiae Christi requirere absque qua nulla remissio peccatorum obtinetur. Si igitur quis a Calvine quaesi visset quidnam tandem illud sit propter quod & per quod impius justificatur; respondisset, propter & per meritum fil●i Dei, haec causa est remissionis, & causa acceptationis, haec causa translationis alstatu mortis ad statum vitae; Deus hanc filii sui obedientiam & justitiam respiciens ut a nobis fide apprehensam ab initio recipit nos in statum justificatorum. Deus perpetuo intuens hanc eandem justitiam nobis donatam & applicatam in reliquo vitae nostrae cursu habet nos pro justificatis. De justi. habit. c. 22. p. 313.  The fourth be repeateth is Calvins, who (as he (Bellarmine) saith) teacheth the formal cause of justification to be placed only in remission of sins. But no man is ignorant that Calvine requireth imputation of the obedience of Christ, without which no remission of sins is obtained. If therefore one had sought of Calvine what that is, for which, and by which, a wicked man is justified: he had answered, for and by the merit of the Son of God, this is the cause of remission, and the cause of acceptation, this is the cause of translation from the state of death to the state of life. God respecting this obedience and righteousness of his Son, a● apprehended of us by saith, from the beginning receiveth us into the state of justified one's. God always beholding this same righteousness given unto us and applied, in the remaining course of our life, accounteth us for justified one's.  
Chamier to Bellar. Objecting as you do, first answereth out of Bellar. himself, than out of Calvine, Instit. l. 3. c. 12. 
Potuitquic quam magis contra Bell. figmentum dici? l. 21. c. 15. Sect 20. & Sect. 21.  Sect. 2. to which he addeth, What can be more manifest? and Sect. 3. to which he saith, Can any thing more be said against that figment of Bellarmine? Again he proveth the same. We are sure that cannot first be (that we be not accounted sinners) without imputation of the 
Certi sumus ne illud quidem (nos peccatores censeri) prius constare posse absque imputara justitia Christi; unde Calvini verba, justitiae imputatione nos absolvit.  righteousness of Christ; thence the words of Calvine, he doth absolve us by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
And before, We (Protestants) do 
Imputationem justistiae Christi omnino censemus ejusdem justificationis fundum esse, qua neglecta prorsus illa nulla sit, neque in toto neque in parte, quomodo cunque tantum vel cogitatione concipi queat. Ib.  altogether conceive the imputation of the righteousness of Christ the foundation of the same justification, which being neglected, that is altogether none at all, neither in whole nor in part, howsoever it may be conceived as much as in thought.  
I will add another witness for Calvine, Polanus. Now 
Partir. p. 114.  if any man will say that the found Teachers, Calvine; and others, do affirm that justice or righteousness is the forgiveness of sins. And again, that justice consisteth in remission of sins, we must know that it is very certain they speak metonymically, meaning so as that either justice in their writings, is 
Quid enim aliud peccata potuisset occultare nostram preter ejus justitiam, etc. Justin. ad Diogutum.  the same that justification, because we cannot be justified but by justice, or else that justice is said to be the remission of sins, because justice is the cause of remission or forgiveness of sins; and that Calvine doth speak by Metonymia, is plain out of other places of his works, as l. 3. Instit. c. 17. Sect. 8.— And so in another place he plainly proveth that by, through, and for Christ's righteousness we obtain forgiveness of sins: and c. 3. Sect. 19 having obtained forgiveness of sins by means of Christ's righteousness coming between— and more plainly, c. 14. Sect. 12. and c. 11. Sect. 1. and c. 14. Sect. 13. man being covered with the righteousness of Christ pleaseth God and obtaineth forgiveness of sins.  
So that if Calvine himself, and all these worthies are to be credited, nay Bellarmine and Mr. Wotton themselves, you wrong Calvine, and hence the places you talk of out of other Divines may receive their answer.  
Quest. 16. To the sixteenth question, where the words are, etc. and that you cannot find in Rom. 5. 19 Rom. 8. 4. Rom. 10. 4. so much as one express word either of the communication, much less of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction to us, lest of all of their being made formally righteous by such imputation.  
To this, first yourself grant (you say) we are justified formally too, by the communication of Christ's righteousness to us in a sense, viz. in as much as we obtain by such communication remission of sins which is our formal justification (with you;) so that the thing is in a sense, though not in express words, and you see it too.  
2. Nay you grant remission an effect of righteousness communicated by these texts; not only pardon, but communication of righteousness, so your words; so that here is more than a meritorious cause, here is application by faith, which you will not other where acknowledge.  
3. Mr. W. denieth not remission of sins an effect, he with Calvine and the learned but now mentioned grant it, but that which all contend is also imputation and communication to that end, without which pardon cannot be, as before.  
4. And Sir, if remission doth formally justify, it is justice, as before out of Mr. Wotton, and so conformity to God's Law, deny one and you deny all.  
5. But to those texts what you cannot see others have, 
See Dr. Dau. de bab. Just. c. 27. arg. 2. p. 363. & arg. 4. p. 365. and others. Formae constituete.  and you might, had you received counsel of some dead and living still: that is, consulted with the the learned, the words Rom. 5. 19 that by the obedience of one many shall be constituted righteous. Here is righteousness constituting righteons, and than formal, for it is the nature of the form to constitute.  
I know not what you can except but that the form is internal, and that what is external cannot be so termed, and hence it is that you so often put in (that sophistical term, as ours answer the Papists in the same controversy) formally: and if that will not serve your turn, as was showed you at Cheswicke out of Doctor Davenant, indeed, put a man constituted by righteousness, righteous, if it be not by his own personal righteousness, it must be by another's, Christ's. The place that was than read unto you was:  
We grant that the form of Justification 
Justificationis formam concedimus illud per quod homo justificatus non modo reputatur & denominatur coram Deo, sed efficitur sive constituitur: quia autem homo dicitur justificatus denominatione passiva (ut ex ipsa Grammatica no●um est) non est absolute necessarium, ut haec denominatio aut peratur a forma inhaerente, aut supponat ●ormam inhaerentem. Hujusmodi enim denominationes passivae, quandoque respiciunt formam inhaerentem, ut cum patietem dicimus dealbatum: quandoque non, ut cum dicimus hominem amatum, honotatum, damnatum, absolutum; haec enim omnia de illo vere dicuntur in quo non reperitur forma inhaerens, quae fundare possit hujusmodi denominationes. Annotavit hoc Gulielmus Parisiensis, denominationes passive sivae praedicationes fiunt in rebus in quibus non sunt, in eyes, vel ad eas, vel de iis.  by which a justified person is none only reputed and denominated before God, but made or constituted so. But because he is said to be justified by a passive denomination (as it is known out of Grammar itself) It is not absolutely necessary that this denomination be taken either from an inberent form, or that it should suppose an inherent form: for such passive denominations sometimes respect in an inherent form, as when we say the wall to be whited: and sometimes not, as when we say a man to be beloved honoured, condemned, absolved. For all these are truly spoken of him in whom there is not found an inherent form which may be ground for such denominations. William of Paris noted this Passive denominations or predications are made in things in which they are not, in them, or to them, or of them. Where he citeth Vasques 
Ut imbelle & inutile.  the Jesuit rejecting that kind of argument as weak and unprofitable. Saying,  
I will not fight against this kind 
Nolo hoc genus denominationis impugnare communi quodam argumento quo aliqui utuntur, nempe quod haec denominatio justi videatur esse eorum quae postulant fo●mam intrinsecam: & mox, potest aliquid dici justum extrinseca & aliena justitia. Dr. Dau. de hab. just. c. 27 Sect. 36.  of denomination with a certain kind of common argument which some use, forsooth that this denomination of a just man seemeth to be of these, which require an internal form. And by and by, A thing may be said to be just by that which is external and another's righteousness.  
And Chamier. Every one that is just is so said indeed from 
Omnis justus dicitur quidem a justitia, non ab inhaerente necessario, damr imputativa justitia, datur compatentium ut Ezec. 16. Dies calamitosus ut de lac. & Eph. 5. propier ea quae fiunt in ipsis, ex Chrysost. c. 5. Sect. 28. Sect 29.  righteousness, not necessarily from what is inherent; there is imputed righteousness, there is righteousness of such as are compared Ezec. 16. an evil day, as of Jacob, and Ephes. 5. because of those which are done in them, as out of chrysostom.  
Quest. 17. You demand where he findeth it to be any branch of the Pelagian heresy to deny Adam's posterity to be made formally sinners with Adam's sin imputed to them in the letter and formality of it?  
Sir, I suppose you intent not that I must find your term formally, and in the letter and formality, enough of that but now, and that if I find it the Pelagian heresy to deny Adam's posterity to be made sinners by Adam's sin imputed to them, it will satisfy your question. For that see Vossius.  
That I might meet with them both, 
Utrisque ut occurrerem ostendi quam vere olim scripsit Vinc. Lirinens▪ neminem ante prodigiosum Pelagii discipulum Caelestium, ●eatu praevaticationis Adae, omne genus humanum negasse adstrictum. Voss. hist. ●elay. Epist. ad Lectorem.  I have showed how truly Vincentius Lirinensis in times past wrote, that there was none before Celestius that prodigious Disciple of Pelagius, that did deny whole mankind to be bound by the guilt of the sin of Adam.  
The Pelagians did deny Adam's sin to be imputed to posterity. 
Negabant Pelagiani, Adami peccatum imputari posteritati. V●ss. l 2. Thes 1. p. 172. Catholicorum contra sententia suit, peccatum primorum Parentum impurari omnibus ac reatu ●eneti to●●m posteritarem, idque idcirco, quod peccante Adamo omnes in lumbis ejus suimus. Ant●●●hes. 1. p. 174. In primis hominibus natura humana peccavit, ac per hoc naturae humanae nulla nocu●●● peccata nisi sua. Ib. e● August. retract. l. 1. c. 10.   
The Catholics opinion on the contrary was; The sin of first Parents to be imputed to all, and the whole posterity to be held with the guilt, and that therefore because Adam sinning, we were all in his loins.  
In the first men human nature sinned, and by this, no sins hurt human nature but its own.  
Quest. 18. He must answer who are they that deny Infants dying before they commit actual sin, are punished by death, because they are guilty of Adam's sin, or affirmeth that God out of his justice destroyeth innocent babes.  
Mr. Ws. answer is, he heard it by many witnesses of good credit, that heard it from your preaching.  
And here you give him to understand that it is one thing to have the guilt of Adam's sin derived upon his posterity, another to have the act of his sin in the letter and formality of it imputed to his posterity, so that for such imputation they should be destroyed; the former you grant, the latter you conceive will never be proved.  
Dying babes than are innocent in regard of imputation of Adam's act; It is nothing but the guilt that is derived, not the act, It is the guilt, not the act. Whether do you not in this answer deny the imputation of Adam's sin with the Pelagian? and so the orthodox tenet, which 
Pecca●um, & ●catus. Peccatum imputari, & reatu teneri.  is the imputation of Adam's sin? I demand whether sin and guilt be one and the same thing with them? Whether there be not sin to be imputed, and to be held with the guilt, another and distinct thing: and whether they be not distinguished in Divinity?  
You denying the imputation of Adam's act, as Bishop did against Mr. Perkins, should have told us (as Bishop Abbot saith to that Popish Bishop) how it is true that the 
See p. 405.  Apostle saith, That by Adam's disobedience we are made sinners. For h●w should we be made sinners by the disobedience, but for that his disobedience is imputed to us?  
Adam (saith the same Author) bore the person of all mankind, 
Id. ib.  either standing to stand for all, or falling to fall for all, being to beget children according to his image— therefore when he sinned, we all being in his loins (as Bellarmine saith) sinned in 
Id. ib.  him and by him, and his sin by imputation lieth upon us all.  
For (saith Doctor Whitaker) his 
Ipsius enim voluntas nostra fuit, ejusque igitur transgressio nostra est, quia ille non ut homo unus consideratur, sed ut radix generis humani, in quo omnes inclusi virtute fuimus, utque Augustinus ait, omnes eramus unus ille homo. Dr. Whitaker de or orig.. pec. p. 43. De pec. merchant & remis. l. 1. c. 10.  will was ours, and therefore his transgression is ours: because he is not considered as one man, but as the root of mankind, in which we all were virtually included, and as Augustine saith, we all were that one man.  
For neither should we ●e held either 
Neque enim aut reatu illo aut iniquitate inde contracta teneremur, nisi ille actus quo Adamus Dei praeceptum violavir, imputatione nobis adscriberetur. Id. ib p. 37.  with any guilt or iniquity contracted therehence, unless that act by which Adam violated God's precept, should be, by imputation, ascribed to us.  
Here you see, in the doctrine of this great Divine, is the act and guilt, both, and if there were no more but imputation of that act, here is enough to clear God's justice in destruction of babes.  
Quest. 19 How such as deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness (viz. in the letter and formality of it) to believers, do hereby ascribe as much justification by it to infidels and reprobates as believers themselves: when faith is maintained to be the means of bringing men into communion with Christ, and to give him part in that great benefit of Redemption purchased for the world?  
Answ. You seem to me to do so, when as what you give faith notwithstanding, you deny in the former part communication of Christ's righteousness to justification, and our being made just by it communicated, which showeth what you give to be but in word and tongue, for a colour and show. Still▪ faith justifieth, not relatively to the object, applying it as an hand, but in a proper sense. Neither do you make the righteousness of Christ, as the meritorious cause, so that by which, imputed, we are just, just as the Papists, whose confutation you shall meet with after, by our learned Divines.  
Quest. 20. and 21. But how can Mr. Walker hold it a mistake to say, that justification and life are promised upon condition of believing?  
For my part, I suppose he may say so in a sound sense. And to your argument, either they are promised absolutely, or on condition of somewhat else, or of believing, or not promised at all.  
1. I answer, They are promised to faith in Christ, that is, faith taking in the righteousness of Christ.  
2. It is not made to every faith, not to a mere assent to the revelation, not to your faith of a proper sense (though you call it faith in Christ) when as it doth not as a hand bring home the righteousness of Christ by which I am justified. The faith you speak of infoldeth not the object, but opposeth it in this effect justification. Faith in a proper sense (say you) is imputed, and not the righteousness of Christ.  
Neither doth Mr. Walker hung out a flag of defiance to the orthodox; you do in your whole business. Doctor Dounham calling faith a condition, taketh it with its object as all the rest you mention, against your sense, whom they oppose as they do the Papist.  
Hearken and learn. Junius speaking of the covenant 
Cujus condi●io extra nos in Christo reperitur. p. 16. & 8. Sect 3.  of grace, saith, whose condition is found out of us in Christ, and there he saith, that by that apprehended by faith we are just, etc.  
Faith is want to be considered two 
Fides in Scriptures & apud Patres duobus modis considerari solet, proprie secundum naturam fidei simplici●er; altero figurate, id est, metaleptice & correlative, qua fides apprehendit objectum suum, etc. posteriori dicitur sola justifica●e. Trelca●. p. 85.  ways, in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers, properly according to the nature of faith simply, another figuratively, that is, by a metalepsis, and correlatively, as faith apprehendeth the object, etc. in the last sense it is said alone to justify.  
Our justification is not with the 
Nequidem justificatio nostra est cum conditione fidei, qua fides est habitus in nobis, sed qua extra nos Christum apprehendi●. Id. p. 88  condition of faith, as faith is an habit in us, but as out of us it appprehendeth Christ.  
When as faith is an instrument, 
Cum fides instrumentum sit, non mi●um est, si quae instrumentorum ratio est nomen & officium re● cujus instrumentum est, ei attribuitur. Id. p. 89.  it is no wonder if, which is the nature of instruments, the name and office of the thing whose instrument it is, be given unto it.  
Christ as to be applied, is the condition of the covenant. 
Quadratus applicandusest conditio soederis. Ib. p. 100 Ad Gal. 64. 2▪   
Christ is the object of faith, saith Luther, yea rather in faith Christ himself is present.  
Hence Bucanus. And how is 
Et quomodo ad justitiam imputatur? non absolute, said relative, cum fides non sola sed cum objecto suo crucifixo intelligitur; quemadmodum manus quae recipit the sau●um donatum non dita●, said the saurus. Bu●. ad q. 35.  faith imputed to righteousness? not absolutely, but relatively, because faith not alone, but with his crucified object is understood, as an hand which receiveth a treasure given, doth not make rich, but the treasure.  
This you accounted perilous, and preached against in my hearing once, you cannot endure it to be set forth with its object Christ, or it to have the nature of an hand, which yet is an ordinary orthodox expression: and to that of Bucanus 
Ad Gal. p. 65. 2.  for your hearers sake, I will give you an account of divers. Faith justifieth (saith Luther) because it apprehendeth and possesseth this treasure, even Christ present.  
Therefore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart of the true Christian, is the true Christian righteousness, for the which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal 
Ib. p seq.  life.  
Because thou believest in me, saith the Lord, and thy faith 
Ib.  layeth hold upon Christ, etc. therefore be thou justified and righteous.  
Hence we have first in what sense 
Hinc habemus primum quo sensu justificationem fidei tribuimus, qua●enus videlicet ea Christum amplectitur & applicat. Unde Bez. (in confess▪ Mayor art 3. c. 4.) vocat unicum illud instrumentum quo Jesum Christum oblatum apprehendimus, & vas unicum ad eum percipiendum compaparatum: & post. art. 7 Quum ex Paulo affirmamus nos sola fide, sive gratis, sive fide, sive sine operibus justificari (sunt enim haec synonyma) non est hoc dictum perinde accipiendum ac si diceremus, fidem esse quandam virtutem quae nos in nobis coram Deo justificer; id enim esset fidem substituere in locum Jesu Christi, qui unus est nost●a persecta & integra justitia. Verum ita loquimur, cum Apostolo, & fide sola nos justificari dicimus eo quod amplectitur eum qui nos justificat, nempe Jesum Christum, quo cum nos unit & copulat, ut simus & ipsius & omnium ejus bonorum participes; quae quidem nobis imputata prorsus sufficiunt ad hoc ut coram Deo absolvamur▪ & pro justis cens●amur. Cham l. 22. c. 2. Sect. 14.  we give justification to faith, forsooth so fare as it embraceth Christ and applieth him▪ Whence Beza calleth it, that only instrument by which we apprehended Christ offered, the only vessel provided to receive him. And after, when as out of Paul we affirm us to be justified, only by faith, or by faith, or without works, (for these are of the same signification) this saying is not so to be understood, as if we said faith to be a certain virtue which justifieth us in ourselves before God; for that were to substitute faith in the place of Jesus Christ who alone is our perfect and whole righteousness. But we so speak with the Apostle, and we say we are justified by faith alone, because it doth embrace him, who doth justify us, that is, Jesus Christ, with whom it doth unite and couple us that we may be partakers both of him and all his goods, which indeed beingimputed to us altogether suffice to this that we may be absolved before God, and be accounted for just men.  
Where he citeth Bell. also, laying down the state of the 
Quam gratiam fides credendo recipit: sicut cum manu pauper eleemosynam à divi●e recipit, ea manus recipiens eleemosynam non est ipsa eleemosyna, neque causa efficiens eleemosynae, neque propter ipsam— sed solum relative concurri● ad eleemosynam obtinendam, quoniam dare & accipere sunt relata.  question, who giveth to Protestants.— Which grace faith by believing receiveth: as when a poor man receiveth an alms of a rich man with his hand, that hand receiving the alms, is not the alms itself, nor the efficient cause of the alms, nor for it— but it only concurreth relatively to obtain the alms, because to give and receive are relates. 
Non male, nisi relative concurrere esset phrasis apud nos inaudita.   
Sect. 16. To which report of Bellarmine Chamier noteth, He doth it not evilly, but that, that phrase, to concur relatively, is unheard of amongst us.  
It aught rather to be named relatively, 
Debuit potius relative nominari, id est, quat●nus fides consideratur cum suo objecto, ut cum dicitur Ecclesia super fide Petri fundata apud veteres: nos alias evicimus interpretandum de Christo, quem fides Petri consessa erat. Ib.  that is, so fare forth as faith is considered with its object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter amongst the Fathers. We have elsewhere evicted the place, to be interpreted of Christ whom Peter faith confessed.  
Junius, But correlatively as they 
Sed correlative tantum ut loquuntur, quatenus meritum Christi apprehendit, tanquam manus mendici eleemosynam. De justis Sect. 16.  speak, as it apprehendeth the merit of Christ as the hand of a beggar doth the alms.  
To conclude, that we may expound 
Denique ut metonymiam hanc quam evidentissimo possimus simili exponamus; fides est tanquam manus, aut tanquam loculus apprehendens thesaurum gratiae quam Deus nobis exhibet in Christo Jesus Comment, ad Heb. c. 11.  this metonymy by as evident a similitude as we may; faith is as it were the hand, or as the purse apprehending the treasure of grace, which God giveth to us in Jesus Christ.  
Peter Martyr, And also faith itself, 
Quin etiam fides ipsa, si qua nostrum opus est consideretur, ea justificari non possumus cum opus sit & man●um & impersectum, long deterius quam requirit; sed illa justificari dicimur qua promissiones Dei, & Christi justiriam meritaque per ipsam apprehendimus & applicamus. L. de justif. Sect. 8.  if it be considered as it is our work, we cannot be justified by it, seeing it is a work both lame and imperfect, fare worse than he requireth. But we say we are justified by it as we apprehended and apply the promises of God and Christ's righteousness & merits. 
Respondemus (saith the same Martyr) id quod saepius alias diximus, fidem quatenus opus est non justificare; id enim habet non ex vi aliqua sua sed ex objecto, ex morte enim Christi promissionibus Dei justitia in nos derivatur: ita mendicus recipit eleemosynam manu le prosa vel cruenta non tamen qua manum habet ita iufirmam & leprosam— fidem ad hunc usum factam esse & institutam à Deo. Ib. Sect. 62. & 71.   
We answer, that which we have often elsewhere said, faith as it is a work doth not justify; for it hath that not from any strength of its own, but from its object. For, from the death of Christ, the promises of God, righteousness is derived to us. So the beggar receiveth an alms with a leprous hand, or that which is bloody, yet not as he hath an hand so infirm and leprous.— Faith was made and instituted of God to this use.  
This Sir is the Protestant tenet, as faith taketh in the 
See Gerhard. de justif. Sect. 181. p. 658. Conditio praestita, instrumentum.  object it is a condition, and so it justifieth; rejecting this, you desert them, and join with the Papists, and Arminians, who calling faith a condition performed, an instrument: they allow it an instrument in a proper sense as you. Yet add not as if faith performed were made 
Non quasi fides praestita proprie instrumentum fiat, seu instrumentalis actio, qua sicutananu apprehendimus aut attr●himus remissionem nugae, etc. Remonst. ex Cens. c. 10. p. 112.  an instrument properly, or as an instrumental action, by which as with an hand we apprehended and draw to us remission: those are toys.  
Neither is there fear of his agreement with Jews, Pagans', 
Def. Mr Wotton p. 34. Est haec una ex maximis quibus— Ecclesia Christia Judaeis, Turcis, Paganis, separantur. de justif. l. 2 c. 1. p 364.  and Mahometans, concurring with him in this that faith in Christ (as hath been said) is the condition of justification.  
And if you believe Pareus, who of this question we dispute saith. This is one of the greatest in which— the Churches of Christ are separated from jews, Turks, and Pagans'. Where having laid down the difference he addeth.  
Truly the Protestant Church dareth 
Evangelica vero Ecclesia talem formalem causam justificationis non magis audet opponere judicio Dei. (He speaketh of faith not applying Christ for in a relative sense) quam stupam igni. Sed credit se justificari fide, gratis imputata justitia propter Christi meritum . not more to oppose such a formal cause of justification to the judgement of God, than stubble to the fire: but it believeth she is justified freely by imputed righteousness, for the merits of Christ.  
Thus have I answered your queries which were no answer but tergiversation, and an argument that they were too hot for you in a direct way to meddle with.  
My next task is to examine your arguments, Mr. Wrs. answer, etc. And here passing the entrance in which there is much very unsavoury, with collateral impertinencies, which yourself rightly conceive, are but the crude and indigested ebullitions of unnatural heat and passion; indeed vainglorious babbling, deserving rather pity, than examination, 
Mr. G. arguments.  or as much as reading.  
And come to the arguments.  
The sum of your first argument as you give it, is. Imputation of faith is in a proper sense, because the phrase is so often used in this chapter without alteration or exchange: whereas the imputation of Christ's righteousness hath not the lest relief either from sound of words or sight of letter in the Scriptures.  
Mr. W. answereth, Tropical speeches may be often repeated, and are in Scripture, as Jer. 26. v. 3. 13. 19 & Gal. 3. Where faith is used ten times in an improper sense. Therefore often repeating doth not prove a proper acceptation. What say you to this? Forsooth, the conclusion indefinitely taken and in the general is unquestionably true. What than is become of your argument? and what will help you?  
You answer, Augustine's rule approved by Divines. That 
Mr. G.  a literal and proper sense in Scripture is still to be preferred where there is no necessity of rejecting it; or substituting an improper sense instead of it. You say, in the places instanced in, there is need of a trope, but not so here, neither reason nor religion contradicting it.  
But Sir you cannot be ignorant but this interpretation of yours is against reason and Religion too in the judgement of all Protestant Divines (except heretofore excepted) improved by many arguments in Sybrandus against Bertius, through all the Epistles, who calleth it a blasphemous heresy; and witness as many as are for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and the relative sense: and that faith doth justify as an instrument taking in the object: to them you must first answer.  
Besides, is there not mention of imputation of righteousness as well as imputation of faith? vers. 6. & 11. It cannot be faith in a proper sense, that is but inherent and imperfect righteousness. It may be than the righteousness of Christ.  
If Mr. Walker saith so, he is not alone, as before.  
Yea, there is ground, seeing by the righteousness of Christ in the word, we are said to be constituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19 and where he is said to be made unto us of God righteousness, and we the righteousness of God in him. For which we have the stream of Protestants against Papists, Arminians and Socinians, as before.  
Is there not ground when as hereby God is declared just in justification? which justice faith in a proper sense, destroyeth, as Mr. Forbs, and before, seeing faith in itself is to divine judgement but as stubble to fire; needeth a covering, and must be justified as well as the person and other works. Here is the Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, the just for the unjust. What do you but not submit to the righteousness of Christ, that which is by faith, and establish a work, your own work, so is faith?  
We clear that place against Papists, as before, so doth 
Bellar de justif l. 2. c. 9 ipsam fidem reputari, to whom Doctor Dav Sed srivola est haec objectio; nam nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod proprie & immediate pertiner ad rem applicatan: quia igitur fides applicat & apprehendit nobis Christi justitiam, id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur. p. 371. Pareus format argumentum. Cui fides imputatur ad justitiam is justificatur, non etc. Sed justitia great is imputata Abrahae & cuivis credenti imputatur sides. Ergo, p. 484. etc. 1. Licet fides quae imputatur ad justitiam non sit justitia Christi absolute; est tamen relate, quia justitiam quam in Christo quaerit, seu quia justitiam Christi sibi applicat, de qua Apostolus, Rom. 5. 18. Fide justificamur, aur proprie qua qualitas, aut Metonymice qua, etc. non proprie, ergo Metonymice, Pareus Castig. in Luc.  Calvine, as in Bellarmine. We answer thus to the Papist.  
This is one of Arminius his arguments, who as he is 
Ad artic. quart. p. 297.  for the propriety of the words, mentioneth the repetition of the phrase against the figurative sense.  
And thus have I before I was ware answered what Mr. Walker called your second argument also, to what you mention done elsewhere, there also is the answer; for my part I know no other righteousness than that of the Law or Christ: and if it be righteousness, and not of the Law, I mean our inherent righteousness, it must be Christ's who was the end of the Law for righteousness to such as believe.  
That for which, or the scope of the Law, the fulfilling of 
Finis perficiens, the end perfecting, as Toss. out of August. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter quod, vel scopum Legis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complementum. Lex ergo hunc habet finem ut facientes Legem & rectè viventes justificarentur; illum finem solus assecutus est Christus, & nos assequimur dum fide cum apprehendimus. Ita in Christo exhibetur & praestatur vera justitia quam Lex requitit, modo in eum credamus, ut air Apostolus, Omni credenti: offertur enim quidem justitia omnibus, donatur autem & imputatur solis credentibus. Dr. Toss. ad. 10. c. Rom.  it. The Law therefore hath this end, that those that do the Law and live rightly should be justified. That end Christ alone attained, and we attain it when as we apprehended him by faith. So in Christ there is given and performed true righteousness which the 
Nihil impersectum aut mancum potest dici justitia Dei justificans. Id. ib. 173.  Law required, so we believe in him, as the Apostle saith, To every one that believeth: for truly righteousness is offered to all, but given and imputed only to believers. Where also he saith, nothing imperfect or lame can be called the righteousness of God justifying.  
But these things diligently considered 
Haec autem diligenter considerata manifeste dicunt, quid vocabulo justitiae Dei intelligatur, perfecta nimirum illa & summa integritas humanae naturae, qua quisque donatus est (donatur autem credentibus in eum, qui hac integritate secondum carnem absolurissime praeditus est nostri causa postea declarabitur) sistitur coram Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut loquitur Paulus Col 1. 22. id est sanctus, inculpatus & qui nullius criminis possit postulari. Ea igitur à Paulo dicitur justitia Dei, non modo quia gratuitum est Dei donum, aut quia hanc largiendo, Deus se vere justum (id est, fidelem ac varacem) praestat, sed etiam ut opponatur justitiae hominum sive ex operibus, qua ●estatur David neminem justificari.  manifestly show what is understood by the word the justice of God. Forsooth that perfect and most high integrity of the human nature, with which every one is endowed (but it is given to them that believe in him, who is absolutely endowed with this integrity according to the flesh for our sakes, as it shall be afterwards declared.) He is presented before God as the Apostle speaketh, holy, unblamable, and unreprovable. That therefore is said to be the justice of God, not only because it is the free gift of God, or because God in giving his showeth himself truly just (that is faithful and true) but also that it may be opposed to the righteousness of men, or of works, by which David testifieth no man can be justified.  
Sect. 17. But to the second Argument (passing bitter and vain words not a few) which saith, the scope of the Apostle 
Mr. G. p. 66.  is to put men by the false way of justification which lies through works, and to discover the true way, that is to make known what they must do, what he requires of them to justification, and will accept of them instead of the works of the Law; and that is it which he here saith is imputed for righteousness. Now faith in the proper and formal signification is that which they must do, etc. and therefore is faith in a proper sense to be accounted for righteousness.  
Against this one exception is, that you contradict your 
Mr. W.  self, for the doing you urge is but the way of works, so that it is not, and yet is the way, it is the true and false way, both.  
To this you answer, that Christ calleth faith a work, John 
P. 67.  6. 29. this is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent.  
To this I answer, the words are acknowledged, and that believing is a work, receiving and applying is a work, and what is required there; so elsewhere explained, John 1. 12. but deny faith to be God's way, as a work in a proper sense, opposed to the righteousness of Christ its object as accepted of God for righteousness instead of the works of the Law. I do not, nor can think that the meaning of Christ, God's judgement is according to truth, it were not so if he should accounted that so which is not, or accept of such an imperfect work for the righteousness of the Law, of which before.  
Than a man should be justified by a work, which is denied by many other plain Scriptures, yourself acknowledging it a false way, and the word, not of works of righteousness which we have done, Tit. 3. 5. of which place Sybrandus answering Bertius your Arminian Prince objecting the same text saith, that speech of the Apostle (not of works 
Firmissima est enim illa Apostoli oratio.  of righteousness which we have done) is most firm: your interpretation than must be false, who also there cite Calvinus (of Papists:) the words at full are these.  
At the last when they are weary 
Cavillanrur in eo quod sides alicubi opus vocatur, at que inde nos perperam opetibus fidem opponere. Quasi vero sides quatenus obedientia est Divinae voluntatis, suo merito nobis justitiam concilier, ac non potius quod misericordiam Dei amplectendo Christi justitiam ab eo nobis oblatam in evangeliis praedicatione cordibus nostris obsigner. L. 3. Inst. c. 18. Sect. 10.  of wresting the Scripture they fall to subtleties and sophistical arguments. They cavil upon this, that faith is in some places called a work, that we do wrongfully set faith as contrary to works. As though forsooth faith in that it is an obeying of the will of God, doth with her own deserving procure unto us righteousness, and not rather because by embracing the mercy of God, it sealeth to our hearts the righteousness of Christ offered to us by him in the preaching of the Gospel.  
And here though you hold it not meritorious, yet a work, and oppose it to the righteousness of Christ offered in the Gospel.  
The Lord there calleth for faith in the object himself, who is the end of the Law for righteousness, as but now: Which the Law not being able to fit us with, we have from Christ. Faith in the relative sense, as Sybr. there both out of Melancthon and Calvine. Harken to the Homily. So that as John The Baptist although he were never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiveness of sin, he 
2. Part. serm. Salu. p. 18. fine.  did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold yonder is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world: even so us great and as godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ saith unto us as it were thus. It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I sand you for that purpose.  
Faith thus considered, though but as a leprous and weak hand, may do the same, so that still you are entangled by your proper sense of faith.  
Neither can you escape to say, by works excluded is meant 
P. 68  the merit of works, or what is done with an opinion of deserving justification.  
As if the Apostle only disputed against their merit or opinion of deserving, we know they deserve not, and must have pardon themselves. The dispute is against them simply as causes, to keep this crown on the head of Christ alone, which that leprous hand faith and act of receiving doth, without opposition to God's free grace or Christ's righteousness; thus faith establisheth grace and the righteousness of Christ to God's justice, Rom. 3. 24, 25, etc. and the Law to boot, vers. ult.  
That phrase of faith in a proper sense, as a work accepted of God for, and instead of the works of the Law, is down right the Arminian tenet, & destroyeth as I conceive, the righteousness of Christ, making his do and sufferings voided and vain; For to what end, if the condition be faith in a proper sense, and that instead of the righteousness of the Law? It is to no use, unless it be said to be a meritorious cause of faith being such a condition, and such acceptation, as Osterodus before.  
Once it destroyeth the justice of God with which it will never stand to accept what is weak and imperfect, sin full in that respect, for perfect obedience due unto the Law.  
Before I go on, those words are considerable. Surely 
P. 68  to serve, worship, and believe in Jesus Christ as Mediator, are 
Mr. Goodw.  just and lawful, yet no works of the moral Law, nor was Adam in his innocency bound unto them?  
To pass that of Adam's obligation, which was obedience to what ever the Lord did or should propose unto him, and that though it be not in the Law originally it 
2. Treat. p. 47. 48.  may be in the Law as if stands, with additions and improvements, as you distinguish.  
Give me leave as unsatisfied to propose some questions to you now and to entreat your answer. I freely acknowledge you a learned man, answer satisfactorily, & eris mihi magnus Apollo.  
1. Whether the second Person in Trinity, Jesus Christ, God's son, were not from eternity, set and chosen Mediator, God giving us to him for life eternal, be accepting of the same?  
2. Whether since the fall that eternal purpose be not revealed, and Christ to be him in whom alone is, and ever was eternal life for his Church, men and Angels?  
3. Whether as Mediator he be not to be worshipped? and whether it be not God's Commandment through the word in all times, as he was made known in the same under the notion of an Angel, God's Son, etc. by obedience, faith, hope, love, fear, joy, subjection, prayer, and praise; and now with the observation of the Lords day, our Christian Sabbath to his his honour, and righteousness, Rom. 14. 18. his service: and whether these be, or which are, or which not moral?  
4. Whether worship and service to God in Jesus Christ be required in the moral Law, such faith, hope, love, fear, joy, obedience, prayer, praise, or not? and what are the differences; and if, why worship of Christ shall be excluded? Whether worship of God out of Christ be required, or abrogated?  
5. Whether if it be not in the moral Law, it falleth under the Judicial Law, or Ceremonial Law, or be a Counsel, or is the Gospel a Law?  
6. If to serve and worship Christ be just, etc. How can it not fall under the rule of justice, which I take to be the moral Law?  
7. If not, how is that a perfect and exact rule of works and worship, as Mr. Bradsh. p. 43. the sum of what is to be done?  
8. Whether Christ and his Apostles ever commanded other worship. I, or the Prophets than Moses?  
9 Whether the first Commandment doth not require worship according to the will of God?  
10. Whether those words, I am the Lord thy God, prefixed to the Commandments, be not the tenor of God's covenant in Christ, to which there must be a suitable answer?  
11. Whether any Commandment in the decalogue hath more requisites of a moral Law, than faith and worship of Christ as Mediator?  
12. Whether faith being a cause, a root, a mother of all good, an especial requisite to make them good, be not required in the same Laws where thoseworkes are  
13. Whether faith in the worship of Christ the Mediator, be not that same worship and honour that is given to God the Father and the blessed Spirit? So that both or neither are moral? And how else is it that the constant practice of the Churches is in prayer to begin in the name of Christ, and to end, to whom with thee Spirit be glory?  
I find it written that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, and that he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him, John 5. 23. And, Yet believe in God, believe in me also, John 14. 1. And that, Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me, John 12. 44. I find that in righteousness, the grace and works of righteousness, Christ is served, Rom. 14. 18, 18. I find that as grace is from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 3. so that the glory of it appertaineth to both.  
I find those praised Divines of Leyden, doubting jest the Remonstrants (naming the title of their eleventh Chap. of faith in Jesus Christ) would have faith in Christ another from faith in God the Father, and in the Holy Ghost; to which they speak thus.  
For we who have known but one 
Nos enim qui unam fidem no vimus ex Apost. Eph. 4. v. 5. unum etiam terminum solum Deum agnoscimus; & in Christum credimus quia Deus est, eandem omnino ob causam qua in Patrem: ita ut Christus quatenus in eum credimus, sit cum Patre proptium ac primarium fidei salvificae objectum. Etsi enim in Symbolo profiteamur distincte nos credere in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, non tamen habemus tres illas distinctas personas pro tribus differentibus salvificae fidei objectis; fatemur tamen fidem deberi Christo ut Prophetae, Sacerdoti & Regi nostro unico, non aliam tamen officii & aliam ratione personae, sed unam & eandem, qua qui recipit Christum, recipit eum qui misit eum, Matth. 10. 40. Ideo dicit Petrus nos per Christum credere Deo qui excitavit eum à mortuis, & gloriam ei dedit ut fides & spes nostra in Deo esset, 1 Pet. 1. 21. quo loco ostendit objectum ultimum seu terminum fidei nostrae Deum esse, á quo Christus distinguitur non naturae sed officii ratione, qua per Filium postremis temporibus nobiscum locutus est Deus, Heb. 1. 1.— Ubi nullum est discrimen fidei, sed una fides, quae primum ad Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directa, propter Christum optima quaeque de Patre sibi pollicetur, in quem alioquin extra Christum credere ad salutem non possemus, ideo author & consummator fidei nostrae dicitur ab Apost. Heb. 12. 1. Est ergo una fides qua Patrem & Christum come plectimur, quam etiam idem Apostolus ad Heb. 6. 1. appellat fidem in Deum.  faith out of the Apostle, Eph. 4. 5. do also acknowledge God only the one term of our faith: and we believe in Christ because he is God, for the same cause altogether as in the Father; so that Christ as we believe in him, is with the Father the proper and primary object of faith that saveth. For though in the Creed we profess distinctly we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet we have not those three distinct persons for three different or divers objects of saving faith. Notwithstanding we confess faith to be due to Christ, as to our only Prophet, Priest, and King, not one because of his office, and another by reason of his person, but one and the same, by which he that receiveth Christ, receiveth him that sent him, Matth. 10. 40. Therefore Peter teacheth us by Christ to believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. In which place he showeth the last object or term of our faith to be God, from whom Christ is distinguished, not in nature, but by reason of his office, as God in the last times spoke to us by his Son, Heb. 1. 1.— Where there is no difference of faith, but one faith, which first directed to Christ God-man promiseth to itself all best things of the Father for Christ's sake, in whom otherwise out of Christ we should not believe to salvation; therefore is he called the Author and finisher of our faith by the Apostle, Heb. 12. 1. Therefore there is one faith by which we embrace the Father and Christ, 
Parem esse fidem in Deum & in Christum. Censura. In cap. 1●. p. 154. 155. P. 68  which the same Apostle, Heb. 6. 1. calleth faith in God.  
Where also they say, and prove by places brought to that purpose, that the Socinians deny faith in God and Christ to be the same.  
That also must be considered, where you say by works, (the false way) is not meant whatsoever may in any respect be said to be done by a man himself, if any thing should be upon any consideration required of him in reference to his justification.  
To which I say, it is true in the Protestant sense, taking faith in a Relative sense; I, and of all graces else as Companions, and present with the faith that justifieth, for it is not alone when it justifieth, though it alone justifieth, (as the Learned acknowledge) but than, that any thing but faith as an instrument receiving, should have efficience, that there should be somewhat, any thing, faith itself, accepted of God instead of the works of the Law, to justification, I am afraid to acknowledge. Truly Sir there is more in this first heap than I was ware of at first sight, and I think you must to work again.  
Another thing Mr. Walker excepteth against, is that you say. God doth not require of us the righteousness of Christ to Justification, this be required of Christ himself. To which you say, that before Mr. W. showeth the grossness of this error, himself drops two gross errors indeed.  
What is the first? That (say you) God requireth nothing of us to Justification, when as it is notoriously known that he threatens damnation except we believe; and to credit his saying, he citys, Rom. 3. 24. whereas the verse following quite overthrows it, wherein the condition of faith is expressly mentioned.  
I answer, here is no error if you will understand Mr. Walker, his meaning is, he required no works or doing of ours for it, it being done freely by grace in Christ, which grace will not stand with our works.  
Neither doth he deny faith required as a condition in a sense, Relatively, or as the hand and instrument receiving Christ's righteousness to justification. He denieth it as our work, for, or instead of the righteousness of the Law to justification.  
When you say, God threatneth damnation, except we believe, is it not a sin? a transgression of the Law? Is it not the Law's to minister death? It seemeth this faith is therefore required in the Law. You go on.  
He (say you) drops a second error more gross than the former, saying, that faith is a qualification to us for the receiving, applying, and enjoying Christ's righteousness, that is, faith is a qualification to us for believing; for what is the receiving, applying, and enjoying the righteousness of Christ, but believing as before observed?  
1. Here you see Mr. W. excludes not faith believing as a qualification, which was your late charge, yourself discharge him.  
2. To say that a man may receive, that is, apply and enjoy the righteousness, which receiving is believing, he must be qualified, is no more than to say, he must have a power that he may do; be habitually disposed, that he may act, which is so fare from being an error, that it is impossible that a man should believe, receive, or apply in this kind without faith.  
And with your leave Sir, faith in a proper sense qualifieth not, but as instrumental, as an hand it receiveth and enjoyeth, it bringeth home treasure which inricheth; the righteousness of Christ which justifieth. It is so far from opposition to the righteousness of Christ in justification, which is your tenet.  
Finally, here is more granted to faith by you, than an assent, or work of the understanding, which is of some use.  
But let us return to what Mr. Walker taxed, that is, You said, God required not of us the righteousness of Christ for justification; this (you say) Mr. Walker calls a gross error, and instead of proof, complaineth of it as an harsh, unsavoury, and absurd phrase: and that to justify his complaint, he saith God requires not the righteousness of Christ, but of Christ himself, implying he had need.  
1. I answer, Mr. Walker in all chargeth you here but with one gross error, and if that be made good it is enough.  
2. It is true, he calleth God's requiring of us the righteousness of Christ for justification, absurd, etc. which he showeth, and you touch not: see the place.  
3. I suppose what you infer as his proof thereof is not so, nor to that end intended, but a plain passing to it (as he conceived) a gross error, and so your jests p. 70. fail, are but irrelativenesse and impertinencies.  
Before I come to the main thing (not having your writing, I must speak to it as it is related) What if one should contradict your position, and say, God requires of us the righteousness of Christ to justification? you say he requires faith, and faith in Christ, a believing, which is receiving, applying, and enjoying. Why may I not put in the object received, applied, and enjoyed, the righteousness of Christ to justify me? Is it not a receiving him, a applying him, and enjoying him, to justification and salvation? I hope it is with his righteousness. He that threatneth damnation for not receiving, applying, and enjoying Christ, requires of me receiving Christ and his righteousness also to justification, as he requireth that I be just, and revealeth him our righteousness, he requireth applying and receiving him, putting him on for justification; that, or perfectly to perform the Law, which being impossible it is that; and the Scripture saith that by the obedience of one I am constituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19  
But to the business, God required not of us the righteousness of Christ for justification. This he required of Christ himself: so you. This last he calleth an error indeed, There he putteth an Accent. This saith Mr. Wr. implieth Christ had need of justification, and was bound to fulfil the Law for himself, and savoureth of Socinian and Samosatenian heresy, which denies Christ's Godhead; for if Christ's human nature being from the first conception most pure, upright, and holy, was personally united to his Godhead, and so the Son of God, and heir of all things; Who can doubt but in himself he was worthy of all glory, at God's right hand from his birth: as his taking of our nature upon him, was altogether for us: so his infirmities, sufferings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousness and obedience to the whole Law was for us, and for all the elect, who of old believed in him to come for them, who do now believe in him exalted to glory according to his humanity. To think or say that he had need to justify himself, and to merit by his righteousness the state of glory, is in effect to deny he was God, infinitely worthy of all glory as he was the only begotten Son of God and Heir of all things. Thus Mr. Walker.  
Here we must lay aside laughing irrelativenesse and impertinencies.  
What say you to this? It seemeth a gross error by what is said.  
I could I conceive (say you) put some Queries to him, that would a little trouble him to make good the truth thereof in a positive way.  
You should first answer, than propose Queries. Your answer by Queries is but a wile, tergiversation. I will be plain in answering you, as I shall be able.  
How he can prove that Christ had no need of justification? 
1. Quere.  Surely Christ was a justified or righteous person in the sight of 
Mr. G.  God, this justification was not superfivous, or no wise useful to him; and what is not superfluous, we men of the lower form of learning judge to be some ways needful.  
1. Mr. Walker answereth, if justification be forgiveness and pardon of sin only, (as you elsewhere say) when as he is said to have need of justification, he is enfolded a sinner, to have need of remission of sins. Which if it be too too gross, by it may be proved that he needed not justification for himself.  
Yea, to be in need of forgiveness of sins, and so righteous a person as you speak, are pugnantia secum frontibus adversis, a contradiction.  
But it seemeth as he was a righteous person, that was not superfluous, therefore some ways needful.  
You must say for himself. But he needed it not for himself being God's Son, God blessed for ever, and comprehensor from the first moment of his conception by personal union with the holy Ghost. It was needful than for us. He was our Surety, and in that respect they might be needful for us, though not for himself else.  
Being our Surety, what was our debt must be paid, it 
Likewise in the example of David in the remission of sins the Apostle must needs understand the imputation of righteousness, without the which he can never pass by the gates of Heaven, which are the gates of righteousness, that is, where at the righteous shall enter▪ Master. Cartwright in Rom. 4. v. 6.  was necessary to our life; our debt was perfect obedience to Gods Law. It was also death, the wages of our sins, to free us from death he must die, and he must fulfil the Law, that we may live, by the whole we come to be wholly fair, holy, unreprovable, and unblamable in his sight, complete.  
I conceive our election to salvation was by and in him before the world as our Mediator and Surety, and we made accepted in him Gods beloved one. That he was verily ordained before the foundation of the world, such, but manifested in the last times (a Lamb without blemish or spot) for us who by him due belteve in God. He was set for our rising, sent to and for us. Raised up an horn of salvation for us, borne to us, given to us. When the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a Woman, made under the Law to redeem us that are under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. That his making himself of no reputation, taking upon him the form of a servant, humbling of himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of, until the death of the Cross, was for us. So was his fulfilling all righteousness, and coming to fulfil the Law, his coming to do Gods will, his always doing things pleasing to God; thus God purposed, thus he obeyed. He was a righteous branch, the Lord our righteousness.  
You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (saith Saint Paul) that though he was rich, he become poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich, 2 Cor. 8. 9 For their sakes sanctify I myself, that they also may be sanctified.  
When as the Scripture showeth him to be made a Surety, it is enough to show he was not made for himself, but for us.  
It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness devil, he is the head of the body the Church; ye are complete in him.  
Though therefore it was not useful to himself for himself, it was not superfluous, he being our Head, our Mediator and Surety; It was most necessary for us. What the Law could not do, God sent his Son, etc. that the righteousness of the Law; whatsoever the Law requireth to justification, might be fulfilled in us. And thus is he the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth, as before out of Doctor Tossanus, enough to that question: to the second next, which is,  
Quest. 2. How he would prove Christ was not bound to fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself.  
Mr. Walker told you, you answer him not. I may propose some reasons to your consideration which persuade me so to think.  
1. He had no need of forgiveness of sins, neither was he ever forgiven, and so had no need of justification, which consisteth therein as you hold.  
2. He did all for us, our need, being our Surety, in that name he was bound, God spared not his Son, exacted it, and our Lord Christ undertook the work, and finished the work.  
3. I read in our learned Writers largely observed. See Polanus, Symphonia Cathol. whose Thesis is. 
P. 165. 166.  Christ is incarnate for us, he obeyed 
Christus pro nobis est incarnatus: pro nohis obedivit Patri: pro nobis baptizatus, passus, mortuus, resuscitatus, glorificatus.  his Father for us, was baptised, suffered, dead, raised, glorified for us; 
Christus nihil propter se aut secit aut passus est, sed propter salutem omnium. Primas. in Rom. 11.  which he there proveth by the Fathers.  
And so on Dan. 9  
See Doctor Dounham using reasons which are to be answered. 
P. 202. 203. 20●. De justif. 1. 1. c. 2. Sect. 9 10. Ad Gal. c. 4. p. 184. 2.   
Luther. I could have overcome the Law by my absolute power without mine own smart, for I am Lord of the Law, and therefore it hath no right over me. But I have made myself subject to the Law for your cause which were under the Law, taking your flesh upon me— I suffered the Law to have dominion over me which was his Lord— which it aught not to have done.  
Because, neither hath Christ righteousness 
Quia nec in alium finem perfectam justitiam Christus habet quam ut imputer, nec aliud imputat quam justitiam, nec aliter justitia nostra est quam per imputationem, as Trelcatius. p. 82.  to any other end, than that he may impute it, neither doth he impute any other thing than righteousness, neither is he otherwise our righteousness, than by imputation.  
Christ was the Lord of the Law. 
Christus Dominus legis fuit.— Tossan ad 4. Gal. p. 212.  He willingly subjected himself, although the Law was not given to him 
Sponte se subjecit, licet illi ab utero justo & sanctificato lex posita non esset. lb. p. 213  being just and sanctified from the womb.  
The end also is showed by the Apostle, 
Finis etiam ostenditur ab Apostolo, quod videlicet non sibi ipsi sed nobis talis est factus. lb.  forsooth, that he was not made such for himself, but for us.  
Therefore these axioms are to be 
Tenenda igitur sunt haec axiomata, Christum non sibi sed nobis factum legi obnoxium: & nostram esse totam Christi obedientiam, atque adeo nobis imputatam. ld. ib.  held. Christ was not made subject to the Law for himself, but for us. And that the whole obedience of Christ is ours, and so imputed to us.  
Calvine. That he may admonish 
Quanquam ponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi, ut admonear ipsum non sibi privatim suisse justum, sed justitiam qua praeditus fuit, latius patere, ut collato sibi dono, fideles locuplcret. Calv, in Rom. 5. 17.  us that Christ was not just for himself privately, but that the righteousness which he enjoyed was more large, that he might make rich the faithful by the gift conferred upon him.  
Therefore Christ the Son of God, 
Christus ergo Filius Dei qui immunis jure suisset ab omni subjectione, Legi suit subjectus, ut libertatem nobis acquireret. Quemadmodum enim qui liber erat captivum se & vadem constituendo redemit & induendo vincula exuit: Ita Christus Legi servandae obnoxius esse voluit, ut nobis immunitarem acquireret; alioquin frustra ●ugum Legis subiisset, cum sua certe causa non secit. Calv. ad Ga': 44.  who by right had been free from all subjection, was subject to the Law, that he might gain unto us liberty. For as the man that was free, by making himself a captive and Surety, redeemeth, and putting on chains, taketh them of another: so Christ would become a keeper of the Law that be might gain unto us freedom, otherwise he had in vain undergone the yoke of the Law, seeing certainly be did it not for his own cause.  
And for the undue obedience of the 
Et proprer obedientiam Filii non debitam, debitum remittit. Ar. in 3. Phil. p 49.  Son he remitteth what is due.  
Junius. But also when as he was not 
Sed etiam cum non esset proprie Legis debitor in se, neque respectu humanae naturae (alias enim propter identitatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 logos ipse pro se ad Legis obsequium ●eneretur, quod in Legis authorem soret contumeliosum) nec respectu personae: Sed respectu dispositionis voluntatiae omni tamen ex pa●●e Legi satisfecit, ut exuberans infiniti plane meriti plenitudo nobis in Christo parata, etc. Jun. thes. de justif Sect. 7.  properly a debtor of the Law in himself, nor in respect of his human nature, (for otherwise the Word himself by reason of the sameness of the person, should for himself be bound to the obedience of the Law, which would be contumelious to the Author of the Law) nor in respect of his person; but yet in respect of his voluntary disposition he did wholly satisfy the Law, that the overflowing fullness of his indeed infinite merit prepared for 
Sibi non na●us sed nobis. Id. Sect. 4. lb.  us in Christ, etc.  
He was not borne for himself, but us.  
Our righteousness is only the satisfaction 
Justitia nostra est sola satisfactio Christi praestita Legi pro nobis & tota humiliantis Christi, &c quiquid denique fecit & passus est, ad quod ipse tanquam justus & Dei filius non suit obligatus, est satisfactio ejus quam pro nobis praestitit, & justitia quae nobis credent ibus adeo gratis imputatur: ea enim satisfactio aequipollet vel impletioni Legis per obedientiam, vel paenae ae●ernae propter peccata, ad quorum alterutrum Legi obligamur Vrsinus p 39 ●.  of Christ performed to the Law for us and the whole, etc. of Christ humbling himself, etc. whatsoever, to conclude, he did and suffered, to which he, as a just man, and the Son of God was not bound, is his satisfaction which he performed for us, and righteousness which is freely imputed to us believing by God. For that satisfaction is equal 
Ger●ar dat Neo-Photinianis Christum quidem perfecte implevisse Legem, sed ad obedientiam illam pro seipso adstrictum fuisse. De justif. p. 463. Sect. 35. & Socino, etc. Sic Chemn●t exam. de justif. p. 252.  either to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience, or eternal punishment for sin, to both which we are bound by the Law. 
Vise Echardum sasc. Controvers citantem Calvinum. l. 2. c 17. instit. Sect. 6. Ma●l●ratum in Psal. 4. 4. & Polanum quaest. de obedientia p 1●0. & p. 398.   
These are enough, they may satisfy you.  
You prove Christ was bound to fulfil the Law for himself, by Mr. Deering in his second Lect. on Heb. Christ by his spirit still filled his manhood more and more with grace, till the fullness of all righteousness was within him, that so his manhood might inherit salvation according to the promise, Do this and live.  
Whose book is not in mine hands that I may examine it. Only I say that it is not said that he merited for himself 
T●ere might be more and more powerful exercise, and external manifestations, not increase in grace simply. He was perfectus vir in ventre, etc. Jer. l. 6. in Hier. tom. 5. full of grace & truth ab initio beatum extitisse. Asserunt Patres, Aug. l. 4 de consensu Evangel. Leo. Ep 97. c. 3. Ubi testatur divinitatem assumptam humanitatem beatificasse, ut glorificata in glorificante permaneat. See Salmer. tract. 47. p. 441. To 3. etc. c. 13  by works of righteousness which he did, but the spirit filled him with grace. For those words more and more till, etc. they are not to be justified by me, it is certain he had the spirit, was anointed with it, not by measure from the moment of conception; by that, and personal union from that moment he had eternal life, and was comprehensor, and did inherit.  
When Mr. Bradshaw saith, Christ was a servant and bound to the Law, not freed by hypostatique union: He  
Yet saith, that state such as he needed not to have undergone, and that the reason was his taking on him to satisfy, etc.  
He saith, as Christ was borne of a Woman, not for his own sake, but for theirs, whose Saviour and Redeemer he is: So being borne of a Woman, he was made under the Law also, not for his own sake, but for ours; yea, therefore he was borne of a Woman, that so for our sakes he might be under the Law. Also as he became a servant for our sake, so in that very regard he came under the Law of a servant, it being all one to become a servant, and to be made under the Law of a servant, the being under the Law of a servant, etc. All which is in sum, he needed it not for himself, but as our Surety, of which before. 
Sect 6.   
You say. And he that holds Christ as man, was not bound to 
Sect. 7.  fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself during his continwance 
Sect. 9  on earth in the flesh, must, if he be true to his principles, hold 
Ib.  withal that Christ as man had a liberty, or dispensation from the 
Sect. 13.  Godhead, to transgress in respect of himself, and that his dispensation 
P. 71.  could not take place or be put in execution only because 
Mr. G.  of the work of redemption he had undertaken.  
Answ. I answer, that I conceive there is no such need, their principle is hypostatique union, whence he was Comprehensor; I, the Lord of the Law from the first moment: his Union, and his Unction by the holy Ghost, are inconsistent with sin, as inconsistent with sin as with his bringing about the work of redemption undertaken: sinning is inconsistent with souls made perfect, how much more with that person, full of grace, that is glorified fully, the most blessed GOD?  
Thirdly, you say, I would put him on this, to prove such 
3  an absolute inconsistency or diametrical opposition as he seems 
Mr. G.  to imagine between Christ's fulfilling the Law for himself and for us, as if at no hand they could stand together.  
I answer, to do for life and glory during his continuance on earth, and to enjoy it from the first moment of his conception is vain: and so inconsistent with nature; absolutely inconsistent with that person which is the most wise God.  
Therefore the scope of Christ in obedience must not be himself, his life and glory, but us and our life and glory.  
Neither doth it follow which you say, if Mr. Walker had in this work his scope to discharge his conscience, and the benefit of others, that Christ's scope in obedience was his glory as well as man's good; seeing he hath that glory as Comprehensor before his obedience, when as a faithful Ministers discharge of conscience by a work of this nature, cannot be but by this work, when the work is done, conscience dischargeth itself.  
When as Bernard saith, that the work of our redemption was, opus aeque nostrum ac suum ut angelorum; there may be truth in it in divers respects. He saith it not with respect to his own redemption or justification, and so not to your purpose.  
You say it would cost him many of his thoughts and much of 
Mr. G.  his learning to give a sufficient and clear account, how it should any way entrench or so much as look towards the denial of Christ's Godhead to conceive that Christ might he bond to fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself.  
I answer, for Christ to be bound to fulfil that righteousness, for himself his justification as you before, is to imply him a sinner, and so to deny him God.  
It is also to imply him vainly bufied; living and enjoying life eternal being the fountain thereof, to do that he may live, and so to deny him to be that fountain, and to be that person that is God.  
You conceive it is fare more dangerously to shake the truth 
Mr. G.  of his humanity to deny that he was no ways bound to keep the Law for himself.  
I conceive no danger in it, for being absolutely righteous from the first moment, and so not to need obedience or doing for himself, is so far from denying human nature, that it setteth it forth most glorious: as it doth stand with human nature to be perfect in glory, though than it worketh not to that end; so doth it in Christ's human nature, to be perfectly righteous, though he never doth one work to that end.  
And Mr. W. intreateth you to tell him whether you now deny Christ to be true man, when as sitting at God's right hand he is not bound to obey the Law, and die, as he did on earth? So that it is not to be compared, in the kind, with the error of the Ubiquitary.  
You say, It is marvellous to me that he being the seed of the Woman, by the Law of his Creation should not be bound to keep that Law which both the man and the woman stood bound to keep in their innocency.  
1. Sir, Wonderful was one of the names of Christ, it is no wonder if there be many wonders in him.  
2. Had he been mere man, what you say might follow, being also God, there was never such a man or woman in innocency.  
3. Adam and Eve must do to live, doing was the way to it, but Christ was alive as soon as he was a man, there is difference.  
4. He being God-man was eminently just, Jesus Christ the just, and if ever that was true of any, which the Apostle speaketh, The Law is not given to the just, it is true of him. By this he was the Lord of the Law, the person was so, and exempted; only as a Surety, for us he was made under the same.  
You say as the personal union with the Godhead could not 
Mr. G.  privilege his human nature or body against those properties which are natural and essential to it, as locality, quantity, finitnesse, commensurablenesse to its place, nor communicate, nor convey over those properties of immensity, ubiquity, omnipresence, etc. which are essential to the Divine nature. So neither could it privilege his manhood against those moral habitudes, relations or conditions which are his essential in another way, as videlicet, subjection to God, obligation of serving him, and fulfilling his will, etc.  
1. I answer, essential properties of man are inseparable.  
2. And essential properties of God incommunicabla.  
3. It is not suqtilis hominis oratio, to speak of man privileged against properties, his privileges (as you call them) being destructive and inconsistent with his nature.  
4. The opinion that Christ did not obey for his own life from moral habitudes, or relations, or conditions which you call essential in another way, subjection to God, obligation of serving him, fulfilling his will: We grant all these, necessary that he might be our Surety, which is that for which he was incarnate, he came to do God's will; we say he was so from the instant of conception perfectly, else was he not Comprehensor, and urge that as a reason why he did it not for himself, but us. It is one thing to be so, and thence to do for us according to Gods will, another to do for that life and glory which he possesseth.  
I deny not but God promised him the glory of that work of mediation, and that he wrote with an eye to that, and so prayeth for it as due by God's eternal compact, John 17. glory there being that which he had with his Father by covenant on doing that work before the foundation of the world, that is one thing, living on personal doing is another, it was not needful he should do for that being his by union in conception.  
And I question whether if his obedience was debt, his own debt, he could merit and satisfy thereby for himself or us, seeing debt and merit cannot consist. When man hath done all that he is bound to do by God's Law, he must say, and truly, he is an unprofitable servant, it is what he aught, and so not worth thankss at the Creator's hands. Which yet you imply, when as before you say Christ's scope in obedience, was his glory as well as man's good, p. 180. before, and where you say in a sense it had an influence. What will become of man's justification by his passive obedience, which is confessed to have absolute necessity of his active to make i● a Sacrifice propitiatory, how is it an essential requisite, if due for himself?  
That doing or suffering is of no force to satisfy which is 
Mr. Brad. c 7.  done by bond, though the party offending bad committed no fault at all, it being ridiculous to accounted the payment of one debt for the discharge of another.  
Nothing satisfieth but that which meriteth, nothing meriteth 
Ib. Sect. 12 & 12.  but righteousness, which must be by another's.  
Concerning Christ's meriting his exaltation (you say) 
Mr. Goodw.  you will not strive with him for the present, and believe you may both wade deeper and know more than you do, viz. Rev. 5. 12. Heb. 12. 2. Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9 etc. Luke 24. 26. etc.  
I answer, I believe it, for man's knowledge is but in part. It is but a little that we know of him, O that we knew it and could walk more humbly, and so might pass them as not against us.  
Only I must put you in mind, that if those places make for your purpose, and in your sense, they prove that the Lord Christ suffered for himself as well as for us.  
And when we grant the places of the glory of his mediation: It will not follow of glory simply for his human nature, which certainly he had before.  
We come now to another exception that you call faith a thing done and performed by us, it being the gift of God and motion of his Spirit in us; in which Mr. Walkers scope is not to accuse you of making believing Gods act, or to deny man the subject thereof: but to note to you, that, the act of man in a proper sense believing, and as our work, is not the condition of the Covenant, of which before.  
And now let us to the bottom of this heap (as you speak) frothy words shall not stay me. Here you are charged to say, that if the Apostle had said they must be justified by Christ, or by the righteousness of Christ, this had been rather to cast a snare upon them, than to have opened a door of life and salvation, for which be (Mr. W.) curseth with Anathema maranatha, the man that proclaims it and obstinately maintains it.  
To this you answer, he keepeth back part of your words, and supply them thus. To have said they must be justified by Christ or Christ's righteousness, and with all not to have plainly signified what God requireth of them, and will accept at their hand, to give them part and followship in that righteousness or justification, had been rather to have cast a snare upon them, than to have opened a door of life and salvation.  
I answer, I think intimation of that whereby needful, and that it is done, as where faith and receiving, as the hand and instrument are call●d for; so where the object of that is laid down, Christ and his obedience, as Rom. 5. 19 2 Cor. 5. 21. so that there is no snare. Let us go on.  
In the next place Mr. Wr. proposeth your first argument 
Arg. 1. Sect. 18.  reduced, which is.  
That the Relative sense fathers upon the Apostle an harsh and uncouth expression often used without explaining himself, when he saith faith is imputed to righteousness, and meaneth Christ's righteousness is imputed, which is rather to conceal than reveal it.  
To this the answer is.  
It is no harsh, strange, or uncouth expressure to use a 
Answ.  figure of speech, and to mean by faith and believing, faith with its object, the righteousness of Christ, or state of the man, etc. which is showed out of Rom. 2. the four last vers. by Beza's interpretation.  
To this you reply, It is true, there are many figures of speech which are no harsh expressions. But,  
1. There are plain & direct expressions which will be made 
Mr. G.  strange and harsh, if men will Metamorphose them into Metalepticall and figurative, as sweet wine becomes sharpest vinegar.  
2. If men coin such new forms of speaking, and will call them figures, they may well be strange and harsh expressions.  
I answer, It is not altogether what men will do, though 
Answ.  what such and so many men do, as do this, is not to be despised by you, but what the holy Ghost doth, interpreted by Scriptures, as is showed.  
And as for that Jeer on those that call it Metalepticall, it might have been forborn. It is the practice of 
Figuratum genus praedicationis, per Metalepsin p. 404.  more than Mr. Wr. divines not to be contemned by Mr. G.  
When faith is said to be imputed, saith V●sinus; It is a figurative kind of predication, and nameth it Metalepsis.  
I observe it in Lueas Trelcatius, 
Fides in Scriptures & apud Patres, duobus modis considerari soler, proprie secundum naturam fidei simpliciter; altero figurate, id est Metaleptice & correlative, qu●a fides apprehendit objectum suum. p. 85.  Faith in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers is want to be considered two ways, properly according to the nature of faith simply; another, figuratively, that is, Metaleptically, and correlatively, because faith apprehends its object. So doth he, answering Romanists.  
To an objection of Arminius, Doctor Prideaux his answer is.  
We do not properly give justification 
Nos non proprie justificationem fidei attribuere, sed Metaleptice quatenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illam & habitum, visitata Scripturae phrasi in habitum transfertur. De justif. p. 170.  to faith, but by a figure called Metalepsis, so fare forth as the act of the object, because of the near connexion between it and the habit by a usual phrase of Scriptue is given to the habit. Note that we and by an usual phrase of Scripture.  
Sir, all Protestants are for a figure, and these name it a Metalepsis, they deserve better language than to be called Metamorphosers and coiners of figures, users of Metaleptique oil elsewhere, and of it as a sure pinhorse, p. 82. Mr. Wr. needeth not be ashamed of using it, but yond rather; but (it may be) you knew not who used it. Now to a second exception.  
Which is that your denial of this figurative speech used in the Apostle is false.  
This Mr. Walker might well do, having proved it out of Rom. 2. the four last verses, until you disprove him; neither will that stand for an answer, that the Scripture he citeth stands in the utmost corner of one only chapter, much less the calling his work non-sensicall figuring and missefiguring. When you sand your Reader to what is done, let it be a bargain, and let him take in Mr. W. p. 255.  
A third exception is, that you say the Apostle useth the phrase of faith, etc. without either explaining himself or changing his speech, which M. W. showeth to be otherwise, v. 6. and 11. where it is said that God imputeth righteousness and that righteousness is imputed, as it is called faith, vers. 3. and 5. in these places, righteousness; in the former using a figurative, and in the latter a proper speech.  
Neither can he by righteousness imputed mean faith in a proper sense, it is not righteousness, or if what is imperfect, on which ground the learned reject that, and call it figurative, comprehending the righteousness of Christ which is used twice, and is righteousness indeed as Mr. W. 
P. 190.  showeth at large Socinianism.  
When as you admit that by righteousness in these places 
P. 78.  the Apostle meaneth faith: You will us to see what a fair market 
Mr. G.  Mr. Walker hath brought his Hogs to. Let me (passing your Rhetoric) demand what is the market?  
You say the sense must be, when God imputeth righteousness to a man that believeth, that God imputeth faith to him that believeth, which is to obscure what was said before.  
To this Mr. W. answereth, that it is a Pig of your own Sow, you are owner and driver to the market, and leaveth you to look to it.  
What you have done, as you say before, hath answer. The rest may be retorted on you, whose the argument was, who gave him the charge.  
Come we now to your second Argument. 
Sect. 19   
That faith which is imputed is his before imputation, which cannot be said of the righteousness of Christ, that it is a man's before it be imputed, at lest in order of nature, though not in time; therefore by faith to be imputed cannot be meant the righteousness of Christ.  
To this Mr. W. that Christ's righteousness is as truly his as his faith. You reply here you are friends in earnest, you grant the righteousness of Christ the believers, but that is not the question. What is it than? Whether it be his in such manner as it was Christ's himself? that is, whether we be made righteous with it as Christ was, whether not only for it and not with it?  
I answer, there is no such question proposed in this place, neither doth Mr. Walker, when he saith we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, say it is his that is justified in such a manner as it is Christ's: nor that we are made just with it as Christ was, and yet he may well say we are made just, not only for it, but with it.  
The righteousness of Christ is that robe in the Prophet, that garment of salvation, with which the Church as a Bride is arrayed, whence white as Snow, whiter: Wholly fair in his beauty, as Jacob in Esaves' apparel to Isaac, as Calvine before out of Ambrose.  
And if you compare it to money, it is that by which we are rich, by his poverty, all that he did or suffered in his humble estate, we are made rich as the Apostle. He is the treasure, faith indeed applieth him, but it is he that maketh rich. Take the learned Doctor's answer if you please, and let him determine this question.  
We are alike just, because with the 
Aeque justi sumus ac Christus, quia eadem justitia, licet non aequaliter & eodem modo: ille subjective, nos imputative, ille de proprio, nos de illus largitate. De justif. Doctor Prid. p. 171.  same righteousness, though not equally, and in the same manner; be as the subject of it, we by imputation, be of his own, we of his liberality.  
If you regard the truth of imputed 
Si veritatem justitiae imputatae spectes (Trelcatius) non minus justi justi censemur coram Deo ac Christus, P. 89.  righteousness, we are accounted no less just before God than Christ; and that, that is the money and clothing too, we shall show at large anon.  
But Mr. Walker, say you, to prove the righteousness of Christ to be the believers as well as faith is his, miscites two Scriptures, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ is said in the first to be made unto us righteousness, but this proves not that the righteousness of Christ is made ours, as faith is, etc.  
1. Lanswer, that, as faith is an adding to what Mr. Wr. spoke, not spoken by him.  
2. That the righteousness of Christ is ours, you granted but now, saying, here we be friends in earnest. It is a received conclusion. Junius.  
Neither aught it to seem absurd that we are justified with that righteousness which is in him as the subject, as another's. When as it is so another's, that it is also ours 
Neque vero absurdum videri debet nos justitia quae Christi subjective tanquam aliena justificari, cum ita sit aliena ut etiam nostra sit imputatione, pro nobis enim proprie praestita, & a Deo tanquam nostra accepta, quemadmodum fidei jussoris pro debitore solutionem perinde recipit creditor ac si debitor ipse eam secisset; & quod est proprium capitis nostri Christi, jure communionis reliquo corpori, id est Ecclesiae & singulis membris tribuitur.  by imputation. It was performed for us properly, and accepted of God as ours, as the Creditor so receiveth the payment of the Surety for the Creditor, as if the Debtor himself had made it. And that which is the property of our head Christ, by right of communion is given to the rest of the body, that is, the Church.  
When God giveth Christ, he giveth his righteousness, we receive both by faith, and so both are ours, and therefore 
Justitia Christi vere nostra, licet non in nobis. Olev. ad Phil. p. 49.  is he called the Lord our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is truly ours, though it not in us: where he proveth the same. See him, p. 50. 51. where speaking of righteousness imputed, he saith, nec minus nostram esse quam si corporibus & animabus nostris adhaeresceret, it is not less ours than if it did adhere to our bodies and souls, Olev.  
3. For the texts themselves, harken to some, of whom you say they are on your part; they from them show the righteousness of Christ ours to justification.  
Calv. on the words, he was made unto us righteousness, saith: In which he understandeth us accepted 
Quo intelligit nos ejus nomine acceptos a Deo, quia motte sua peccata nostra expiaverit; & ejus obedientia nobis in justitiam imputetur.  of God in his name, because be expiated our sins by his death, and that his obedience might be imputed to us for righteousness.  
Though Christ and his righteousness differ, Christ's righteousness is ours by imputation in calvin's judgement.  
He is made unto us of God righteousness, 
Justitia nobis a Deo factus, quia in eo solo justi habemur: reputamur illius merito justi, Aretius in locum.  because in him alone we are accounted righteous, we are reputed just by his merit.  
And truly righteousness not in part, 
Et quidem justitia (saith Tossanus) non ex parte sed tota nostra justitia, per remissionem peccatonim & imputationem totius suae justitiae, sic Jer. 23. p. 19  but our whole righteousness, by remission of sins and imputation of his whole righteousness.  
Righteousness, that is our Justifier, 
Justiria, hoc est justificator noster, donan nos vera justitia coram Deo per fidem.  bestowing on us true righteousness before God by faith; which is so not formally, that is, inberently, as Pareus speaketh, but by imputation. 
Pareus   
Abraham is justified not with 
Abraham justificatus est non inhaerente sed imputata justitia per fidem  inherent, but imputed righteousness by faith.  
To that text, 2 Cor. 5. Calvine. 
Jam apertius docet quod su pra attigimus, tunc Deum nobis esse propitium quum pro justis agnoscit, perinde enim valent haec duo, esse nos Deo acceptos, & justos ab ipso reputari. Justitia hic pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis fertur Christi justitia.  Now he more plainly teacheth what we touched before, that than God is propitious to us when he acknowledgeth us just, for those two are of the same force, that we are accepted of God, and reputed just by him. Righteousness is here taken for imputation, because righteousness is accounted to us.  
And in that place, to the question, How are we just before God? He answereth. Forsooth 
Quomodo justi sumus coram Deo? etc. Ita sc. nunc justi sumus in ipso, non quia operibus pro priis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, sed quoniam censemur justitia Christi, quam fide induimus ut nostra fiat. Calv.  we are now so just in him, not because by our own works we may satisfy the judgement of God, but because we h● accounted the righteousness of Christ, which we put on by faith, that it may be ours. Aretius' on those words, that we might be made the righteousness of God.  
That we may be pronounced just, 
Hoc est justi pronunciatemur, imputativa justitia ia tanquam veste omaremur: dicitur autem justitia, quia nostra non est sed precario. In ipso, significat extra Christum nullam esse justitia qua nos possimus ornare & quae valeat in conspectu Dei. Ib. Arct. in loc.  that we might be adorned with imputed righteousness, as it were with a garment: but it is called the justice of God, because it is not ours, but his free gift. In him, he signifieth, that out of Christ there is nor righteousness with which we may adorn our 
Ut nos efficeremut, saith Toss. hoc est justificaremur, non justitia inhaerente, sed in eo, propter communionem quam habemus cum illo, & imputationem ejus just itiae. In locum. Summa loci est: sic sumus justi sicut Christ is peccator: at Christus est peccator imputatione nostrorum peccatorum, non real corruption, aut actionibus pravis: ergo nos imputatione ejus justitiae sumus justi. etc. Olev. in Phil. 3. 9 p. 46. Sic Gerhard: de justif. Le●●. 61.   
That we may be made, that is, that we may be justified not with inherent righteousness, but in him, because of the communion we have with him, and the imputation of his righteousness.  
We be just with God, not indeed 
Justi, saith Beza, apud Deuminon quidem justitia nobis inhaerente, sed quoe cum in Christo sit, nobis per sidem à Deo imputatur: ideo additum est, in eo Sic ergo sumus justitia Dei in ipso, ut îlle peccatum in nobis, ex imputatione. Bez. in locum.  with righteousness inhering in us, but which, when it is in Christ is imputed to us from God by faith: therefore it is added, in him. Therefore we are so the righteousness of God in him, as he is sin in us, for sooth by imputation. So that in this you oppose not Mr. Walker alone, but the word and interpretation of our learned Authors.  
Secondly, he answers (say you) that this righteousness of Christ is the Believers, in order of nature, before it be counted or imputed for righteousness unto him. For God, whose judgement is according to truth, doth not accounted that to the beleover which he hath not before communicated, or at the same time doth communicate to him. Well, what of this? you say, He begs 
1.  the question that God doth impute the righteousness of Christ to a 
Mr. G.  believer in his sense.  
I answer, we are passed begging now, and when your 
Answ.  sense appeareth, it will be, and is found, Arminian, Socinian, and Pontifician, as shall be seen anon, and Mr Walkers the sense of all Protestant Dlvines against them.  
You say he proveth idem per idem. I answer not, he proveth 
2.  the righteousness of Christ the believers from the truth of God's judgement, whence he doth not accounted that to the believer which he hath not before, or at the same time communicateth to him.  
To your descant on his words, before, all I will say is, 
3.  there is added or at the sametime.  
If it be true at the same time, it is enough to evade the inconsequences, which arise from its being before, and you should have taken notice of this, or. And now to the third Argument.  
The third Argument was, granting a Trope, yet is followeth 
3. Arg. Sect. 20.  not that the righteousness of Christ should be imputed here, but God or the promise made to Abraham.  
I answer, the Apostle calleth it righteousness, vers. 6. and vers. 11. as before. Neither do you disprove it, by saying God or the promise, you evilly oppose Christ's righteousness, God and the promise.  
Is not God Abrahams in Christ, and so Abrahams saith in Christ supposed to his faith in God? 1 Pel. 1. 21. We by him do believe in God. Is not the promise of Gods being Abraham's God in Christ, to whom it is first made, and in whom it is Yea and Amen, to Abraham and his seed? The Apostle saith, If we be Christ's, we be Abraham's seed, and Heirs according to promise, so Abraham and believers are Heirs in the Heir, by being Christ's, and so the promises containing our inheritance, are ours. Hence amongst the rest we are Heirs of the righteousness which is by faith.  
Sir, in that promise you might have seen the seed, the seed is Christ, and in the promise, his natures, offices, adaptations, doing, dying, rising, sitting at God's right hand; our salvation, our justification by his righteousness. Abraham by faith saw his day and rejoyeed: saw all these by faith. So did Abel, his Sacrifice witnessed he was righteous, accepted in the righteousness of Christ, and so his Sacrifice. So did Enoch please God, which is impossible without faith in Christ, in whom God is well pleased. So did Noah, and hence was he just before God, an Heir of the righteousness which is by faith. So did Abraham believe in Christ, and it was counted to him for righteousness. So David, etc.  
The Prophet after openeth him a righteous branch, and the Lord our righteousness.  
The Apostle more plainly as before, the promise was the Seed, and blessedness, and we are blessed with all in Christ, they are the inheritance of believers in and by Christ the Heir.  
Glevian hath passages this way observable. Having said, 
Cum Deus sit justus, ideo non imputat peccatum, quia imputat hlit justi● nam.  seeing God is ●ust, he imputeth not sin, because he imputeth the righteousness of his Son. He addeth,  
David did therefore build on the Sacrifice and intercession of the highest and eternal Priest, of whom he seek by the holy Ghost; Thou are a Priest for 〈◊〉, etc. And so David believed, not in righteousness inhering us himself, but in that which was imputed from the High 
Nitebatur igitur David Sacrificio & intercessione summi & aeterni sacerdotis, de quo per Spiritum sanctum locutus est, Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum, etc. Arque ita David non in inhaerentem in se justitiam, sed imputatam à summo Sacerdore Christo credidit. Sic Abraham non in se quaesi vit justitiam, sed side extra se vidit diem Christi & gavisus est: dies autem non solum tempus dispensation is gratiae Christi significat, sed totum beneficium tum demum exhibirum cum venit plenitudo temporis. P. 48. ad Phil.  Priest, Christ. So Abraham sought not righteousness in himself, but by faith out of himself, he saw the day of Christ, and rejoyeed. The day signifieth, not only the time of the dispensation of the grace of Christ, but the whole benefit than as length exhibited, when the fullness of time came.  
Therefore that inscription of the 
Ideo inscriptio illa soederis in tarne Abrahoe sigillum justitiae sidei appellatur, propterea quod Abrahain ex semetipso utpote corrupto & injusto egressus, side in promisso semine justitiam possederat; eique in praeputio credenti imputata suerat: nunc autem impresso sigillo rei extra ipsum positae & eminus conspectae suit in carne ipsius confirmata possessio. lb. p. 50.  Covenant in the flesh of Abraham, (Circumcision) is called the Seal of the righteousness of faith, because, as a corrupt and unjust man, had possessed by faith in the promised seed, and it was imputed to him believing in Uncircumcision: But now the possession was confirmed by an imprinted Seal in his flesh of a thing placed out of himself and seen afar of.  
Abraham believed, saith Pet. Martyr. 
Credidit Abraham— at the quid credidit? hocsc. semen sibi dandum ease, unicumsc illud, ut Paulus interpretatur, in quo omnes nationes essent benedicendae, quod est Christus Jesus, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. L. Com. de just. Sect. 23.  But what did he believe? Forsooth this seed to be given unto him, that one seed, as Paul interpreteth it, in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed, which is Jesus Christ.  
Amongst other things Abraham believed. Pareus addeth, 
Sed etiam spirituali per Chri stum caput seminis, ex quo in totum semen benedictio & gloria coelestis sluere debate. Apostolus enim promissum semen express dicit esse Christum; nec dubitari porch, seminus promissionem cui credidisse Abraham dicitur, cohaerere cum promissionibus antegressis & subsequ●tis de semine & benedictione omnium geatium per illud. Fuit igitur Abrah● sides generalis quidem seu Catholica (ut vocant so phistae) assentiens o●●l verbo Dei: Sed & specialis promission● data de semine, quod est Christus Ira Ambro●●● in Comment. Credidit Abraham Deo, Quid credidit; sethen se habiturum ●●●linmin quo c●●es gentes justificarentur. In Christo igitur suit sundata Abrahe sides. Ad Rom. 4. ad vers. 5. p. 263.  But also of that which was spiritual, by Christ the Head of the seed, from whom the blessing and heavenly glory should flow unto the whole seed. For the Apostle expressly saith the promised seed to be Christ. Neither can is be doubted but the promise of the seed which Abraham is said to believe, to agreed with the promises going before, and following of the seed and blessing of all Nations by it: therefore the saith of Abraham was indeed general or Catholic (as the Sophisters call it) assenting to every word of God, but also special to the promise given of the soed, which is Christ. So Ambrose on his commentary. Abraham believed God, What did he believe? that he should have seed, that is, a Son in whom all Nations should be blessed. Therefore Abrahams saith is founded in Christ.  
And here may you be well minded of your Doctrine, that the object of the faith, that is imputed, is Jesus Christ, and that it bringeth into communion and participation of him and his benefits; which being true, how could Christ and his righteousness be excluded?  
But now to your tedious discourse following involved in many vain words, which I will not touch.  
1. You complain of his friend Metalepsis, which you do but play with, to which having seriously answered before, I say not more.  
2. Than you demand, whether because a man cannot, believing, separate the righteousness of Christ from Christ, by God there must be necessarily understood the righteousness of Christ.  
To which I answer, you do but trishe, Believing insoldeth God his in Christ, Christ and what ever is leapt up in that word Blessedness; temporal, spiritual, eternal, with Jesus Christ: visiting, redeeming, raising up Christ an horn of salvation, salvation from evil, righteousness and eternal life, are the mercies promised to Abraham, God's holy covenant and his oath, in Zacharies song. There is more in it than I suppose you are ware of, as if you had but trifled in earnest.  
You marvel why Mr. W. still mentions the satisfaction of 
P. 83.  Christ with the righteousness of Christ. Whereas you intent no difference or dispute about the satisfaction of Christ but his active obedience to the Law. Whether this be imputed that thereby we may claim Heaven, by Do this and live. And that his thrusting in of the passive obedience or satisfaction is to presents you odious as an enemy to Christ's satisfaction.  
1. I answer, Sir, we must cry you mercy, or else wonder as you, why you had act opened this before this time.  
2. It seems you are than for the imputation of Christ's Passive obedience to obtain pardon, and than Passive righteousness is that which is imputed, and faith in a Relative sense to that. And what is become of your proper sense than?  
This Mr. Wotton blameth in Piscator, Yet I no where find in holy Scriptures that there is need of 
Tamen nusquam in sacris literis reperio imputatione passivae Christi obedientiae ad eam consequendam opus csfe, licet verum & perspicuum sit, illus perpessiones (ex Dei decreto) suisse necessarias ad veniam nobis impetrandam. Neque (ut vere dicam quod res est) intelligere possum quis veniae relictus sit locus, si (paenas in Christo persolvendo) Irae divinae satisfecisse, & supplicium peccatis debitum pertulisse existimenur, nam paena & venia adversa sunt. Manuscrip. accepto Jan. 13. 1613 of Mr. Wotton.  imputation of the Passive obedience of Christ to obtain it, (Justification or pardon) though it be true and clear; those sufferings to have been necessary (by the decree of God) to obtain pardon to us. Neither (that I may truly say what the thing is) can I understand what place is left to pardon, if we should be judged by suffering punishment in Christ, to have satisfied Divine wrath, and borne punishment due to sin: for pardon and punishment are adversaries. Tell us by your next whether and how fare Magister sit hic ●●●endus.  
3. Mr. Walker findeth our debt to the Law to be not only death for sin, but doing that we may live, and we think both must have satisfaction, and are inseparable; and if Christ be the object, why shall his righteousness be excluded? is he 〈…〉 the Lord our righteousness? is not the Lord's being in 〈…〉 and all the return thereby the issue of Christ and his righteousness? is not the new Testament confirmed in his blood? are we not by his obedience constituted righteous? is it not by the righteousness of one that the free gift 〈◊〉 upon all to justification of life? The Apostle saith, that the promise to Abraham that he should be the Heir of the world, was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 13. that is the righteousness of Christ which faith layeth hold on and applieth, by that the promise was made. And why shall we not think his faith than built on that righteousness? You will not question but we have all for Christ's sake, his righteousness sake and merit, they must be imputed, and we by faith have fellowship with them, or never have benefit.  
4. Mr. Walker doth think Christ's Passive righteousness to be obedience to the Law, that which the Law exacted of us, and we being insolvent of our Surety, and that you cannot escape by calling it satisfaction to God, not to the Law, seeing it was God's Law; and in satisfying God his Law must be satisfied.  
To your demand. Doth it follow (though a man cannot separate the righteousness of Christ from Christ himself in believing) that the righteousness of Christ must needs be the object of faith as justifying? And add, much less doth it follow that this righteousness of Christ must needs be signified by this word God, or by the promise of God concerning Christ, which himself granteth to have been the object of faith, as justifying.  
I answer, it is suitable to reason to pitch on the righteousness of Christ in matter of justification, seeing without righteousness there is no justification, and by righteousness, what ever it be, there must be justification, of which before. The rest hath a full answer as I suppose also. There are other reasons besides inseparablenesse.  
For what is remaining in your own words, I must say 
F. 84.  that they are of that manifest inconsequence and indigestednesse, that I will rather trust the Reader with his own apprehensions concerning them, than to trouble him or myself with a farther answer.  
The righteousness of Christ can in no tolerable construction be 
A●g. 4. Sect. 21.  called that faith by which Abraham believed in God that quickeneth the dead, therefore the righteousness of Christ is not that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousness. I'll add the first proposition, that faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness, is that faith by which he believed in God that quickened the dead. This (you say) is your next argument whereby you p●on● by the Word, that faith in these passages is not meant the Active obedience of Christ.  
1. I answer, first, in this expressure added, you change the conclusion. It was never Mr. Walkers meaning by faith's object to stand on, alone, Christ's Active obedience, but both Active and Passive obedience.  
2. When you exclude this, it seemeth you allow that which is Passive to be the object. So that faith may be in that and him that quickeneth the dead; the other inseparable part must not be excluded.  
3. I answer, it is faith in Christ and his perfect righteousness whereby we believe in him that quickeneth the dead, by faith in Christ I believe in God, be is my God as Abrahams, by which our Lord proveth the resurrection, Matth. 22. against the Sadduces, it reacheth that blessing; by faith in Christ, Abraham, saw Christ's resurrection, and so his own, as David did the resurrection of Christ, Acts 2. 30. as God's oath to him, which was the same he swore to Abraham. Yea, he saw and believed his own resurrection; indeed leapt up in Christ's resurrection, as of a member in the raised head, and rejoiced at it, 16. Psal. fine, compare the places.  
The Apostle saith the spirit is life because of righteousness, Rom. 8. 10. which life is without question (though I exclude not life simply) the quickening of the dead, as in the next, v. by righteousness, I take imputed righteousness meant; 
Hanc ipsam quam nos asserimus imputatam. Cham. de just. c. 2 Sect. 59 c. 15. Sect. 36. Sect. 37.  and, Chamier calleth it the very same we call imputed; and for that quickening of the dead, see the same Cham. out of Tolet, and Cajetan calleth it the righteousness of Christ.  
Neither is there opposition here, but subordination, between Christ and God and life and faith in Christ and his righteousness.  
Neither are these effects of two faiths, faiths of adifferent kind, but of the same, there is but one faith, by which, as I believe in Christ and his righteousness, so in God, as he is in Christ for blessedness simply, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and everlasting life; the naming of one excludeth not, but necessarily implieth all the rest.  
And though Mr. Walker (as you conceive) Reads not Christ's lying three days and three nights in the grave, any where called faith, or signified by that expression, yet I suppose I read the Gospel to be called faith, and if that you mention be Gospel, it must be called faith, enfolded under that expression. I am sure faith by which I believe remission of sins, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life, to be faith in God through Christ satisfying, obedient even until death, continuing Gods set time in the state of the dead, for us, our justification and pardon, yea, salvation, to the glory not only of free grace, but exact justice, and do you consider the same.  
Abraham's faith imputed to him, was such a faith wherein 
Arg. 5. Sect. 22.  he was not weak, nor doubted of God's promise, vers. 19 & 20. This can be no description of Christ's righteousness.  
I answer, though this be no description of the righteousness of Christ, yet Abraham's faith imputed might be a strong faith in the righteousness of Christ, and this makes nothing against the Relative consideration of faith: what ever the degree of faith is, the object is the same, nay the stronger the faith is, the more is a man united to Christ, the greater is his communion with Christ and fellowship with God, and so is his hold fast of righteousness, and so his peace and comfort. So that this hindereth not, but righteousness under the notion of faith, may be imputed.  
When you say the question is not whether Abraham had communion with Christ in his righteousness or not, either more full or less full; but whether what is here affirmed of Abraham's faith, can be applied to the righteousness of Christ, and be conceived as spoken of that.  
I answer, it can be applied to the righteousness of Christ, and thence Abraham's communion with Christ in his righteousness, in that full manner faith being so full and strong.  
When you demand, Was that faith whereby Abraham 
P. 85.  doubted not of God's promise, the righteousness of Christ?  
I answer, it was the same faith by which he apprehended the righteousness of Christ, by which he believed the promise, and in God: What was that promise of but the seed, Christ and his righteousness and blessedness in and by the same?  
You say your Antagonist starteth a new question, you remember not you ever met withal from the Pen or mouth of any Divine, viz. Degrees in Justification, as if he held because Abraham's faith was stronger, it had fuller communion with Christ in his righteousness than other believers have, and so must needs be more justified, and consequently others justification unperfect.  
1. Than there is somewhat you never heard of, I have between two famous and godly Divines in my time, though I approve not that Justification hath degrees. It is none of Mr. Walkers, there may be, and are degrees of union and communion with Christ, and so of faith, by which neither of these I suppose are here perfect. It followeth not of Justification or righteousness, seeing every one is perfected for ever, wholly fair, complete. Mr. Walkers aim is no more than this, that he more strongly applied it, that his a apprehension was stronger, and that he had more sensible communion with him in his righteousness. Mr. Calv. on those words, Rom. 1. 27. unto faith faith, because so much 
Quia quantum progreditur sides nostra, quamtumque in hac cognitioneprosicitur, simul augescit in nobis Dei justitia, & quodammodo sancitur ejus possessio.  as our faith goeth forward, and so much as in this knowledge it profiteth, the righteousness of God together increaseth in us, and after a manner its possession is established. Let the last phrase explain the first, that of increasing, and what is said in my poor opinion is safe.  
This your argument I read urged by that Prince of the Arminian band, Bertius, p. 135. where it is answered by Lubbertus.  
Faith imputed to Abraham was that by which he was assured 
Arg. 6. Sect. 23.  that he who had promisnd was able also do it, vers. 21. & 22. But Christ's righteousness is not capable of any such description as this is, therefore it is not imputed.  
I answer, though Christ's righteousness be not capable of such description, that by it Abraham was fully assured, yet faith which apprehended the righteousness of Christ, was, it seemeth it was of its nature, assurance is opposed to doubt, as by faith he received it, he as a reasonable and understanding agent did it, and knew the same, by faith he was persuaded and assured of the same, and so of God in Christ as revealed, of the promise in which God appeared to him Almighty, engaging power for the same. This being added, let your argument and Mr. Walkers answer be turned lose together, and stand or fall.  
For his ill-sounding phrase or two, at best, deserving rods, Scorpions: Let it be tried, the first is the repetition of the expressure censured in the former answer, to which all I will say is, let what is said by you and answered, be turned lose.  
But he saith, the more Abraham rested on God's power, the more justly did God count him a righteous man and impute 
G.  Christ's righteousness to him; which implies God doth with less justice impute the righteousness of Christ to a strong faith.  
I answer, more justly may be considered in regard of expression or manifestation of it to us, for if it appear justly to be done where the faith is weak, where it is strong the appearance is more clear. Truly your advice is good, we cannot speak too too considerately and advisedly. I will say here, Nemo sine crimine vivit, & optimus ille qui minimis urgetur. He is an happy man that offends not in what he blameth another. Woe be to your writing, this book, if Rods and Scorpions be made use of for every inconsiderate and unadvised word or speech.  
Finally, that which is said, that the object of Abraham's faith, was God's power and ability, and your inference therefore not the righteousness of Christ, is in effect Bell. argument to exclude special mercy.  
Abraham did not believe sins to be 
Abraham non creditit sibi per specialom miscrico rdiam remissa suisse peccata; sed se patrem suturum multarum gentium, etc. Idest, credidit Deum qui promiserat omnipotentem ac sidelissimum, arque haec sides eireputara suit in justitiam: ergo.  for given to him by special mercy, but that he should be the Father of many Nations, etc. That is, he believed God who had promised to be omnipotent & most faithful, and this faith was reputed to him for righteousness.  
Pareus answering, granteth that Abraham did believe those things which his adversary saith, but that did not exclude his faith of special mercy in pardon by Christ, and than:  
Abraham believed God not only 
Credidit Abraham Deo non solum promittenti silium ex Sara, sed etiam promittenti benedistionem omnibus gentibus in semine nascituro ex silio Saroe: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes Gentes. Hoc vero semen Apostolus ad Galatas docer esse Christum, & benedictionem interpretatut redemptionem ab execratione, & justificationem per sidem, ad Rom. 4. 11. clarius dicit Abrahamo suisse imputatam justitiam sidei, etc.  promising a son of Sarah, but also promising blessedness to all Nations in his seed to be borne of the son of Sarah; In thy seed shall all Nations be blessed. The Apostle to the Galatians, teacheth this seed truly to be Christ, and interpreteth the blessing Redemption from the curse, and justification by faith, and Rom. 4. 11. be more clearly saith, that unto Abraham was imputed righteousness by faith.  
We believe in Jesus Christ for Pardon in the Creed, and God Almighty, so did God appear to Abraham. Christ and his righteousness are not opposed to God's omnipotence, they are subordinate: And now to the seventh Argument.  
That faith that is imputed, is believing in him who raised 
Arg. 7. Sect. 24.  up Christ from the dead, vers. 24. Christ's righteousness is not our believing in him that raised up Christ from the dead: it therefore is not imputed.  
I answer, your assumption and conclusion (which is a common fault) are laid down only of the righteousness of Christ, not of faith, whereas, what you are to improve, is faith in a Relativesense, and taking in Christ and his righteousness, which had you done, the answer had been easy. This faith taking in Christ and his righteousness is faith in God which raised up the Lord Christ from the dead, the same faith that believeth in Christ and his righteousness, believeth in God that raised up Christ, so is it laid down, 1 Pet 1. 21. upon it our justification dependeth; and if it were not, the Apostle saith our faith is vain, and we are yet in our sins. Christ's Resurrection supposeth him fully satisfying by obedience, even until death, acquitted. In the Creed there is faith in God Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, dead and risen, etc. whence our remission of sins and life everlasting. Who can lay thing to the charge of Gods chosen? Who can cordenone? It is Christ that is dead, yea, rather that is risen, etc.  
Here is sweet harmony, I will leave this also to any reasonable judgement.  
The sum of it is thus much as laid down by your 
Vlt. Arg. Sect. 25.  self. The point of imputation in justification being only handled in this Scripture, and no where else explained, it is no ways probable but that the Apostle should speak somewhat distinctly and plainly of the nature of it, otherwise he might seem rather to lay a stumbling block in the way, than to writ any thing for the learning and comfort of Christians.  
To this I will first take the boldness to answer, and than consider of the matter as between you and Mr Walker.  
1. I answer the point of Imputation is not only handled in this Scripture, it is handled, Gen. 15. 6. and than Psal. 32. which are the foundations of what the Apostle here doth concerning the same, and after, Gal. 3. 6.  
2. It is elsewhere explained manifestly, Rom. 3. 24. Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19 Rom. 8. 4. & Rom. 10. 4. Yea, 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. ult. whereas Christ, and his righteousness, and obedience are laid down that by which, so by imputation. 
C. 7. Sect. 14.  To be made just by the justice of another, is to be just by imputation, it being not possible for any man to be just by another's justice, but by imputation, saith Mr. Bradshaw. So is Adam's sin ours, so is our sin Christ's righteousness ours by imputation, as all our Divines.  
Now by the foundation judge of your superstructives.  
I add, this speech is a distinct and plain speech, which appeareth by the unanimous judgement of all reformed Writers (but you Mr. Wotton, Arminius, etc.) against the Papists, who stumble at Christ's righteousness, and establish their own.  
As also by all places of Scripture wherein the effects given to faith that justifieth, are given to it in respect of its relation to Christ, as his proper effects to faith merely as an instrument causing union and fellowship with him by whom they are effected.  
Your interpretation is a mere stumbling block, and destroyer of comfort. This a principal foundation of comfort. The kernel of the Gospel and head of consolation, as Junius. Saint Paul judged it so when as he accounted all as dung, and would be found not having his own righteousness, therefore not faith in a proper sense, his, and a kind of righteousness, but that which is by faith. I will finish this, making it my prayer, which Doctor Prideaux did.  
The greatest and best God grant that 
Faxit Deus optimus maximus ut nos omnia pro detrimentis habeamus, & comperiamur in eo non habentes justitiam nostram quae est ex operibus, sed cam quae est ex fide. De justif p. 171.  we may accounted all for loss, and may be found in him not having our own righteousness, which is of works. (I will add) faith in a proper sense opposed in justification to the righteousness of Christ; but that which is by faith, which faith receiveth and applieth, the righteousness of Christ Active and passive; those robes of righteousness and garments of salvation. In him to that end.  
But it is meet you should be heard.  
You say, to this Mr. Walker answereth mum. Let the Reader see there, and in his last book, and judge if his answer be mum.  
You go on. Only he gravely instructeth us, that it is more comfortable to us for to rest on Christ's righteousness, etc. than to build on faith, which in the best is mingled and stained with many doubts often times.  
Surely this is geave advice, though you jest, you may find it one day as some Papists have dying, what ever you do in dispute, when as your soul shall be ready to take its flight from your body, and that to appear before God's tribunal. It will wish it may (and I pray it may) appear, nay it must appear in, clothed with this righteousness of Christ imputed by God, applied by faith, if than it hath comfort: in, ago quanti Papistis? Papists than esteem of this.  
You go on relating what Mr. W. saith, viz. Therefore the Apostle doubtless intends Christ's righteousness, and so be doth express in plain words (to another purpose) c. 5. 19 8. 4. & 10.4.  
I answer, those words to another purpose, are your own words, in good time it shall be tried.  
These are more than mum, and Mr. Walker saith the Apostle plainly expresseth that faith imputed, is called righteousness imputed by those texts, vers. 6. & 11. It had been fairer for you to have answered mum.  
Against part of this (you say) Mr. Walker maketh an opposition between things of the most direct and essential subordination that can be, and which do inseparably involve one the other, resting on Christ's righteousness, and building on faith.  
1. I answer. If Mr Walker did do so, he failed as you in all your arguments, or most of them. Your fault was to make opposition between those things which are subordinate, as before.  
2. It is none of Mr. Walkers fault, he doth not make opposition between e faith and Christ's righteousness. It is yourself in stating the question. You say, faith in a proper sense is imputed, and not the righteousness of Christ: as a work in a proper sense, you oppose it, and it is indeed opposed to the righteousness of Christ, so there is no subordination. It is true of the figurative sense you dispute against, that faith involveth the righteousness of Christ in this place overthroweth your cause; you must be beholding for an interpretation here to your friends the Papists, or you are gone.  
You say it is impossible that a man should not build on faith, that doth not rest on Christ's righteousness, that is, the satisfaction which he hath made, because faith is a resting on this satisfaction, and so a resting on Christ's righteousness, includes a building on faith; for who can rest on this righteousness, except he believes that such a resting as this will stand him instead?  
1. Here you grant faith a resting on Christ's righteousness. It is true, the faith that receiveth and applieth the same, cleaveth and adhereth to it and resteth on it, than is it not an affent alone, or work of the understanding: this establisheth our Relative sense.  
That other, building on faith, and that by on other believing, it is but a Castle in the air; at best it is but an assent or belief which the Devil hath, who believeth, that he that believeth in Christ shall be saved. It is a believing in abeleeving, which in your sense is a work, which is opposed to Christ's righteousness in justification by your doctrine. For the establishing the one, you deny the other, and so destroy subordination. It is safest to rest only on that Rock Christ, there is no other foundation; S. Paul did so, When as he would be found not having his own righteousnet, as faith in a proper sense, such as it is.  
But you say. Sure I am that Paul built upon faith for justification as well as on the righteousness of Christ (as Master Walkers beloved phrase is) though in a different manner (which hath been formerly explained, when be said we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, and as Christ speaketh concerning himself, John 12. 44. He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me, that is, not so much in me, as in him that sent me. So may it be said, he that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the truth and faithfulness of him who hath promised forgiveness of sins and salvation to him that believeth.  
1. Let the Reader note, how you speaking of building (for justification on faith and on the righteousness of Christ) the former is currant, the other Mr. Walkers beloved phrase; building on the righteousness is Mr. Walkers phrase; would a man think this man a Christian that readeth this so jeeringly proposed, or that there were such a direct and essential subordination as was asserted but now, and such an inseparable involution? surely it would raise much doubt. It is very offensive to me, and I conceive it much more to God and Christ, no marvel that establishing faith in a proper sense you say and not the righteousness of Christ.  
2. Do you not bring in Paul building on two oppofite foundations according to your doctrine? a work and Christ? the error he refuteth to the Rom. and Galatians?  
And whether he be not brought in equally building on faith and Christ? your phrase is as well, whether it agreeth with Saint Paul's spirit, who would be found in him, not having his own righteousness? which faith is in yoursense, but that which is by faith which it receiveth. Saint Paul's words that he believed in Christ, that he might be justified by faith of Christ, are not more than this, that he believed in Christ, that so by that faith in Christ he might be justified; knowing that (not works) the only way, here is no believing by believing on believing, his building by believing is in Jesus Christ, which is no other than believing in him for justification. By that very place faith as a work is excluded by Saint Paul.  
If all works together justify not, 
Si enim omnia o pera simul non justificant (as Pareus) quomodo o pus fidei justificarer, hoc est justos faceret coram Deo? In jocum.  how should that work of faith justify, that is, make just before God? Note it than.  
The true sense is, which the Apostle 
Sensus verus est quem Apostolus c. 3. explicabit, nos fide benedictionem Abraha suscipere; benedictio autem Abrabae est remissio peccatorum & justitiae imputatio propter Christi meritum fide accepta, hoc ad Rom. 4.6. dixit, fidem nobis imputari ad justitiam: quae phrasis correlative intelligenda est, pro obedientiam Christi fide applicatam nobis imputari ad justitiam, seu justitiam imputari propter obedientiam Christi fide applicatam, uti in Comment. ad Rom. prolixc est demonstratum, Id. ib.  in the 3. c. will explain, that we receive the blessing of Abraham by faith. Now the blessing of Abraham is remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness received by faith, because of Christ's merit. This Rom. 4.6. he said to be imputed to us for righteousness: which phrase is correlatively to be understood, for that, the obedience of Christ applied by faith to be imputed to us for righteousness, or righteousness to be imputed for the obedience of Christ applied by faith, as is largely demonstrated in my Commentary on the Romans.  
And for the other place where you say, It may be said be that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the faithfulness 
Utconsideratur cum objecto suo, ut cnm dicitur Ecclesiae super fide Petr● fundata apud veteres, & nos &c. as Cham.  of God, promising forgiveness to a believer. Though it be true of Christ, that he that by faith believeth on him, buildeth on God's faithfulness, or as otherwise revealed, and of faith in a Relative sense. As it is considered with his object, as when the Church is said to be founded upon the faith of Peter, by the Antiens, and we have showed.  
It is not so of faith in a proper sense, your faith.  
There is somewhat considerable yet, and that is the subordination here spoken of, especially as in the cited text, John 12. 44. he that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me. And I entreat you to ponder.  
1. Whether faith in Christ the Mediator and God be not the same, and in the moral Law as faith in God, surely either both or neither are by this text, that sticketh you see in my stomach.  
2. That it is not incongruous that the same faith which layeth hold on Christ and his righteousness, should lay hold on God also, it is in him, and him that sent him; him as revealed, God, as Rom. 4. a quickener of the dead, able, raising up Christ. What than becometh of those arguments you make to exclude Christ and his righteousness from faith imputed to Abraham? It seemeth these may consist, there is a subordination and involution of God as in Christ, in faith in Christ.  
It may occasion other thoughts to put the Crown on Christ's head, to deny it to faith in a proper sense as opposed to the righteousness of Christ, in the point of Justification.  
You say, for the mixture or staining of faith with many doubtings, this is no consideration at all, to detain or keep a man from building upon it, if it be faith unfeigned and true, because there is the same justification and salvation promised to the weakest faith and to the strongest.  
If faith were taken in a Relative sense, it might be granted, because of the object, the righteousness of Christ, here is perfect righteousness, all the Law requireth, he being the end of the Law for righteousness to a believer; take both, you have the condition of the Gospel: no matter for strength or weakness of faith in the point of Justification.  
It is not so for faith in a proper sense, not involving, but excluding the righteousness of Christ.  
You have nothing to object to God's just judgement; gratuide acceptilation of faith, for the perfect obedience of the Law, in a proper sense, that Arminian brat destroyeth God's justice: and that faith can not more be accepted than any grace else, it is worse, than to put all graces as the Papists do, as our own teach you, you shall never prove it the condition of the Gospel.  
Why may I not say the same of Repentance in general, of love, or the fear of God? these as imperfect as they are, justify as well as faith (in your sense) if that be a sufficient reason alone, it is what hath the promise, see 1 Jes. 16. 17, 18. faith so taken is not the only condition or quality; all graces, I, works else have their place. It is not faith alone that justifieth: and how can any of these be instead of personal righteousness, perfect obedience due to the Law, which is your tenet of this faith. It is necessary to take in Christ and the righteousness of Christ, for which faith hath a peculiar working; it is the consent of the soul, whence marriage indeed, union, communion with Christ his righteousness, and all his benefits.  
In the next place answers are given to those places where 
P. 88  faith and hope are used to signify their object.  
1. To which Mr. W. saith, First, you grant the Apostles used such tropes.  
2. When as you say the habit of faith may be used to signify the object, but not the act, he answereth, Gal. 1. 22. & 3. 23. & Col. 1. 5. the habit and act both, yea the act is principally meant.  
3. And thirdly, that you grant the act so used, but shife it by denying Christ's righteousness the object of believing, which he hath proved.  
4. And lastly, that you deny Christ's righteousness the object of faith as it justifieth, whereas it is the proper object.  
To these you say, That you will not be troublesome to the Reader here to relate the passage be strikes at, and tell us of copies in some men's hands.  
These I must pass, necessarily keeping counsel, and take for granted what is not accepted against.  
The substance of the answer consists you say in two or three untruths.  
1. When he saith the act of faith is to be understood, Gal. 1. 22. & 3. 23. & Col. 1. 5. its contrary is true.  
To which all I will say is this, that I know not how to define faith or hope without the mention of the object therein, and that to the being of faith and hope there is necessarily union with, or acting on the object; there is no faith, nor hope in God, but it butteth on him.  
2. Whereas Mr. Walker saith he hath proved the righteousness or active obedience of Christ to be the object of faith as justifying. You say he hath not in all his discourse made the lest hair of that head black or white.  
1. I answer, first, those words or active obedience of Christ are your words, not Mr. Walkers, his words are Christ's righteousness, which though Mr. Walker excludeth not, yet with him that is not all, he meaneth active and passive righteousness.  
For the Passive obedience, I hope that shall be acknowledged 
Rom. 3. 25.  the object of faith as it justifieth. Christ dead is the object of faith in the Creed for remission of sins; and the Apostle saith, as that we are justified freely by grace through, etc. So whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood.  
And I demand whether faith that justifieth be not confessed by you faith in Christ, and that it is an instrument causing union, bringing us to participation of him and his benefits; Christ and his righteousness are the object of faith, which you granted to be an instrument.  
I demand what that righteousness of God, Rom. 3. 22. 
Quod eam nobis Dominus sua misericordia largiatur, aut ideo quia sola coram Deo consistit. John vers. 21. Ubi nulla justitiacēsctur nisi perfecta absouraque Legis obedientia.  which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all that believe? whether it be not Christ's? whether it be so called, Because God of his bounty bestoweth it on us, or therefore because it alone holdeth water before the Lord? as Calvine on the place. Once he resolved it, quam per fidem obtinemus, which by faith we obtain; and that which must be justice at God's tribunal, as Calvine. Where none is accounted righteousness unless perfect and absolute obedience to the Law, as the same Author, where I read farther.  
If so be that no man be found that hath attained such exact holiness; it followeth that all are 
Quod si nemo hominum reperitur qui ad tam exactam sanctitatem conscenderit, sequitur omnes justitia in se ipsis destitui. Tum occurrat Christus oporter, qui ut solus justus est, ita suam justitiam in nos transferendo justos nos reddit. Nune vides ut justitia fidei, justitia Christi sit; ut ergo justificemur— Christus materia, verbum cum fide instrumentum; quare fides justificare dicitur, quia instrumentum est recipiendi Christi, in quo nobis communicatur justitia▪ Postquam Christi sumus participes non ipsi solum justi sumus, sed opera nostra justa reputantur coram Deo.  without righteousness in themselves. Than Christ must help, who as he is alone just, so by transferring his righteousness on us, maketh us just. Now thou seest how the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ; that therefore we may be justified— Christ is the matter, the word with faith the instrument. Therefore faith is said to justify, because it is the instrument of receiving Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us. After that we are partakers 
In Christum impingebant, per quem unum ad justitiam adipiscendam patet aditus, act vers. 30. Datus nobis in▪ justitiam Christus est. v. 32. Christi dignitas in hoc sita est, ut sit lumen, salus, vira, resurrectio, justitia, medicina nobis omnibus. lb. Diximus autem alibi quomodo justitiam▪ fide induant homines, quia sc. imputatur illis Christi justitia. lb. C. 10. 3. & v. 5. Meminetimus ergo qui fide justi sunt extra se justos esse, nempe in Christo. Justi coram Deo censemur, quia afferimus perfectam Legis obedientiam, nam justitia transgressioni Legis etiam in minimo apice opponitur; quia eam non habemus in nobis, Deus nobis gratuito denat, lb. id. ad Gal. 3. 6.  of Christ, not only ourselves are just, but our works are reputed just before the Lord. So Calvine.  
What righteousness is that, Rom. 4. b. and that righteousness of faith, vers. 11. What that the Gentiles attained, and the Jews submitted not to, but stumbled at? Rom. 9 Saith Calvine, they did stumble at Christ, by whom alone the way to obtain righteousness is open.  
Christ is given to us for righteousness.  
Christ's honour is placed in this, that he be light, salvation, life, resurrection, righteousness, healing to us all; where also we may see of whose and what righteousness he speaketh.  
We have elsewhere said, how men put on righteousness by faith, because for sooth Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.  
And than he showeth the righteousness of faith to be established out of the very doctrine of the Law.  
Let us remember therefore, that those that are righteous by faith, are just out of themselves, for sooth in Christ.  
Who saith elsewhere, we are accounted just before God, for as much is we bring the perfect obedience of the Law, for righteousness as opposed to the transgression of the Law, even in the lest point; because we have not that in ourselves, God doth freely give it us.  
What is that Phil. 3. where Saint Paul will be found in him having that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, the 
Fides offertnudom homihem Deo, ut Christi Justitia induatur. Deus nos justificet, sua bonitate, vel quod justitiam ab ipso donatam fide recipiamus. Justitiam Dei accipio, quz apud Dei tribunal approbatur In ipso saith Aretius, sc. Chri sto Domino meo qui est justitia— fidei autem est quia per fidem illam apprehendi▪ mus cum sicimputata & Christi merito nobis applicetur. Ad Phillip 3. 9 Inveniri in Christo tacitam habet relationem ad Dei judicium; is enim in amando contemplatur unum sirum Christum in quo acquiescat, itaque quos comperit in Christo esse (id est Christo per fidem insitos) in ●is nullam invenit condemnationem, quia justitia qualem ille requirit à no his, id est, perfecta, accumulata, exornatos eos invenit, nimirum Christi justitia per fidem nobis imputata. Bez. in locum.  righteousness which is of God by faith, on which place Calvine. Faith offereth man naked to God, that he may be clothed with Christ's righteousness.  
Where also he saith, righteousness of faith to be of God— but because God justifieth us by his goodness, or because we may receive by faith righteousness given from him.  
I take that to be the righteousness of God which is approved at God's tribunal.  
In him, forsooth, Christ my Lord, who is righteounes— But it is said to be of faith, because by faith we apprehended it, seeing it is imputed and is applied to us by Christ's merit.  
To be found in Christ hath a secret relation to God's judgement, for be in loving doth behold his one Christ in whom he is well pleased: therefore those whom be doth find to be in Christ, that is, inset to him by faith, in those he findeth no condemnation, because he findeth them adorned with righteousness such as he requireth of us, that is, perfect and heaped up, forsooth, Christ's righteousness imputed to us by faith.  
Christ himself must be put upon us that we may be found 
Dr. Whitaker against Camp. & Dar. English. p. 231. Ib.  in him, Rom. 13. 14. Phil. 3. 9 2 Cor. 5. etc. with his clothing ourselves must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned, Phil. 3. 9 when he excludeth all kind of works, he must needs understand the righteousness of Christ.  
This also is the constant doctrine of all reformed Churches, some few Divines excepted, and those noted too.  
And lastly say you where he affirms this righteousness of Christ to be the only object of faith, as justifying, whereas it hath been evidently demonstrated, that is neither the proper nor less proper object thereof as such, and that the Scriptures no where speaks so of it.  
1. To which I answer, by righteousness Mr. Walker meaneth not a part, but the whole.  
2. Here may men take notice of your sincerity, calling Christ and his righteousness the object of faith, and faith an instrument in justification, when as yet you deny Christ's righteousness to be the proper or improper object of faith as it justifieth.  
What followeth is but evil language.  
I will pass that.  
We come now to the fifth and last act of our Tragedy, as 
Sect. ult.  you speak.  
And pitch on that. He blameth me farther for not being 
P. 92.  ashamed or blushing to affirm that from the times of Luther and Calvine, the fairest stream of Interpreters run to water and refresh mine interpretation.  
To this you answer, Not, and you know no reason you have 
G.  of being ashamed or blushing for standing up for the truth. And that if you should do otherwise, concerning the judgement of 
☜  the best Interpreters, since Luther and calvin's time touching the Scripture in question, than I do, than I should be like unto you and speak what is contrary to the truth.  
1. To all which, all that I will now say, is that I cannot 
Answ.  but so much the more wonder at you.  
2. For Arminius his interpretations being quite another way than yours.  
And his being of the twain nearer Mr. Walker, than Mr. Goodwin, we have seen already; let the Reader judge.  
You say you have named Orthodox Authors for faith in a proper sense, and are ready to examine and scan their testimonies with any sober and dispassionate man whatsoever. Were I worthy to be accounted such a man, I would be for you.  
Concerning Abailard, their dealing with him for incontinency. You say it is well for Mr. Walker that there is not a Law of like penalty amongst us for incontinency of tongue, and fear Mr. Walkers manhood would be one of the first that should suffer.  
But quis tulerit, etc. all I will say is; It is well for you, you would scarcely scape scotfree, were this book of yours in that respect before equal Judges. You would loose your manhood. For that man I have read that story, and elsewhere find Mr. Walker was not the first that charged this error on him. It is observed by that Lord.  
This controversy a certain man 
Hanc litem contra Bernar dum excitat Abailardus quidam, multis post seculis; qui licer in postremis, non ullo tamen hic posterior. Morney du bless. de missa, p 13. 27.  called Abailardus stirred up against Bernard many ages after, Who though he were of the last, yet here was not behind any. Where he showeth out of Bernard; The obedience 
Obedienria Christi utique non minus nostra, quam peccatum Adae.  of Christ is not less ours, than the sin of Adam. He is werthy reading. For your testimonies, Mr. Walkers answer and they must be also turned lose together, as you Print them and himself since, to which this containeth no answer but vain words, p. 94.  
Only you say, except much learning or somewhat else had set him and his wits at odds, he could never have affirmed that no one Orthodox Divine either ancient or later ever understood by faith imputed for righteousness, faith in a proper sense, but the satisfaction of Christ himself, and that himself hath done it often in this discourse.  
1. For him you have not showed it.  
2. For others it had been easy to give an instance.  
3. Sibrandus was of the same opinion, who therefore challengeth Bertius twice, to show, but one, one, I say one 
Velunum, unum unum, inquam locum qui hoc perspicuis verbis doccat.  places which teacheth this in plain words. I am so yet, I have not met with one but Mr. Wotton, etc.  
For his Testimonies, you promise' briefness, and why? Because, say you, I verily believe the Author himself would have spared it, had he but rightly have understood the opinion against which he hath armed himself with so much fury, and what is meant by faith in a proper sense.  
Confidens animi, etc. I wish the knowledge had been still kept with you.  
For Testimonies you say, because they prove that which no man questions, viz. Justification by the righteousness and satisfaction of Jesus Christ in a meritorious way, and do not so much as touch or come near the point in controversy, except it be in way of contrediction i● himself that produceth them, I take my leave of them at once, and wish them rest and peace.  
Sir, I commend your wisdom, this is a short cut, if you can so get of. But you must not thus escape, nor your meritorious way. It is as a City of refuge when you are closely followed. You think yourself safe when as you get it once over your head. It is (as you say of Metalepticke oil) your surest pinhorse; in this it differeth, that is showed the answer of learned Protestants; this is a borrowed shift of Popists, who use it as you against the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I meet with it often confuted by the Worthies of our side. It may be they may satisfy you, I promised it before, now I will labour to be as good as my word.  
I therefore assert that it is not enough, and so neither the scope of the holy Ghost, nor writers Protestant, that Christ's righteousness be a meritorous cause of justification, but there must be also an application thereof to this effect, which is done by God's imputation and our application of the same by faith; by which imputed by God and applied by us, it is effectual to our justification, that whereby we are just before God.  
For Christ should be in vain given for righteousness, unless 
Frustra enim in justitiam Christus datus foret, nisi fruitio ex fide suerit. Cal. in Rom. 3. 24. Ubi vero ad Christum ventum est primum, primum in eo invenitur exacta Legis justi●ia, quae per imputationem nostra fit▪ Id. ad vers 31. Imo vero utcunque a Christo redempti sumus, donec tamen vocatione patris inscrimur in illius communionem & tenebrae & mortis haeredes & Dei adyersar●i sumus. Calv. Instit. l. 3. c. 14. Sect. 6. Me●ium Christi materia extra nos subjective, imputative vere nostra, saith Doctor Prideauxl De justif. p. 196.  there shall be an enjoyment by faith.  
But when we come first to Christ, first there is found in him exact righteousness of the Law, which by imputation is made ours.  
Yea truly, howsoever we be redeemed by Christ, yet until by the calling of the Father we are inset into his communion, we are both darkness and heirs of death, and the adversaries of God.  
The merit of Christ is the matter, out of us subjectively, imputatively truly ours.  
Doctor Davenant to that part of Bell. where he laying down the state of the question, saith.  
The question is of the formal cause, 
Quaestio est de causa sormali, at vocula propter non formalem sed meritoriam designat.  but that word for, doth not denote the formal but meritorious cause.  
Let therefore Christ's obedience be the 
Sit itque, saith the Doctor, Christi obedientia causa meritoria justificationis nostrae propter quam Dous nos justificar.  meritorious cause of our justification, for which God doth justify us. What followeth now?  
And truly in justification such a formal 
Atque revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae sunul & meritoria esse possit, nisi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se, propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit causa formalis per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei De Just. hab. c. 22. p. 312.  cause is to be put which also together may be meritorious; for unless it contain in itself that worth for which a man is rightly reputed justified, it will never be a formal cause by which a man shall be justified in the sight of God. And elsewhere.  
Therefore one and the same righteousness 
Eadem igitut & unica justitia Christi, in se & suo valore considerata, est meritoria causa humanae justificationis; considerata autem quatenus imputatur, donatur, applicatur tanquam sua singulis credentibus, & in Christum insitis, subit vicem causae formalis— Deus ergo qui non justificat nisi respectu ad absolutam justitiam, Christi justitiam quae sola talis est, intuetur, atque cam Christi membris impurare dignatur, quo facto agit cum illis & statuir de illis ac si esses illorum, atque hoc est facere Christi justitiam causam formalem justification is nostrae. Arg. 10. c. 28. p. 373.  of Christ, considered in itself and its worth, is the meritorious cause of man's justification. But considered as it is imputed, given, applied as their own to all believers, and inset into Christ, it is instead of a formal cause— God therefore who justifieth not but with respect to absolute righteousness, beholdeth Christ's righteousness, which is only such, and is pleased to impute the same to Christ's members; which being done, he dealeth with them, and determineth of them, as if it were their own, and this it is to make Christ's righteousness the formal cause of our justification. Where also take notice of his stating the question between us and Romanists.  
The most perfect obedience of Christ 
Christi mediatoris in nobis inhabitantis atque per spiritum sese nobis unient is persectistima obedientia est formalis causa justificationis nostrae, utpore quae ex donatione Dei & applicatione fidei fit nostra. Id. p. 313.  the Mediator dwelling in us and by his spirit uniting himself to us, is the formal cause of our justification, as that which by the gift of God and application of faith be made ours.  
There is Protestant Doctrine flourishing in Cambridge in my time, the Antithesis of the Papist followeth.  
The obedience or righteousness of 
Mediatoris obedientia five justitia non donatur five applicatur credentibus, vice aut per modum causae formalis, cujus virtute stent justificari aut Deo in aeternam vitam acceptati. Id. ib.  the Mediator, is not given or applied to believers in the place or by way of a formal cause, by whose virtue they stand justified or accepted of God to eternal life.  
I need not to make uses of these passages, they are clear, as for other, so the present purpose.  
I will take one place out of that Orthodox Doctor Tossanus.  
The matter truly is the obedience of 
Materia quidem est obedientia Christi sive meritum ipsius— sorma est illius imputatio, & remissio peccarorum, quae sit per & propter sanguinem Christi, quae imputata facir ut justitia Christi quae erat aliena nostra fire, vere & realiter, non minus per imputationem quam est Christi per actionem, quia ei insiti sumus & nobis vere donatur, & vere à Deo acceptatur. Thes. 11. p. 62. ad Rom.  Christ, or his merit— the form is the imputation thereof, and remission of sins; which is done by and for the blood of Christ, which being imputed causeth that the righteousuesse of Christ which was another's  made ours, truly and really no less by imputation than it is Christ's by action, because we are inset to him, and it is truly given to us, and indeed accepted of God. So the Palatinate.  
Come we now to that great Doctor of France, Chamier, he speaking of Papists, saith:  
Therefore they believe not Christ's 
Itaque justitiam Christi non credunt esse intrinsecam causam, hoc est materiam, ut nos loquimur, justificationis, sed exttinsecam duntaxat, five meritum. L. 21. c. 1. Sect. 28.  righteousness to be aninward cause, that is the matter as we speak of justification, but outward only, or the merit. He goeth on.  
Andradius (a great stickler in the Council of Trent taught,  
That our justification in Christ, or 
Andradius in Christo nos justificati, sive Christum esse justitiam nostram nibil significare aliud, quam Christum veram expressamque justitiam nobis promeruisse.  Christ to be our righteousness, to signify no other thing, than Christ to have merited true and express righteousness for us. Thus he layeth down their tenet. Now for the Protestants, thus:  
But Protestants conclude— But justification 
Catholici vero statuunt— sed justificationem per quam apud Deum justi sumus, esse imputationem justitiae Christi inhaerentis: quae non potuerit alio ullo modo nobis mereri vitam nisi sic imputaretur.  by which we be just with God to be imputation of righteousness inbering in Christ, which shall not be able any other way to merit life unto us unless it be so imputed.  
I will transcribe another passage, and so do two things at once, that is, speak to this and the point of being sinners by Adam. For in both these you agreed with Papists, the matter will be manifest by bore laying down.  
Truly we grant by the disobedience of 
Concedimus sane per inobedientiam Adami constitui omnes vere & reipsa inherente in justitia injustos: sed alteram patrem non Adami justitia imputata hoc dicimas esse salsum. Imo contra negamus posse nos fieri injustos injustitia inhaefente per waum hominem, nisi hujus unius hominis injustitia nobis imputetur— quare falsum est non imputari posteris injustiriam Adami. C. 2. Sect. 9  Adam all to be constituted truly unjust and with injustice indeed inbering. But the other part, that we are not unjust by the injustice of Adam imputed, we say this is false. Yea on the contrary we deny that we can be made unjust, by injustice inherent, by one man, unless the injustice of this one man be imputed unto us— therefore it is false that the disobedience of Adam is not imputed to his posterity. He goeth on.  
Neither doth Pererius (the Jesuit) 
Nec movet me Pererius commentans in haec ipsa Pault verba— non dixit Paulus (inquit, quasi aliquid magnum, neque aliis observatum in theologiam in veheret) inobedientia Adami constitutos esse peccatores ne quis putaret per inobedientiam imputatam: sed dixit per inobedientiam, videlicet per peccarum intrinsece manens in ipsis ab Adami inobedientia prosectam. Similiter ergo non quod Christi obedientia constitut justos quasi fiant homines non per justitiam inhaerentem sed per imputatam: sed per obedientiams constituti justos, quia haec causa suit meritoria. Enim vero cui se speravit persuasurum priorem illam Phrasin, justitia justos, injustitia in justos fieri non nisi formaliter (ut illi logui amant) alteram vero per justitiam, per obedientiam non nisi meritorie significare?— quare nihil obslat phrasis quidem quo minus illud per justitiam unius multi constituentur justific intelligamus dictum, at justitia illa sit non tantum meritoria causa sicut Papistae volunt, sed etiam formalis pet quam nos nunc sumus apud Deum justi, Ib. Seth. 11. 12.  move me commenting on these very words of Paul— Paul said not (saith he as if he brought into Divinity some great thing, and not observed by others) us to be constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam, jest one should think it by imputed disobedience, but he said by disobedience, that is, by sin remaining within them, coming from Adam's disobedience. After the same manner therefore, not that Christ's righteousness should constitute just, as if men were made just, not by inherent righteousness, but by imputed: but to be made just by obedience, because this was the meritorious cause. But whom did he hope to persuade, that first phrase to be made just by righteousness, injust by unrighteousness 〈◊〉 otherwise their forformally (as they love to speak) but the other, by righteousness and obedience, not to signify otherwise than by way of merit?— Therefore that phrase truly nothing bindereth, but that, by the righteousness of one many shall be constituted righteous, we may so understand to be spoken, that, that righteousness may be not only the meritorious cause as the Papists would, but also the formal by which we are now just with God. And again.  
The first place out of Rom. 5. 
Primum locum, ex Rom. 5. Bellarminus & Becanus ita explicant ut negent obedientiam Christi dici formalem nostae justificationis nostrae causam sed efficientem: probant quia opponatur justitia Christi inobed entiae Adami, & sicut per hanc injusti ita per illam justi dicamur constituti: arqui per inobedientiam Adami non formaliter, said efficienter & meritory constituimur injusti: ergo similiter per obedientiam Christi non formaliter sed efficienter & meritory constituimur justi. Sed ad hoc sophisma jam disputatum est, c. 2.  Bellarmine and Becanus (both Jesuits) do so expound, that they deny the obedience of Christ to be called the formal cause of our justification, but the efficient; they proveit the obedience of Christ is opposed to the disobedience of Adam, and as we may be said by this to be constituted injust, by that just. But by the disobedience of Adam we are constituted just not formally, 
Hic ergo iterum concedo & inobedientiam Adam, & obedientiam Christi constituere nos & efficienter & meritory injustos justosve, nam & de illa nemo nos audit negantes, & de illa expresse disputavimus ipsi tomi hujus, l. 9 Sed non imputati nobis utramque constanter negamus. Imo negamus posse nos meritorie efficere sive injustos sive justos, nisi prius imputentur: nam si non imputentur nullo modo nostrae fiunt, sunt enim actus singulates & individui, itaque proprii eorum a quibus sunt, & proinde personales, actus autem proprios & personales esse commines absurdum est & contradictiorium. Itaque oporter imputati, nam haec communicatio non opponitur proprietari quia ratio longe est alia; Itaque ipsum Adami peccatum, ipsam illam inquam inobedien iam necesse suit imputari poslerls ac promde etiam Christi obedientiam. Illam quidem quia Adamus is suit in quo esse censebatur universum genus humanum per narutam. Ista vero quia in Christo est universa multitudo fidelium, per 〈◊〉 inde factam, ut non tan●um per Ad●●●● peccatores facti sint omnes, sed in ipso peccasse dicantur, quod longe aliud est. Dico igitur certum esse, & ab Adam● realiter injustos omnes esse consti●utos, & à Christo omnes fideles, realiter justos, sed nego●●d ab Apostolo considerari, qui causas potius inquitar primas, tum illius condemna●ionis, tum illius justificationis. Name & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 considerate jam tum in Adamo, non tamen Adamo peculiar, sed pertinens ad omne genus humanum. Ut sensus sit, jam tum cum Adamo damnatum fuisse universum genus humanum sive sic factum reum inobedientiae in Deum, unde etiam apud Augustinum peccatum dicitur originis paena primi peccati; quomodo autem paena esset nisi illud ipsum primum peccatum imputaretur?  but efficiently and meritorioush. But to this sophism we have already disputed in the second chapter.  
Here therefore again I grant, both the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ, to constitute us both efficiently and meritoriously just or unjust, for of that none heard us denying; and of the other we have expressly disputed in the ninth book of this Tome; but we constantly deny that both are not imputed unto us. Yea, we deny they can meritoriously make us either injustor just, unless they be first imputed, for they are no ways made ours unless they be imputed. For they are singular and individual acts, and therefore proper to them from whom they are, and therefore personal. But for proper and personal acts to le common it is absurd and contradictory. Therefore they must be imputed, for this communication is not opposed to propriety, because there is a far other reason of them, therefore it was necessary that the very sin of Adam, I say that very same disobedience should be imputed to his posterity, and therefore also Christ's obedience. That truly because Adam was he, in whom human nature in general was judged to be by nature, but the other because there is the universal multitude of believers in Christ by 
Similiter in Christo ipso universa fidelium multitudo dicitur facta sive justificata, sive quod idem est ipse Christus sactus omnibus justitia, sive omnes in Christo facti justitia.— Sed quia illa ipsa Christi justitia sit nobis communicata per gratiam, tam certo, ut certo sit nostra, nec minus certo quam si ipsi praestitissemus, qui non potuimus. Breviter utrumque verum est, justitiam Christi esse causam efficientem sive meritoriam nostrae justitiae.— Et rursus, sive formalem ut Bellarminus, sive materialem ut nos maluimus, causam nostrae justificationis. Cham. de justif. c. 17. Sect. 10. 11, 12, 13. etc. p. 902.  grace; whence it cometh to pass that not only all are made sinners by Adam, but are said to have sinned, which is fare another thing.  
I say therefore it is certain that all are from Adam constituted really unrighteous, and all the faithful from Christ really righteous. But I deny that to be considered of the Apostle, who rather inquireth into the first causes as of that condemnation, so of that justification, for both according to judgement, he considereth it in Adam than, yet not peculiar to Adam, but appertaining to whole mankind that the sense may be, even than when Adam sinned, whole mankind to be damned or made guilty of disobedience against God, whence also in Augustine, original sin is called the punishment of the first sin. But how should it be the punishment unless that same first sin should be imputed?  
In like manner in Christ the whole multitude of faithful, is said to be made or justified, or which is the same, Christ himself made to all righteousness.— But because that same righteousness of Christ, so communicated to us by grace, so surely, that it may be surely ours, nor less surely than ourselves had performed it, which we could not do.  
Briefly, both are true, that Christ's righteousness is the efficient or meritorious cause of our righteousness.— And also either the formal cause, as Bellarmine, or the material, as we would rather, of our justification. See him again. 
Sect. 22. & 23. 27. Nos ergo sic statuimus Christum dici justitiam nostram.   
For both causes, both because Christ is the efficient cause of righteousness inhering in us, and because his satisfaction or merit is imputed unto us; we therefore thus determine Christ to be called our righteousness, and so as it followeth.  
You see here your distinction and answer Popish, and refuted by our learned.  
Know you not (saith Doctor Whitaker to Campian the Jesuit) that our sins were imputed to Christ, and why may not Christ's righteousness be imputed to us in like manner, etc. seeing you are compelled on the one side against your will, to confess an imputation, why do ye not also grant it in the other? especially seeing the Apostle 
Against Camp. Englished. p. 224. Armin. scripsit causam meritoriam Christi obedientiam, etc. non objectum imputationis, fest. Hom. p 84.  himself propoundeth to us this Antithesis, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Therefore we are so made righteous in Christ as he was made sin for us, which must necessarily be understood of imputation, the payment is ours, not otherwise than by imputation. Consider on what side you are, and come about.  
It is no marvel Arm. went before you & M. W in the same Arminius wrote Christ's obedience to be the meritorious cause, etc. not the object of imputation. Let us hear himself.  
I say faith is imputed unto us for 
Dico fidem nobis imputari propter Christum & justitiam ejus, in qua ennunciatione fides est objectum imputationis: Christus vero et obedientia ejus, est causa justificationis impetratoria, sive meritoria, quia Christus cum obedientia sua objectum est nostrae fidei, & non objectum justificationis seu imputationis Divinae, quasi Deus nobis Christum ejusque justitiam imputet ad justitiam, quod fieri nequit. Armin. Epist: ad Hypol.  Christ's sake and his righteousness; in which proposition, faith is the object of imputation, but Christ and his obedience the obtaining Cause or meritorious of justification, which Christ with his obedience is the object of our faith, and not the object of justification or divine imputation, as if God did impute unto us Christ and his righteousness, which cannot be. Let your admirers behold this, and yourself denying your opinion to be Arminian, and they will say your opinion is as like as if it came out of Arminius his mouth. It is the same in this business.  
You go on and say.  
Only I cannot but take notice of a very strange piece of Divinity wheresoever he had it— Concerning Calvine, here he teacheth that sins of commission are taken away by that part of Christ's satisfaction imputed, which is called his Passive obedience or voluntary suffering the penalty of the Law: and sins of commission by his Active obedience in fulfilling the righteousness which the Law requires, which is the other part of Christ's imputed satisfaction. This you call a Lernaean Lake, of hideous and portentous Divinity, things you should have censured Mr. Walker would not have received, though an Angel from Heaven should have brought them to him.  
But— sua narret Ulysses.  
The sum is, there are sins of commission and of omission, such are all defects of what was to be in man, perfect righteousness. Though the guilt and punishment of all be taken away by the blood of Christ a Lamb, the defect must also be made up by the perfect obedience of Christ our Surety, he must and did do this that we may live.  
But say you, he affirms the taking away of sins of omission by the Active obedience of Christ only, whereas the Scripture teacheth that without bloodshedding there is no remission.  
I answer, only is your own, none of Mr. Walkers, and though it be given to the blood of Christ as justification is, it is by a Synecdoche, as Calvine and others use to speak; his Active righteousness is not excluded. It was the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without spot. Yea, his sufferings even to death were his obedience.  
Still you must remember that there be what is debitum in esse, to life, for which there is provided the active obedience of Christ; the Church is holy, unreprovable, unblameable, wholly fair, not by taking away spots alone, but the beauty of Christ put on it.  
You say he maketh the Active obedience of Christ penal and satisfactory, as if to live righteously and holy here had been a punishment, when as himself saith it was his meat.  
Sir, what if he had said so? It was no less to take man's nature to be made under the Law. It was the becoming poor of him that was rich, his humiliation and abasement.  
Yourself say, it cannot be denied in all this, but that the Active obedience of Christ may in some sense and respect be called satisfactory too, as concurring and falling in with its influence into the blood or death of Christ, etc.  
Your reason, it was his meat, etc. is a truth of God's whole will in his hand. It was his meat to do; I, and to suffer; he did it willingly, which yet you confess was penal.  
3. You say, the worst is, he divideth the satisfaction of Christ into parts, and utterly destroyeth and abolisheth the infiniteness thereof: for what may be divided must needs be finite, and that which is the part of another cannot be infinite.  
And I pray you, are they not distinguishable into Active and Passive? either they are, and differ, or are the same; and why do you establishing the one (if you do so) dispute against the other? is it not by both if they be inseparable and not to be divided?  
Neither doth division of Christ himself, or doing and suffering abolish the infiniteness of Christ. There are in him distinct two natures, three offices, body and soul, his Active obedience hath parts, and by parts were his sufferings made a whole. All which stand with Christ's infinite nature, and the infinite value of his satisfaction.  
And what do you excluding Active obedience, which yet you confess to be in a sense satisfaction, and give all to what is Passive?  
Mr. Walker making our righteousness to consist in the whole righteousness of Christ is farther from division, less destructive than your practice, denying and rejecting the Active obedience as the object of faith in justification.  
Your objections urged, p. 98. are trifling impertinencies, grieving yourself, separating them, not Mr. Walker who is for the whole obedience of Christ.  
Amongst them there is one passage to be taken notice of as a gloss corrupting the text, the text is, If righteousness be by the Law, Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. 21. Your gloss, that it is true of the Law performed by Christ as well as by men themselves, and than if the righteousness of the world be by the Active obedience of Christ his death must needs be in vain.  
This is but a corruption of the text. The scope is, justification is not by man's personal obedience to the Law, and that if man had been able to obey perfectly, the death of Christ had been vain; man not being able, but being a transgressor, Christ's death is necessary, which doth not exclude his obedience to the Law for us, Christ's death doth not (alone taken) make us just, as is required, and thus is it by our Surety supplied.  
Yourself say it is satisfaction in a sense, and to fall in with death, so fare righteousness is by the Law, Christ's obedience unto the fame.  
You must acknowledge Christ a fulfiller of the Law, and and an establisher of it this way, and that faith in Christ doth not make the Law of God of none effect, as the word speaketh, and learned Expositors, of which before. And when as works or the righteousness of the Law are excluded; it is not Christ's, but a man's own.  
Our Church in the Homily putteth Christ's death as a ransom, and yet add●●, who besides this ransom fulfilled the Law for us perfectly. It requireth on Christ's part justice, that is satisfaction to God's justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly— So that in him our justification is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom and fulfilling of the Law, and so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits or deserving our justification: thus our Church in the Homily.  
That which you call your last labour, p. 98. is but tri●ling, such at lest is the Livery you give the learned men who use the figure Metalepsis. And that of wilful men and importune spirits, and that the bore laying down the words is enough, and that Mr. Walker hath ratified it. All these are but trifling, and so I pass them. Let us come to something.  
You say, concerning those testimonies in general, I desire to propound but this one consideration, whether it be probable, etc. That so many learned interpreters through so many generations, expounding a Scripture which they conceive Tropical, should none of them give warning, or so much as take notice of a Tropical expression, but deliver their minds in the same words, wherein the Trope shall lie.  
Sir, I answer. First, the thing may be done by many 
1.  Ancient and later Divines too, and those never the wiser that neglect the search of them, out of coneipt of their own great light.  
Our learned (exceptis before named) to a man have 
2.  expressed themselves for the Relative sense and faiths justifying as an instrument, and the challenge is in Print many years ago to Bertius bragging of testimony to name vel unum, as much, or little, as one express place or Doctor for the contrary. For ours there are testimonies enough before. Romanists themselves, as you for a proper sense, confess Protestants to be for that which is Tropical, when as some urge difference amongst us, ours answer there is none. You were not borne, nor your by-way observed by those that were curious to object the same. 
P. 312.  Doctor Davenant cleareth Luther by the Jesuit Vasques. And to that which is main in our business of them of those who teach the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to be the formal cause of justification he faith,  
But this is the common sentence of 
At haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia, neque quod ad ipsam ●●m attiner▪ quisquam ● nostris a●●ter scripsit au● sensi●. Ib.  all ours neither if we respect the thing itself, is there any one that wrote or thought otherwise. One may be confident of it in his judgement, he knew none of ours, if there were, they are without; indeed yours is but of yesterday amongst us. And shall we now think they held your proper sense? judeus Apella, non ego.  
Whereas you persist in the contrary, Mr. Walker hath given testimonies, and many more may be given to fill books.  
For Bucer I wonder you mention him, when as your Mr. Wotton speaking of him saith,  
Whom I persuade myself to have 
Quem ego hujus de imputatione opinionis authorem fuisse mihi persuadeo. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 14. p. 170.  been the Author of this opinion of imputation. Where also you may read his exposition of that Article in the Augustine confession, in these words, in the conference at Ratisbon, Anno 1546.  
That is, because by this faith we apprehended 
Quia hae fide apprehe●dimus justitiam perfectam Christi, ideo Apostolus dixit credenti in eum qui justificat impium, fidem ejus reputari in justitiam, fidem sc. apprehendentem justitiam Christi, id est, ipsam Christi justitiam.  the perfect righteousness of Christ, therefore the Apostle said, to him that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith to be reputed to righteousness: faith, forsooth, apprehending the righteousness of Christ, that is, the righteousness of Christ itself. Where Mr. Wotton is willing to use the Popish shift of a meritorious cause, if it would serve, as you before. I find Bucer also amongst those of Sybrandus, and his writings are not now in mine hand.  
For Bullinger I have read in him, 
Constat ergo ex his Christum implevisse ●egem, & hunc esse perfectionem in or●e omnium, Dec. 3. ser. ●. p. 177. 1. He inferreth it from the text, Rom. 8, 4.  It is certain therefore from these, Christ to have fulfilled the Law, and him to be the perfection of all men in the world. And than:  
In him there is the most perfect love 
In eo est dilectio Dei perfectissi●a & justitia per omnia absolurissi●a, & hanc nobis imperfectissimis communicate gratis, si credamus; condonat enim nobis peccata factus pro nobis expiatio, & communicate nobis suam justitiam quae imputata vocatur, ex 2 Cor. 5. ult. & Rom. 4. credidit Abraham, etc. Fide enim comprehend●mus Christum quem credimus absolurissime pro nobis Deo satisfecisse, a●que Deum nobis pacatum esse propter Christu●, & nobis Christi justitiam gratis imputari tanquam nostram (& revera ex donatione, nostra) quia nos sumus jam filii Dei.  of God, and righteousness every way most absolute, and he doth freely communicate this to us that are most imperfect, if we believe; for he pardoneth to us our sins, being made for us a● expiation, and communicateth to us his righteousness which is called imputative, (which he proveth 2 Cor. 5. ult. & Rom. 4. Abraham believed, etc. For by faith we comprehend Christ, whom we believe most absolutely 
Quando nullus mortalium exacte satisfecit Legi per se, quomodo igitur promittitu● justitia, vita & salus servantibus Legem: nimirum respicit ea promissio ipsam Christi perfectam justitiam quae imputatur nobis. Ib.  to have satisfied for us, and God to be at peace with us for Christ, and the righteousness of Christ to be freely imputed unto us, as our own (and 
Unde jam clarum est istas Christi Domini sententias aequipollere, Qui credit in me habet vitam aeternam; &, Si vis ingredi in vitam serva mandata, etc.  truly our own by his gift) because we be now the children of God.  
When as no mortal man exactly 
Tota ergo decalogi abrogatio in illis de quibus jam ante diximus consistit, quod sc. Christus in fide est perfecta justitia nostra. p, 179.  satisfied the Law for himself, how therefore to justice is promised life and salvation to such as observe the Law? No wonder, for that promise respecteth that perfect righteousness of Christ which is imputed unto us.  
Whence it is now clear those say of the Lord Christ to be equivalent, He that believeth in me hath eternal life, and, If thou▪ wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments.  
Therefore the whole abrogation of the decalogue, consisteth in those things of which we have spoken now before, that Christ in faith is our perfect righteousness.  
And now Reader see how truly he saith of his Authors, that they exclude all other things whatsoever, without exception, from this i●●●tation; and thus for this demonstration, as you are pleased to call it, we shall see more afterwards.  
Come we now to your second demonstration, which as fare as it will reach, say you, makes the matter greater than contradiction, that the Authors could not in their expositions and commentaries possibly take the word Faith ●● Believing in a figurative sense, but in a proper.  
Let us see this Demonstration.  
Because (say you) the word faith taken in a figurative sense for the righteousness of Christ, is partly manifest and open blasphemy, partly most ridiculously absurd; for example, Luther on Gal. 3. 6. Deus reputat istam imperfectam fidem, etc. for perfect righteousness, if by faith there we understand the righteousness of Christ, and not faith properly, he makes Luther an execrable blasphemer, for he calleth the righteousness of Christ imperfect righteousness. Illiricus a beggarly faith, etc. and therefore.  
1. I answer that Calvine and Luther take the word, faith, in this point of justification, as an instrument Relatively, figuratively, and that it justifieth as it taketh in its object Christ and his righteousness, and not in a proper sense, as a work considered in and by itself, and that they teach the righteousness of Christ to be that which being imputed by God, and applied by our faith, to be that whereby we be just before God, is as evident and clear as the Sun in the firmament shining at noon day.  
2. That the rankest enemies of God's grace, whether Arminians or Papists; yet, never (knowing the same) were so inconsiderate to lay such a charge on them.  
3. That it is an injurious kind of dealing with Authors, to force them to speak against manifest expressures of themselves in their writings, a miserably poor shift, a sign that a man is near driven in a straight, desperate, especially in writing to do so. It were more modesty to say we understand them not, or deny their authority with reason, to say they err, than thus as it were to snarl at them, and by't them.  
4. When as we speak of faith that it is imperfect, beggarly, leprous, we speak of it (though an instrument) as it is in itself, and therefore taking it so, deny it to justify as a work, or for its worth, and say it hath need of justification itself; and that in justice God cannot accounted it for the righteousness of the Law, we speak of it as of an hand that receiveth richeses. Whether it be weak, or unclean, or leprous, so it affordeth a strong argument against your proper sense, and a necessity that when as it is said to justify that it should do so in respect to the object it is employed about, the righteousness of Christ which it receiveth.  
And when as by a Trope the righteousness of Christ is signified, or taken in with faith the instrument, there is none that saith either that faith is the righteousness of Christ, or whatsoever is predicated of the instrument faith, is true of the object of it the righteousness of Christ. When you prove these, Christ shall be and his righteousness as is said of faith, imperfect, leprous, etc. till than, though the faith that is imputed be so, it will not be true of the object, imperfection and leprosy is its own. Justification properly is the effect of Christ's righteousness, which is given to faith not as imperfect or weak, or strong, but as an hand receiving the righteousness of Christ, which applied, justifieth.  
Thus as I am able I have endeavoured to answer you, not leaving willingly as much as one passage unanswered, and now may say, what you say not withstanding or do against Mr. Walker, or the cause, He may still have Peliade stomachum cedere nescii. The stouter a man is for the truth, I say the truth, the greater is his glory.  
For a close, give me leave to the many testimonies used already, to add some more out of some learned modern writers, by which the Reader may see whether the proper sense of faith, or that which is Relative to its object the righteousness of Christ hath their constant patronage, and whether we be justified by faith in a proper sense, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
Luther shall lead the way. He to the Galatians hath many places. I in my reading him over have observed these, as he is in English.  
I have another righteousness and life, which is Christ the son 
P. 8. 1.  of God. Wherhfore Christ apprehended by faith, and dwelling in the heart, is the true Christian righteousness, for the which 
P. 65. Col. 2.  God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal life. Whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ, apprehended 
P. 66. 1.  in the heart, him God will accounted for righteous; this is the mean, and this is the merit, whereby we attain remission of sins 
P. 66. 2.  and righteousness. Because thou hast laid bold on Christ by faith, through whom thou art made righteous.  
We are indeed justified and made righteous in Christ. 
P. 70. 2.   
And teacheth what true Christian righteousness is, namely that righteousness whereby Christ liveth in us, and not that 
P. 82 1.  which is in our person.  
Now, because Christ liveth in me, the refore look what grace righteousness, etc. is in me, it is his, and yet notwithstanding the same is mine also by that unspeakable union and communion 
P. 83. 1.  which is through saith, by the which Christ and I are made one body in spirit.  
For as much as Christ liveth in me, it followeth, that as I must 
P. 91. 1. p. 83. 2.  needs be partaker of grace, righteousness, etc. I am now one with Christ, that is to say, Christ's righteousness, etc. are mine.  
Christ died for sins that he might make us righteous, therefore when I feel myself a sinner, through Adam's transgression, 
P. 89. 1.  why should I not say that I am made righteous through the righteousness of Christ.  
I will accounted and pronounce thee as righteous. 
P. 112. 1.   
But because I am covered under the shadow of Christ's wing, 
Ib.  as the Chicken under the wing of the Hen.  
Through whom we are made perfect, sin is pardoned for 
Ib.  Christ's sake in whom thou believest, who is perfectly just, whose righteousness is thy righteousness, and thy sin is his sin. 
P. 113. 1.   
For all the promises past are contained in Christ to come, therefore as well Abraham as the other Fathers, are made righteous 
P. 116. 2.  by faith in Christ, they by faith in him to come, we by faith in him now present.  
Therefore all the world is blessed, that is, receiveth imputation 
P. 119. 1.  of righteousness, if it believe as Abraham did.  
Therefore to say that the Nations are blessed, is nothing else 
P. 119. 1.  but that righteousness is freely given to them, or that they are counted righteous before God.  
Moreover, if the Nations be blessed, that is to say, accounted 
P. 119. 2.  righteous before God, it followeth that they are free from sin and death, and are made partakers of righteousness, etc. by faith in Christ.  
Gen. 12. 9 speaketh of such a blessing as belongeth to imputation of righteousness; which is available before God, and redeemeth 
Ib.  from the curse of sin, now this blessing is received 
☞  only by faith, for the text saith, Abraham believed, etc.  
To make us righteous before God there is a fare more excellent price required, which is neither the righteousness of man, 
P. 120. 1.  or the Law. Here we must have Christ to bless us, etc. as Abraham bad.  
Whom Abraham himself by faith did apprehended, and through him was blessed. So making an happy change with us, 
Ib.  he took upon him our sinful person, and gave unto us his innocent 
P. 139. 2.  and victorious person, wherewith we being now clothed, are freed from the curse of the Law. He that doth so (believe) hath this innocency and victory of Christ, by saith only therefore we 
P. 140.  are made righteous, for faith layeth hold on this innocency and victory of Christ.  
The Law threatneth unto thee death, etc. but be not afraid, 
P. 160. 2.  fly not away, but stand fast, I supply and perform all things for thee, I satisfy the Law for thee.  
Therefore there must come a fare other Mediator than Moses, 
P. 161. 1.  which may satisfy the Law.  
The putting on of Christ, consisteth in putting on Christ's innocency, 
P. 175. 1.  his righteousness, his wisdom, etc.  
But Christ himself is our garment, etc. to be apparelled with Christ is not, etc. but with an incomparable gift, that is to say, 
Ib.  with remission of sins, righteousness, peace,— and Christ himself.  
But you are clothed with a new garment, to wit, with the righteousnsse of Christ, now when we are apparelled with Christ 
P. 176. 1.  as with the rohe of our righteousness, and salvation, etc.  
For as much as Christ pleaseth God, and we are in him, we 
P. 188. 2.  also please God and are holy.  
In him do I believe, if I be a sinner and err, be is righteous 
P. 189. 1.  and cannot ●rre. He with all that is in him is made 
P. 145. 1.  unto me of God righteousness.  
Faith God's gift and work in our hearts, which therefore 
P. 47. 1.  justifieth us, because it apprehendeth Christ our Redeemers  
We say faith apprehendeth Christ, which is the form, which 
P. 65. 1.  
☜  adorneth and furnisheth faith, ●s the colour the wall. 
P. 66. 1.   
Very form and perfection of faith.  
Faith therefore justifieth, because it apprehendeth and possesseth 
P. 65. 1.  this measure, even Christ present.  
To him that believeth, sin is pordoned, and righteousness 
P. 67. 2.  imputed.  
Calvine.  
God to be without Christ always angry with us, that we 
In Rom. 3. 24.  are reconciled by him whilst we are accepted in his righteousness, etc.  
By faith we come to the possession of that benefit. 
Ib.   
But by naming blood alone he would not exclude other parts of redemption. But rather under one part to comprehend the whole sum.— So by a Synecdoche the whole expiation is 
Ib.  named.  
For Christ should be in vain given to us for righteousness, unless there shall be fruition by faith. 
Ib.   
When we come to Christ, first in him there is found the exact 
Ad vers. 31.  righteousness of the Law, which by imputation is made ours. 
☞   
Neither do we otherwise attain righteousness, but because, as it is brought unto us in the promise of the Gospel, so we see the 
In Rom. 4. 3.  possession of it as it were by faith.  
From whence we gather that it is not disputed what manner of men, men are in themselves, but in what place God accounteth them, not that— but because when the cause is sought why God 
Ib.  loveth us, and acknowledgeth us as just, there is a necessity that Christ should come forth who may cloth us with his righteousness.  
For (that a man may be justified) there is required perfect and numeris suis omnibus, 1. every way consummated obedience as the promise of the Law soundeth, Leu. 18. 5. Those that are already apparelled with the righteousness of Christ, they not only have God favourable to them, but to their works, whose spots and wrinkles are covered by the holiness of Christ, that they 
Ad. v. 6. 7. 8.  come not to accounted, if so the righteousness of faith be the only cause why works are accounted just.—  
But by Christ's righteousness we are another way restored to salvation, neither is it therefore accounted to us, because it is within 
Ad Rom. 5. 17 & 19 verse.  us: but because we possess Christ himself with all his goods, given to us by his Father's bounty, the free gift of righteousness signifieth imputation.  
But indeed that we may come to the participation of the grace of Christ, it behoveth that we be inset into him by faith. 
Ad vers. 17.   
That thou mayest enjoy Christ's righteousness, it is necessary 
Ib.  that thou be a believer, because by faith we attain fellowship with him.  
But it behoveth us to be just if we be accepted to him. 
Ad vers. 18.   
When he pronounceth us to be constituted just by the obedience of Christ, hence we gather, Christ in that he satisfied his Father, to have attained righteousness for us; whence it followeth, that the quality of righteousness is in Christ, but that which is proper to him to be accounted to us. He ' interpreteth also what is the righteousness of Christ, when he calleth it obedience. Where I beseech you let us observe what we must bring into the sight of God if we would be justified by works: forsooth the righteousness 
Ad vers. 19  of the Law— every way absolute.  
You see therefore us to be altogether excluded from the righteousness of works, and therefore that we fly to the righteousness 
Ad Rom. 8. 3.  of Christ, because there can be none in us.  
Which is especially necessary to be known, because we be never clothed with the righteousness of Christ unless we first surely know.—  
Now he showeth the manner whereby the heavenly Father restoreth to us righteousness by his son.—  
There is no doubt his righteousness to be called; which is his 
Adc. 10. 3.  gift.  
But we have elsewhere said, how men put on his righteousness by faith; forsooth because Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.  
But after he cast all under guilt, he substituted a new righteousness in Christ.— Which being given freely, is accepted by faith.  
He excellently taketh away this scruple, when as from the very 
In vers. 5.  Doctrine of the Law he establisheth the righteousness of faith.  
The place is out of Leu. 18. 5. where the Lord promiseth eternal life to those who shall keep his Law.  
And so by their own defect constrained they might learn to 
Ib.  fly to Christ, 1 Cor. 130. be was made— whereby he understandeth us in his name to be accepted of God, because by his 
In 1 Cor. ●. 30.  death he hath expiated our sins, and his righteousness should be imputed to us. For when as the righteousness of faith consisteth in remission of sins and free acceptation, we obtain both by him.  
Now he more plainly teacheth what we before touched, that than God is favourable to us when as he acknowledgeth us for just, for those two are all one, that we are accepted of God, and that we are reputed just. Righteousness here is taken for acceptation, because Christ's righteousness is accounted to us.  
How are we just before God? forsooth, as Christ was a sinner, for after a manner he took upon him our person, that he might be made guilty in our name, and might be judged as a sinner, not with his own, but others faults, when as himself should be pure, and free from all fault, and should undergo the punishment not due to himself but us. So forsooth are we just in him, 
Ad 2 Cor. 5. ult.  not because by our own works we may satisfy the judgement of God, but because we are decounted the righteousness of God, which we put on by faith that it may be ours.  
When as he saith, that be believed was imputed to him for 
Ad Gal. 3. 6.  righteousness, he therein signifieth him to be just who is accounted such with God, but when as men have net righteousness laid up in themselves, they attain it by imputation, because God accounteth it to them for righteousness; therefore we are said to be justified by faith, not because he transfuseth the habit or quality of faith into us, but because we are accepted of God. But why is so great honour given unto it that it should be called the cause of our righteousness?  
1. We must know it to be only the instrumental cause, for 
☞  speaking properly it is nothing else but God's gracious acceptation, in which our salvation is laid. But because the Lord in giving unto us a testimony of his love and favour by the Gospel, communicateth unto us that righteousness which I called it, therefore we receive the same by faith.  
Therefore, when as we give to faith man's justification, we dispute not of the principal cause, only we observe the manner whereby men come unto true righteousness, this righteousness is a mere gift of God.— but it is possessed only by faith.  
Therefore all those phrases of speech are as one, that we are justified by grace, Christ to be our righteousness, God's mercy to be the cause of our righteousness, righteousness to be attained for us by the death and resurrection of Christe-Righteousnesse to be bestowed on us by the Gospel, that w●● by faith obraine righteousness.  
We have put you in mind, that those that are just by faith, that they are just out of themselves in Christ, not because we have praise of honesty among men, are we accounted just before God— but when we bring to him the perfect obedience of the 
☜  Law— because we have it not in ourselves, God giveth it us freely.  
I pass what Mr. Walker hath gathered out of these and other Authors, and Printed, and many testimonies of others, which I truly have by me already gathered, which needed but transcription. I will content myself with the testimonies of some few yourself name, and but a few, that the world may see what faith is due to you in citing Authors. I confess I have not all their writings by me, either to examine your testimonies, or bring them for myself, so fare as I have will give a sufficient taste to the Reader.  
For Bucer I refer me to what was observed before.  
And so for Bullinger, and the Reader may turn to Mr. Walker.  
Luther on that very text you cite, hath these passages. 
Gal. 3. 6.   
Because I am covered under the shadow of Christ's wings.  
Flying to Christ our Mediator and Reconciler, through whom we are made perfect; Through him we have all things who only▪ doth supply whatsoever is wanting in us. For Jesus Christ's sake in whom we do believe.  
It is forgiven thee for Christ's sake who is perfectly just, whose righteousness is thy righteousness, and thy sin is his sin.  
Christ which was given for us, whom we apprehended, that causeth that God doth accounted that faith though it be imperfect for perfect righteousness.  
This object I bring sent from the Father pleased you, and because you have apprehended and embraced this object, therefore ye please him.  
Nothing cometh between (me a sinner and Christ's love) but Christ the Mediator.— Imputation of righteousness is also necessary, sins do remain in us which God doth utterly hate, therefore it is necessary that we should have imputation of righteousness, which we obtain through Christ, and for his sake who is given unto us, and received of us by faith.  
The reconciler (whence sin is no sin, damnable and not) is the Mediator between God and man, even the man Jesus Christ, Rom. 8. 1.  
Judge now whether he excluded the object or not, whether he taketh it not in as what is apprehended and applied by faith.  
Peter Martyr hath these words.  
But also faith itself, if it be considered 
Quin etiam fides ipsa, si qua nostrum opus est consideretur, ea justificari non possumus, cum opus sit & mancum & imperfectum, long deterius quam requitit. Sed illa justificari dicimur qua promissiones Dei, & Christi justitiam meritaque per ipsam apprehendimus & nobis applicamus. Loc. Com. de justif. Sect. 8.  as our work, we cannot be justified with it, seeing it is a work both lame and imperfect, much worse than (God) requireth; but we are said to be justified with it, as by it we apprehended the promises▪ of God, and the righteousness of Christ and his merits, and apply them to ourselves.  
Suppose to thyself the most filthy 
Fingas tibi mendici hominis foedissimam & leprosam manum, qua capiat eleemosynam ab offerente: certe mendicus ille à foeditate s●● lepra manus haud quaquam juvatur, sed eleemosynam qualicunquc accipit. Sect. 8.  and leprous hand of some beggar, with which he may receive an alms from him that offereth it; surely that beggar is not helped from the filthiness or leprosy of his hand, but by whatsoever hand it doth receive. Ib.  
He that hath Christ in himself, he 
Qui in s●ipso Christum habet, is omnino justitiam habet, de illo enim Paulus scribit ad Cor. 1. c. 1. qui factus est nobis sapientia, justitia, etc. Sect. 52.  hath righteousness altogether, for of him Paul writeth ad Cor. 1. 1. who was made to us wisdom, righteousness, etc.  
Here he calleth that righteousness 
Hic (Phil. 3. 9) cam justitiam quae es● ex operibus & ex Lege appellat suam: eam vero quae est ex fide quamquam maxime optat appellat justitiam Jesu Christi. Sect. 52.  which is of works and the Law, his; but that which is of faith, and which he most wisheth, he calleth it the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  
Abraham believed, etc. But what did he believe? forsooth 
Credidit Abraham, etc. At ille quid credidit? hoc sc. semen sibi dandum esse, unicum, viz. illud, ut Paulus interpretatur, in quo omnes nationes essent benedicendi, quod est Christus Jesus, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. Sect. 23.  this only seed to be given unto him, that is, as Paul interpreteth, in which all Nations were to be blessed, which is Christ, Gen. 15. 6. Gal. 3. 16. Pareus.  
What did Abraham believe? to 
Quid credidit Abraham? nempe, concionem illam consolatoriam de Dei gratia singulari— de semine nascituro ex Sara— Apostolus enim promissum semen express dicit esse Christum. Nec dubitari poorest, seminis promissionem, cui credidisse Abraham dicitur, cohaerere cum promissionibus antegressis & subsecutis de semine & benedictione omnium gentium per illud. In locum.  wit, God's consolatory Sermon of God's singular grace— of seed to be borne of Sarah— for the Apostle calleth the promised seed, expressly Christ. Neither can it be doubted the promised seed which Abraham believed to agreed with foregoing and following promises of seed and blessing of all Nations by it: and than Abraham's faith was a general faith or Catholic (as Sophisters call it) assenting to every word of God, But also special resting 
See Pareus in cap. 4. dub. 3. Justitia ergo fidei imputata est, etc. p. 310. & ib. At Abraham sola fide etc.  on the promise given of seed, which is Christ. So Ambrose, Abraham believed God: What did he believe? that he was to have seed, that is, a Son, in whom all Nations should be justified. Therefore Abrahams was founded in Christ. The Apostle will more clearly declare this faith about the end of the chapter expressly teaching; Justifying faith aught to be fastened in the death and resurrection of Christ. Pareus, p. 268.  
And in the former page, Now on 
Nunc contra probat Abrahamum justificatum esse fide, hoc est, justitia gratis imputata credenti, idque diserto Scripturae testimonio.  the contrary, he proveth Abraham to be justified by faith, that is, with righteousness freely imputed to the believer.  
And there having denied faith as a virtue to justify, though it be most excellent, etc. Abraham is proposed not as working— but as by faith freely receiving righteousness, p. 270.  
Again, When faith is said to be imputed for righteousness it is not to be understood but Relatively, because righteousness shall be freely imputed to the believer, or because the believer of 
Sed Meronimico sensu dixit fidem, id est, Christum fide apprehensum, essenostram justitiam.  grace shal● be reputed just.  
I will name but one place more now of Pareus, he is often before cited, who when in answering Bellarmine, he had said of Luther but in a metonymicke sense he said faith, that is, Christ apprehended by faith, to be our righteousness.— Addeth.  
Which figurative sense called Metonymia, 
Quem sensum metony micum si oppugnat Adversarius, certe non Lutherum impugnat sed Spirium sanctum blasphcmar, qui Christum express vocat justitiam nostram, Jer. 23 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30. Casting. 1. 2. c. 4 p. 418 419.  if the Adversary opposeth, surely he opposeth not Luther, but blasphemeth the holy Ghost, who calleth Christ expressly our righteousness, as Jer. 23. 6. & 1 Cor. 1. 30.  
Calvine followeth, in both places mentioneth the object. Abraham by believing doth no other thing than embrace the grace tendered to him, by which he meaneth the promises; Christ that seed especially and his righteousness, and that is enfolded in the goodness of God which it is said to apprehended.  
And on the same place. But by faith they borrow from elsewhere 
Fide autem quod sibi deest aliunde mutuantut, ideoque apte vocatur imputativa fidei justiria. Resertur illic promissio semin is suturi. Ubi causa quaetitur cur— pro justis agnoscat, Christum pro. dire necesse est, qui sua nos justitia induat. Aliena justitia nos fides ornat quam à Deo mendicat. And on Gat. 3. 6. Fides hic relationem habet ac respectii ad tale. verbum Dei, quo sreti homines acquie scere in ipso possint. Quum autem justitiam in se repositam non habeant homines, imputatione hanc adipiscuntur. Primo sciendum est esse causam duntaxat instrumenta●em, nam proprie loquendo justitia nostra nihil alind est quam gratuita Dei acceptio in●qua fundate est nostra salus. Sed quia Dominus testimonium nobis amoris sui & gratiae per Evangelium reddendo, illam quam dixi justitiam nobis communicate, ideo side illam percipimus.  what is wanting to them, and therefore it is openly called imputed righteousness by faith.  
Thither is to be referred the promise of future seed.  
Where the cause is sought. Why— he acknowledgeth us for righteous, it is necessary that Christ come forth, who clotheth us with his righteousness.  
Faith adorneth us with another's righteousness, which it beggeth of God.  
Faith here hath relation and respect to such a word of God, which men believing can rest in it. What the promises are be showeth towards the end of his Commandment on that place, as Pareus and Martyr before.  
Which righteousness seeing men have not placed in themselves, they obtain it by imputation.  
To that question, why is so great honour given to faith, that it is called the cause of our righteousness? he answereth.  
First, we must know it is only the instrumental cause, for to speak properly, our righteousness is no other than God's free acceptation, in which our safety is founded.  
But because the Lord in giving us a testimony of his love and favour by the Gospel, doth communicate to us that righteousness I called, therefore we receive it by faith.  
Therefore when we give man's justification 
Ergo cum fidei tribuimus hominis justificationem, non de causa principali dispuramus, sed tantum notamus modum quo perveniunt homines ad vetam justitiam: justitia enim haec est meram Dei dotum, non qualitas quae in hominibus haereat, sed fide tantum possidetur, etc.  to faith, we dispute not of the principal cause, only we observe the manner by which men come to true righteousness: For this righteousness is Gods mere gift, not a quality which may inhere in men, but is possessed only by faith.  
We have therefore called to mind those 
Meminetimus ergo qui side justi sunt, eos extra se justos esse, nempe in Christo.  that are just by faith, are just out of themselves, forseoth in Christ.  
We are justified before God, 
Quam afferimus persectam Logis obedientiam, nam justitia transgressioni Legis etiam in minimo apice opponitur, eam quia non habemus in nobis, Deus nobis gratuito donat.  when we bring the perfect righteousness of the Law, for righteousness is opposed to the transgression of the Law, even in the lest point, because we have it not ourselves, God giveth it to us freely.  
Abraham therefore is not justified— 
Non ergo justificatus est Abraham— sed quia Die gratiamamplexus est fretus Mediatore promisso in quo omnes Dei promissiones sunt Etiam & Amen.  but because be embraced the grace of God trusting in the promised Mediator in whom all God's promises are Yea and Amen  
Let the Reader observe but these passages on the same place, and he may observe the vain confidence of this objector of Calvine, for his proper sense of faith, and opposition of the common tenet.  
To Gualther, M. Wr. rightly willeth the Reader to see how hardly we are put to it, when as you cite the bore words themselves to prove your interpretation: for Aretius (for I have not to examine by either Musculus or Gualther, or Illyricus, etc.) Shall in the next place be considered.  
The instrumental cause is faith of 
Organica causa est sides Jesus Christi, haec est, justitia illa Dei imputativa applicatur nobis per sidem in Christum. In Rom. 3. 22.  Jesus Christ, that is, that imputed righteousness of God is applied to us by faith in Christ.  
It is called the instruments of jusiification, 
Organum justifieation is dicitur quod justitia Dei nobis applicetur per sideth.  because the righteousness of God is applied to us by faith.  
Because seeing it is of God, and in 
Quia cum Dei sit, & in Deo proprie nobis tamen imputatur & applicatur, adeo ut cum rei mortis simus, Deus nos absolvat à paena & justos pronuntiet imputata nobis sua justitia; hinc imputata justitia dici potest & gratuita. In Rom. 1. 17.  God properly, yet it is imputed and applied to us, so as when we be guilty of death, God absolveth us from punishment, and may pronounce us just, his right cousnesse imputed unto us, hence may it be called imputed and free.  
With which he maketh us just, this 
Qua nos justos facit haec imputativa est, nam aliena justitia impurarur in justis per se, de hac loquitur in paesentia &c 1. vers. 17. e cap. 3. Rom. v. 21.  is imputative, for another's righteousness is imputed to men unjust by themselves, of this he speaketh in the present place.  
Consider (in justification) the sin 
Considera non imputari peccatum quod inest homini, sic contra in justificatione imputa●i justitiam quae non inest homini. In. c. 4 v. 6.  which is in a man not to be imputed, so contrary in justification, that righteousness to be imputed which is not in man.  
Faith therefore so holy and so firm 
Fides igitur tam pia & tam firma pro justitia ci imputata est, quia haec apprehendit misericordiam & propositam promissionem, hinc justitia ei etiam impuratur. Adu. 22.  is imputed to him for righteousness, because this apprehendeth the mercy and proposed promise, hence righteousness is imputed to him.  
Christ is made to us of God righteousness, 
Justitia a Deo nobis factus est, quia in eo solo justi habemur, reputamur illius merito justi. Ad 1 Cor. 1. 30.  because in him alone we are accounted just, we are reputed just with his merit.  
That we might be made the righteousness 
Ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei, hoc est, justi pronunciatemur, imputativa justitia taoquam ves●e ornaremur: dicitur autem justria Dei quia nostra non est sed precario, etc. Ad 2 Cor. 5. uls.  of God, that is, might be pronounced just, and be adorned with imputed righteousness as with a garment. It is called the righteousness of God because it is not ours but freely.  
In him he signifieth that out of 
In ipso significat extra Christum nullam esse justitiam qua nos possimus ornate, & quae valeat in conspectum Dei. lb.  Christ there is no righteousness with which we can array ourselves, and which availeth in the sight of God.  
That he might perfectly fulfil the 
Ut perfect Legem impleret quod nobis impossibile erat, deinde paenas, etc. In Gal. 4. 4  Law which was impossible to us, etc.  
Thus for Aretius, who no whit digresseth from the former.  
Beza. And not rather an instrument 
Aut quasi sides sit illud quod nos justificar, ac non potins inst umentum duntaxat & quidom gratis nobis da●um, quo tanquam manu quapiam Chris●um iustitiam nostram apprehendimus. In c. 4 ad Rom. 2.  only and freely given us, with which, is an hand, we apprehended Christ our righteousness.  
To righteousness, in those words there is a figure called Hypallage.  
For properly God is said to impute 
Name propric dicitur Deus imputare justitiam per sidem, ut mox, verse 6. & 11. quid autem sit, supra ad 1. vers. 17. & 3. 20.  righteousness by faith, as by and by in the 6. & 11. v. what that righteousness is, is opened before on c. 1. vers. 17. and c. 3. vers. 20.  
For Junius, the man might be thought either blind, or un sound in his principles that will but mention him.  
By the promises which Abraham by saith embraced, include that of Christ our seed.  
Faith in the predicament of relation 
Fides in genere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non justitia cat in quantum habirus— sed ratione differentiae relativae quae gratuitam justitiae & vitae aeternae promissionom fiducialiter amplectitur. Jun. Tles. de justif. Sect. 11.  justifieth not as an habit— but by reason of its relative difference, which confidently embraceth the gracious promise of righteousness and eternal life.  
But relatively only as it apprehendeth 
Sed relative tantum quatenus meritum Christi apprehendit, tanquam manus mendici eleemosynam. Sect. 16.  death the merit of Christ, as the band of the beggar doth the alms.  
The occasion therefore was this, that 
Occasio igitur haec fui●, quod Abraham side simplicistima acqureverit simplicibus illis Dei promissionibus, justitiamque Dei eadem prehenderet prour a Deo non operantibus ad morcedem, sed credentibus ad justitiam & vitam imputa●u● quemadmodum Apostolus optime interpretatur. In Gen. 15.  Abraham with a most simple faith did sit down in those most simple promises of God, and laid hold of the same righteousness of God by the same faith, as it is imputed not to workers to a reward, but believers to righteousness and life, as the Apostle doth best of all interpret.  
To conclude, that we may expound 
Donique ur Metonymiam hanc quam evidentissimo possimus simili exponamus, sides est tanquam manus aut tanquam lo culus apprehendens the sautum gratiae quem nobis Deus exhibet in Christo Jesus. In Hch. c. 11. 1.  this Metonymy by as evident a simile as we can. Faith is as an hand, or as a purse apprehending the treasure of grace which God in Jesus Christ exhibiteth to us.  
Doctor Abbot is added in his defence of Mr. Perkins. I believe the words are there, though I cannot find them, and have four times inquired, and spent more time than will make an answer. Where we have first, righteousness imputed without works; secondly, what that is by your relation, the reputing of faith for righteousness, for that thereby we obtain remission and forgiveness of sins.  
And you conclude, he that will undertake to divide this Author and the opinion we contend for, must be more severe than to give a man leave to be of his own mind.  
I find the words otherwise cited in your Master Mr. Watton, and will say nothing to them, until I find them, but suspend.  
But this I am confident of, that the Author not more favoureth your opinion, than any of those that are called your adversaries in this question; and who ever shall read his whole chapter, and consider whom he defendeth, and what against Bishop, shall see our arguments for the imputation of Christ's righteousness which you oppose proposed by Mr. Perkins, opposed in many things by Doctor Bishop the Papist, and made good against him by Dr. Abbot, who doth it as a son of the Church of England indeed. What he undertakes you may see, p. 381.  
That our justification and righteousness before God standeth not in any inward virtues, etc. but in the imputation of Christ's obedience and righteousness made ours by faith, shall be proved 
P. 381. P. 383.  to him, God willing, by better arguments than be shall be able to disprove.  
In that place, for this by the way he nameth, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But the Gospel teacheth us to acknowledge Christ immediately and wholly our righteousness and salvation, in whom, and not in our se'ves, we are made the righteousness of God, that is, just in the sight of God, in that his obedience and righteousness 
☞  performed and wrought in our name, and for our behoof, is imputed 
P. 384.  unto us by faith in his blood.  
1. Mr. Perkins argument is, That which must be our righteousness before God, must satisfy the justice of the Law, which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live.  
But there is nothing that can satisfy that justice of the Law 
P. 387.  but the righteousness and obedience of Christ. Ergo.  
This argument the Doctor defendeth.  
He showeth this Scripture meant of the Morall-Law. 
P. 389.   
Now Mr. Perkins to take away the opinion of our own righteousness, and to show that we have no other but the righteousness of Christ to rest safely upon, allegeth as Gregory doth, the rigour and severity of God's judgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect, according to the rule of justice 
P. 396.  prescribed to us.  
2. His second argument is taken out of 2 Cor. 5. ult. As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made the righteousness of God in him. But Christ was made sin by the imputation of 
P. 399.  our sins being most boly. Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christ's righteousness is imputed unto him.  
Which are made good out of Anselme, Augustine, and Hierome.  
Where you shall find a comparison made good against you.  
And, that answered that he was made sin not by imputation, 
P. 401. etc.  but a Sacrifice. Where he demandeth why the Sacrifice of sin should be called by the name of sin. See him who is large in speaking thereunto, out of the Trope and Fathers. There I find Christ needed not for himself to be made under the Law, for to perform the righteousness thereof for his own justification before God, being otherwise simply and absolutely just. But what he did he did it for our sakes, that we thereby through faith in 
P. 402. 403.  him should be justified in God's sight.  
It followeth that the righteousness of God must be understood of another righteousness, which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth 
Rom. 4. 6. 1b.  us, whereby the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, according to the words of David, etc.  
Hitherto the Argument standeth good. As Christ was made sin, so we are made righteousness; Christ was made sin by the imputation of our sin, we are therefore made righteous 
P. 404.  by the imputation of his righteousness.  
Mr. Perkins his third Argument, is from Rom. 5. 19 As by the disobedience of Adam, men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous. But men are made sinners by the imputation of Adam's sin unto them, and 
P. 404.  not only by propagation of natural corruption: Therefore by imputation of Christ's justice we are made righteous.  
The case is very clear, that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adam's sin, than are we also righteous by the imputation 
P. 405.  of the righteousness of Christ.  
Where he defendeth the imputation of Adam's sin, which he proveth against Bishop, (and Bellarmine himself somewhere, and you) out of Bellarmine citing Bernard for it, etc. and Augustine, p. 406. and Bernard, p. 407. and chrysostom.  
Now I pray thee Reader do but judge whether this Doctor be of Mr. John Goodwines side, the opinion he contendeth for or against him, and never credit his testimony but on examination.  
Doctor Preston maketh himself a stranger to the Tropical interpretation of this Scripture, and improveth that which is literal and proper, Treat. Allsuff. p. 12. & 13. In this sense faith is said to be imputed for righteousness. Abra. believed God Gen. 15. God indeed made the same proposition that he doth here for substance, he tells him what he would do for him. And (saith the text) Abraham believed God, etc. Now it was accounted to him for righteousness, chiefly in this sense, as it is interpreted, Rom. 4. that this very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, in that he did receive that which God gave, that put him within the Covenant, and therefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man, even for that very acceptation and believing.  
But that is not all, but likewise he accounteth faith to him for righteousness, because faith doth sanctify and make a man righteous, etc. And than cry out evidence.  
1. Doth the Doctor in all this discourse mention your proper sense?  
2. Doth he establish it with an, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed?  
3. Doth he not insold the object? He tells him what he would do for him. So that all that he would do for him was what he believed, on which imputation.  
Yourself add. This very taking of the promise, and his accepting of the Covenant, and that he did receive that which God gave, was that wherefore the Lord reckoned him a righteous man.  
Is not here receiving the object, the promise, the covenant, and what God gave.  
Is not Christ and his righteousness in all these, the seed, and righteousness of God? If it be by receiving these, he was accounted just, these must not be excluded, this testimony is not against us, but for, and against you, who exclude these.  
I will entreat the Reader to consider some of his particulars in the same work.  
The Covenant is the ministration of life and justification— 
New con. p. 75.  the Covenant of grace shows him a righteousness to satisfy this Law, that himself never wrought; shows him a way of obtaining pardon by the satisfaction of another.  
Abraham saith the Lord, I will give thee a seed, and in 
P. 108.  that seed both thou thyself, and all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed.  
There was no other way to make mankind partaker of the Covenant of grace but only by faith, by believing God, and taking 
P. 118. & 119.  the promise and the gift of righteousness by Jesus Christ. 
P. 120.   
Because we believe the promises and the Covenant of grace, therefore the Lord accepts us and counts us righteous.  
I would die that I might have Christ and his righteousness. 
P. 170.   
What difference is there now between him and the rest of ours, who make the same things objects, and taken in to make us just?  
As that of Christ the seed, etc.  
And though righteousness be not named there, it is enfolded, and explained by the Prophets who reveal Christ in the Covenant, the Lord our righteousness, and that with him was to be brought in everlasting righteousness. And it was granted when the Apostle layeth down circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith: faith receiveth righteousness which God promised, being the Seal of the whole Covenant there is enfolded the seed, Christ's, and Christ's righteousness.  
Mr. Forbs is the last, to which testimony I answer.  
1. In the same place he saith. That opinion of the Metonymicke sense of faith, agreeth with the truth of the matter in itself.  
2. When he saith that it is taken properly, yet it is with cautions. If they that take it so, err not in the signification of it, or the true sense of the imputation of it.  
3. And now let us consider what he doth farther. 
C. 31. p. 161.   
He teacheth Christ's righteousness the only matter of justification.  
And the Lords imputing thereof the form. That opinion (of Gods accepting our imperfect righteousness) can never be maintained 
P. 163.  with God's honour.  
That God justifieth us by accounting unto us Christ's obedience, which is in itself perfect righteousness, in such a sort as by this his imputation, it is ours as truly, and doth as truly clear 
P. 164.  us before God as if it were our own indeed, and we ourselves had indeed performed it.  
We must first have righteousness, for God justifieth no man 
P. 169.  that hath not righteousness. It is abomination, Prov. 17. 15.  
That opinion of those who place our righteousness in faith, properly taken, as it is the act of the heart without relation of it as an apprehending instrument unto Christ, is much more pernicious 
☞  than the opinion of the Papists. 
P. 80.   
Nothing in Heaven or Earth in man or without man, is the matter of man's righteousness before God, except only Christ and his obedience. Therefore it is said by the Apostle that he is made to us of God, etc. 1. Cor. 1. 30. and in the Prophet, Jer. 23. 6. 
P. 85. P. 90.  and 33. 16. where also he urgeth that text, 2 Cor. 5. ult. and cleareth it, and Dan. 9 24.  
He urgeth God's justice in justifying, and that if God should justify us— by faith, as it is a work or habit in us, God should never be seen to be just, etc. the Saints in Scripture have acknowledged their faith imperfect, whence he concludeth nothing 
P. 98.  can be righteousness except Christ alone.  
And now let the learned judge of those passages: The clear approbation of many Authors. The judgement of able, learned, 
P. 1. trea.  and unpartial men is found in perfect concurrence with it: And that  
From about Luther's and Calvines time, the fairest stream of 
P. 44.  Interpreters runs to water and refresh this interpretation.  
And so whether you have cause of shame and blushing for the same, and whether Mr. Walker had not cause of blaming you for not being ashamed and blushing: I say let the Reader judge.  
Musculus is clear for us, as by these testimonies transcribed.  
Est quidem sides vera quaedam qualitas in pectoribus nostris, sed non justifications quatenus est nova qualitas, sed quatenus gratiam Dei in Christo oblatam apprehendit, In Rom. 3. 24. etc.  
Quomodo illa in nobis impleta est per Christum, primum imputative, aliena justitia, quae Christi est, adeoque & nostra, quia caro sumus de carne ejus & os de ossibus illius: hac ratione vere justi sumus, quia scilicet Christus nostra est justitia, sanctificatio, redemptio, 1 Cor. 1. ad Rom. c. 8. vers. 3. etc.  
Huc etiam facit quod justitiam fidei vocat justitiam Dei, non ob hoc tantum, quod illa Deo tribuit justitiam, sed & ob id quod nos per illius justitiam gratis in Christo filio ipsius justificamur per fidem, ita ut aliena justitia justi simus, non propria. Maxima pestis est totius mundi, quod hanc Dei justitiam talem esse non agnoscit, per quam nos justificemur, sed putat nostra ipsorum nos esse justitia salvandos; electi vero non ita, unde quid Apostolus scribat, Arbitror, inquit, omnia &c— Ex eo vero non ascribemus nobis aliam justitiam quam eam quae est Dei per fidem Christi. In Rom. 10. 3.  
Verum placuit antithesi uti peccatorum nostrorum & justitiae Christi. Nos peccatores eramus, ille justus. Ut commutatio fieret, nostra peccata imposuit filio justo, ac vicissim justitiam illius communicavit nobis peccatoribus. Propter aliena igitur peccata factus ille peccatum est, & nos propter alienam justitiam justitia Dei facti sumus: sicut enimille non suis, sed nostris peccatis peccatum a Deo, ita nos non nostra ipsorum, sed ipsius justitia justitia Dei facti sumus a Deo.—  
Facta namque mutatione peccata nostra sua, & justitiam suam nostram fecit, etc.  
Sed secit nos justitiam, id est, imputavit nobis justitiam, idque non nostram, quae nulla est, sed suam, gratuitam videlicet & olementer a se imputatam, quam habeamus non in nobis, sed in ipso filio.—  
Loquitur de justitia quam nobis in Christo imputat sicuti peccata nostra illi imputavit— In hac commutatione omnis nostra salus est sita, ubi & Augustini illud; Ipsiergo peccatum, etc. in 2 Cor. 5. ult.  
Deinde sub Lege esse debitorem est esse faciendae Legi, ad obediendum illius praeceptis, ac subeundum transgressionis paenashic quaeritur an isto quoque sensu factus fuerit sub Lege Christus Dei Filius? Etenim si justo non est Lex posita sed injustis, quisnan reperietur ex omnibus hominibus, ad quem minus pertineat subjectio ista qua Legi sit subditus, quam Christus Filius Dei omnium innocentissimus ac justissimus? Accedit & hoc, quod qui Dominus est Legis liber est ab ejus observantia: talis autem est Christus, etc.  
Verum ut paucis sententiam meam expediam, non impediunt rationes, quo minus etiam hoc posteriori sensu, Christum sub Lege factum esse intelligamus. Licet enim haud quaquam propter se subjici debuerit Legi; subjectus tamen suit propter alios quos redimere debebat. Qui aliorum in se debita recipit, non minus debitor est quam si propter sua ipsius esset debita creditori obstrictus.  
Christus autem propterea missus suit in hunc mundum ut debita nostra inse recipenet, proque illis satisfaceret; sic venit in sua factusque est sub Lege, haud propter se, sed propter eos qui sub Lege servient es condemnationi erant propter illius transgressiones obnoxii sic subjicit, ut eos qui etc. Musc. in Gal. 4.  
And now for your other two Treatises of the same matter, God willing I shall examine all in your own order.  

An Examination of all the remaining parts of Master John goodwin's Treatise of Justification.  

CHAP. III. Containing other proofs from Scripture.  
ROM such passages of Scripture where the works of the Law are absolutely excluded from Justification, Rom. 3. 28. etc. Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 3. 20. etc. If man be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed, he shall be justified by the works of the Law.  
Answ. 1. When as we hold Christ's Righteousness imputed, it's not of the active obedience alone (which is pretended) but passive also; both; by both these imputed, we are made just before God, justified. Let notice be taken of this once for all.  
2. Works of the Law cannot be absolutely excluded. When as there is an absolute necessity of their concurrence and influence contributing to the sacrifice of Christ and his Priestboo●, raising them both to that height of acceptation for others: excluding those works. You exclude the passive obedience also, which is not (without the other) sufficient, ex concessis, which it seemeth you intent not in objecting only against that which is active.  
3. If works of the Law be absolutely necessary (as is granted) to the sacrifice and Priesthood, whither those, namely the perfect integrity and purity of his nature and obedience, confessedly concurring and inflowing to Justification, are not so to him as Mediator?  
4. The acts of Christ's humiliation, all of those servile 
Obedientiae meritum hoc respectu consideratae nobis imputarilibens concesserim, ut quae Justificationis rationem ex parte constituit. Haec autem omnia quarenus humiliationis rationem obtinent, eatenus et satisfactionis naturam induunt, atque ea ratione nobis ad justificationem imputantur. M. Gat. adver. par. 1. p. 1. n. I, 2. Satisfactio autem Christi actibus perpessionibusque illis comprehensa, est justitiae, propter quam nos justificamur, materia. ad Gom. p. 5.  acts performed by him are confessedly concurring to Justification; mediatory. I shall willingly grant the merit of obedience in this respect considered, to be imputed to us as that which in part doth constitute the nature of Justification; all these insomuch as they are humiliation, so fare they also put on the nature of satisfaction, and in that consideration are imputed unto us. And elsewhere, The satisfaction of Christ comprehended in those acts and sufferings is the matter of the righteousness, for which we are justified.  
These (it is true) are distinguished from those acts conformed to the Law, flowing from internal holiness: by that reverend Author. If truly, than those acts of humiliation did not flow from internal holiness, etc. they did not proceed from Christ's love to God and man, from humility, from righteousness and piety in his soul. And if they did, the whole was performed to the mediatory Law▪ and for us, not himself, that he should live who was comprehensor from the first moment, lived certainly.  
Master Bradshaw, though he acknowledge Christ bound as man to the Law (notwithstanding personal union) yet he maketh it a part of Christ's humiliation, p. 62. And some part, a part of his mediation, ibid. (truly what was a part of his humiliation, was a part of his Mediation) Every part thereof being of that nature that without the same no other satisfaction could have been available or effectual, and all proceeding from such an estate and condition, as he needed not to have undergone, nor bade not if he had not taken upon him to satisfy for sinners. Some part of the satisfaction which be made, must needs consist therein, and therefore it must in some degree or other be imputed unto them, to their justification, id. p. 63. It must needs be also in some measure or other a part of the righteousness in and by the imputation whereof a sinner is justified, p. 64. Therefore the very assuming of our nature, and all the obedience he yielded thereupon, and by reason thereof, etc. seem to be some part of the actual execution of his Priestly Office, by means whereof, in part he pacified God, and consequently in part satisfied for sin, p. 65.  
He was borne of a woman, not for his own sake but for others, whose Saviour and Redeemer he is, so being borne he was made under the Law also, not for his own cause, but for ours. Yea therefore he was borne of a woman, that for our sakes he might be under the Law. Also as be became a servant for our sake; so in that very regard he became under the Law of a servant, p. 66.  
So much of his conformity to the Law, as concerneth his humiliation, must either be unnecessary, or part of his Satisfaction, ib. p. 66. etc.  
By all which it is apparent that works of the Law are not absolutely excluded from Justification.  
5. The very passive obedience of Christ, will not absolutely exclude the Law from Justification. 
c Christus in vita passivam habuit actionem, in morte passionem activam, dum salutem operatetur in medio terrae Bern. Serm. 4. hebd. panosae, Col I 24. In passione summus amor Dei & ardentissima erga genus humanum dilectio, patientia. obedientia, humilitas, fiducia, invocatio, spes. Et damnati patiendo satisfaciunt legi, si Christus patiendo, Gerrard de justif. sect. 6.  Christ in his life had a passive action, in his death an active passion, whilst be wrought salvation in the midst of the earth. In his passion there was the highest love of God, and most ardent to mankind, patience, obedience, humility, trust, invocation, hope. And the damned by suffering satisfy the Law, if Christ did so by suffering.  

d Christus ca pro nobis praestitit quibus legi illi pro culpis a nobis admissis satisfactum est Imo operum etiam legem in Justificatione peccatoris interveniente satisfactione, stabisiti, cerissimum est.  The Law was satisfied by the sufferings of Christ. Christ performed those things for us, by which satisfaction is made to the Law for our sins. And 'tis most certain that the Law of works is established in justification by satisfaction intervening.  
If there be an equivalent price of obedience and righteousness 
Si obedien●iae sive justitiae illi quam nos legi, vel Deo potius vilegis debebamus, quod aequipolleat, pretium aliquod sit a Christo pro nobis depensum, & a Deo ips●o eo nomine acceptum, legi certe divinae nihil quicquam derogatur▪ S●abilitur dum impletur in Got advers. par. 1. Sect. 10. n. 8, 9 p. 42. Etiam paena est impletio legis, Pareus de act. & pass p. 83. Obligamur ad paenam velad obedientiam, ib.  paid by Christ, and accepted in that name by God, which we did own to that Law, or rather to God by reason of that Law, than nothing certainly is derogated from the Divine Law.— It is established whilst it is fulfilled.  
Punishment is the fulfilling of the Law. We are bound either to punishment or obedience: There is justice and righteousness in repairing injuries and wrongs. Thus much will arise from passages in your 1 Concl. tr. 2. p. 3. so that there is not an absolute exclusion of the Law when as sufferings are asserted.  
6. Again, It seemeth much to me that you should hold an absolute exclusion of the works of the Law when as you establish Faith in a proper sense, and as a work of obedience, as righteousness, if it be required in the Law (which considered against your denial, the learned hold) the Law is not to be absolutely excluded. And though it be not in the Law originally; yet you know, It may be superadded, and in the Law as now it stands with additions and improvements: Which is your own distinction, Treat. 2. p. 47. and 48. I may apply it to my purpose.  
7. Once more, if there be no medium between a perfect freedom from sin, and perfect and complete righteousness. And that in freedom from sin, the man is ipso facto made perfectly righteous, Righteousness being perfect conformity to Gods Law. Supposing that freedom to appertain to Justification, to be the form thereof as you. I wonder how this conformity to the Law can be absolutely excluded from Justification. If there be a truth in your 2. Conclusion, your absolute exclusion will not stand.  
8. Than if Remission of sin (the form of Justification as you) includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law, as the imputation of the Law fulfilled includes not imputation of sin, that such an one is looked upon is one that hath fulfiled the Law. If in the act of remission of sins, there be included the imputation of a perfect righteousness, which is all one with a perfect fulfilling of the Law, as you Conclus. 4. p. 5. 2 Treat. Whether this absolute exclusion of the works of the Law from justification be consistent with it, both true?  
9 I will but name it. Others (you know) are against you and teach a necessity of obedience to the Law to justification, as our debt, and that eternal way of God to live.  
And that these places intent not obedience to the Law simply, but performed by our own persons, though this is not personal performance, and that such obedience is impossible, it followeth not of the Law, performed for us by our Mediator. So our Church, etc. See before, and some of the reasons now named are confessedly, enforce; as, where the death of Christ, is satisfaction to the Law.  
But you cannot endure this answer; and therefore against it, say, 1. Not to be justified by the works of the Law, is as much as not to be justified by any works of the Law whatsoever.  
I answer, True, performed by a man's self, not by another, and whether what hath been premised, be not sufficient against an absolute exclusion of the Law, which is in your argument, and that ex concessis, I leave to your second thoughts.  
2. Neither is there blame in the Apostle, or unfaithfulness: Seeing, where he layeth down that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ, he layeth down the works of obedience of Christ to the Law. Not to use repetitions else premised, that necessary influence and concurrence of it with the passive obedience.  
3. Neither is it therefore a snare upon men, seeing there is intimation sufficient, and inclusion of his obedience to the Law, so manifest as hath been showed.  
4. Neither had Saint Paul need your teaching him to preach, he Preached Christ our Mediator and Surety, humbled to death for us, Obedient to death for us. And justification by Faith in him. All which notwithstanding, they were ignorant of that which is called God's righteousness, and hence they established their own Righteousness, and submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God, which is Christ, the end of the Law for righteousness to believers. When as there is such an evident, absolute, necessary concurrence and inclusions and interpretations as have been spoken of, you may see the vanity of this illusion.  
Here you urge objected against yourself, that Paul gave sufficient intimation of the righteousness of Christ, when as he first excludeth what is done by ourselves, and mentioneth Christ's doing the works of the Law. The first from Tit. 3. 5. and the second from Gal. 4. 4.  
To which you answer, and first to that of Titus. 
1   
That the active obedience of Christ should be wholly excluded, 
G. P. 62.  and be made a standby, so as to have nothing at all to do in the great business of Justification, this discourse no way affirmeth. It hath been expressly acknowledged from the beginning to have a gracious and blessed influence thereinto, as it issueth and falleth into his passive obedience. Which together may be called a Righteousness for which, but at no hand a Righteousness with which we are justified, etc.  
Very well, this is what I observe, the destruction of 
Answer.  your argument from an absolute exclusion (this to be the matter of form, is not an absolute exclusion, which yet is your conclusion in this argument where you call it an essential requisite.) In the mean while, You know there are many, all that I know, there are many, all that I know, but two or three of you, that make it the matter of our Justification, and form also as it's applied, and establish the merit, what ever you say, and but say, to the contrary.  
Therefore ex concessis the rejection (in those words) 
2  of works which we have done;  
First, may suppose, the works of righteousness of Christ, as part of the satisfaction necessarily inflowing: which is answer to what you say.  
Secondly, This must be supposed and established, as you, p. 16. in this business though not named.  
When as it is said not by works of Righteousness which we have done, it's allone as to say our own selves have done, for we and ourselves are all one.  
May? nay must, seeing they are a cause and absolutely necessary, as yourself teach. As Christ's death is supposed, so this inflowing necessarily, being an essential requisite.  
Neither will it be put out of question, because the Apostie nameth 
3  God's mercy. For as God's mercy and Christ's death stand together and have place in Justification, so Christ's works concurring with Christ's death, the mercy of God and Christ's merits agreed sweetly.  
Neither by that that mercy is explained in the new birth, 
4  and washing with the Holy Ghost. For mercy in the effect regeneration will consist also with Justification: washing is a general Justification and sanctification species or particulars thereof, at the same time performed by the same Spirit, as 1 Cor. 6. 11. they are inseparable.  
Yea saving implieth as freedom from guilt and punishment, so righteousness by which, though it be not here expressed. Finally, passing that nonsense, given as a reason, why this place is impertinent, in these words: Because it is evident that the Apostle here rejects the works of Righteousness, which he names from being any causes antecedamously moving God to save us, and not from being the form of Justification. For it maketh the Apostle not to exclude works of Righteousness from being the form of Justification, and so to be a Patron of Popery, whose tenet that is. To what followeth.  
That, If it be granted the works of Christ must of necessity 
G.  be here employed: All that will follow is, that not our works but Christ's moved God to save us, by the washing of the new birth.  
To which I answer, not Christ's works, but God's mercy in Christ, and by his active and passive obedience. Mercy moved God to choose us in Christ, to appoint us to salvation by the means of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accordingly to execute the same in whole salvation, in Justification; though it moveth as being the meritorious cause, it is also the matter, as after, and form as applied in washing us by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit applying or sprinkling us with the blood of that holy Lamb, washeth, sanctifieth, and justifieth.  
The same blood of that holy Lamb, or active and passive obedience of Christ that justifieth, is not only a meritorious cause, and so sit matter (which could not be, if it had not worth) but also that which applied supplieth the place of a form justifying, which were it never so worthy, without application it could never do. When you lay down Reasons you shall hear more.  
To that place, Gal. 4. 4. that you may illude it, you say, 
P. 66.  First, Christ's being made under the Law, doth not signify Christ's subjection to the Moral Law, but rather the Ceremonial Law; that was it we were under, from that he redeemed us, and it is not reasonable he made under any other Law.  
I answer, We were under the Moral Law, its curse and condemnation, under its strict and personal performance, as well as it, considered as a rule of life. And though it continueth as a rule of life, we are by Christ redeemed from the curse and condemnation thereof, and strict personal performance of it. And this was the effect and end of Christ's making under the Law. And there is more reason that this should be enfolded, for as much as this was the greatest bondage of the twain.  
Secondly, Yousay, Taking it for the Moral Law, it was 
G.  not to the preceptive part, but the curse. Which standing, the case is plain, here is no place for the works of Christ. No Author, affirming either the death of Christ, or the imputation of his death, should be the formal or material cause of Justification.  
1. It was to the preceptive part as well as the curse. Both are our debt, our Surety was accursed for us, and fulfiled all Righteousness for us; paid our whole debt.  
2. When as you say his death was the price, by which he deserved our Justification. You will have us, and we you, to remember, It was not so without influence of the active obedience of Christ. You will not have the active obedience separated from the passive, nor again the passive from the active, in respect of this common and joint effect of forgiveness of sins, or justification arising from a concurrence of them both, P. 132. etc.  
And Sir, it is the common tenet of Protestants, that the obedience of Christ is the matter of justification, and imputation, the form, that is such by analogy, and instead thereof. And Saint Paul saith, that By the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous, constituted. Nothing but righteousness can make righteous, that applied maketh us so, or justifieth us, and you must acknowledge that your own phrase, often used.   

CHAP. IU. A Demonstration from Scripture of the non-imputation of Christ's Righteousness for Justification.  
FRom Rom 3. 21. But now the righteousness of God is made manifest without the righteousness of the Law, having witness of the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that do believe.  
If the righteousness of faith consists in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, than is it not, nor can it be made manifest without the Law, the works of the Law; but the righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the Law, therefore it doth not consist in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, P. 70.  
The righteousness of faith is that which faith receiveth, which God giveth or imputeth, are righteousness of Christ, and it is revealed without the Law; (saith Pareus) 
a Non in Lege, non est ergo legalis.  Not in the Law, therefore it is not Legal. By that is the knowledge of sin, not of the righteousness by which we are are justified. 
b Lex ex professo eam non tradit, sed urget justitiam operum; qui fecerit ea vivet in eyes Pareus in locii.  The Law, professedly delivereth not that, but urgeth righteousness of works; The man that doth ●hom shall live in them. 
c Dixerat supra, c 1. 17 retegitur per Evangelium: quod hic repetendum. Sic innuit praeter Legem aliad doctrinae genus in Ecclesia a Lege distinctum, argumento & usu. Lex in praeceptis sita est, arguit peccata, & damnationem adfert: Evangelium in pro missione gratiae consistit, offerens justitiam & salutem gratuitam credentibus in Christum— innuit etiam duplicem esse justitiam; unam hominum vitio: alteram reus in locum.  He had said before, c. 1. 17. it is revealed by the Gospel which is here to be repeated. So be intimateth another kind of Doctrine besides that of the Law, distinct from the Law, in the Church, both in argument and use. The Law is in precepts, it argueth sin, and bringeth damnation; the Gospel doth consist in the promise of grace, offering to believers in Christ righteousness and free salvation— he doth intimate also that there is a double righteousness, one of the Law, or legal, or of works, ineffectual and impossible by man's fault: another of the Gospel, or Evangelieall, or of faith, effectual and salutary. What that of faith is we know, that which faith apprehendeth, so Pareus in a Metonymick sense, laying hold of the object. 
d Adfore hac sides justitiam, non effective, quasi habitualiren justos justos efficient— nec materialites, quasi ipsa fit illudiquo justi consumu● sed objective quatenus in Christum qui est justitia nostra dirigitur, & organice, quatenus donum justitiae Christi merito credentibus gratis imputatae apprehendir, Par inv. 22.  This faith bringeth righteousness, not by working it, as making us habitually just— nor materially as if faith were that by which we are counted just: but objectively, as it is directed to Christ who is our righteousness, and instrumentally, as it apprehendeth the righteousness of Christ, a gift by Christ, me●●ts freely imputed to believers. Where is added, 
e ●●mel observetur, Phrasinm●● qui poll●ntiam (amongst others) Justia non nostr●●, asiena; or non propria, or prop●●● See p. 191. 190. & 187. And that it is justi●ia per o●●dienti●● Christi, & justitia impurata● D●o, p. 190.  Let the equivalence of the phrases be at once observed. righteousness not outs, another's, not our own, or our own, that it is righteousness tie the obedience of Christ, and righteousness imoputed by God.  
1. So that I answer, that righteousness is not in the text of my book.  
2. Those that are justified by Christ, etc. are so by a righteousness not revealed in the Law. But the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ imputed, which is expressly manifested by the Gospel without the Law.  
To the Argument I deny the consequence of the mayor: that which the Law revealeth is our own, ●e that doth them 
Qui. 〈◊〉.  shall live in them, as before.  
It is not another's, not Christ's, not imputed righteousness, not Gospel righteousness, the righteousness of God, as the Apostle calleth it, or the righteousness of faith.  
When as you say the body and substance of the righteousness itself, is nothing else but a pure Law or the works of it. Your adversaries say it consisteth in both active and passive righteousness; and being that it is a righteousness not performed by us, but another, our Surety: (that of the Law being, Qui▪ fecerit ea, vivet) you may perceive that it is not legal, and that it is manifested without the Law.  
To this you seem to object. 1. That this Sanctuary hath been already polluted, and the ho●●es of the Altar broken down. I answer, Let the Reader and yourself g● again and see.  
2. The righteousness of faith cannot be fully taught without any consideration of the Law, ex concessis, seeing Christ's righteousness active hath a necessary concurrence and influence to make his passion a fit atonement.  
3. Though the works performed by Christ be the works of the Law, and we justified by them (together with the passive) which also is obedience to the Law, yet they are not legal righteousness: Qui fecerit ea, is the voice of the Law; were they our proper personal works, it were to purpose; being the righteousness of another, the Law revealeth it not, neither are they properly legal.  
4. To this righteousness active and passive, the Law, and Prophets give testimony as unto the Surety himself, so to his righteousness; and this is that which we teach to be applied by faith, which you confess hath testimony. The Law, etc. open the seed of the woman, the blessed seed, the Lord our righteousness, making an end of sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness. And when as that is so Absolutely necessary as is showed to constitute our Priest and his Sacrifice, and the efficiency of both than and new: It is a wonder to me that the same mouth should argue to an utter exclusion of it.  
Finally▪ this is to all and upon all by faith, we confess opposition between faith and the works of the Law, personal performances, neither is there perfect agreement between the works of Christ and the Law, there is as much difference in justification as between our own and another's, a sureties, what is given and imputed by God, received by faith, and what a man doth in his own person: Harken to Calvine on the place.  
In a few words he showeth what 
Paucis verbis ostendit qualis sit haec justificatio, nempe quod in Christo resideat, per ●idem ve●o apprehenditur.  manner of justification this is, forsooth that it resideth in Christ, but is apprehended by faith.  
After that he gathereth. First, the 
Primum justificationis nostrae cansam non ad hominum judicium re●erri, sed ad Dei tribunal. Ubi nulla justitia censetur nisi perfecta absolutaque Legis obedientia. Quod si nemo hominum reperitur qui ad eam exactam sanctitatem conscenderit: sequitur omnes justitiam in se ipsis destitutos. Tum occurrat Christus oportet, qui ut solus justus est, ita suam justitiam in nos transferendo justos nos reddit. Nunc vides ut justitia fidei justitia Christi sit.  cause of our justification not to be referred to men's judgement, but to God's tribunal. Where no righteousness is judged such but the perfect and absolute obedience of the Law. If so be that no man be found who hath attained that exact holiness, it followeth that all are without righteousness in themselves. Than Christ must come to help; who as he alone is just, so be maketh us just, transferring his righteousness on us. Now 
☞  you see that the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ. Where he calleth Christ the matter, and the word, and faith the instrument, and addeth:  
Wherhfore faith is said to justify, 
Quare fides justifica●e dicitur quia instrumentum est recipiendi Christi, in quo nobis communicatur justitia.  because it is the instrument of receiving Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated unto us.  
And than, After we be made partakers 
Postquam factisumus Christi participes, non ipsi solum justi sumus, sed opera nostra justa reputantur coram Deo.  of Christ, not only we are just, but also our works are reputed just before God.  
Where you have our complete Doctrine.— And consider with what vain confidence you call him to your part.   

CHAP. V From Rom. 5. 16, 17. Compared; where  
THe gift of righteousness, as v. 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel, is said, v. 16. to be a free gift of many offences to justification. Whence thus, that righteousness which is the gift of many offences, that is, the forgiveness of many offences or sins to justification; cannot be a perfect legal righteousness imputed to us, or made ours by imputation. But the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified, is the gift of many offences unto justification; therefore it cannot be a perfect legal righteousness, made ours by imputation.  
I deny the gift of righteousness, and the free gift or forgiunes of many offences are the same, they differ as 'cause & effect, as sin and condemnation are cause and effect, so righteousness and remission of sins. Righteousness imputed hath its immediate effect, justification. It is a righteous making, of which remission of sins, is (to speak properly) a concomitant or consequent effect. Those that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, are thereby justified, and so receive forgiveness of sins. So vers. 18. By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all to justification of life. Where there is the effect or end, and the cause by which Zions converts shall be redeemed with righteousness, Isa. 1. 27.  
Life reigneth out of abundance of 
Vita regnat ex redundantia gratiae, hoc est redundante gratia & dono justitiae, quod à Deo redundanter nobis imputatione donatur, ● nobis autem fide accipitur, Pareus p. 367.  grace, that is, by grace abounding, and by the gift of righteousness, which is abundantly give● us of God by imputation, but is received of us by faith.  
If we desire to be freed from 
Si ex illo liberari (Regno) & in hoc transferri desideramus, do num justitiae in Christo fide accipiamus necesse est, Par. p. 368.  that Kingdom, and translated unto this, it is necessary we receive the gift of righteousness in Christ by faith. That received, justifieth, on which remission or freedom followeth.  
Life ever accompanieth righteousness, 
Vi'a perpemo comitatur justitiam, ut mors peccatum; sicut ubi peccatum ibi mors est ex ordine justi●iae, & veritate comminationis divinae, sie ubi justitia— five gratis impurata ut in fidelibus electis ibi vita R egnat partim ex eodem justitiae divinae ordine, partim & maxim ex promissione gratiae, Qui credit ●n filium habet vitam aeternam.  as death doth sin: as where sin is, there is death out of God's justice, and the truth of divine threatening: so where righteousness— or freely imputed as in the elect believing, there life ra●●neth partly out of the same order of Divine justice, and specially by the promise of grace; He that believeth in the Son bathe eternal life.  
1. We say not that the righteousness by which we are justified, is a perfect legal righteousness, that is, righteousness performed by our own persons.  
2. Yet we affirm that righteousness by which imputed we are justified, includeth our Sureties full satisfaction to God's Law, and doth not absolutely exclude the the same as you teach.  
Take that part, Christ's death for us this the Apostle 
Jute vocat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justam satisfaction 'em, quoniam suit Legis impletio per paenam, p. 370. in v. 18.  rightly calleth a just satisfaction (saith Pa●e●s) because it was the fulfilling of the Law by punishment. Here we shall have you bound, so that the fulfilling of the Law simply cannot be excluded: and than you know the confessed concurrence and influence of Christ's active obedience and necessity thereof is afferted by yourself; and that the Devil and damned suffering do not satisfy the Law to life, as Gerhardus.  
We deny not, but affirm the righteousness of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified, extendeth unto a man's justification and forgiveness of sins: but may well deny that justification is by the forgiveness of sins. It is by righteousness imputed, on which remission followeth, and if it should be by it, and that as the form (as you) it should be in order of nature before justification.  
It is by imputation of both active and pass●●● obedience, both which have a precedency in order, both to justification, as that by which, and so to pardon of sin by the same reason.  
When you say, if a ma●s, sins be once forgiven him he hath no need if imputetion of any farther righteousness; p. 75. for his justification; I subscribe: yet that they may be forgiven there is need of the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience, active and passive, that which justifieth, on which there is no imputation of sins.  
That remission of sins is whole justification or justification properly; I deny: it is an effect of righteousness imputed by your texts, vers. 16. 18. following just making or justification, which we assert against you, must be by righteousness; and that applied to them, for they are said to be holy, and unreprovable, and unblamable, wholly fair, white as Snow, whiter than the Snow, perfected for ever, for which there must be somewhat applied effecting the same. We profess no such righteousness elsewhere, but only the active and passive righteousness of our Surety given us by God, and applied by faith.  
When as you tell us that the righteousness we have by Christ, wherewith we are said to be justified before God by believing, is only a negative righteousness, not a positive, it is nothing but 
☜  not-imputation of sin, which you call a righteousness by interpretation, as having the privileges, but not the nature of a perfect legal righteousness.  
1. We say not that the positive righteousness by which, is legal, that is, of our own performance, but another; and so must be called Evangelicall.  
2. We put a righteousness, Christ's entire obedience from conception even to death, as Rom. 5. 19  
3. We deny it to consist in nothing but a non-imputation of sin, that is no righteousness, it is righteousness in your interpretation, not the Lords.  
The privileges of one legally just yourself give to faith elsewhere, as here to forgiveness, and faith in that respect may be our whole justification, if that be enough to have the privileges, so I may say of repentance.  
Let us see how you make this good.  
1. You show it out of Rom. 4. 6. compared with the 7. and 
G.  8. where it is called a righteousness without works, which must needs be negative; the imputation of righteousness is interpreted nothing else but a not-imputing of sin●●, and so it consists in pardon of sin.  
1. I answer, these places yourself urge for imputation of faith in a proper sense, and so confounded faith and justification or imputation of righteousness.  
2. Righteousness positive is said to be imputed, v. 6. v. 11.  
3. That is taken for the righteousness of Christ, which I have proved is righteousness without works, that is, not personally performed by us, though it be by another, that is, Christ.  
4. That non-imputation of sin is not the same with imputation of righteousness, but the latter is the cause, the former the effect, as is showed by me.  
And as for Calvine, he excludeth not the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and calleth this the effect thereof, which also is showed before.  
You add, 2 Cor. 5. 19 & 21. that which he calls v. 19 in God the not imputation of sins unto us, he calls vers. 21. a being made the righteousness of God in him.  
I deny it, and there they differ as 'cause and effect, that in the 21. verse. For, etc. is the cause of that in the 19 vers. and Calvine on the place faith,  
Righteousness here is taken not for 
Justitia hic non pro qualtitate aur habitu, sed pro imputatione accipitur, co quod accepta nobis fertur Christi justitia.  a quality or habit, but for imputation, because Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. To that Question.  
How are we just before God? forsooth 
Quomodo justi sumus cotam Deo? qualiter Christus suit peccator, personam enim nostram quodammodo suscepit ut reus nostro nomine here & tanqu●m peccator judicaretur, non propriis sed alienis delictis; quum pu●us foret ipse & immunis ab omni culpa, paenamque subiret nobis non sibi debitam. Ira sc. nunc justi sumus in ipso, non quia operibus propriis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, sed quoniam censemur Christi justitia, quam side induimus ut nostra hat, Calv.  as Christ was a sinner, for in a sort he took our person that he might be made guilty and judged as a sinner, not by his own, but others sins, seeing he was pure and free from all fault, and was to undergo punishment due, not to us, but himself. So now we are just in him, not because we may satisfy the judgement of God by our own works, but because we are accounted in his righteousness, which by faith we put on that it may be made ours.  
But Acts 13. 38, 39 openeth it clearly, where the Be it known unto you that through this man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins, and by him all that beeleeve are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Justification hence is laid down by the way of negative 
G.  or privative righteousness, not a positive; so that the justification is not with righteousness, (properly so called) but a justification from sin, etc. p 77.  
1. This place proveth that through Christ is preached 
A.  pardon and justification, etc. It followeth not that there is no positive righteousness. Nay through this man infoldeth the same, that is through his entire satisfaction preached also.  
2. Forgiveness and justification from, etc. implieth that party righteous, else should God justify a wicked man which is abominable.  
3. Recount your great axiom of things immediate contraria. And see whether from the position of pardon you do not infer and put perfect righteousness, and suppose it to the passive obedience, its energy or being propitious.  
4. Finally, the dispulsion of darkness, etc. any contrary is by the introduction of its contrary; light, etc.  
It is righteousness imputed that hath attending pardon.  
You say this is the proper signification and most usual, not 
G.  to signify giving or bestowing a complete positive righteousness, but discharging, citing, Prov. 17. 15.  
This is showed otherwise by that text: when God justifieth a wicked man, he maketh him just first, thence the rights and privileges of just men, these privileges of a just man go together, else shall the privileges of a just man be common to him with the wicked, abomination.  
And one would believe just making should be proper and most usual who shall observe it your own ordinary 
☜  expression, See p. 35. p. 38. out of Haymo. Treat. 2. p. 112. 116. 117. 118. 144. twice 145. 150. 163. 136. it is nothing else, p. 211. and I find remission of sins confessed the privilege of a man just. p. 5. 1. Treat.  
That text Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay, etc. it is God that justifieth, showeth the effect by the cause, because God justifieth there is no condemnation, so Rom. 5. 9 justification is by the death of God's Son, and this we confess done by faith, as Gal. 3. 11. as an instrument, not by our doing this; yet must you not exclude the obedience of Christ until death, that which qualifieth: yea, it's included in death that it be a pleasing sacrifice, the synecdoche will salute that, of which more after, it answereth that Jes. 53. 11. where he is said to bear our iniquities.  
For Calvine and the rest cited by you, they have the same answer, and that truly in the judgement of many witnesses; amongst whom there is Cbamieere one of your Authors, I and Pareus, who showeth that the judgement of all, Calvine and all the rest; and let the Reader judge who is injurious, of which you complain.   

CHAP. VI Argument 5. P. 84.  
THis is taken from the opening of Phil. 3. 9 And be found in him not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith. Hence you observe.  
1. He saith not that he may be found in his righteousness, much less in his righteousness imputed unto him, but simply in himself.  
To be found in him not having his own righteousness, is to be found having union and communion with him and his righteousness. Christ righteousness must be supplied in opposition to his own, to be found in him, is to be found in the Lord his righteousness, in him there is redemption, remission of sins in his blood. You grant his passive righteousness, yet here you oppose him, Christ and righteousness; and as for your exception against imputation, herein you are a Wottonist, an Arminian, and Socinian, and will not understand that imputation, is but the application and donation of the righteousness of Christ by God apprehended by faith, which are necessarily supposed to mine having him and his righteousness.  
Beza will teach you better, To 
Inveniri in Christo, tacitam habet relationem ad Dei judicium. Is enim in amando contemplatur unum suum Christum in quo acquiescat. Itaque quos comperit in Christo esse (id est, Christo per sidem insitos) in iis nullam invenit condemnationem: Quia justitia qualem ipse requirit in nobis, id est, perfecta, accumulata exornatos eos invenit. Nimirum Christum justitia per sidem nobis imputara.  be found in Christ hath a  relation to God's judgement: for be in loving doth contemplate his own Christ in whom he may be well pleased. Therefore those whom be findeth to be in Christ, that is, in-set into Christ by faith) in these he findeth no condemnation, because he findeth them arrayed in righteousness, such as he requireth in us, that is, perfect and heaped down, even Christ's righteousness imputed to us by faith.  
In him, that is, Christ my Lord, who 
In ipso, sc. Christo Domino meo, qui est justitia, etc. Fidei autem est quia per fidem illam apprehendimus, cum sit im putativa & Christi merito no bis applicetur, Aretius' i● lo.  is righteansnesse, etc. It is of faith because by saith we apprehended it, because it is imputative, and is applied to us by Christ's merit, as Aretius.  
So generally he opposeth man's merit 
Ita generaliter meritum hominis opponit Christi gratiae: nam cum Lex afferat opera, fides offert nudum hominem Deo, ut Christi justitia induatur, etc. Calv.  to the grace of Christ: for when as the Law bringeth works, faith man naked to God, that he may be clothed with Christ's righteousness, Calvine.  
Christ himself must be put upon us, that we may be found in him, etc. with his clothing our souls must be clothed, that they may be beautified and gloriously adorned— Phil. 3. 9 where he excludeth all kind of works, be must needs understand the righteousness of Christ.  
I have read that our faith hath been excluded by this 
Whitaker against Camp. which Dureus Englished, P. 231.  text, never that the righteousness of Christ should be so, by a Protestant, it is Christ's righteousness alone which will endure the pure sight of God here and hereafter.  
2. You observe from those words, But that which is of God by faith, here is not the lest jot or tittle of any mention, etc. of any righteousness he should have by imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Not, nor any righteousness by or through the righteousness of Christ, but only such a righteousness as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through faith of Christ, or believing in him; and this is that righteousness say you, and that righteousness of God. 2. A righteousness which God himself hath found out, and which he will own and countenance and accounted for righteousness, and no other but this.— The mentioning of this righteousness the second time, as being or standing in faith, is doubtless emphatical.— It is to show that this righteousness will carry it, notwithstanding the unlikelihood and seeming imperfections of it, and that the thing is fully concluded and established with God.— If Paul had had any mind or inclination at all to have placed the righteousness by which we are justified in the righteousness of Christ imputed, here was a tempting occasion.— But here is loud speaking again and again of the righteousness of faith, but altum silentium of any righteousness from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, p. 87. & 88  
That which Paul would be found having, is not his own, 
Nimirum Christi justitia applicata.  but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.  
This we interpret the righteousness of Christ given by God applied by faith. So Beza, you faith in Christ itself.  
But first it cannot be faith itself, seeing the text is, that righteousness which is through faith, & of God by faith, where faith is but an instrument, by which I have that righteousness, it is not said, believing, but by believing: that faith is the righteousness he would be found in, but that of God by faith. Bertius that Prince of the Arminian band urgeth this text against Sibrandus, Epist. p. 57 and hath this answer.  
As for that saying, Phil. 3. It professedly destroyeth the conclusion 
Quod ad dictum ad Phil. 3. c attinet: Serveti, Socini, ●uamque sententiam ex professo destruit, diserte enim inter fidem & inter justitiam distinguit. Versu enim 9 dicit, interpret Beza. Sed ut habeam eam justitiam, quae per fidem est Christi, equidem si haec justitia est Christi per fidem ut Beza interpretatur: vel si est per fidem Christi, ut verus interpres habet, ●um justitia haec non est ipsa fides.— Deinde Apostolus Serveti, Socini tuamque sententiam prorsus rejicit, diserte enim scribit, scribit, vers. 9 ut inveniar in eo non habens meam justitiam. Mea igitur justitia non est qua justificor: & hoc recte, discern enim Spititus sanctus doce, Rom. 5. 19 nos obedientia Christi constitui justi, hoc est, nos justitia Christi justificati. Sed fides quam ego habeo (si secundum Scripturas loqui velis) est tua fides, Hab. 2. 4. Justus fide sua viver, Jac. 2. 18. ostend mihi fidem tuam ex operibu— & ego ostendam— fidem meam. Si●gitur fides mea est justitia mea, & ego hac fide mea justificor, tum utique justificor mea justitia: & debeo inveniti in eo habens meam justitiam Proinde aut imprudenter facit Apostolus cum scribit, ut inveniat in eo non habens meam justitiam: aut vos imprudenter sacitis, dum per vestram justitiam justificari vultis: vel quod idem est, dum vultis inveniri habentes vestram justitiam. Quid quod Apostolus docet justitiam quam cupit habere, vers. 9 esse Christi: Sed habens eam justitiam quae per fidem est Christi, verum mea fides, quocunque tandem modo accipiatur non est Christi justitia, neque est illa justitia quae est per fidem Christi. Sed obedientia quam Christus Patri pro me praestiti●, est Christi justitia. Atque hac ego justificor, Rom. 5. 19 Nihil igitur imprudentius à te fieri potuit, quam istum locum ad hunc errorem stabiliendum allegare.  clusion of Servetus, Socinus, and your own, for it doth plainly distinguish between faith and righteousness; for in the 9 vers. be saith, Beza interpreting it, But that I may have that righteousness which is of Christ by faith, surely if this righteousness be of Christ by faith, as Beza interpreteth it; or if it be by the faith of Christ, as the old Translation, than this righteousness is not faith itself.— Than the Apostle doth wholly reject the opinion of Servetus, Socinus, and you: for be plainly writeth, vers. 9 that I may be found in him not having mine own righteousness. But it is not my righteousness by which I am justified; and this rightly, for the holy Ghost plainly teacheth, Rom. 5. 19 us to be constituted just, that is, that we are justified with the righteousness of Christ. But faith which I have, (if you will speak according to the Scriptures) is thy faith, Hab. 2. 4. The just shall live by his faith; and Jam. 2. 18. Show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show my faith. If therefore my faith be my righteousness, and I am justified by this my faith, than I am justified by mine own righteousness, and I aught to be found in him having mine own righteousness: so that either the Apostle doth unwisely, when he writeth, that I▪ may be found in him having mine own righteousness; or you do unwisely whilst you will be justified by your own righteousness, or which is the same, whilst you will be found having your own righteousness. The Apostle teacheth the righteousness which be desireth to have, v. 9 to be of Christ, but having that righteousness which is by faith of Christ; but my faith in what ever manner it be taken, is not Christ's righteousness, neither is it that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, but the obedience which Christ performed to his Father, for me, is Christ's righteousness, and with this I am justified, Rom. 5. 19 Nothing therefore could be done more unwisely by thee, than to allege that place for the establishment of thine error.  
Besides, it is much worse in you than him, Because you take faith in Christ, not in relation to its object, Christ's righteousness, taking in that, but in a proper sense, 
Fides ista meritum Christi r●sp●cit, atque hoc modo ve●ū est quod dicitur fides justificat non per se sed correlative, qua tenus nimiram apprehendit Christum ejusque justitiam. Ipse vider it.  and direct opposition to Christ's righteousness. Whereas in one place of Bertius I find, That faith respecteth the merit of Christ, and thus it is true which is said, faith justifieth not by itself, but correlatively, as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousness. How he agreeth with himself, let him look to that, as your Mr. Wotton once said.  
When faith is that, and as a work, (as elsewhere from John 6.) How am I not justified by a work, and that of the Law too, if faith be required there, as some conceive, and I speak to elsewhere? See Sybr. p. 56. & 57  
And when as it is not righteousness, or but inherent; Am I not justified by inherent righteousness? an opinion worse than that of Papists, who join hope and charity, etc. with faith, as Mr. Forbs.  
And when as it is an imperfect grace, how can God, whose judgement is according to truth, accounted this perfect righteousness? it hath need of somewhat else to cover and to justify it. You acknowledge it imperfect, the Papist pressing it pled its perfection in this life.  
And what will become of the Passive obedience of Christ, if this be that righteousness in opposition to the righteousness of Christ? What need is there of him or his righteousness? Less it be to merit that faith be accepted, as Osterodus.  
What need of remission of sins? your interpretative righteousness by which I have the privileges of a righteous man? I have it by faith in your doctrine and than, away with that as well as the righteousness of Christ. And here let all men take notice of your mind, when as you call it faith in Christ, and that it is an instrument to bring us to fellowship with Christ and his benefits; when yet, here, and in the whole controversy you deny a relative or figurative sense taking in Christ and his righteousness, and put it in opposition. If you will be 
Prideaux.  found in, that do; my prayer is with that Doctor, that I may be found not having faith, mine own righteousness, if righteousness, and such as it is or ever shall be; but that which God giveth or imputeth, Christ's, by faith. I believe, help mine unbelief. See after, the last Scripture, out of Zanchy, see Doctor Airy in locum. Olevian.   

CHAP. VII.  
SIxthly, that that God imputes for righteousness in justification, is not the righteousness of Christ himself, but faith itself, by Rom. 3. 28. Rom. 5. 1. and all confess that men are justified by faith, as act or habit, and why do they condemn it in me?  
I answer, faith with us is an instrument laying hold of the object Christ and his righteousness as an hand doth richeses, by which righteousness applied, I am righteous, as rich by the object received richeses.  
You say you divide not faith and the object, you imply the 
G.  object with it, as the usual manner of the Scripture is, and 2. that it justifieth instrumentally, p. 90. 3. and grant as it taketh hold on Christ's righteousness, (though the Scripture never mentioneth it under this consideration) yet still it is an act of faith.  
1. You say it justifieth not as an act, ib. and yet take it in a proper sense, opposing it in justification to the righteousness of Christ, faith and not the righteousness of Christ.  
2. When you give all be granted to faith, that it hath Christ the object, and layeth hold on Christ's righteousness: Yet you teach us that Christ's righteousness (in the variety used in Scripture of the objects of faith) is not to be found in the lest mention, p. 38. Neither is the righteousness of Christ the object of faith as justifying, p. 43. only is propounded to be believed as the creation of the world, or that Cain was Adam's son, p. 43. neither is it imputed for righteousness in respect of the object, or because it layeth hold upon Christ, or Christ's righteousness, p. 14.  
Whereas the orthodox whom you oppose, not only teach faith in Christ, and that an instrument laying hold of Christ and his righteousness applying it, but justifying as applying that righteousness, by which applied we are made just.  
Faith is as the pencil, it is an instrument, the matter, whiting; the pencil maketh not white but instrumentally, it is the whiting applied by the pencil.  
The hand receiving richeses is an instrument making rich. I, but instrumentally, richeses received properly make rich, faith is but an instrument laying hold of the righteousness of Christ, by it as an instrument we are justified, but that which properly doth is the righteousness of Christ himself; and here we say not that whatsoever faith layeth hold on justifieth, but signanter, we name the righteousness of Christ.  
So, figuratively taking in the object, Christ's righteousness, it justifieth, as an instrument to this effect, so it justifieth; so faith is imputed for righteousness: here is somewhat equivalent and exceeding the righteousness of the Law, which is false of faith not applying Christ's righteousness, and than is it the condition of the Covenant whenas it taketh in the object, as is elsewhere showed.   

CHAP. VIII. The last proof from Scripture.  
THe Scriptures do absolutely deny a transferriblenesse, translation or transferring, or moving the righteousness of one person to another, from Gal. 3. 12. and the Law is not of faith, but the man that doth them shall live in them, it denieth it to be done with faith, which was the likeliest hand under Heaven— by which he intendeth to make the righteousness of the Law as performed by Christ uncapable of this translation or imputation— faith derives remission from Christ, but not the righteousness of the Law, the scope showeth it is the very doer that shall live, etc.  
1. Removing righteousness from one person to another, are not our words, we say not that Christ's righteousness imputed is removed, or that it is taken from Christ, we teach it to be subjective in himself.  
We assert his righteousness transferrible, that is, that it may be, and is imputed or given to us.  
He was our Surety, he satisfied for us, if there be an absolute impossibility of transferring what is done for another, you destroy suretyship, Christ's being our Surety.  
3. His death is imputable, or sufferings of death, you must hold that imputation of them, or else confess yourself a Socinian, Mr. Gat. exempteth himself thereby, dealing with Lucius.  
If his sufferings, all of them, from his incarnation or conception to his death, his being man, do and sufferings, form of a servant, services in that form, all his poverty, unto, till death, as well as death itself; in which there are many servile acts to the Law. Mr. Gataker excludeth not them or their imputation, nor Pareus; yourself teach a concurrence and influence of works absolutely necessary to make atonement.  
And if Christ did not obey for himself (which was vain, seeing he lived from the first moment) it was for us; his being man holy and just, etc. was his humiliation, poverty, he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich.  
His sufferings were fulfilings of the Law, even punishment 
Etiam paena est impletio Legis Par. de Just. Act. etc. p. 183.  is the fulfilling of the Law.  
If sufferings are imputable, the fulfilling of the Law is in all these respects, and are imputed, or else we have no good by them. It is nothing that there is such virtue in Jesus Christ if there be no application, and application receiving on our part necessarily putteth giving and imputation from the Lord.  
Now to your argument, we deny the Law to be that by which we are justified, or that the righteousness by which is Legal. It is evident (say we) because that runneth, The man that doth this shall live; if we were so legally, we must be so in & by ourselves personally, do this neither needed we a Mediator; we cannot do this, this and faith are asystata, put this, faith is vain in this matter, when we disclaim personal do this, there must be grace, and that in Christ. He must be a Surety, conceived, borne, obedient, even to death, dead to make satisfaction; Gods giving him to us, our receiving of him, believing in him, by which we have union and communion with him, and his obedience, Passive, and what necessarily concurreth and infloweth thereunto. In Christ we have pardon, and adoption, and eternal life; imputation of righteousness is necessary to pardon; by imputation of righteousness we are made just, and so justified from sins; by adoption we are heirs of the righteousness of faith, that is, the righteousness which faith apprehendeth; we inherit the promises, that of righteousness by which we are white as Snow, whiter.  
And this righteousness is necessary to life, the Spirit is life because of righteousness, imputed, Chamieer, Rom. 8. 10. they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life even by one Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 16. Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life, vers. ult.  
This is God's righteousness; what he giveth, and we by faith receive; there is a subordination between God's grace, the promise, Christ, his obedience, pardon, life, faith, righteousness is not personal but of the Surety. And this is notably set forth as by foreign Divines, so by our own, and the Doctrine of our Church, to which we have subscribed. I will sand you thither, and proceed.   

CHAP. IX. Argument 1. That righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed. Thus,  
THat righteousness which will not fit and furnish all believers with all points or parts of that righteousness which the Law requires of them, cannot be imputed to them for justification.  
But the obedience Christ performed to the Moral Law, will not fit and furnish all believers with all points of righteousness, which the Law requires of them: therefore it cannot be imputed to believers for their justification.  
I will grant the mayor, and if Christ's righteousness imputed 
Answ.  be not complete, serving all, it is nothing worth; only consider how your imperfect faith shall be imputed, and whether it be or can be imputable, and as do this was prove the minor.  
Servants are indebted to Masters, Ephes. 6. 5. obedience with fear and trembling, wives, husbands: He declined doing justice, refused the office of a King, etc.  
That our Lord Christ did what pleased his Father in 
Answ.  our behalf is unquestioned, the voice from Heaven was, 
1.  In whom I am well pleased, Matth. 3. that we are accepted in the wellbeloved, Eph. 1. It is said he came to fulfil the Law, Matth. 5. and Matth. 3. That as it became him he fulfilled all righteousness. In fulfilling the Law, there is no place for want. In all righteousness, there is that which was due by all sorts without exception, the debt of all, was but all righteousness; all this not for himself, but us, because he lived from the first moment and needed it not, because he was our Surety, bound to pay our whole debt. It was of him our great Mediator, as p. 108. I suppose that in Christ there is neither bond or free, male or female, King nor Beggar, all are one in Christ, Gal. 3. 28. which is inferred from this, that as many as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, and we are all the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ.  
Christ is be who knitteth Jew's 
Christus is est qui Judaeos & Gentes in unum corpus seminis Abrahae connectir; itaque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tollit personarum discrimen, de quo mox, vers. 28. quicunque vers. 27. ut tollatur gentium status & sexus discrimen, ●it ut apparet ex sequenti versu Metaphora sumpta à vestibus ut dix●●● ‛ Luc. 24. 49. & alibi saepe, sed quae mysterium nostrae cum Christo conjunctionis, quasi oculis sub●iciat. Oporret enim Ecclesiam Christo tanquam. veste quadam operiri & sub co delitescere ut sancta sit prorsus & inculpabilis, Eph. 5. 27. Ideoque Apostolus semen Abrahami uno Christi nomine fignificavit supra, v. 16.  and Gentiles together in one body of the seed of Abraham; therefore all taketh away the difference of persons, of which by and by, vers. 28. whosoever, vers. 27. is that the difference of the state of the Gentiles and of sex. may be taken away, as it appeareth from the next verse. That putting on of Christ is a metaphor taken from clotheses as we said, Luke 24. 49. and elsewhere often, but such as may set the mystery of our union with Christ before our eyes; 
Omnes homines, velint, nolint, sunt unum, id est una res specie renus— unum individuum quasi ut in Christo serventur— per cum ipsum Christum.— Sed hoc demum sciendum, nos per fidem Christo ipst uniri Spiritus sancti vinculo ut bonorum ipsius fi●mus participes, ut omnes fideles hac ratione sint unus Christus mysticus, ut loquitur etiam Apostolus, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Bez. in loc.  for the Church must be covered with Christ as it were with a garment, and lie hid under him that it may be wholly holy and without blame, Ephes. 5. 27. and therefore the Apostle signified the seed of Abraham by the one name of Christ. 
Sensus est, nihil hic vale●e personas, Unus estis, quo significatur sublatum ●sse discrimen, Caiu.   
All men whether they will or not, are one, that is, one thing in kind,— as it were one individuum, that they may 
Est illis omnia meritory; nam dum fiunt una persona mystica cum Christo, illis impertit meritum passionis, mortis, obedientiae, justitiae, & he factus est illis adeo sapientia, justitia, sanctificatio & redemptio, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Daven. in. Col 3. 11.  be saved by the same Christ— but this is to be known, that we by faith are united to Christ himself by the bond of the holy Ghost, that we may be partakers of his good things; that all the faithful in this respect are one mystical Christ, as the Apostle also speaketh, 1 Cor. 12. 12.  
The sense is, that here persons avail nothing, You are one, in which he signifieth the difference to be taken away.  
He is all things to them meritoriously, for whilst they are made one mystical person with Christ, he giveth to them the merit of his passion, death, obedience, righteousness, and so is made unto them of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1. 30.  
It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness devil, saith the Apostle, Col. 1. 19 Hence are they presented holy, unblamable, and unreprovable in God's sight, v. 22. and ye are complete in him, c. 2. 10.  
And let your next Chapter be read, and see whether there can be any defect for any man, where there is so much and so great abundance.  
He that is arrayed in this, and presents himself before God, is so say you. Not in the habit of a just or righteous man, but in the glorious attire that makes men just and righteous, the great Mediator of the world, whose righteousness hath heights and depths in it, a length and breadth which infinitely excecded the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever.— The glory of this righteousness doth transcend the condition of the creature.— All the parts of this righteousness, all the acts of obedience that he performed, he performed them as one that had received the spirit without measure; there was a righteousness and worth in them which did fully answer the fullness of that grace that was given him above all his fellows, etc. p. 108. 109. 10.  
You object to yourself, love is the fulfilling of the Law, Christ's perfect love, is perfect fulfilling the Law; and therefore being imputed may serve, though some acts of obedience wanting. To this purpose you object; but Sir, we say not that there is any thing wanting.  
1. You answer, love may be an Evangelicall fulfilling the Law and accepted, yet holds not out weight and measure for any man's justification in the covenant of works.  
But to no purpose, that objection urgeth not our love but Christ's, and not therefore justification by a covenant of works, but of grace by Christ.  
And it will not follow that if his love be imputed, other acts of righteousness were vain, for what you call other, are no other than love, so all are acts of righteousness  
2. I answer to the second, that the love of Christ is the fulfilling of the whole Law (both Tables.)  
3. I answer thirdly, that love (as you grant) being a cause of the being of the rest, and having (what you call) the rest virtually in it, a spiritual unfeigned affection of love is an inward principle of that nature which inclineth and disposeth a man to the performance and practice of all manner of duties required in the Law. Grant Christ's love this: It will not be ridiculous to say his love is imputed for their righteousness. 
Propter quod unumquodque es●tale illud est magis tale.  For being a cause and virtually including fulfilling, it will serve. It is more to be a cause than to fulfil the Law, and love consisteth not only in affection but acts themselves, they are love in words and deeds.  
And there is somewhat in it when as Paul professeth his life to be by faith in the Son of God who hath loved me and given himself for me, in which there are both his active and passive obedience, 2 Gal. 20. and the objects of his faith.  
2. You object, It is sufficient though there be what is equivalent to such particular acts of righteousness, and answer.  
1. The Law must have jot for jot, tittle for tittle, point for point, letter for letter, otherwise it hath a curse.  
1. I answer, not questioning but Christ yielded jot for jot, tittle, etc. He infinitely exceeded the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever, as you: where is more, there are jots and tittles.  
But Sir, How shall your faith not taking in this righteousness of Christ, nay opposed, be jot for jot, etc. and how will God's judgement be according to truth, if that be instead of do this?  
2. And secondly, I answer to the second, that the acts of Christ imputed are the acts of him that was our Surety, which infinitely exceeding the dimensions and proportions of all men whatsoever, serve the necessities of all men whatsoever; every man's turn is served here, even that which the Lord requireth of him; to omit that those differences are taken away.  
3. You object to yourself equivalence in his do as in his sufferings, the debt was eternal death, he paid it by what was not eternal, but equivalent, and so might by doing. And answer.  
1. Denying those words Thou shalt die the death, must of necessity mean eternal death, according to the letter.  
2. Neither that nor by way of equivalency, was not God's meaning, but the evil of punishment▪ represented and known to him by the name of death, without consideration of duration. I answer.  
1. Sir, to die the death is such a punishment, which though it hath not eternity of its nature, yet it hath eternity a concomitant as yourself out of Scotus, and that is 
In fe.  in itself (because of concomitancy) for ever, the freedom from it is accidental. It is eternal in the threat, as is seen in execution on Devils and wicked men, it had been so to us if our Surety had not borne it, and been on him for ever had he not overcome it.  
3. But than you answer, 3. that though God did take liberty to vary from the curse, and to use equivalency, it followeth not God should accept such legal payment as is equivalent.  
I answer (still premising that Christ yielded complete satisfaction as before) that if God did vary in the curse, he received legal payment which is equivalent, death was legal payment, and doing you object is but legal payment; The soul that sinneth shall die, is the voice of the Law.  
To that you farther add of God that having received a full satisfaction of all the transgressions of the Law he may by a second covenant accept of what he pleaseth to instate men in this benefit, which is to him evivalent to perfect legal righteousness.  
I answer, that which Christ paid being the full satisfaction of the Law, answereth our debt completely, and there is no need of any thing else to be accepted, (It is injurious indeed) that is equivalent to complete legal righteousness, that satisfaction of righteousness only graciously imputed to us as performed by our Surety for us, is enough. Faith indeed hath the place of an instrument or hand receiving what is accounted or given, by which applied I am just, and so have privileges; but hath no equivalence to the righteousness of the Law, as in itself, in justification, excluding the righteousness of Christ as you hold it out; and the satisfaction of the Law by Christ our Surety, to such a faith is what God doth by the covenant of grace.—  
To what you add more, that may suffice which I have already spoken, I will hasten to your 10. chap.   

CHAP. X. 2. Ground, thus.  
THat righteousness which is exactly and precisely fitted to the person and office of him that is Mediator between God and man or Redeemer of the world cannot be imputed to any other for his righteousness.  
But such is the righteousness of Christ: Therefore the minor opening the richeses of the righteousness of Christ is granted, and use made of it in the former argument as destructive to its▪ pretended unfitness in our Sureties righteousness.  
To the mayor I answer, by denying it, the precise and exact righteousness of Christ our Mediator can be and is imputed to us, we are clothed with the robes of Christ's righteousness, his righteousness which hath heights and depths, 
Juxta veritatem aeque justi sumus, quia eadem justitia, de justif. p. 171.  etc. so that according to the truth (as Doctor Prideaux explaineth our tenet) we are equally just because with the same righteousness, in that we are as just as if we had personally performed it ourselves.  
1. Yet, 1. Rob him not because we are found herein by his consent and commandment of application, by his giving and his enabling us by faith to apply the same.  
2. For the equality, he that affirmed 
Aeque justi sumus quoad veritatem, quia eadem justitia; licet non aequaliter ex eodem modo, cum ille justus sit subjective, nos imputative; ille de proprio, nos de illius largitate.  we are for truth equally just, because with the same righteousness; though not equally and in the same manner, seeing be is just subjectively, we imputatively, he of his own, we of his bounty, openeth our sense for equality. Doctor Ames answering Bellarmine, layeth down our tenet.  
Christ's righteousness is so far imputed 
Christi justitiam catenus nobis imputati, ut ejus virture nos perinde justi censeamur co●am deo acsi nosmer ipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi coram ipso censeamur.  unto us, that we are by virtue thereof so accounted just before God as if we ourselves had in ourselves that whereby we are accounted just before him. And than,  
Christ's righteousness is imputed to 
Justitiam Christi imputari singulis secundum eorum particularem necessitatem, non secundum universalem quem habet valorem.  every one according to their particular necessity, not according to the universal value thereof.  
Whence you may see how we take and take not that robe of unmensurable majesty upon us, and how much you are deceived, and deceive when as you imagine that, and thereby grieve the truth; the generation of disputers teach you otherwise, Doctor Prideaux, Doctor Ames, and so Doctor Davenant proposeth it.  
It is to be weighed that Christ's 
Perpendendum Christi justitiam non imputari huic aut illi credenti secundum totam latitudinem efficaciae suae, sed prout unusquisque ea opus habet.  righteousness is not imputed to this and that believer according to the whole latitude of its efficacy; but so as every one hath need of it.  
And that may answer what is urged, p. 110. and we avoid presumption or blasphemy, and showeth what a communicablenesse we hold measured only by our need; (Let the Reader see more in the former part) and so conceive what every member receiveth from Christ the head, and how that is used. The head infloweth according to the need of every member, and the member receiveth so much, so much as maketh us perfectly just, perfectly holy in the sight of God. The imputation of which your argument teacheth not.  
When as you say, p. 113. that Christ with his members are a body only by way of resemblance. If withal you acknowledge our Union true and real in its kind it shall suffice, if otherwise, you must with Mr. Wotton answer the charge Mr. W. layeth on you before.   

CHAP. XI. Athird Ground, p. 119.  
THere is no necessity of this imputation of Christ's righteousness, 
Mr. G.  he that is completely justified by having his sins forgiven, is justified without the imputation of this active obedience of Jesus Christ.  
You say this proposition is generally granted, but you beg 
A.  it, for those that contend for imputation of Christ's righteousness, active or passive, both, make it the cause of remission of sins, as before.  
But a believer is sufficiently justified before God by the remission 
G.  of sins, therefore I conclude there is no need, etc. this you say was proved, c. 5.  
And there you have answer.  
Than you object to yourself, that remission is but a part of justification, not the whole, and that imputation of righteousness must be added.  
To answer which, you cite Calvine. Let what you say and I answer before, be considered by the Reader, and he shall see your head and his opinion at odds. He maketh remission an effect, See l. 3. c. 14. Sect. 12. hac nos instructi, etc. There shall you see your rashness in that assertion, and the maintenance thereof, and Pareus his testimony against himself, and your vanity in urging their objection as arguing a divers tenet amongst Protestants, by both Pareus and Doctor Davenant, etc.  
When you p. 127. excuse your imputation of faith in a proper sense being the same, that justification stands in remission of sins only.  
I answer, it is vain, for faith in a proper sense without a Trope, justifieth with you both, and they say that justification consisteth 
a In regeneratione & remissione peccatorum.  in regeneration and remission of sins; you make them the same, both of you dispute against imputation of Christ's righteousness, which yet is the Protestant tenet (Piscator, Pareus, Mr. Gataker not excepted, who teach the imputation of Christ's passive obedience.)  
Neither do the Scriptures expressly demonstrate it, Rom. 4. 6. 7. nay vers. 6. & 11 there is a manifest and express imputation of righteousness as well as not imputation of sin, and that they are cause and effect is showed by Authors in the same place; and as for that Synecdoche, it is not so needful there, seeing there is such an expressure of both imputation of righteousness, and non-imputation of sins.  
When blood is mentioned, it is by that figure, and it doth not exclude other parts.  

b Sanguinem autem solum nominando non vol●it alias redemptionis partes excludere, sed potius sub una patte totam summam comprehendere; sic per synecdochē tota expiatio nominatur, ad Rom. 3. 24. Calv. So Ecchard p. 398 fasci. controvers. who citeth Trelcat. p. 148. Bucan. p. 337. & Ursin. p. 452.  In naming blood only, he would not exclude other parts of redemption, but rather under one part comprehend the whole, so by the figure Synecdoche the whole expiation is meant.  
Who saith, when as we come to 
Ubivero ad Christum ventum est, primum in to invenitur exacta Legis justitia quae per imputationem etiam nostra fit, Calv. in Rom. 3. 31.  Christ, first there is found the exact righteousness of the Law, which also by imputation is made ours.  
And thence answer may be given, that when we are said to be justified by Christ's blood, Rom. 5. 9 the active obedience is not to be excluded. You see it is calvin's Doctrine, and so Bucanus de justif. ad Q. 15. nay yourself make this an essential requisite, as afterwards.  
What is said of supply by adoption, as you refer us to the next chapter, we will refer thither our answer.  
Neither need you argue against your adversaries, as separaters and dividers of the active and passive obedience of Christ, and such a putting them into parts, it is but your own conceit.  
If there be absurdity, it is your own, who exclude the active obedience, and so separate and divide them. We confess, in your words, that the active obedience of Christ will not profit men if they separate it from the passive, John 12. 14. neither will the passive itself be found itself, that is an atonement or expiation for sin, according to the will and purpose of God, except we bring in the active to it, etc. you wound yourself, not us, in that, and what followeth.  
Finally, neither will it follow that the formal cause is double, but one; Christ's obedience active and passive, not to be divided or separated, is the matter, it imputed supplieth the place of a form and constituteth us righteous, as Saint Paul himself, Rome. 5. 19 and so must you interpret that place, or else separate and divide, offend in the very thing you reprove (though causelessely.)   

CHAP. XII. 4. Reasons, p. 136.  
THat which dissolves and takes away the necessity and use of that sweet and Evangelicall grace of adoption, cannot hold a straight course with the truth of the Gospel. But this imputation in the sense controverted dissolves and takes away, etc. the necessity of adoption. Therefore.  
You say the minor is evident, that we introduce▪ this imputation of Christ's righteousness, that we may have a title to life or Heaven, according to the tenor of the covenant, Hoc fac & vives.  
By remission we say accrues no right, and that truly, therefore we compel the righteousness of Christ to take this honour; neither is another use conceivable of it, than to qualify men to Heaven, which is proper to adoption, this is to frustrate the purpose and counsel of God, etc.  
1. I answer, imputation of righteousness, righteous making, giveth a title to life or Heaven; if regeneration doth so which is but imperfect (wherein yet adoption is founded) perfect righteousness given and received much more, which is of the twain, the chiefest foundation of adoption: the Spirit is life because of righteousness, Rom. 8. 10. which learned Chamieer interpreteth of imputed righteousness, those that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life, Rom. 5. 17. By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all to justification of life, vers. 18. Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life, vers. ult.  
2. Yet we say not according to the tenor of that covenant, Do this and live, that is by personal performance, righteousness of Christ imputed is of another, yet ours, given and received, establishing the Law; see Calvine on Rom. 3. ult. cited but now, and ad Rom. 10. 5.  
He doth excellently dispel that scruple, 
Hunc scrupulum optime discutit cum ex ipsa Legis Dooctrina stabilit fidei justitiam— est autem locus ex Leu. 18. 5. ubi dominus vitam aeternam pollicetur iis qui Leg●m suam servavetint.— Atqueita defectu ●uo coacti ad Christum confugere discerent, ibid. Calv.  when as out of the very Doctrine of the Law he establisheth the Doctrine of faith— the place is taken out of Leu. 18. 5. where the Lord promiseth eternal life to those that shall keep his Law— and so compelled by their own defect, should learn to fly to Christ.  
3. We say not we have no right by pardon, and it is not true, seeing I find that concurring as the consequent of righteousness, Rom. 5. the places you cited; especially if he that is freed from sin is ipso facto made perfectly and completely righteous, as you conclus. part. 2. p. 4. He that is free from death and no ways obnoxious thereunto, cannot but be conceived to have a right to life, there being no middle condition between life and death; and conclus. 5. p. 8. where speaking of adoption and title thereby; you say the Scriptures seem to give it to that.  
We deny it not to adoption, when as we give it to righteousness imputed, we exclude not Gods gracious dignifying, no we give a place to every grace, faith, hope, love; which have the promises of Salvation. We conceive adoption will not in its claim exclude the righteousness of Christ imputed, which is the main thing: we be heirs of the promises, all, of righteousness leapt up in the promise thereof.  
Noah was an heir of the righteousness, which is by faith, Heb. 11. 7. that is, the righteousness which faith apprehendeth, and that is that which God imputeth or giveth, Christ's, so that adoption doth not exclude it.  
Yea, we read that the promise was not made to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world, or to his seed through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 13. in which the promise of heireship is made to him by that, as it were antecedent. I will not contend against adoptions title, and you must beware you contend not against the title which is by the righteousness of faith, and beware of your conclusion of its being proper to adoption or consequences against such pregnant Scriptures. Indeed salvation is by faith in Christ, hence adoption, participation of righteousness to justification, to salvation. You cannot exclude the death of Christ from being a cause of our salvation, nor reasonably leave out the active obedience of Christ, its essential requisite; neither is of force to that end, but as given and received, which is imputation to the believer.  
And hereby you may perceive your error, 1. in making▪ these of divers and contrary natures.  
2. In that you make the righteousness of Christ, which is another's, our Sureties, graciously performed for us, and given unto us, Evangelicall, to be Legal.  
3. Consider whether you be not too wise in arguing the vanity of the one from sufficiency of the other, when as God hath joined them together, when as they are subordinate to, that effect: adoption is founded in regeneration that new birth which qualifieth to justification, but much more in imputed righteousness, which alone is perfect righteousness; which justification qualifieth to life, whom be justified be glorified.  
All the distinct graces in which adoption is founded, make up a plurality of means qualifying to justification, to pardon and life. It is very false that nature hath not a concurrence of many causes to effects, the sun and man, male, female, not to exclude God who is the first. It is very false that God in the Gospel still allows but one mean 
And see P. 143. the text cited, Eccles. 11. 6.  for one purpose, the Word, Sacraments, Prayer, Communion, and Saints, etc. are all ordained to the strengthening of our faith, and to our salvation. Neither doth the Lord complain of plurality of means, but of such as are none of his, or contrary, such is legal righteousness, personal obedience: so the places, Rom. 4. 14. Gal. 3. 18. & 21. Gal. 2. 21. where yet vers. 20. he professeth his life of faith in the Son of God, loving him, and giving himself for him. The Law is opposed to grace, Christ, the promise, faith; Christ and his righteousness, neither to grace nor promise, they are subordinate, all Evangelicall as in that text. See that you be not one that laugh these to scorn.  
And see whether your faith in a proper sense be not under your own lash, opposed professedly to the righteousness of Christ; from the position of one subordinate to the negation of another established by God, is a vain and frivolous argumentation.   

CHAP. XIII. 5. and 6. Grounds, p. 145.  
IT dissolves the necessity of repentance, the righteous hath no need of repentance.  
I deny what is assumed, a Christian complete in Christ, white as Snow, whiter, yet needeth repentance, hath it to qualify him to the promise of righteousness, justification, remission: as it supposeth faith, which alone justifieth, so repentance qualifying faith, and conditioning the person, that faith that justifieth is not alone, those that are sanctified are perfected for ever, the same Spirit sanctifieth and justifieth at the same time.  
If it stood in an universal non-imputation of unrighteousness or pardon, is not such a man perfectly righteous, as yourselves teach; are they not contraria immediata, as yourselves urge? yet you teach need of repentance daily, as qualifying the subject to the promise; there is the same reason: here pardon supposeth in deed imputation of righteousness by which our sins are not imputed, therefore it is that they stand not guilty of any sin before God.  
Yea, we assert they have the rights and privileges accompanying such a righteousness not in possession, but in Christ their head, in the promise which abideth for ever, by faith and hope, as the man, perfect by non-imputation of unrighteousness; (he hath right to life, he hath everlasting life, John 3. 36. and yet that consistent with sin, where there is no condemnation, nay, everlasting life, there is a lawless Law, etc. Yea there is an imperfect faith which is not without sin.  
When as p. 148. you tell us of the  and formal property of a work of the Law, that it hath power to justify out of internal worth and dignity. You agreed not with truth, which teacheth that when a man hath done all, he must say, he is an unprofitable servant, doing but what he aught, nor with yourself, p. 191. He hath done what was duty to do: and this by our Saviour's rule, Luc. 17. 10. makes but an unprofitable servant, i (I conceive) It is no ground to demand or challenge any great matters at his Master's band, except it be by covenant or promise' from him: these are your words.  
It taketh away the necessity of his death.  
It doth not, but establish it, by both these imputed a believer is justified, indeed had he Been so before this imputation, or not by it and with it, somewhat might be said, now nothing against it, the righteousness of the Law, Gal. 2. 21. is personal, the man that doth it shall live, Christ's imputed, is not legal.  
And what you talk of imputablenesse of Christ's active obedience, without his deaths is ignorance, that his obedience was to begin with life, and to end in death; and you forget now your former doctrine of concurrence of active and passive obedience, and absolute necessity of both to make atonement, and that both make up but one obedience and satisfaction.  
When you argue against the imputablenesse of this righteousness of Christ by a question; Why should not men be capable of imputation thereof in the midst of their sins, as well as Christ was capable of imputation of their sins, in the midst of his righteousness?  
I answer, First, it is impertineut to our question. Secondly, the reason is, the inconsistency of justification and wickedness. Thirdly, abomination to the Lord, and the promise of God requireth a lively faith to participation of the same, receiving it, and making it ours, the promise is made unto a believer repenting. Is. 1. 16.   

CHAP. XIV. 7. Ground, p. 151.  
IMputation, etc. leaves no place for remission of sins, though it be quoad veritatem, non quoad modum, as some of that way think to distinguish themselves safe.  
The major is Doctor Prideauxes, as before, and the assumption is false from the position of a cause, to the denial of the effect, as the learned; as Mr. Gataker also, though in somewhat not agreeing with them, acknowledgeth forgiveness of sins to be so, or a consequent.  
And in truth when as God imputeth Christ's righteousness, and pardoneth them, they have no more sin than Christ to be pardoned; all are pardoned, these are contraria immediata, and you know there is no third or middle: though not in the same manner Christ was, yet quoad veritatem, and thus for this argument.  
The exception and answer you make of remitting first, and than imputing, is a fancy of your own to be neglected. Both are together for time, the order is imputation of righteousness, just making, than remission of sins.  
You object by way of addition, that Christ hath taught us to pray for remission after this imputation, unless it be taught infidels only, but to ask forgiveness and conceive ourselves as righteous as Christ, is rather to make God, than worship him.  
I answer, that petition for pardon after justification is Christ's ordinance, whether justification consisteth in imputation of righteousness or pardon, it mattereth not to that, all must do it.  
2. That by justification (whether it consist in one or other) it is confessed that person is perfectly righteous.  
3. That he that doth so doth not mock God, seeing it is obedience to that commandment, seeing it is God's way whereby pardon is sued out to the quiet of a man's conscience.  
4. That the same is as much against yourself, who make it to stand in remission of sins, unless you think yourself not thereby perfectly righteous, or being so, not bound to use that prayer; answer yourself, and you shall save us a labour.  
5. Finally, what you object against us, holdeth against imputation of faith in your sense, for let faith be righteousness or not; if it be by God's acceptation, as do and live to justification, and I am by it interested in all the privileges of a just man. Why may not I be said to mock God (when as I conceive myself as perfectly righteous in God's account) in ask pardon, as in being so indeed? I do but suppose: there is as full a justification, as perfect a deliverance from death and condemnation, as in the former case, as yourself grant.  
Besides, the question is not of being of sin or of perfefection of sanctification, this is denied on both sides, and sins being is granted, though not imputed, and so though righteousness be imputed, and thence no imputation of sin.  
Neither is the righteousness of Christ imputed a legal righteousness as hath been showed, that is, personal doing this, being it another thing is consistent with sin ex concessis.   

CHAP. XV.  
IF it were Christ's it would have no compliance with that error, that God seethe no sin in his people.  
How do you prove that it hath compliance?  
Whosoever is perfectly righteous, in him God can see no sin, but every believer is so by the imputation of Christ's righteousness: therefore.  
Leaving here your lose Rhetoric, which is truly applicable to yourself.  
I answer, by a distinction, which I will premise first, and than apply.  
God may be said to see sin either with a simple sight, or else to impute or punish it: the former was on my knowledge his error, the latter is a truth, as we shall see. Out of Zanchy long ago I answered him, for the words are: We say also that God hath so 
Dicimus etiam Deum ita firmam tenere omnium scientiam ut omnia sint semper ejus aperta oculis, & in conspectu ipsius praesentia ita ut nussius ire eum capere possit oblivio. Nam quod sacris Scripturis saesaepe dicitur, Deum oblivisci iniquitatum nostrarum & peccata nostrá esse illi tecta▪ item ca projecisse in profunda maris; haec & alia id genus dicta non sunt intelligenda de simplici cognitione Dei, quasi Deus ea non amplius norit, sed de cognition judiciali ad paenam, quod nolit sc. ea contra nos in judicium proserre, sedcondonare▪ a●que hoc est quod Aug. in 3 1. Psal. Beati quorum tecta sunt peccata; si texit peccata Deus, noluit adver●e●e●si noluit advertere, noluit anim advertere si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire, noluit agnoscere, maluit agnoscere; quid est enim Deum videre peccata nisi punire peccata?  firm a knowledge of all things, that all things are always open to his eyes, and present in his sight, that he can forget nothing; for what is often said in the holy Scripture, that God forgetteth our sins, that he hath covered them, and cast them into the bottom of the Sea; These and such like say are not to be understood of knowledge simply, as if God knew them not more, but of a judicial knowledge to punishment, that he will not bring them against us in judgement, but forgive them. And this is that which Augustine on the 31. Psal. Blessed are they 
See Zanch. de natura Dei, l. 3. c. 2. q. 14. p. 216. & Polan. Synt. c. 35. similiter.  whose sins are covered; if God hath covered them, he would not perceive them, if he would not perceive them, he would not consider them; if he would not consider them, he would not punish them, he would not acknowledge them, he would rather pardon them; for what is it for God to see sin, but to punish sin?  
I answer, he that is made just by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, in him God can see no sin to punish, that is all that followeth, and here is no compliance with that error which was for a simple sight.  
Where there is pardon of all sins by imputation of active or passive obedience, one, or both; the same followeth that God seethe no sin in that man to punish, and I hope that hath no compliance; free yourself, you clear our tenet by the same labour.  
It is one thing for sin to be, another to be imputed or punished, and so to be righteous, that sin may not be, and that it may not be imputed justification respecteth not the being simply, but being in force, binding to punishment: justification respecteth the latter only, though there be a destruction of the being of sin, and it is further in fieri, and shall have an utter abolition by virtue of fellowship with Christ, yet that falleth not under our question.  
There is an ultra (I see) to the line of your apprehension, and here is no Riddle.   

CHAP. XVI. A ninth demonstration is an heap indeed of slanders.  
SUch is the leader, i That it is true that many that hold the way of imputation are not ashamed, nor afraid to confounded the two Covenants of God, of Works and Grace. That God never made more Covenants than one; that the Gospel is nothing else but a gracious aid or relief from God to help man out with the performance of the Covenant of works: so that that life and salvation which is said to come by Christ, shall in no other sense be said to come by him, but only as he fulfilled the Law of works for man; and such is that of their inheriting life and salvation according to the strict and rigid tenor of the Law, Do this.  
These are your demonstrations foundation, the rest are superstructures; to answer them were to fight with a shadow: this I answer without demurring. I profess I never read man that did hold those tenets as laid down by you.  
We give to God's grace in Christ the whole salvation of believers, beginning, consummation, adoption, justification, pardon, sanctification, mortification, graces, exercise, growth, perfection, the saving of the soul and glorious resurrection.  
We give all to free grace, we say it is founded in another, a Surety, Jesus Christ satisfying God's justice in our behalf. We teach the death of Christ, nay, the necessity of his incarnation, his taking our nature, doing and suffering in the form of a servant, obeying to death; the necessity of his resurrection, ascension, and sitting at God's right hand.  
We say to our justification his righteousness or obedience active and passive are necessary, they are the material cause, we teach the imputation of both, so the stream, they are but few that exclude the active; none but you, Mr. Wotton, Arminius, etc. deny imputation simply; you admit of servile obedience to the Law; Yea, of the active part, necessarily concurring to make the passive an atonement, we to make the satisfaction full. We teach the subject a believer in Jesus Christ: find these in the Covenant of works, and than I will yield I am out.  
You object to yourself, the righteousness of Christ imputed, and the Law personally wrought by a man's self are differing conditions; and answer, the substance of the agreement is still the same, righteousness of the Law are that same by whomsoever wrought.  
1. I answer, there is more than obedience to the Law, in doing; there is dying, so that there is no sameness.  
2. The Law's condition was, the man that doth, it is not here so, it is not the same. It is believing, taking in the object, another's, a Sureties righteousness.  
3. If Adam had fulfilled the Law, he had not been justified with the same righteousness believers are, that you should have proved.  
To what followeth, we say not God's imputation is the condition of the Covenant, but faith taking in the object Christ's obedience, and we say they justify not as works simply, so they have the place of the matter thereof only, they concur materially with the sufferings of Christ; and justify not, but as imputed, neither justifieth, not imputed or not applied: but enough to this was answered in a bore denial.   

CHAP. XVII. P. 158. 3. Arguments more.  
THat for which righteousness is imputed to those that believe, 
A●g. 1▪ ●▪  that cannot be imputed unto them for righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ is that for which righteousness is imputed to those that believe: therefore itself cannot be imputed for righteousness.  
The Major is proved, because it is impossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the meritorious cause.  
I answer, confessing that which is imputed the meritorious cause.  
2. Denying that what is merited is the same with the righteousness of Christ, that is, justification is not the same with the righteousness of Christ imputed, they differ as 'cause and effect.  
The mayor by your proof of it in plain terms is this. The meritorious cause of justification (for you twice here confounded righteousness and justification) cannot be imputed for righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of justification. Therefore.  
I answer, confessing the minor, Christ's righteousness is the meritorious cause of justification.  
Denying your major, and so do all ours, who teaching the righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause, yet hold it that which is imputed. Doctor Davenant.  
Indeed in justification such a formal 
Revera in justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est, quae simul & meritoria esse possit: visi enim contineat illam dignitatem in se propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur, nunquam erir causa formalis per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei, De justit hab. c. 22. p. 312.  cause is to be put, which also may be a meritorious cause: for unless it contain in itself that worthiness for which man is rightly reputed justified, it will never be the formal cause by which a man is justified in the sight of God.  
Your proof of the major is, that it is impossible that the meritorious cause should be the same thing wi●h what is merited. You should have proved it impossible being the meritorious cause to be imputed for justification; here I will leave you sticking, till you expedite yourself.  
If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to a believer for 
Arg. 2.  righteousness in his justification, than the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed unto him for righteousness. But the meritorious cause of a man's justification cannot be thus imputed unto him.  
This denied before you prove, because the meritorious cause being a kind of efficient, as the righteousness of Christ is, cannot be either the matter or form of justification.  
1. It may be the form, as out of Doctor Davenant; nay if it were not worthy it could not justify, not every righteousness, not our own, being unworthy; but that of Christ being only worthy, is that by which imputed we are justified.  
2. It may be the matter, and so is it commonly termed by Divines. See Pareus on Vrsinus his Catech. Christ's 
Satisfactio Chri st● est causa materialis justitiae nostrae, ad q. 6. p. 355.  satisfaction is the material cause of our righteousness. See Calv. whom you bring as opposing himself, where this shall be spoken to more fully.  
And harken to Pareus in the same place, whom you elsewhere pretend your friend, and you shall find him in direct opposition.  
We are justified by the merit of 
Merito Christi justificamur, pattim ut causa materiali justificationis, quatenus obedientia Christi nobis applicata placemus Deo, & ea quasi veste induti pro justis reputamur; partim ut causa impulsiva, procata●ctica & meritoria quatenus propter cam nos absolvit.  Christ, partly as the material cause of justification in so much as we please God by the obedience of Christ applied unto us, and as clothed with it as with a garment are accounted righteous; partly as by an impulsive cause outwardly moving and meritorious, as for that he absolveth us.  
It is in both against you, and if the matter had not due worth it would never do the work. It must be a sufficient price that maketh satisfaction paid by a Surety for man's ransom, or else it is worth nothing to that effect: It were not such righteousness as God would accept. It applied would not effect justification, and that which is the effect thereof, remission of sins.  
And for your axiom read Pareus. 
Christus varie se haber ad justificationem nostram, 1. ut subjectum in quo est justitia nostra, 2. ut causa adjuvans, quia impetrat, 3. ut efficiens principalis, quia una cum patre justificat & dat fidem, qua credimus— satisfactio Christi est causa materialis justitiae nostrae, ib.  Christ hath divers considerations to our justification, 1. as the subject in which our righteousness is, 2. as an adjuvant cause, because he obtaineth it, 3. as the principal efficient, because together with the Father he justifieth and giveth faith by which we believe— Christ's satisfaction is the material cause of our righteousness.  
Himself also calleth the imputation of Christ's righteousness the formal cause often times, not in the Papists sense, as inhering in us, that it doth in Christ, in which sense he denieth it the formal cause, Castig. de justif. p. 469. and addeth that remission of sins is made by perfect 
Remissio peccatorum fit per justitiam imputatam perfectam, Castig de justis p. 389.  righteousness imputed. And as for the final cause, questionless there is the glory of Christ as Mediator, which is enough to infringe your inviolable Law; and you should remember you are in an action, where matter and form properly so called have no place, but by analogy, or by supplying the place and stead.  
And here take notice that your conclusion, that the righteousness of Christ itself cannot be imputed unto us, as 
Antecedens falsum & blasphemum: in Scripturam, negat enim posse ●●e●i, quod Scriptura affirmat heri, & necessario, heri, Castig. l. 2. c 7. p. 468.  it is Bellarmine's, so Pareus giveth it this answer: the Antecedent is false and blasphemous against the Scripture; for it denieth that possible to be done which the Scripture affirmeth necessarily to be done.  
The 12. is of affinity with the former.  
If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us, or may be conceived imputable, than the effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also, and so we may be said to have merited our own justification and salvation, and whereby the whole world is justified. Thus we are in the midst of Rome instead of Jerusalem.  
The consequence is denied, and largely answered by the Learned before, and you shall find it Bellarmine's against Protestants; and so yourself in urging it, truly, in the midst of Rome. To omit it is against imputation simply, even of the death of Christ also, wherein you are deserted by Pareus and Mr. Gat. left with your friends Arminius and Socinius.   

CHAP. XVIII. Three further reasons. Argu. 13.  
I If the active obedience of Christ be in the letter and formality 
G.  of it imputed unto me to my justification, than am I reputed before God to have wrought that righteousness in Christ.  
But I am not reputed by God to have wrought this righteousness in Christ: therefore.  
Passing your language, letter formality, and other expressions, I answer in the words of our Homily, He for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that in him and by him every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied. Homil. p. 15. The performance of the Surety for me is accepted as if myself had done it.  
Against this you argue, than is Christ in his sufferings reputed to have sinned in me, an assertion uncouth and un-Christian.  
To this I answer, my sins were his by imputation, they were laid on him my Surety, and in that sense he was a sinner, as well as a Sacrifice for sin. And questionless a being either in other, union and communion are supposed to his bearing my sins, and my having his righteousness. In God's purpose there was that order, and so when as there is an actual commutation of sin and righteousness in God's purpose he bore the persons of all the elect, obeying and suffering for them, which is than accounted to me when as I am incorporated to him when also my sins are reckoned to him, and I am actually freed from them.  
Against this supposed imputation I argue, if the active 
Arg. 14●  be, than the passive is imputed also; for there can be no sufficient reason given why the one should be taken and the other left. But the death and sufferings of Christ are not in the formality and letter of them imputed.  
1. We hold the imputation of both. 2. This argument 
A.  is denied by your friends, and against them, who teach the imputation of the one, and not the other. 3. You are against imputation simply, and so a Socinian, as Mr. G. answereth Lucius. But you will prove it.  
If the death and sufferings of Christ are imputed to me, than 
G.  may I be accounted to have died in Christ, but that can at no hand be in letter and formality.  
I answer, what my Surety doth for me, is at any bar my act or suffering, his payment is mine, mine or his own, and than he is a sinner, as he for me fulfilled the Law in his life; so, he for me paid the ransom in his death, as our Homily.  
Of which when as I am said to be justified or acquitted, I must needs be a partaker, it must be mine that I may be acquitted; neither doth the Scripture deny it, when as it saith a Christian is dead to sin. It is a truth to the power, and guilt, or punishment, it is our freedom from either. It excludeth nor, but supposeth our insition into his death, As many of us as are baptised in Christ, are baptised into his death, and are with him, as buried, and raised, dead; he that is dead, is freed from sin, Rom. 6. there is a fellowship with his sufferings, Phil. 3. and thence the virtue thereof in justification.  
You say we are freely accepted in the beloved, 1 Eph. 6. yet it cost blood; our iniquities were laid on him, and so by his stripes we were healed, we establish our Surety Christ.  
God's free forgiveness and punishing our sins in our Surety is all we urge, as you out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. we suffer not but by him.  
Your letter and formality are your potterne, you deceive us, indeed much more your Clients, and so yourself. Postico falle clientem, it is a Sophister's trick.  
To omit that at no hand, and yet according to the letter and formality, is no hand, and a left hand.  
Supposed imputation with you is as Bellar. putative righteousness.  
But than we are justified in part by the ceremonial law, he 
Arg. 15.  was circumcised and kept the . But, etc.  
Sir, those were parts of God's worship, both instituted 
Answ.  by him; and so required in the second Commandment, requiring all worship according to God's word, which bindeth Jew's and Gentiles, thus both are satisfied for, and thus in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentle, all are one; and your consequences vanish.   

CHAP. XIX. 5. Further Demonstrations.  
THey must pass for Demonstrations, call them what you will, and that reason and Logic are friends to your conclusion, and not Rhetoric; as if Reason and Logic were two things, and you used not your Rhetoric.  
Than are our sins imputed to Christ in the same manner, in 
Arg. 16.  his death, etc.  
But our sins are not imputed in that manner.  
For than God looketh on him and reputeth him as one that had truly and really provoked him, and sinned him. But God looks not on him so, etc.  
For than he should look on him as one truly deserving death. But that God doth not.  
Because Christ offered himself without spot unto God. He 
A.  had no spot of his own, yet was a sinner, and deserved, being 
1.  our Surety, he was made sin, our iniquities were his: the Surety is as liable to the Law as the principal, his undertaking maketh it his own debt, and him as deserving. Had he personally sinned, it is true he could not satisfy for us. That denied, now satisfying as a Surety, we are free. Our 
2.  personals were his by imputation, inherent in us, not in 
3.  him; and when you grant the punishment his, the Scripture saith the sins are so without which he could not have been punished as elsewhere is showed.  
If the righteousness of Christ, etc. than doth God look upon 
Arg. 17.  on us as worthy of that justification. But that is an unclean saying.  
I answer, God looketh on us in the worthiness of 
A.  Christ our Surety, and so are we worthy, by his merits imputed.  
This is a truth, though our fulfilling the Law be not worthiness, for we are debtors, it is what we aught, and are but unprofitable servants when we have done all.  
Neither is our worthiness by the merits of Christ imputed, opposed to 〈◊〉 grace, (as you object) Rom. 11. 6. grace and Christ's blood, and Christ's obedience are subordinate. It holdeth against personal worthiness, not that of our Mediator.  
And when as the Scripture saith, God justifieth the ungodly: I hope he that is justified is a believer, one that hath union and communion with Christ. Yea and repentance too, these qualify to the promise of pardon of sins, Is. 1. 16. etc. and they are not in that moment ungodly: that was the state before faith and repentance, and so justification, but is not when God justifieth; to justify the wicked is abomination, God will by no means do it; you will distinguish between a believer and an ungodly man: now faith receiving and applying the righteousness of Christ imputed justifieth not for our worthiness, but the worthiness of our Surety, faith's object.  
If men become formally just by God's imputation of Christ's 
Arg.. 18.  righteousness unto them, than do men do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin. But men are not made, etc. for than the act of God should be as the life and soul of that sin in men. Therefore.  
I answer, Christ's righteousness imputed is that which is the form of justification, that which is as a form giving him that name and esse. And that by Adam's sin imputed I am constituted a sinner, for imputation itself, and righteousness imputed wherein your crochet lieth, I suppose the distinction but a vain strife of words. We all consider the righteousness of Christ as the matter, the imputation of God his act applying it, by it applied we are just.  
The act of God is not the form that only applieth it, by it applied we are just, and so sinners not by that judiciary act of God, charging it on us, but it charged.  
To omit that by formally, we mean not inherently, righteousness inhereth in Christ sin in Adam, and are ours by imputation; by the one imputed we are righteous, and by the other imputed sinners. This is an advantage from an expressure, a mere cavillation.  
If righteousness consisteth partly in the imputation of Christ's 
Arg. 19  righteousness, partly in remission of sins, than must there be a double formal cause of justification, and that made up by two several natures, really differing one from another.  
That which justifieth is the righteousness of Christ imputed, remission of sins is properly the effect and inseparable companion of it.  
So the Learned, Calvine and Chamieere, and reason; for, justification being justifaction, constituting righteous by Christ's obedience, fully satisfying, freedom followeth.  
Calvine never used your rod, it were to beat himself, as is demonstrated (spare that confident word your speech demonstrations) Calvine, Chamieere interpreting him, giveth it an effect of righteousness imputed by which we are justified; besides there is greater opposition between righteousness infused, and pardon whence inconsistence, than imputation of righteousness and remission, which who so denieth to be calvin's, must have a face that cannot blush or be unsound in his senses and intellectuals; if remission be an effect of righteousness imputed, and consequent to justification, they must really differ, or cause and effect do not really differ. 
In genere conformitas cum Deo & Lege divina, justitia est consornias creaturarum rationalium cum legibus ad ipsas perrinentibus: denique justitia est impletio Legis, & conformitas cum Lege est ipsa. Hoc tenendum quia oport. nos justificari per impletionem Legis, is Pareus on Vrsin p. 348   
And therefore remission of sins cannot be properly called imputed righteousness in their judgements.  
And when as you say remission may be called imputed righteousness, partly because it is no absolute legal or text righteousness, but a righteousness by interpretation and construction of favour, and partly because such righteousness as it is, it is notwithstanding given in the strength and mediation of the righteousness of another, which is Christ.  
I answer, remission cannot be called properly imputed righteousness. Your reason, because it is not absolute legal righteousness, may be better answered, because it is no righteousness at all, for righteousness is in the kind conformity with God, and the divine Law, righteousness is the conformity of the reasonable creature with Laws appertaining to them: to conclude righteousness is conformity with the Law, and conformity with the Law is the same: this must be held because we must be justified by the fulfilling of the Law.  
2. When as you say it is not text righteousness, we are sure you can have no text for it, and your construction is its corruption, and it is the favour you bear your own cause.  
3. When as you say it is given by the mediation and strength of the righteousness of another Christ. It must be his righteousness imputed or applied, and but an effect which we spoke of before, and the confirmation thereof.  
If such imputation be necessary to justification, it is either in 
Arg. 20.  respect of the justice of God, because he could not be otherwise just in pronouncing us just, or in respect of mercy, or for salving and advancing some other attribute.  
But there is no necessity in respect of these.  
You answer yourself, that it is necessary in respect of God's justice. And argue against that.  
1. There is nothing thereabout necessary by way of satisfaction of justice, since Christ's one offering on the Gross, etc. 
G.   
Yet there is a necessity that there be an application of 
A.  that righteousness, else can there be no justification, and were not that done God should justify a wicked man, which is abomination to the Lord; when as the Lord justifying doth to that end apply the righteousness of Christ. God's judgement is according to truth, justice in God requireth that a man be just, that is, justified, God will not hold a guilty person innocent.  
2. You answer, God may as truly pronounce that man righteous that wants a literal or legal righteousness upon him, 
G.  especially supposing another righteousness, holding any analogy or proportion thereunto, as he may accounted any man's uncircumcision circumcision, or call the gentle circumcision, or John Baptist, Elias, etc. in these Christ spoke truly.  
So may God, a man not legally just, having qualification which holdeth proportion with such righteousness in any point, etc.  
I answer, we want legal righteousness, that is, our own personal righteousness, but in Christ's righteousness have what God accepteth us in, our Sureties righteousness is our own, it is the righteousness of God. Such can you name no other that is so indeed, so that the Lord may thereupon justify when you mention remission of sins; besides, that it is not righteousness, conformity to God's Law, we grant it but as an effect of righteousness imputed, of which before.  
And when as you in the third place answer that remission is a true and complete righteousness in the kind, though it be not a through conformity with the Law. I may answer, nun te vides pugnantia loqui? that which is not a through conformity to the Law, is not a complete righteousness; it hath not its nature, it is an effect of righteousness imputed Christ's, we are complete in him, God's judgement is according to truth, and so is his pronouncing such a man just.   

CHAP. XX. Containing the 21. 22, 23, & 24. Reasons.  
PAssing your Apolgy for further demonstrations, as you call them. Let us hear the demonstrations themselves.  
That which having been done in our own persons, could not 
Arg. 2.  have been our justification nor any part of the righteousness by which we could have been justified, cannot be made our justification, or any part of it by imputation from another.  
But the righteousness of the Law pretended to be imputed from Christ in justification, had it been wrought by ourselves in our own persons, could not have been our justification or any part of that righteousness, nor any part of our righteousness by which we were to be justified; therefore the righteousness of Christ cannot be made our justification, nor any part of it by imputation.  
I will not stand on the altering the state of the question, which is not whether it be our justification or part of it, but whether we be justified by it imputed: the difference is as cause and effect, and in the minor proposition being our justification and part of the righteousness are confounded.  
I might dismiss this argument with this note. But I will suppose all right. I answer,  
1. We speak not of the active without the passive obedience of Christ, we teach the imputation of both.  
2. Performance supposed, is either of man standing or fallen. If standing it could have justified, had Adam done this he had lived. In the sense the major is false, you confess it.  
If fallen, the supposition is impossible, Rom. 8. 3. and there must be more than action, passion also, which are impossible to a man's self. Personal passion could not satisfy, so the damned might, there must be doing also, which is impossible.  
3. What could not be therefore our righteousness and justify, being done and suffered by another and imputed doth it, that which is impossible in a person, is found in Christ perfect obedience. By his obedience we are constituted righteous, Rom. 5. 19  
That which men are not bound by any Law of God to do in 
Arg. 22.  their own persons for their justification, cannot be imputed from another to any such end.  
But men are not bound to observe the moral Law to justification, therefore the observation of it by another cannot be imputed to that end.  
1. I answer, Do this, was God's Law to life: the moral Law must be perfectly performed if it justify, as you, p. 99 & 103. 
Lex aeterna, & aete●nae obligationis. p. 67.   
2. That this is eternally obliging, yourself call it, an eternal Law, and of eternal obligation. And God requireth it still, either by ourselves or Surety; had it not been due of our part, our Sureties obedience until death, poverty, etc. had been vain; but it was for us, our debt. When as our L. required to life, keeping the Commandments, he shown it a debt, and that he being insolent in his person must look for a Surety.  
The Law of faith is sufficient as an instrument applying what the Mediator did and suffered, to put it on; there must be somewhat else, the object of faith, which applied to us, answereth for us that debt, and thus faith establisheth the Law.  
Faith properly taken is not. Read V●sinus again, and 
Quia non fides proprie sedobjectum fidei seu meritum Christi fide apprehensum imputatur nobis ad justitiam. Haec eriam est conformitas Legis, fides enim Legem non inanem reddit sed stabilit. Rom. 3. 31.  he in terms teacheth you, Because faith properly is not imputed to righteousness, but the object of faith, or the merit of Christ apprehended by faith: so he, or Pareus, or both, as 5. object. p. 364. and of another's righteousness, not inhering in us but Christ.  
They say, this also is conformity of the Law, for faith maketh not the Law of none effect, but establisheth it. This wheel runneth merrily, I will save labour in further oiling of it. It is your own Rhetoric, and serveth my turn.  
If God requires only faith of men to their justification, than he imputeth this faith unto them thereunto, but God requires only faith. 
Arg. 23.   
I answer, only faith is faith considered in itself properly, or in relation as taking in the object Christ's, righteousness, applying it; the former (which you hold) is not all, or God's condition further than it taketh in Christ's righteousness, which is in deed the condition, as elsewhere I have showed. So Pareus but now, and all the learned Protestants except Armin. Socin. Mr. W. and Mr. Good. the faith which God requires is an appropriation of the perfect obedience of Christ, by which we are constituted righteous, as the Scripture speaketh, therein alone is the virtue or value; faith is but the instrument applying, which to that end yet is necessary.  
And this is the will of God; neither (to answer what followeth) can man receive it but on supposition of God's imputation and giving; giving and receiving are relates; this wheel runneth as merrily, and will need not more oiling for this argument.  
That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness in 
Arg. 24.  his justification, is imputed to other believers also.  
But the faith of Abraham was, etc.  
And you refer for proof to the second chapter, where it is sealed by the choicest learning of ancient and modern, where also he may see the ashes, of the contrary interpretation, consumed and burnt up with the fire of the trial, etc.  
But here you give us Rhetoric instead of Logic. Turn what is said on both sides lose, and excepting Socin. Armin. etc. you have not a man with you.  
The faith of Abraham took in the promises, the seed, Christ his righteousness, in whom is all happiness, it did justify, laying hold, and applying his righteousness imputed, vers. 6. & 11. the effect of what is applied is given to the instrument as the whiting of a wall to the brush or pencil, as making rich to the hand of a beggar; by a Trope a Metonymy, or a double Trope Metalepsis, relatively, as all ours, see before out of Sybrandus; so our Doctor Davenant answereth Bellarmine, so Pareus, so Chemnit.  
Faith is imputed to righteousness, 
Fides imputatur ad justitiam non propter dignitatem virtutis, sed quia apprehendit in promissione Evangelii meritum Christi, etc. p. 271. nam neque actione fidei nostrae justificamur: sed ea re tantum quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae est Christus cum sua obedientia, justi censcmur, & sic illud intelligo: Credidit Abraham, etc. Gen. 15. 6. quid reputatum? non actio, sed● id quod credidit seura alii loquuntur▪ ipso▪ fides, non sui apprehendentis, sed objecti apprehensi respectu▪ Zanch. in Phillip 3. 9  not for the dignity of the virtue, but because it apprehendeth the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel; for neither are we justified by the act of our faith, but by that thing only which by saith is apprehended, which is Christ with his obedience, we are accounted just: and thus I understand that, Abraham believed, etc. What was reputed? not the action, but that which he believed, or as others speak, faith itself, not in respect of itself apprehending, but of the object apprehended.   

CHAP. XXI. The last Reason.  
IF the righteousness of the Law be not imputable or derivable (in the letter and formality of it from one man's person to another) than cannot the righteousness of Christ be imputed to any man in justification after any such manner.  
But the righteousness of the Law is not imputable from ou● man's person to another's. Therefore the righteousness of Christ is not imputable (much less imputed) to any man in his justification: this is mentioned with proofs, c. 8. the reason is, the man that doth shall live and no other.  
You needed not to name this twice, nor I to answer it more than once; yet I deny the consequence, for the righteousness of Christ is not Legal, but Evangelicall: the Gospel revealeth it.  
And than I deny that that righteousness which Christ performed for us is not imputable, or imputed, he was our Surety, performed obedience to death for us, if it be not imputed it is vain, we have no benefit by it. But looking bacl, I shall but deliver the same; I will turn you over.  
The Law requireth personal performances, the Gospel admitteth of a Surety, the man that's found in Christ having his righteousness, liveth; By the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous: suppose imputed or given by God and applied by us.  
You object to yourself, If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one to another, than may the righteousness of the Law. But the transgression of the Law is imputable from one man's person to another's, ●● Adam's sin.  
By way of answer you first deny the majors consequence, and give reasons.  
1. In the tenor of the Law there is no such emphatical restraint of the guilt or punishment due to the transgression of it to the person, as there is of the reward promised to the observer, as Gal. 3. 12. The man that doth this shall live: it is not where found on the other hand, the very man that transgressseth them shall die for his transgression.  
Did not God say to Allam, In the day thou shalt eat thereof thou shalt die the death? Gen. 2. 17▪ did you never read, The s●●le that sinneth it shall die? Ezek. 18. 4.  
2. You answer, giving a difference, that sin demerit it is greater of punishment than obedience in deserving a reward.  
This exception notwithstanding there may be a specifical sameness of reason, and the difference but in a degree, greater less; You grant obedience should merit, though not so much, which yet is simply destroyed, when as it is found due, and we having done all are unprofitable servants.  
But it cannot be denied, but whole nature was in Adam, in his loins, willing, doing, receiving, as he by covenant, to have been brought forth in his likeness, pure and holy as himself; had he continued so, as he, unclean, did bring forth such as are unclean; more, less, merit or not, is not the question, but imputablenesse: the sameness thereof, you confess it when you put the difference more and less, p. 192.  
You now▪ come to the imputation of Adam's sin, to his posterity, assenring its imputation only in the merit of▪ it, it is a curse or punishment, and than propose to us certain conclusions about the same.  
The first is, The Scripture not where affirms either the imputation of Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ to those that believe; where ever it is used, it is only applied to something of the same persons to whom the imputation is made, and never to or of any thing of another's.  
Besides what hath been spoken, to which I refer the Reader.  
1. This conclusion is against imputation simply of what is another's, and is for Armin. Socin. etc. against all Protestants, even such as hold the imputation of Christ's passive obedience, which is another's.  
2. It is against the word which speaketh of imputation of righteousness, Rom. 4. vers. 6. & 11. which I have showed to be Christ's, and is confuted by the Protestant stream, who interpreting faiths imputation, take faith tropically and include the righteousness of Christ given or imputed by God. Pareus his speech is, quem sensum (metonymicum) si oppugnat adversarius, certe non Lutheruum impugnat sed Spiritum sanctum blasphemat, etc. and what Sybr. teacheth of the same we have heard before.  
The privileges, remission, etc. suppose Christ's▪ righteousness not only performed, but given and received, as the effect the cause.  
So doth our death for Adam's sin, and that sin is ours, the Scripture showeth we sinned in him, and that sin went over all by one man's disobedience; we not only die, but sin, death passed over all, being all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12. and by one man's offence many are made sinners, vers. 19  
As Adam's posterity are implied to be in his loins to punishment, so to sin whence punishment, and this yourself often confess, which by imputation becometh ours, when as we are conceived.  
To impute sin, is only to charge guilt of sin on a man, 
2.  with a purpose to punish him for it, as Rom. 5. 13. not sinne itself.  
I answer, the Scripture chargeth us with both Adam's sin and the demerit or guilt thereof, & I would know whether sin and guilt demerit are separable? if not, how there can be guilt charged, and demerit, and not sin, as the sin is, the demerit is, inseparably, though not the charging of it.  
Hath many parts, the first is, That imputation of the righteousness 
3.  of Christ to believers, or the sin of Adam to his posterity, are expressions at lest unknown to the holy Ghost in Scripture.  
1. The answer is, this was once before named and answered, and must be now neglected. Hosius the Papist said it of Christ's righteousness, you are like him.  
2. You say, you grant there are expressions in Scripture concerning both the communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, and the righteousness of Christ with believers, that will fairly enough bear the term of imputation, if it be rightly understood.  
So the terms are granted, the difficulty is about the right sense; thus you destroy what you built before twice in this chapter. Now for the sense.  
You say, Rom. 5. 19 concerning Adam's sin, many are said to be sinners, and righteousness of Christ, many are made righteous▪ and upon that if the meaning of imputation of Adam's sin to condemnation be that the demerit or guilt of Adam's sin is charged on the whole posterity, a main part of which punishment of Adam's sin redounded and ran over as it were from his person to his whole posterity, a main part of which punishment is that original defilement wherein they are all conceived and borne, and thereby are made truly and formally sinners before God. Let it pass. But if the meaning be that sinful act wherein Adam tronsgressed in the letter and formality of it; and as it was Adam's own personal sin is so imputed that his posterity is made formally sinners before any of the part of the punishment come upon them, this imputation you are sure the Scripture will not justify.  
I answer, granting the former part, for guilt and punishment, that by which we are formally sinners, that is inherently. But add that is not all, the act of Adam as well as the demerit, nay therefore because the demerit is imputed, and by it as I am formally a sinner by pollution of nature, which is an effect, so am I truly a sinner, thence denominated, not formally as it inhering, and yet charged on me, with, and as the internal guilt and demerit. So that I am as truly a sinner by imputation of that act, as the effect thereof, so the texts of which before.  
1. You pled first the weight of the demerit, or sinfulness of it demonstrateth the equity of God's proceed in binding over Adam's posterity, as his person to the same punishment.  
2. The narrowness and scantness of Adam's person▪ to bear all that wrath himself.  
3. The peculiar and near relation of the posterity of his person, they mere in his person, and somewhat of his, when the sin was committed. Adam was all us, we all were that one Adam. The whole generation of mankind is but Adam, or but Adam's person interpreted.  
All these as grounds of God's equity and just dealing in punishing Adam and his poslerity, you largely lay down, and than by Scripture.  
And who opposeth you? what is this to the not-imputation of his sin? the texts are clean we are sinners, and reason that the internal demerit and sin are inseparable, you call it demerit or sinfulness.  
Imputation therefore (say you) if there be any, is of every man's own sin in Adam, we being in his loins as Levi in Abraham, not Adams, etc.  
If it be our own, than not the punishment only but the offence is ours, we are sinners thence as well as from inward pollution▪ and as it is equal as soon as we exist that the punishment should be laid on us, and the demerit, so the sin itself, as that for which, which we all conceive to be by God's imputation or charging it on us.  
God righteously punisheth and righteously reputeth me a sinner. And yet it is Adam's sin, the sin of one in Scripture; he only existing, made ours by God's just judgement in conception and birth, and that by imputation, which we conceive God's way of communication which you granted but now, for which there is such equity as you speak of; for more to this head I refer you to what is before largely spoken unto twice to this head, of Orthodox against Pelagians and Papists, and on occasion given in what followeth.  
I have done examining the first Treatise, and now come to consider what commission and power you have to disarm and take away the weapons of us whom you call your enemies, your second part: and first to examine your conclusions.    

EXAMINATION of Mr. goodwin's CONCLUSIONS.  

Being Chapter 1 & 2. of his second part.  
WHich you say Give light to the Question, and serve as foundations and grounds to give answer upon, to Objections made against your discourse.  
Concl. 1. He for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made (either by himself or another for him) and hath been accepted by him, against whom▪ etc. is as just and righteous as he that river sinned, but had done all things meet for him.  
1. I answer, a plenary satisfaction respecteth the whole debt: that made and accepted he for whom it's paid is as just as you speak.  
2. Acceptation is necessary to a plenary satisfaction for sin, to that perfect righteousness; this acceptation is in and for Christ's perfect sati faction; we are accepted, in the beloved, 1 Eph. in him God's well pleased; when as we are found in his righteousness, as jacob in Esau's apparel: in Christ, not having our own righteousness, but that which is by faith, apprehending and putting on, that man is free from sin, and likewise holy, unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight; white as snow, and whiter than the snow, complete, perfect, perfected for ever; every way, to this end; and thence remission of sins as before.  
Thus is evident because there's as much righteousness in repairing wrongs, as in abstaining from wrongs.  
I answer it's true, and grounded on my former answer supposing a man in the righteousness of Christ.  
Else it's short: for though there be as much righteousness in repairing wrongs, as in abstaining from them▪ Neither are sufficient to make a man completely just; there must be also a doing right, a doing good.  
He that trespasseth by ; and fully satisfyeth for that spoil is done to his contentment, is as good a neighbour, and deals as justly and honestly with him as he that never trespassed.  
True, and yet is not so good as he should be by the Commandment, it forbiddeth evil, and requireth love and good, and from this positive part is he denominated.  
No trespasser can by himself satisfy God, he must do it by another, putting him not only in a state of abstinence from evil, but also of righteousness, both which are done by the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience. Whence pardon.  
The esserce of justice, as in the definition of justice is suum cuique tribuere, to give every one that which is due to him: there's no more due to one injured, than that which is his own; that is fully valuable to the injury we have done unto him.  
The former part I grant, so that there be all that's due but deny it enough, not to do evil; good must also be done; so that Commandment. And Repentance requireth, as abstinence from evil, doing good; as not to bring forth evil so to bring forth good fruit. nova vita est optima paenitentia, and that by which a man abstaineth from evil, is positive goodness.  
This Conclusion maketh nothing for your Faith's imputation, in a proper sense. It maketh for imputation of active and passive obedience, in which there's full compensation; giving God what's due.  
Concl. 2. there's no middle condition between a perfect freedom from fin, and complete righteousness. He that is discharged from sin, is completely righteous.  
I answer, and grant that he that is discharged from sin, is so on imputation of righteousness, that, the cause is supposed, and he is completely righteous, and so there's no medium.  
Mr. Bradshaw's passage is on supposition of things, thus done and suffered jointly; in with the righteousness of Christ consisteth, by which a man is justified p. 75. p 22. & so p. 23. and said to be imputed, p. 24. and thence your named inference which is for our purpose against yourself.  
Your reason, Because nothing can any way diminish perfection of righteousness, but sin, as degrees of darkness, perfection of light; as the air free from darkness must needs be perfectly light: So he that is perfectly freed from all fin, must needs be perfectly righteous.  
I answer, though nothing diminisheth perfection of righteousness but sin, as degrees of darkness do the perfection of light; and although from the perfect freedom from darkness, perfect light must needs be put; and he that is perfectly free from sin, must needs be perfectly righteous.  
Yet both are on suppositions, of perfect light, and perfect righteousness; which suppositions are necessary.  
It's the approaching light that beginneth the dispelling of darkness, and perfect light leaveth no darkness at all. In sanctification flesh and spirit are contraries, than when as there is infusion of grace, and thereby corruption is mortified and dispelled; there's fight and 
Vn●m ●ont●triorum, vi●●endi co●rum ●●t all 〈◊〉▪ ●ummu 〈◊〉 unius 〈…〉 put de 〈◊〉▪  victory on grace's part. One contrary by overcoming doth corrupt the other; and it's the highest degree of one contrary which leaveth nothing of the other. So that though it be darkness that hindereth perfect light, it's perfect light that disp●lleth all degrees of darkness.  
So it's imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness, which causeth complete pardon: and though the man that's freed from all sins is perfectly righteous. That perfection of righteousness is not from pardon: but pardon, yea justification from imputation of Christ's perfect obedience, active and passive. By this applied a effect thereof.  
And her's poor relief for you: for remission of sins being the form of justification; in opposition to imputed righteousness, for which we have the text, By the obedience of one many are made righteous. None for your Faiths proper sense.  
Concl 3. Adam while he stood was completely just, as just as if he had continued, to this day; as Christ from the womb: therefore by remission to grant a man in statu quo, Adams, before his fall, which is granted, is to grant the point in controversy.  
Adam was not so just as he had been continuing; nor so just as the Commandment required, seeing it required also continuing on which he was to receive life.  
Justice to life required, doing this, God's whole Law; whereof abstaining from the forbidden fruit, was a pledge and experiment; on this life was promised, the contrary threatened with death, to which Adam yielded, and in that way looked for life, this as a trial was the sum of all. He was also to continued therein to that end, as the Law openeth it, seeing he is accursed that abideth not in all.  
Though Adam had perfection of righteousness, ability, he was not a doer, neither did he continued, and so had not right to life.  
Though he lived by that righteousness, in which he was created, yet not that life which was promised; that was everlasting life: death threatened was so and therefore life; what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life▪ was a received Doctrine, not contradicted by Christ, but established, when as he willed him to keep the Commandments, which had he done, he had not sinned, or died at all.  
2. Ideny that Adam was as righteous as Christ from the womb▪ because Christ was as righteous, and having right to: for living comprehensive from the first moment of his conception by the Spirit and hypostacie 
Ejusdem possessione gaudebat▪  union, he did possess it, as Mr. Gat. p. 28. which was not true or ●● 〈◊〉: therefore there was no need or his do to life, his own; but even as our surety, satisfying our debt; as else where.  
3. For that grant that by remission of sins, man is in statu quo, of Adam before his fall.  
1. I answer. He is in a fare better and more excellent one.  
2. This is a truth, supposing imputation of righteousness, by which that remission of sins.  
3. It's false otherwise. Adam was just by perfect righteousness, quum perfecta justitia imbutus, Mr. Gat. p. 28. that being inherent he was formally so. It's not thus with your justified one, by remission of sins. What is that righteousness? Faith? or that and other Graces? no we are not perfectly righteous that way as Adam; and so not in statu quo Adamus, in the state in which Adam was▪ If God should accounted such an one so, it were not according to truth. It were justification by the Law, which Papists teach. So they and that these are perfect; but you know it's otherwise.  
Suppose now imputation of the righteousness of Christ; than that effect pardon will follow and a person is perfectly just; here's righteousness fare more excellent than Adam's justifying, and causing pardon; and such a man may be said to be in statu quo, with advantage.  
Concl. 4. Perfect remission of sins includes the imputation or acknowledgement of the observation of the whole Law, even as the imputation of the Law fulfiled necessarily includes▪ non imputation of sin, or forgiveness.  
2. He that is looked upon as never offending, must needs be looked upon as one that hath kept the whole Law, which is to have a perfect righteousness, or which is the same, a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him: So that besides pardon, there's no needer place for imputation of Christ's righteousness.  
1. I answer, the first part is true, as we have explained before, remission, supposing the cause imputation of righteousness; imputation of righteousness being attended with non imputation of sin.  
2. So we have man as never sinning.  
3. And so the necessity of imputation is apparent: and that it hath a necessary place: else where's that observation of the Law included? how else can Gods holy eyes look on a man as perfectly righteous? the believer is not so by faith, or any other grace unless that be accepted for perfect righteousness, which yet is imperfect, which yet is no righteousness indeed; as yourself else where. Interpretative must be your own speech, very improper, fare from exactness as after.  
When as you will us to compare Rom. 4. 6, 7. & 11.  
We answer, we have done it and found imputation of the righteousness of Christ (as interpreters before) and so pardon or non imputation; by the obedience of one we are constituted righteous. These we found not your interpretation. To impute righteousness and not impute sin, are indeed different in name and nature, as cause and effect; when either is named, the other is unfolded; and by them both, is our blessed estate set forth.  
Your simile of a Physician by one act recovering from sickness, restoring his patient to health, holdeth with God's imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification: hereby we are delivered and recovered we are so really. It's for us. there's question of recovery still where Christ's righteousness is denied a place, and yet man asserted perfectly righteous and an observer of the Laws.  
For that other similitude. That act by which the sun dispels darkness, may be called the act by which he fills the air with light.  
I answer. Those acts are not the same, but differ as 'cause and effect: the filling of our air with light is the cause, dispelling darkness the effect; the latter ever supposeth the former, and so doth pardon, non imputation of sin; the imputation of the righteousness active and passive of Christ to justification, whence absolution or pardon. You say,  
Forgiveness of sins, and imputation of righteousness, being but two different names, expressions, or considerations of one and the same thing, and so one and the same act of God, is sometimes called forgiveness of sins, and some times an imputing of righteousness; and the forgiveness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness, to show and signify that a man needs nothing to a complete righteousness or justification: but the forgiveness of his sin: and again, the imputing of righteousness is sometimes called forgiveness, to show that God hath no other righteousness to conserre upon a sinner: but that which standeth in pardon, those two terms do but aid and assist each other.  
1. Note here, that if imputation of righteousness, and forgiveness, be one and the same; than imputation of righteousness, cannot be denied, when as pardon is mentioned: and why are you so vehement elsewhere against imputation of righteousness? of Christ's? no other is imputed: it's showed before.  
2. Justification and righteousness are not to be confounded, it's an ordinary practice of yours, the one is the cause, the other the effect.  
3. Neither are imputation of righteousness, and pardon the same, but differ also, as cause and effect: as before.  
4. I deny pardon righteousness, that which formally justifyeth and have proved the same. I name another righteousness, Christ's, for by it are we constituted righteous 5. Ro. 19 that's righteousness indeed. You objest to yourself:  
How can God impute a righteousness that never was or had being, nor righteousness, or not of the kind of that we speak of, there being no other perfect righteousness, but that of Christ? and Answer. 1. there's as express and complete arighteousnesse to the Law, as ever Christ performed: 2. arighteousnes more proper and appropriable to all sorts of men, than Christ's personal righteousness, which Christ himself performed; and what if it be said, that in remission through Christ, from and out of the Law, God imputeth to every believer such a righteousness, as is proper to him. And say its more agreeable to Scripture and reason, than to held an imputation of such righteousness, a sisteme and frame of such actions, which were a righteousness indeed to him that wrote them, the Law requiring them of him: but cannot be to another, the Law requiring the same acts of none besides; for none are righteous for doing what the Law requireth simply, but for doing what it requires of him in reference to his personal condition, calling relations, etc.  
I reply, 1. denying forgiveness of sin's righteousness, as before, it hath no conformity to the Law, which yet Christ's righteousness had, and all grant Christ's righteousness to be mere pardon.  
2. It's not only his, but God's act (if righteousness) neither performed by us, nor Christ our surety for us.  
3. It's an effect of righteousness imputed (as before) or a consequent act on it imputed.  
4. The Law neither requireth it, nor revealeth it, nor accepteth it, and therefore it's not express to the Law, no proper righteousness; it's a righteousness, and not a contradiction.  
5. As for Christ's righteousness, he obeyed not for himself, but us, as a surety for the debtor, and so the Law requireth them of him, being once a surety; his do and sufferings our debt.  
He fullfilling all righteousness, respected and yields to every member his just proportion: of which before you have a full answer.  
And when you answer further, That to say God cannot impute a righteousness which never had a being, which was never really performed by any man, is to deny that God hath power to forgive sins, because it's an imputation of righteousness, such as the Scripture teacheth, is without works, 4. Ro. 6. & Rom. 3 28. i a righteousness not consisting of any works performed to the Law by any man; and what is this but such a righteousness as never had a being?  
1. I answer. A righteousness there is never performed by any man, (as the essential righteousness of God, & that of Angels) truth falls not under our consideration, and it's a righteousness indeed.  
2. A righteousness that never had a being, implieth a contradiction; a quality, or actions not being: and God cannot accounted that properly to be so that never had a being.  
3. You must prove that the denial of imputation of such a righteousness, as is none, is a denial of God's power to forgive sins.  
4. I deny forgiveness of sins to be imputation of righteousness, it▪ s but the effect thereof.  
5. Righteousness without works simply, is a contradiction, denyeth the definition thereof. Justification without our personal works we confess, not works simply, of the Mediator suppose; and that's the Apostles meaning, as our Church and the learned; and you hold them an essential requisite.  
Concl. 5. He that is fully acquitted and discharged from sins, needeth no other righteousness to give him a right or title to life: 2. The reason thereof is, death is the wages of sin, and sin only. Now he that is free from death, hath a right to life, because there's no middle.  
1. I answer: a full discharge supposeth a full satisfaction that's by active and passive righteousness, ours by imputation, whence, forgiveness, and right to life: so there is no farther need, nor middle, between one just and pardoned, free from sin: you put the cause the righteousness of Christ imputed.  
2. deny that supposition, I deny pardon, orright to life.  
3. Christ's death without obedience active in flowing, is insufficient to constitute him a Priest for us, or his sacrifice propitiatory, ex concessis: and therefore to full pardon.  
4. Pardon without righteousness, supposed qualifieth not to life; life is the sequel, as of that so of somewhat else, whether Christ's righteousness and adoption, or adoption (founded in inherent righteousness, that birth of God, and Christ's perfect obedience, which is principal) the eternal rule is, do this and live: for which Christ was the end of the Law for righteousness to believers, dying and doing, as our surety for our debt: thus is the Law established.  
Adam whilst innocent had right to life, and enjoyed it, else could he not be threatened with death, 2. Gen. 17. though he had not done the Law to have right to have right to life. If he had not right by freedom from sin, what quantity of obedience, and how long must he have obeyed to have right to life?  
It's true, Adam innocent had a natural life, and what was connatural also, consisting in God's image, by which he was conformed to the Law, and so was free from sin and death; and so had promise of continuance of thoselives, and also of a glorious life: So hath the man to whom GOD giveth the righteousness of Christ, and so pardon: what's this to him that is supposed without righteousness simply? there's no likeness.  
To your Question though I cannot, nor do answer, it helpeth not your conclusion.  
Yet I should think he must have all righteousness, and what is for ever: this I have, being complete in Christ, I have everlasting righteousness, and am in statu quo rather a better, which no man is or can be by pardon (supposing it possible to be, which yet cannot be, seeing they are contraria immediata, and cause and effect.  
You say, The Scriptures of the new Testament, seem to place the immediate right, believers have of heaven and glory, rather in adoption purchased, than in any righteousness.  
1. The life than which was promised was glory which Adam had not enjoyed not, as not doing this, or tell from that, was, and is the promised life, in old and new Testament.  
2. If it be rather founded in adoption, than that discharge why do you give right by that discharge? you thwart yourself, or else must give it to both.  
1. When you say, it is not by any righteousness, you say it's not by remission of sins, or deny that to be (which yet is before asserted) righteousness.  
2. And why do the Scriptures old and new require, do this to life: The spirit is life saith St. Paul, because of righteousness, 8 Ro. 10 see Pountium and Chami●r of imputed righteousness.  
And what need you to argue our being in statu quo, from a full discharge, and to a perfect righteousness, if it furthers not to life?  
If we be in statu quo, and have perfect righteousness, we are qualified to that life thence: so where Christ's righteousness is acknowledged imputed; or else to what end is it? and if it be not so (that is we are not in statu quo) as it is certain, where this is denied, your arguments thence must be confessed sophistical.  
But you may evade by your manner of proposal, it seems, it may seem in your borrowed light, and not be, qu●dam videntur quae non sunt.  
To which you add, the reason may be happily, this life, etc. which comes by Christ through Faith, are of an higher nature than that promised Adam, as wages for work, or obedience to the Law, requiring a fuller and richer title, to interest the creature than that. Work performed entitleth sufficiently to hire and wages: but the gift of an inheritance requireth grace and special favour as adoption, to make a man regularly and according to the course of human transaction capable thereof.  
1. I answer. Life by Christ is eternal. 2. Eternal life was promised to those that do this: as that question what shall I do to inherit eternal life? and the answer of Christ showeth in the Gospel. 3. This was of an higher nature than that life which Adam had and enjoyed, but not than was promised. Had Adam done it was not wages or hire, because it was what he aught, and was justly punished for not performance; when we have done all we are unprofitable servants, and do but what we aught. It's a favour and a mercy to make a promise of eternal life to a creature.  
4. We have by Christ a richer title, Christ his merits, his active and passive obedience, do, sufferings imputed; by his poverty we are made rich, by his obedience we are constituted righteous; these performed by our surety accounted to us entitle us to life; the spirit is life because of righteousness.  
Were it by adoption it may be by righteousness, we are heirs of the righteousness of faith, if life followeth our new birth, in which adoption is founded, which is imperfect, how much more the perfect righteousness of Christ, by which we are completely like unto the Lord? so that there's no fight or opposition, but sweet agreement. When as the Apostle saith, that precious faith is obtained through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour jesus Christ; of Jesus Christ who is our God and Saviour, adoption or Sonship the effect of Faith, must needs be an effect of righteousness; the cause of the cause, is the cause of the effect, and by the same reason adoption is not an higher title than the righteousness of Christ, it's founded in it. Our life was the hire and wages of Christ, our sureties obedience. there's as well grace and favour in the obedience of Christ, and justification, as in adoption and life: all are of free grace, justice and grace are both in Justification 3. Rom. 24. etc.  
Concl. 6. That satisfaction which Christ made to the justice of God, and thereby procured remission of sins (or perfect righteousness; and reconciliation with God for those that believe, consists only in that obedience of his, which be performed to that peculiar and special Law of mediation, which God imposed upon him, which we commonly, though perhaps not so properly call his passive obedience, and not at all in that subjection which he exhibited to that common law of nature, which we call Moral.  
1. Remission of sins, and perfect righteousness are not the same, they differ in the cause and effect, as Mr. Gat. and we before have showed.  
Reconciliation, though it infoldeth remission of sins, is of a larger extent than remission. It contains slaughter of enmity simply, between us and God, and positive amity that which is perfect in regard of Christ's righteousness imputed, as well as what's inherent according to its degree.  
I confess Christ's satisfaction doth consist only in that obedience of his which he performed to the Law of mediation, imposed on him by God, and that was our whole debt, which was not only death, but obedience to the Moral Law. We own unto God perfect obedience, our surety must satisfy that; death excluding obedience was not sat is, it's an ingredient absolutely necessary to 'cause death to be propitiatory or satisfactory. You call obedience to the Moral Law, the common law of nature: Nature oweth it than, it must be paid by our surety, or it's not satis.  
The whole humiliation of Christ, beginning at his conception continued to death, consummated in death, was what was due, what was imposed, what was performed; our nature, holiness and righteousness of nature and life; his whole subjection to the Law, were all due by that law of Mediation; and that was as large as our debt to the Moral Law, the fullfilling of it: deny this, there's no fullfilling the Law of a Mediator, no satisfaction. As for Christ's obedience to the Law for his own life, it's vain, seeing he was perfectly living from the first moment of his conception.  
Your reason, because nothing can be satisfactory for sin to divine justice, but what's penal; without bloodshedding there's no remission nor satisfaction.  
1. I grant without blood shedding there's no remission nor satisfaction:  
2. And nothing can be satisfactory but what's penal, so was Christ's whole exinanition and obedience penal laid on him, and submitted unto as our surety, for us.  
3. satisfaction for sin is but a part, justice requireth the whole debt, and that must be and is where there is complete satisfaction; yourself hold that active obedience an essential requisite to make sufferings effectual.  
The obedience or subjection of Christ to the Moral Law was no ways penal to him, 1. it could not be in respect of his Godhead, it not being passive, 2. not to his human nature, because it was required of him in innocenty, imposedon Adam before his fall, and ever lieth on man, and Angels, and jesus Christ now glorified; love the fullfilling of the Law never falleth away. To make obedience to the Moral Law penal, is to affirm man was punished by order from God, before his fall, and that the glorified Saints, Angels, and Christ, are now punished in heaven.  
1. What was imposed by God before the fall and ever lieth on man, lieth on man, never falleth away: the fullfilling of the Law is his debt than, by an eternal Law, and must be answered by a man's self or Mediator. It being impossible to man our surety must make satisfaction.  
2. Subjection of Christ to the Moral Law, he being our surety, that our debt, must needs be penal to him; so was his being man, and making under the Law, Gal. 4. It was necessary for our Redemption, who were under the Law, and to our receiving the adoption of sons. It was his humiliation and emptying of himself; his being in form of a servant, his poverty, the person was thereby abased.  
Neither was he bound to be Man for himself, or to obey for himself, but us, the children by predestination being partakers of flesh and blood, those that were given to him from eternity to give life unto, sinning occasioned his Incarnation, etc. neither was it needful for himself to obey being Man, that he might live when as he lived from the first moment of conception.  
So that though it be not penal simply, and to all it must be confessed so to Jesus Christ our surety.  
Besides Christ our surety, In vita passivam habuit actionem, & in morte passionem activam dum salutem operareter in medio terrae, as Gerhard out of Bernard. In passione summus amor Dei & ardentissima, erga genus humanum dilectio patientia obedientia, humilitas, fiducia, invocatie, spes; & damnati patiendo satisfaciunt Legi si Christus us patiendo: that is only by sufferings, excluding his obedience to God's Laws. His death was obedince, Sponte enim Christus oppetiit pro nobis mortem— quia & voluntati patris etiam obediens esse, & salutem mun di perficere summo desiderio volut, cui voluntati? au generali tantum, qua omnis creatura rationalis, tenetur? imo comprimis singulari sibi impositae, ut vitam poneret pro ●vibus suis. Verusque voluntatis obsequium morte prestitit. Generalem legem moriendo pro nobis caritate summa implevit. Nulla enim charitas major quam dare vitam pro amiois, ne dum pro inimicis quod fecit Christus. Charitas vera est impletio Legis, &c see Pareus on Rom. 5. 19 p. 372. Vniversa Christi vita quid fuit, nisi perpetua quaedam passio quam morte tandem consammavit pro nobis. ib. See him after in dub. 7. Deinde in passione etc. sedet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 totius Legis Mosaicae impletio deprehenditur, charitate— precepta moralia implevit p. 399. amplius quam nudam satisfactionem reperiemus in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filii Dei tanta cum alacritate persoluto ib. p. 400.  
You go on. Scriptures ascribe not this satisfaction we speak of nor any part or degree of it to the holiness, innocence, or active obedience of Christ: but still to his passive.  
The Scripture giveth it to Christ's subjection to the Law, Gal. 4. to his obedience, Rom. 5. 19 obedience from the moment of his Incarnation unto his death and these are confessedly absolutely necessary to the constitution of him our Priest, and his sacrifice propitiatory, essential requisites.  
Places which mention his passive obedience, exclude not, but include his righteousness, by a synecdoche, as Calvin and other reformed writers, of which before they may not be separated also before.  
Concl. 7. If Christ had fulfiled and kept the Law for us, in our stead, till the u●most period of his life, there had been no oceasion or necessity of dying for us; there is no light clearer thou this.  
1. Sir you say you see. 2. Both death and obedience were our debt, and are necessary to our surety.  
Can a believer be supposed perfectly, personally righteous doing this, it were insufficient, in himself, in his surety, the debt being larger, and so for death.  
You say. If we stand before God by virtue of the perfect obedience of Christ's life imputed unto us as righteousness, etc. perfectly righteous; we are no more obnoxians to the curse of the Law, and so have no need of satisfaction to divine justice, nor of any remission of sins in his blood, there needs no more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteousness, and a perfect fullfilling of the Law.  
1. If there need not more, how say you it is unnecessary? and how can you give us a perfect justification without a perfect righteousness?  
Our perfect righteousness by the righteousness of Christ imputed, includeth Christ's passive obedience, they must not be nor are severed by us; death and obedience are our debt, our surety satisfied by both, and was insufficient.  
This the Apostle clearly layeth down, Gal. 2. 21. I frighteousnesse be by the Law whether performed by ourselves, or another for us, (for there's the same reason in justification) than Christ died in vain.  
You must prove your interpretation, it's expressly against as what is said, for the Articles of Ireland and our Doctrine of Justification, it's true of legal righteousness personal, not by our sureties; righteousness is necessary to justification as yourself seemed to say but now; if not our own, another's, our sureties Christ's, in which St. Paul would be found, not having his own exclude this you put Justification without justice; justification of the unjust there's no middle.  
To your Objection of Piscator, I oppose his opponents Lutherans and Calvinists and to Mr. Gataker Lucius and Gom. the Scriptures, yourselves, who make what Christ was bound unto lege mediatoria, necessary, which was his whole humility from, or obedience begun in his incarnation continued to his death, as Paraeus. I oppose the Doctrine of England and Ireland, and am ready to examine any of your reasons; and I must tell you none of these are for faith in a proper sense: nor deny, but teach the imputation of the righteousne of Christ as Paraeus, which you do not with Mr. Wots. Arminius and Socinus.  
Concls 8. The union and communion which true believers have with Christ doth no wise require or suppose such imputation of his righteousness to them as is conceived.  
Union and communion with Christ simply doth not suppose that imputation: but union and communion with Christ's righteousness to justification, there must be in order of nature giving and receiving to union and communion, and so Justification. When you add.  
That union and communion which the Wise hath with the Husband, doth not require that whatsoever he husband doth should be imputed to the wise; or that the wife should be reputed to have whatsoever the husband hath; she is not reputed wise, because the husband is wise, nor honesty, which he may have, and she be lose and false.  
I answer 1. there's no simile that runneth on all four feet omne simile est dissimile.  
2. It followeth not from dissimilitude, in husband and wise: that it is so in our union with Christ:  
The Scripture saith, Christ, is made unto believers of God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption and that by union; and by his obedience we are constituted righteous: and that the members of Christ are conformed to their head: men and women may have fools to husbands and wives, and dishonest, and be so denominated thence; Christ hath no such members.  
3. Our husband  
3. Our husband is our Saviour, by way of surety, as a surety he died and obeyed for us, by union we have 
Neque vero ●bsurdum vide 1 debet nos justitia illa quae Christi est subjectiuè, tanquám aliena justificari cum ita sit aliena ut etiam sit nostra imputatione, pro nobis praestita & a Deo tan nostra a●c epta, quemadmodum fidei jussoris pro debitore solutionem, perinde recipite editor, ac si debitor ipse eam secissec, & quod est p●oprium capitis Christi jure communications reli quo corpopis, id ●● Ecclesiae, & singulis membris tirbuiter, junius p. 13.  communion with his death, and obedience to our Justification,  
You demand, Whether Christ's soul and body must needs be imputed to them, because believing they have union with them, wisdom, power and glory also: so that they are esteemed of God as wise, as powerful as glorious as himself.  
And I answer, we say not whatsoever believers need neither bodies nor souls; they are, though in state of condemnation; we speak of righteousness to justificaon. We read of imputation of righteousness, and that Christ's, seeing by it, (we read also) we are constituted righteous.  
Our union is made good by these particulars. 1. That by it we are members of that body whereof he is head. 2. That we are partakers of the same spirit; have fellowship in the same fruits of the spirit with him. 4. That we have part in Redemptionpurchased. 5. Special interest in his wisdom, power, & other perfections of his person. 6. Complete title to that immortal inheritance, reserved in the heavens. 7. Communionwith God himself & communion one with another. Whence to deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is no more to deny or obscure their union, than to deny the miracles Christ wrought, are imputed to us, or that to deny a man seethe with his hands, or heareth with his heels, is a denying the members of the same body to have union with the head.  
I deny that there's the same reason of imputation of Christ's miracles, and his righteousness, from our union with him, or of seeing with hands, or hearing with heels, from union of members with the head, and imputation of Christ's righteousness our head in union, etc. This is but a cunning or rather palpable puddling of a clear stream, for your own evasion, and it's observed to be your manner. I cannot see with my hands, in your sense, nor hear with my heels; neither need I hands to see; nor heels to hear. I can be righteous with the righteousness of Christ. It's necessary absolutely, that I may be so perfectly.  
How richly soever you be clothed else. I profess myself naked, and have absolute necessity of the robes of Christ's righteousness, to cover my nakedness. It's what I owe. My Saviour's, my sureties: payment for my freedom in necessity. God made him righteousness to me, and I am constituted righteous by his obedience. God never made mine hands eyes to me nor heels ears, neither by one or other am I constituted, seeing or hearing. So miracles are not my debt.  
And though the one follow not from the other; yet from what you grant by union and communion I question not but I shall deduce by divine or Scripture-Logicke participation of righteousness to justification.  
1. From the first, that by union I am a member of the body, whereof Christ is the head.  
2. I am a member of Christ mine head. 2. and complete in him, which cannot be for righteousness, but by his, no justification; without that, no pardon. I may believe it seeing his righteousness was for me: and the word is, by it I am constituted righteous.  
3. You say, we are partakers of the same spirit. Than is our union real, revera, and not metaphorical only.  
The work of the spirit of my God, and in the name of Christ, is washing, that's a general sanctification; both parts; and justification, the Spirit applieth Christ and his righteousness, putteth on me the best robe, and enableth me by faith to cooperate, thereunto to apply the same.  
3. Part in redemption, enfoldeth part in Christ's ransom or payment of my debt, my debt being death and perfect obedience, require answerable death and obedience; death is insufficient without this essential requisite, I have a necessity of this righteousness than to this freedom.  
5. If by union I have special interest in his wisdom and power too, and other perfections, why not in his righteousness? It's a perfection most necessary.  
6. If I have complete title to that immortal inheritance reserved in the heavens; have I no title to that by which adoption and pardon? I and Christ's righteousness by which I live; by which I am perfectly like God. Is it not the righteousness of Faith, that which we are heirs of, as well as of glory?  
7. If I have communion with God himself, and his Love, have I not it in pardon & justification, & righteousness, by which? is not giving of Christ's righteousness or imputation thereof, his making me wholly fair, white as snow, and whiter, which is by the fairness and beauty, or righteousness of Christ? Is not his Covenant everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9 and his gift Christ's righteousness the righteousness of Faith, given by God, received by faith: doth not he by the obedience of one (becoming our God) constitute us righteous? these seem so to me; do you consider the matter a second time.  
Concl. 9 The sin of Adam is not where in Scripture said to be imputed to Adam's posterity; neither can any other imputation berof, be proved either by Scripture or reason, than th● which stands either in a communion of all his posterity with him therein (except Christ) in a propitiation of his nature defiled therewith, or lastly, in the punishment, that is come upon the world by it, etc.  
Do you not see how you speak that which fighteth with itself! If it doth no where, how in such a sense? if in such a sense, how no where?  
And why shall not all the posterity be granted, constituted sinners by an act of Justice imputing unto them the sin of Adam; when as by the same justice there's an act punishing for that sin, such you confess and such is that defilement, whence we are formally sinners; can justice impute the effect and not the cause? is it not spiritual death for sin?  
When as all were in his loins, it was the sin of all which act of Adam passing, our s●lves not existing can not other ways be in the judgement of the learned Protestant and Papists too sometimes) but by imputation, that's the manner when as it's communicated by generation.  
Adam (saith Bell for BP. Dounham citeth him and both give you an instance of mine assertion) alone did indeed commit that sin by actual will, but to us it is communicated by generation: In that manner which that which is passing can be imputed, by imputation, for it is imputed unto all: 
Eomodo quo communica●i potest is vod transi●●, nim●●um per imputationem omni●● enim imputatur.  for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam, because we all being than in the loins of Adam, when we sinned in him, and by him we sinned. Yea and further he rightly disputeth saith that Bishop, that if Adam's sin were not ours by imputation, neither the guilt of u, nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us, de justi. lively 4 c. 10. vice. which I touched even now, and remember it touched twice before. I may not abuse the Reader by writing over and over the same things: See Ans. to your last Reason. etc.  
Concl. ●0. Though justification and salvation came into the world by Christ, the second Adam, as condemnation and death by the first, yet there are many different considerations and circumstances between their come in.  
Grant this, yet when as the Apostle affirms the one and the other; and when as he showeth agreement in this, that as by the disobedience of one many are made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made righteous, which is all we contend for, both which being by acts transient, communicated to men, not than, but after existent, the orthodox expressure hath been, that the manner is imputation. For the first Adam's disobedience, and the seconds righteousness.  
The differences you mention out of the 15. & 16. of the 8. of the Romans, concern not our question. And for the rest:  
1. The act of Adam was the act of the nature of his posterity not existent, existence was future, and imputation future, yet both to be by God's decree, in and by propagation; and than it was theirs actually.  
The obediences of Christ, &c were the acts and sufferings of us, that were given Christ, and might be so called not personal acts or we existent, but as we were to be in time; they were to be ours by imputation in God's purpose and Christ's intention by union and communion with Christ in effectual call: as Adam was a root, Christ was a surety both in God's purpose; either did, for others. Adam for his posterity, Christ for the children given unto him in God's eternal bargain: as we are dead and risen with Christ, we may be said to have done and died, seeing the whole poverty was for us.  
2. As Adam brought condemnation to those who were in his loins, and had a being natural in him, being in time to exist by propagation from him.  
So Christ's salvation to such as were his children in the purpose of God, in that relation, as well as others his body, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, and so in his loins, to be spiritually▪ actually by faith in time, though also to be first Adams, aliens and enemies.  
3. As all the posterity of Adam had their being at once in Adam: so had all in Christ in God's purpose as Came existed first and than ●udas so might one first, and another after be in Christ notwithstanding.  
4. As Adam's was active, so Christ's, active in his passion, and passive in his action.  
5. As the burden of condemnation by the sin of Adam depended on the merit and relation of those that were condemned by him, videlicet in God's purpose, as future and to be in act by propagation.  
So that weight of our redemption, depended on the merit of Christ, and relation future by God's purpose; in act by faith, to be in time, by which Christ and his merits and benefits are mine, without which actual application the worth of what was done and suffered, were to no effect.  
To that sin of Adam, eating the forbidden fruit, the Lord threatened death, and it merited the same; so the smallest sin doth, as the satisfaction of Christ did life; and that we might enjoy it, there must be relation founded in union and communion between us and Christ without which how great soever the merit, the profit to Peter would have been not more than unto ●udas.  
We deny not but the Scriptures give our justification and salvation to the sake of Christ: we assent also that speaking of our death, by one that is Adam's sin (though the words for his sake, are not found) yet (the wages of sin being death.) It's equivalent with his sin's sake, denoting its merit; there's equipollent speech; and judge whether the Apostle doth not so lay them down, Rom. 5. 19 and there's a necessary implication of the merit of the sin of Adam; that mediated by way of merit this condemnation, the wages of sin is death; and cursed is every one that abideth not in all the Commandments of God: And he that doth these things is worthy of death, are the measure of those by one, etc. and through the offence of one and were it not a meritorious cause, the Lord must be charged with injustice.  
Whereas you lessening the offensiveness of this sin of Adam, put a note on that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if the offensiveness of that sin, and heights of its merit were not intended: and to denote that it was a sinful stumbling, or miscarriage, not out of envy, malice, sinister end, etc. main aggravations, and raisings of the height of it: but out of inconsiderateness, incogitancy, a root of the lest bitterness, or provocation from whence it is lightly possible to spring.  
For my part I never feared such Doctrine: And 1. from that word it will not follow (it the speaking of God in the Word be the rule) I find that word used for sins of all sorts, the greatest and most heinous, which are forgiven by the Lord. It's used 5. Rom. 10. the free gift is of many offences to justification: And 2 Cor. 5. 19 God was in Christ, etc. not imputing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. I suppose in these and other places, not meant such sins as you mention alone, but what are of the highest nature; the stumbling and fall of the Jews, which had aggravations of the highest nature, are set forth by that word, 11. Rom. 11. etc.  
Whosoever shall consider the state in which Adam was created, the God and goodness against whom he sinned; the confessed effects, sins, simply else, of nature, of life all men's deprivation of God's image and through deprivation in nature and life; from the relics whereof we are not freed till death itself, with the deaths which attend on the same, will be fare from lessening this sin its demerit. There are that call it omnium gravissi●um, and that except none but that against the Holy Ghost, as our Dr Whitaker. So that had there been more relations all that can▪ be imagined: there must be also and was the heinousness of the crime demeriting.  
That which he first called offence here, he calleth disobedience, 
Quod prius vocave●at, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lapsum hic vo at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Obedientiam iPrimi hominis. Sic Gravitatem ejus peccat●xaggerat, tantum fuisseimmune▪, ut haud mirum si omnes suo●eath involverit, foeditate inquinare. In obedientia enim vix aliud nefasgravius datur in Dei conspectuquasi peccatum ariolandrest rebel lio et ●uasi sce●us idololatriae est repugnantia, Inquit Samuel 1. 21 23. Paraeus in 18. 19  so he amplifyeth the greatness of that sin, intimating it so great, that it was no wonder that it involved all in its guilt, polluted than with filth: for there is scarcely a more grievous sin, as the sin of witch craft, so is rebellion, as Idolatry, ●aith Samuel, 1 Sam. 11. 23.  
It grieveth us not that there is such an abundance given to Christ▪ we glory in it. And yet say the Lord saw this a sufficient remedy for that disease, and those that came by it: and the disease is not lessened but intended by the greatness of Christ's merits.  
And though Adam's fall was by a permissive decree of God yet was the effect infallible. The execution whereof in his fall was supposed, in the manifestation of God's love in Christ, and in the purpose of God foreordaining him a Lamb, to take away sins; That sin; and the consequences, thereof: all which set forth the hamousnesse of this sin. Neither is it extenuated by the freeness of Adam.  
And I leave to the Readers consideration, whether though you profess the contrary; you do not grossly extenuate the demerit and guilt of Adam's sin. And the invalidity you pled, is not against us, but the Apostle who telleth us there is an agreement.  
Conclu. 11. That which makes a true lively faith instrument all in justification, is nothing that is essential or natural unto it; Whether descent properly or act. But somewhat that is extrinsecall and purely adventitious. The force and efficacy of that will, good pleasure, ordination, covenant, and appointment of God in that behalf.  
Therefore it's unquestionably evident, that Faith doth not justify as it relates to Christ: or as it apprehends him, Or Redemption by him,  
In this illation you show yourself in opposition to all Protestants as before. Who teach that Faith justifieth in relation to the Object, and that as an instrument apprehending and applying Christ and his righteousness, and join with Papists and Arminians, as before.  
The reason you give God's ordination, is no reason; we grant Gods will and the nature of Faith are not opposite but subordinate. God's will is our Justification by Faith that which hath of its nature embracing laying hold of receiving Christ and his righteousness; causing union and communion with him; from whence this righteusnesse and Justification is received and remission, of, sins. The will of God is by this Faith to justify. When God called Aaron to be an high Priest, he thereby fitted him with all requisites. And so when God ordained faith, it was such a Faith.  
Neither is there fear if faith should justify by receiving or applying the Object, that it should do it for the dignity thereof.  
Faith's receiving flying for refuge to Christ, is the greatest argument denying the dignity thereof and demonstration of indigency and emtynesse at home, and is withal, most advancing and extolling the righteousness of Christ.  
In that text Judg. 6. 40. God's will establisheth this Faith. And thereby it carrieth Justification by receiving and applying it, as the water of ●ordan did cleanse the Leprosy of Namaan, by God's pleasure, so this receiving faith justifies before all other. You say,  
When causes have a natural power to produce their effects its improper if not ridiculous. To ascribe such effects to the will and pleasure of God.  
But it's ridiculous, to say so; seeing Gods will is the cause of nature, and the properties thereof. It's the will of God by patience to make men patiented, humility to make men humble. By natural causes to produce natural effects. You confess it a truth, and when as therefore you deny it the savour or weight of truth. You deny in yourself a right savour of truth, And show your judgement a false, balance against concession, denying it weight of truth, The holy Ghost leading into all truth: savoureth all truth, and giveth to all its due weight.  
Joh. 1. 12, might be added, where God to those that received Christ, that is believed in him, gave the power & prerogative to be his Sons: and by virtue of that decree really made them such on believing. Which shows believing in Christ as such doth, not make a son of God, but receives this power by special gift.  
Faith than by a power it receiveth of God's gift, doth this; so doth patience by a power and humility, by a power received, make patiented and humble. So fire burneth by a power given to it. And so every natural agent produceth its effect. Faith putteth on Christ, and his condition of a son, it maketh us Christ's and Abraham's seed, we are all the sons of God by Faith in jesus Christ. God giveth it that power, that strength and power to receive, and so to justify.  
God's grace and Christ and Faith and God's justice the declaration of it are subordinate from the position of on you put all, and deny none, not faith receiving or applying the Object. You add,  
Neither is that Plea so frequently insisted on▪ that Faith justifieth in relation to the object, or as it receiveth and apprehendeth Christ righteousness of any value if duly considered; the strength of it is usually bound up in that similitude, as the haud is said to enrich a man because it receives the money or treasure whereby it is enriched, so faith because it receives Christ who is our righteousness; and by whom we are justified.  
You confess this frequently insisted on it is so by Protestants against Papists. I have showed the one and other by all Protestants let the world see how these are of your opinion, for faith in a proper sense; but what say you against it?  
I answer it's not the taking of the Silver or Gold that inrich●th, a man may not be the richer, but the poorer receiving gold not by law, as a thief breaking into an house taking it away, or purses it maketh rich by a Law; so there must be a law that faith receiving should be a man's righteousness or justification.  
All this is not to the purpose, for faith receiving Christ and his righteousness to justification (not being his righteousness or justification as you love to speak, not we) is what we have Gods command for, calling us to come unto him, to receive him and Sir receiving richeses is that by which as an instrumental action I am enriched, the richeses make rich received and so our Lord Christ's righteousness, your case is where there's no law, ours hath command and promise' for it. Yet to explain yourself. You desire,  
When I deny faith justifieth in its relation to its Object, or as it layeth hold on Christ, I am fare from conceiving any faith should justify, but that only which layeth hold on Christ; yea I grant and verily believe that whereas there be very many acts of Faith, else yet that decree of good pleasure of God (which I conceive makes faith justifying concurres with it, toward this great effect only in that act of laying hold on Christ. Only this I deny that this act of faitth whereby it receiveth or layeth ●old on Christ hath that in the nature or inherently in it or any other ways than from the will and good pleasure of God which makes it available to justification.  
This granteth that it hath it in its nature from the will of God, than by the will of God it doth it; It's nature being▪ to lay hold on the Object: we never opposed the will of God, but suppose it.  
And though you grant it, yet, would you speak out we should found you grant not that faith as an instrument doth it, laying hold on Christ's righteousness, by which applied I am just. You will leave the object and rest in faith which by gracious acceptation is a righteousness which God will own as before, p. 84. of 1. Treat, Argu. 5. c. 6. ☞ my Answer.  
Conclu: 12. It hath no foundatian either in scripture or reason to say that Christ by any imputation of ●in was made formally a sinner: Nor that sin in any other sense should be said to be imputed than as the punishment due was inflicted on him. And so we are not made formally righteous by any righteousness of Christ imputed. This hath been partly argued.  
And it's given in with both hands by the chief Masters of that way which we oppose. Doctor Downham. c. 19 p. 1. 2. and p. 4. Davenant de justit. inhere. c. 24. p. 33. id. p●. 333.  
1. I answer, formally properly taken is by sin inherent in Christ, this you deny; so do our Doctors, so imputation of our sins doth not make Christ a sinner.  
2. What is added, nor that sin in any other so●se should be said to be imputed, when as the punishment due was inflicted; is but begged. Ours show an imputation of sin, whence guilt and punishment, sins, were inherent in us only. Laid on Christ by imputation as our surety, and thence his punishment.  
3. When as you add so we are not made formally righteous by any righteousness of Christ. It's granted taking formally for inherently. It's inherent in Christ, it's imputed and given us, so that it constituteh us righteous, and supplieth the place of a form, which externalls do and may, and so denominate; as elsewhere, out of Doctor Davenant is clearly explained The righteousness of Christ is the matter, that applied or imputed supplieth the form, constituteth he was made sin that know no sin, that ●e might be made the righteousness of God in him. But ●o this sufficiently before.  
When as you cite Bish. Dow●ham you read this his Tenet, and he repeateth it often times, as is known, that Christ was not only hostia, but a sinner by imputation.  
And Bish. Davenant denyeth your consequence there, and else where fully explaineth himself in this business, to which I remit you, p. 367. secundus locus, etc. and 368.  
That these were chief Masters of that way of imputation; might teach you they were more learned than to contradict themselves.  
They were prime Doctors in their times, maintainers of the Doctrine of our Church and all Protestants in this point of justification, and you have never I believe, never shall found any but Papists opposing themselves to them.  
In this question, which yet here you do without making bones of it, and are but an alone man. 13. Con: That no man is indeed a person justified in the sight of God, until he obtains this grace by believing.  
With this Conclusion for my part I have no controversy, and therefore pass further examination of any thing about it.  
The purpose is eternal, the act is in time, on call to Faith and fellowship with Jesus Christ, whence communion with his righteousness and Justification, as I conceive.  
14. Conclu: The sentence or curse of the Law was not properly executed on Christ in his death, but his death was a ground or consideration unto God, whereupon to dispense with his Laws, and to let fall the execution or suspend the penalty or curse therein threatened because the curse was bend on transgressors, not innocents' as Christ.  
If by properly you mean for his personal sins, and that in that name he was no transgressor, I will grant both. He was a sinner by the imputation of our sins, as our surety he had them said on him, and was accursed, what the Law threatened, curse and death, he endured he died for us, and was accursed, so the word, and on this ●issueth our freedom from death; and the curse; this I am sure God did, and intended; seeing he was ordained before the foundation of the World, a Lamb; the price of our Redemption, it's called Gods will, Christ came to do it, and he was made under the Law to redeem those that are under the law▪ you confess it the curse of the Law, incurred by us which ●ur surety, aught to suffer, and yourself say, that he suffered was of the same nature, and kind with those things which God intended by the curse of the Law.  
For the body of penalties which you deny he suffered. I know not but it's comprised in those terms accursed, and death. I suppose those comprise the whole system; the word saith it was an atonement, that it was a sweet favour to God, that it declared God just in justifying.  
And until I comprehend his suffering fully who was a man of sorrow like to whose sorrows there were never sorrows, I will not make them less than God's law.  
I suppose the law was executed on him according to God's eternal purpose as our surety and that it was executed on him, that it might not be executed on us: and must have been executed on him that it might not be executed on us. You say,  
Neither dia God require the death and sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration, whereon to dispense with his law, towards those that believe, more (if so much in a way of satisfaction, to his justice than in wisdom; for God might with as much justice have passed by the transgression of his Law without consideration or satisfaction.  
1. Christ's death was required, it was required as a valuable consideration on which there was no execution on believers. It was in satisfaction of God's justice and wisdom. It was according to his wise will whereby Christ was ordained a Lamb, it was to declare his righteousness, that he might be just and a justifier, and both infinite. It's too curious to inquire or determine whether it were rather wisdom than Justice. It savoureth of one that would willingly deny Christ's satisfaction to justice: so doth that reasoning from man, I found the same spoken 
In Deo esse justitiam essentialem punientem peccata necessario p. 12, 13. etc.  out by, Socinus de Christo servat. l. I. c. 1. see Sybrandus examining this. See Peltius his harmonia, where Soc. and Remonstrants agreed in this, that there is not essential justice in God punishing sin necessarily.  
I guess it the rather because there's a bringing in of testimony that if God had pleased he might have pardoned Adam's sin without atonement by the death of Christ, which is but a supposition and that of a will in God than undetermined, indifferent against what is evidently otherwise revealed, and that to be so determined from eternity, nay of an indifferent will even after Adam's fall: jam confirmed 
Nec necesse fuit, ut Christus morte sua justitiae de● pro nost is peccatis satisfaceret, sed Deus absque satisfactione Christi peccata nobis potuit condonare, see S●ci.  from the inference, therefore it had been no way contrary to the justice of God nor dergatory to the glory of it: if bee had freely pardoned it without any consideration of atonement in any concept. Neither was it necessary that Christ by his death should satisfy the justice of God for our sins, but God without the satisfaction of Christ could forgive us our sins. It could not be because God's decree was Justification by the blood of Christ and to declare his righteousness, 3 Rom. 25, 26.  
And that the satisfaction of Christ is agreeable to that nature in God which we call Justice, agreeable to and what we call see Socinus, etc. do deny it, and that it had been but a loss of opportunity of declaring it to the World, yet had done nothing repugnant to it, and so you subscribe; no marvel you wave the curse of the Law's execution on Christ properly in the beginning.  
It's well in wisdom God could not; as if God's wisdom and justice were at odds, and that in the Apostles Judgement, who established God's declaration of Justice in Justification by the blood of Christ, as if infinite wisddome was not seen in that sweet agreement, between the mercy and Justice of God in our Justification by Jesus Christ.  
I am of opinion that God in the law required of Christ (voluntarily undertaking our suretyship) the suffering of what he suffered, and those things, he suffered were the same the Law threatened, and we should have suffered ourselves in value, and importance and the kind comprised under the words death and curse. And thus for your Conclusions.   

CHAP. III. DISTINCTIONS.  
DIST. 1.  
justification, 1. active, signifieth that act of God whereby he justifyeth, 1. absolveth a believing sinner from guili and punishment.  
Here's to be supposed his making him just by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ whence absolution as the effect thereof; you often call it just making.  
It may signify also in this active signification any act of any efficient— yea to this may be reserved the act of the form ●n formal cause itself, which a so in a way proper to it way be said to justify.  
Consider if the form of justification be remission of sins, than remission of sins worketh justification, and so is in order of nature before it: and so remission of sins absolvech a believer from the guilt of, and punishment due unto his sins, and so is the cause of itself; the cause and the effect also.  
2. That which is passive, is the effect. The former is of God, this of man who is justified.  
DIST. 2. Of Justice, hath these Distinctions. It signifieth,  
1. The universal and absolute holiness and integrity of his nature, making him infinitely averse from doing any thing contrary to the rules of justice, and inclines him only to do things agreeable thereunto, 11. Ps. 7.  
2. Sometimes the nature of God we call truth, or faithfulness in keeping promise, 36. Ps. 6 6. Herald 10. 1. Joh. 1. 9  
3. That gracious disposition to his people, whereby he is still propense to do them good, relieve, support deliver, psh. 145. 7.  
4. The gracious purpose of God, for for giving, saving faith in due time, 2 Pet, 1. 1.  
5. Most concerning our question, by the righteousness of God is meant that justification, way, method, or means of justification whereby God makes men righteous 5. Ro. 21. so 1. Rom, 17. 10. Rom. 3. by righteousness of God is meant Justification, or way of making men righteous, which Gods wisdom hath found out.  
6. Sometimes I conceive it may well betaken for God's severity to punish, 3. Ro. 25. 26. that he might appear a severe judge and punisher of sin.  
7. Christ sometimes seems to be called the righteousness of God. 42. Ies. 21. 51. les. 8. because he is the great author of that righteousness or justification which God vouchsafeth to the world.  
Ult. The society of those that are made righteous by GOD through Christ, are called the righteousness of God, 2 Cor. 5. 21.  
●. I know not but God's holiness and righteousness are distinct attributes, nor how righteousness should be defined by holiness  
1. I grant it making his nature adverse to what's contrary to rules of Justice, his will and revelation of it in his word.  
Inclination to do things agreeable, your text is more, he loveth; it's what he doth with delight.  
2. The second is granted for faithfulness, but doth it respect only promises and not threats?  
3. The 3 hath no difference from the former, for doing good and delivering his people are his promise.  
4. And so is that of giving faith his promise to Christ to Abraham, under the head of blessedness, coming, calling, gathering, saving.  
Though in that place it seemeth more fitly to mean the righteousness of Christ see Bish. Downham; who to that purpose citeth this Text, where (saith he) it is called the righteousness of God, and our Sav tour jesus Christ which is an excellent testimony to prove the deity of our Saviour like to that, 2. Tit. 13. for it is not said of God and our Saviour as noting two Persons, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and our Saviour betokening one, 2. because its that very righteousness of God whereof the Apostle speaketh in the places now mentioned, 1 Rom. 17. 3. 21. 10, 3. 2 Cor. 5. 21.  
The righteousness of that per son who is God, l. 4. c. 2. p. 2.  
And so you see, there's no difference between this and the last place, neither is their meant Justification, but the righteousness of Christ the mediator the only way and means, by which God maketh men just; this is that the Lords wisdom found out to declare his righteousnesle, and which is revealed in the Gospel, of those texts, see the Author and place before named.  
And therefore is he called, our right ousnesse, because we are made righteous by his obedience, 5 Rom 19, and so in that, 2 Cor. 5. ult.  
For your sixth it denoteth his just will to punish sin and punishing thereof, that place proveth it, 3. Rom. 26. 27. when Christ is set forth a propitiation in blood, to declare God's righteousness, that he might be inst and the justifier: by it God perfectly hates sin. Vengeance is his, and out of Justice, he will repay it, 9 Heb. 30. It's the just judgement of God, that those that do such things are worthy of death 1. Ro 31. its a righteous thing with God to tender affliction to them that afflict you, 2 Thes. 1.6.  
2. This word, applied to men signifieth sometimes that gener all frame of the heart consisting of all holy disppositions and affecti●●s in some degree in every child of God, Gen. 7. 1.  
This I suppose confusion of righteousness and holiness, which are distinct ordinarily in Scripture.  
Noah's righteousness was the righteousness of faith, Christ's righteousness applied by faith, and all so in regard of a gracious disposition of a soul conforming him to God's law and congruous motions, which are properly your second signification, 10. Act. 3 5. and 1 joh. 3. 7.  
3. Your 3. dealing equally with men; is the same, gtving every one what is his own according to God's law.  
4. A fourth sense: justification (in the passive sense) is sometimes by a metony my of the cause for the effect, expressed by the word righteousness, Galat. 2. 21. if righteousness, id est. justification, so 10. Ro. 4. Christ the end of the law for righteousness, i. justsfication, and for ver. 5. 5. Ro. 17, & 18. by one procurement of justification, 8. Rom. 4. 9 Ro. 30. 10.10. 1. Co. 1. 30. so 5. Rom. 19 compared with 18. 21. to make righteous and to justify is the same.  
Here righteousness is acknowledged the cause of justification indeed, nothing can make righteous but righteousness. They are distinct as cause and effect, and though the cause being put the effect followeth, or it's ordained to this effect; Yet it's not to be excluded, and I affirm this righteousness as that which is imputed, 4. Ro. 6,11. so the righteousuesse of Christ, so Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the consummation of the Law, for righteousness to justification to every one that believeth, that is, applieth it; so expressly in, 5. Rom. 17, 18, 19 so 9 Rom. 30. It was the righteousness of Christ which is of faith, he was the Stone in which they believed, and were not ashamed: the Stone the jews stumbled at, of which they were ignorant, and submitted not to the righteousness of God, So was Christ, and revealed in the Gospel.  
You grant here the cause for the effect, now name any other righteousness but Christ's; faith is not righteousness, though relatively, and as an instrument it applieth that righteousness and these are distinct as the Instrument and the matter with which.  
Remission of sins is not that righteousness, is the effect as yourself ponder these things.  
5. Christ himself as the procuring cause is usually called the righteousness of men, ●by an Ell●pfis 1. the Author or procurer of justification or righteousness Jere. 23, 6, 33. 16. so our hope our life our sanctification our redemption.  
Christ by his righteousness procured our Justification, it's the meritorious cause, but not only, it's the matter and the Application of it constituteth, ours show it against Papists as I have showed before, and shall hereafter.  
6. By a metonymy of the cause for the effect, or antecedent for consequent, as well the benefits and rewards os a ma●● righteousness in the 1 and 3. acception of the word, as the blessings and privileges which accompany that righteousness which we have by the merits of Christ in our justification, are sometimes expressed by the term righteousness, God will tender unto man his righteousness, 33. job. 26. 112. p. 9 5. Gal. 5.  
I confess all those benefits and privileges enfolded, in the promise and performance of this ighteousnes of Christ, supposing that so in the first place: he shall pray unto God (that is man in affliction) the effect is, he shall be favourable unto him, God shall forgive him. 
Per remissionem peccatorum jamjam pro justo eum habens, imputata ei Christi ●●l●j sui justitia, ●. Merce●. in loc.   
Upon which he shall see his face with joy, for he will tender unto man his righteousness. By remission of sins by and by accounting him for just, therighteousnesse of Christ his son being imputedunto him.  
Yourself say we have them by the merits of Christ, in our Justification, I add impuced, made ours by God's donation, our receiving. It his righteousness, applied.  
In the second pla e righteousness remaineth, not only consequents.  
In the third: our hope, things hoped for are the effects of righteousness of faith. Christ's righteousnefle applied by faith. Supposing that applied.  
7. The word righteousness in some construction of words, hath no precise or proper signification distinct from the word, with which it is joined, but to gether makes a sense of one and the same thing; thus imp●●ting righteousness, Rom. 4. 6. 11. imputing doth not signify one thing, and righteousaes another, but together they signify the same act of God, which w● call free justifying, so that to impute righteousnesis but freely to justify, and righteousness imputed frec justification.  
Righteousness is one thing, imputing another, God's application or donation of it, Justification a third; the effect: of righteousness applied. By God's imputation of Christ's righteousness the believer is justified; made righteous and pardoned.  
You in the fourth sense confesle them cause and effect. Ult. The word righteousness according to the propriety of the hebrew tongue signifieth a company of righteous ones, etc. 2 Co. 5. 21. That we should be made the righteousness of God in him, etc.  
1. I confess that place of a company; we, all believers.  
2. I deny that the word Righteousness signifieth a company for than were it not true of a single man.  
And the abstract put for the Concrete, will be that we might be made a company of righteous ones, which we accept, it will be by the righteousness of Christ, for the text saith in him, not in ourselves but him.  
DIST. 3. Christ's Righteousness is of 2 Kind's, one Divines call justitia personae: the other justitia meriti.  
The terms Active and Passive, where in this Distinction is commonly conceived, are not altogether so proper, because in that we call Passive, Christ was in some sort active, willingly and freely submitting himself unto it.  
The righteousness of his person, is that whereby he justifieth himself only, his merit that where by he justifieth others, the former consisteth partly in the integrity of his nature partly in the obedience he performed to the Moral Law, or that which is imposed upon all. The latter is that he performed to the peculiar law of Mediation; as his submission to death, to which he was bound as Mediator.  
1. If Christ was active in his passion by voluntary submission. Look how you asserting the passive, deny that which is Active, and dispute against it, and exclude the imputation thereof.  
They were interwoven from his incarnation to his 
Christus in vita passivam hab●●● actionera et in morte passione activam dum sa tem operaretur medio terrae.  death.  
2. For your Distinction, personae et meriti. Let me entreat you to make it more clear to me, I cannot down with it as it is proposed.  
I thought lustitia personae, had been the righteousness of Christ, God-man, and that the righteousness of his merit, had been his meritorious righteousness. Which is the righteousness of his person, of Christ God-man: and can see no difference.  
Whereas you say the righteousness of his person is that whereby he justifieth himself only. I answer he neither was so nor did so, for himself, he lived and was comprehensor from the moment of his conception, needed it not for himself.  
We were bound to have that integrity and that obedience, he as our surety was bound to yield it for us.  
And do not you give as a concurrence, so merit to the active obedience of Christ in the matter of our justification. How than shall it not be, justi●ia meriti? And how shall it be for his Justificatio n alone I confess I understand it not. And if so be that it was for himself it was due, and so not meritorious, as you argue. And how shall it make Christ's death to be marvellous? His death will be left insufficient, and we in our sins; either this is true or it was for us, not for himself.  
As for that obedience he was bound to the law of mediatorship● it consisteth in his whole poverty. When as being rich he became poor; to enrich us his richeses consisted in that glorious estate he had, being in the form of God, equal with God; his poverty in taking our nature, the integrity of his nature in regard of divine grace and the obedience he performed by it: and sufferings simply, obedience even to the death of the cross, were all his poverty his humiliation; when he took this, he as itwere emptied himself, and became a servant: the excellency of that nature by unction with the holy Ghost was but poverty to his former rich estate and the Apostle saith the end was our enriching. When as you say.  
He that maintains that Christ was bound by the mor all Law to die for the sins of men, saith in effect if he had not died he had been a sinner.  
1. janswer, put him our surety voluntarily engaging himself to pay our debt, this being our debt, I question not but he was bound to it. You see a surety is bound for that debt, and must to prison if he pay; not the surety, not paying transgresseth the law therein.  
Paraeus maketh Christ's death obedience to the Law, Bish. Davenant in that place. If the righteousness of Christ 
Si justitia Christi satisfacient●●, nostra fiat per impitationem cur non etiam justitia Christ, legen implentis.  satisfying be made ours by imputation; why not also the righteousness os Christ fullfilling the law? How well he and B●. Downham and Paraeus agreed with you the world knoweth and I have in part manifested.  
DIST. 4. A thing may be said to be Imputed.  
1. A Mans own acts good or evil, when as he without reward or punishment is reputed the doer of them so Christ's Active and Passive obedience, to Christ, and sins of believers ●o themselves ●nd no others.  
1. This is confessed not used in the Scriptures.  
2. If this be so Christ did not obey for himself, his ife, which is your doctrine, nor suffer  glory your doctrine before, or God's imputation is not without blemish: seeing do are not without reward, nor suffeing without a return.  
3. It crosleth the Scripture which layeth his poverty ●own to make us rich. 4 Sins of believers are not so impued unto them, seeing some kind of punishments, chasisements follow in all whom God doth receive seeing ●hey are imputed to Christ who satisfieth for them.  
These at first sight seem to be against this Distinction.  
2 Do good or evil may be said to be imputed to him than he is actually rue arded or punished for them; or shall be in ●ime, unless some reasonable and just occasion shall intervene to ●lter either of these purposes concerning him.  
Let this go, yet alteration in God's purpose, is an ●arsh expression: alteration in such as are good may ●ee supposed, and so such as are evil but not in Gad's purposed.  
3. An other man's offence may be imputed to us, when ●ee are looked on as Councillors, etc. or are punished as accessary and so good, when we are conceived authors, teachers. True and both justly or unjustly as we are not councillors, etc.  
4. Hither refer your fourth upon mistake.  
5. Wickedness or virtue of one, may be said to be imputed to others, when they are either punished or rewarded, because of relation to that man.— In this sense (and in this only the sins of men may be imputed to Christ, because he sufferea the things be did suffer in consideration of them, and these sufferings to us because we are justified in consideration of them. But that ours are reputed to him because he is reputed to have committed them, or that his righteousness Active or Passive: should be there fore said to be imputed to us, because we are reputed by God to have done or suffered one or other, hath neither footing nor soundation in the Scripture or reason.  
1- Virtue in one may be imputed to another in a bore relation, an other may far the better out of grace and bounty.  
2. A bore relation is not enough for a just imputation of evil.  
3. Our relation to Christ is not a bore one, he is one head, husband, Saviour, Redeemer, surety voluntarily, interposing himself between us and God, undertaking our debt, satisfaction of God our actual justification and salvation, the Lord graciously and righteously well pleased with the same.  
4. Our surety bore not only our sorrows but our sins, and was a sinner, not by committing them, (or inherently) but by imputation, there must be the imputation of sin, else not of punishment: And both justly seeing he was in this relation of a surety, and in bonds to God for us, God made him sin who knew none, in this sense laid on him the ●●iquity of us all. Luther calleth him the greatest sinner.  
And so his right teousnesse active and passive are imputo us, by which we are made just and acquitted. They are subjectively in him, but by God's gift or imputation ●o ours, as if ourselves, and satisfied. We are found having his righteousness, made righteous, made the righteousness of God in him, as we are said to  when our surety doth it so here. So that n●w we may be called fullfillers of the Law, saith our homile.  
This is a Colewort often sodden, a Papists device manifested to be so out of their Authors, discovered and defeated by ours before.  
6. That may be said to be imputed to a man which essentially and directly, conduceth either to the benefit or punishment which accrueth to him from that, which is more properly and immediately imputed to him, when the good deeds and verive or evil deeds, and the corruption whence are imputed suppose to Wife and Children.  
In this sense as well the habitual righteousness of Christ's person as active obedience may be said to be imputed to believers, because these were directly and essentially requisite to make his death and sufferings Justification and life, and salvation to them.— 2. Because its remote and unusual, and hath no maanner of countenance from the Scripture. Piscator, Paraeus, and other Orthodox Divines have simply denied all imputation of the Active obedience of Christ, and the doctrine of justification would not at all suffer, if the expression were laid aside.  
For your doubtless and those Divines practise, Two or three have many thousands against them and you, who show the contrary; I have read Piscatorrecanted.  
For Paraeus when as he putteth Christ's humiliation from his incarnation to his death, that which is imputed, cannot exclude the Active obedience of Christ, indeed his passion was active. But I argue whatsoever isdirectly and essentially, requisite to make thedeath of Christ Justification, and life and salvation. That hath countenance in the Scriptures, those divines cannot reasonably deny. And if it were laid aside, would 'cause the doctrine of Justification to suffer; destroy the very essence of it, nay Christ's death.  
But both the habitual righteousness of Christ's person as well as his active obedience are essentially & directly requisste, etc. as hath been further opened. Ergo, That which is essential, is not causa sine qua non, causa sine qua non is called, causa stolida & oci●sa, because it is only present in the action and doth nothing therein: Doctor Abbot against Bish. p. 497. It's absolutely necessary and eternally. It's the matter or form or both.  
7. A thing may be said to be imputed to a man when as 〈◊〉 is dealt with, as if he had worth, but comes to have right in th● privileges some other way, so righteousness is said to be imputed, to him that believeth 4. Rom 6. 11. etc. be enjoyeth privileges promised to a perfect righteousness of the law, though there be none such found in him: because Christ by his death hath purchased such a right to those privileges, which is settled on him on bell eving; So that God looks on him with the same grace and favour where with he would look upon him lagally righteous never sinning.  
I take what you lay down, that a believer by believing in Christ, is looked on with the same grace and favour wherewith God would look on one never sinning legally righteous? That there's no such righteousness in him. That its,  
1. Purchased by Christ's death. O but deny that all, that's meant by imputation of righteousness, Roma, 4. 6, 11.  
2. That death hath active obedience an essential requisite ex concessis; and I affirm, that the right and privileges may be settled on us believers: there must be an imputation of, the righteousness of Christ, as the cause; Of that right and privileges. I am found in Christ's righteousness, so God looketh on me as never sinning, as legally righteous. I am by this imputation constituted righteous and so dealt with: the imputation of passive righteousness is granted by Piscator and others to avoid Socintanisme; and that which is Active is not to be excluded, is inseparable, if it be an essential requisite to his death, that we may be justified by it.  
8. One thing may be said to be imputed to a man for another, when the rights of one are conferred on the performance of the other. Or when on one offence he is charged with the guilt of another, the guilt and consequences▪ whereof are more notorious. Thus he that provideth not for his 〈◊〉 denyeth the Faith. i The Gospel, imputed unto him, because the evil consequences of both sins are much the same. But are more readily acknowledged to arise from the later: so faith is said to be imputed for righteousness, 4 Rom. 3. 5. etc. Because the same privilege, which originally did belong unto legal righteousness, are now settled on believing.  
I have need of comment upon your comment and text two, my brains are very muddy, you be mud what should give clearness, to what you intent.  
But I answer, faith is said to be imputed for righteousness in a figurative sense, taking in the object the righteousness of Jesus Christ, as at large before: And therefore is a man by faith as one legally righteous, in a more excellent estate, and hence the privileges, From Faith as an Instrument applying that righteousness which God imputed: From which properly those privileges, belong and come unto us.  
9 Matter of profit coming to a man by way of debt or donation, may be said to be imputed to him: thus Ro. 4. 4. the reward, viz of justification and life, is said to be reckoned or imputed●● him that worketh, and so deserveth it: If God should reward man with life upon obedience to the law: such a reward should not be looked on as matter of grace but debt.  
1. The Apostles plain words to him that worketh is the reward, not reckoned of grace, but of debt, so we look for nothing but by God's free grace through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us by God, received by Faith.  
This word you say is encumbered with variety of acceptations, never more thank yourself to my remembrance I never read it so much encumbered else where in any man's writing. (as that Fish) you be mud clear water. It showeth to me you would feign escape undiscovered in this mud and blind eyes, that they may not see your error.  
I now come to the 5. Distinction: Obedience to the Moral Law, may be said to be required.  
1. By way of justifications has a man's ways may be esteemed perfectly righteous by God and have all the privileges.  
2. By way of sanctification, that he may testify his express, subjection to God in both respects, it was required of man in innocency, and Angels still: and of Christ himself, campare Ma. 3. 16. with Jo. 15. 10.  
Since the fall it's not required by way of justification in the sense expressed but only in the way of sanctification. 1. Because a sinner is not capable of such obedience. 2. Because Gods other way is faith in Christ.  
Therefore to affirm the fullfilling of the Law is required of any man either by himself or another in his stead: For justification is ●● affirm, that a man that hath sinned, hath not sinned, or that which God hath said he hath unsaid.  
Obedience to the Moral Law, required of Adam was nothing else but his express subjection to God, and pleasing him in all things. this was perfect righteousness: to which performed life was promised so to Angels.  
there's an other reason of Christ, of whose poverty this was a part, he became a man, submitted to the Law for us, became poor for us, and not for himself.  
Thus Mat. 3. 15. It became him to fulfil all righteousness; as a surety borne to us, given to us, and I think that particular, his baptism, is numbered amongst his me diatory acts by the fautors of that distinction: to me it seemeth there's a sameness of reason of that particular and all righteousness, all beseemed him as the Mediator and as our surety. And what was due by us, was God's commandment to Christ and on him as our surety. Since the fall we cannot subject ourselves to the Law that we may be thereby just before God, neither is subjection by sanctification, the only way that is required.  
Perfect obedience is still required to life, though we are not able; and it's impossible it's due and in force on our surety. I have read the moral law to be, lex aeterna, at ●rnae obligationis, and of eternal obligation, Treat 1. p. 67.  
That than we may have life, either it must be answered by ourselves or another, that other I assert to be our Surety Christ, who as he died for my Justification, obeyed the Law for believers in Jesus Christ; remember that essential to his death that we may live. By God's imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to God's Law; we are righteous not as by sanctification, but perfectly, and we enjoy it by Gods other way, faith in Christ as you speak.  
To affirm that the fullfilling of the law, is required of any man, or an other in his stead for Justification. Neither affirmeth that a man that hath sinned hath not sinned, nor yet that God hath unsaid what he hath said.  
Gospel's righteousness is the fullfilling of the law, performed, 
Evangeli●● justitia est impletio legis non a nobis sed ab alio pro nobis praestira nobis autem adeo per fidem imp●tatta▪ as Parus, V●. Cat●c. p. 348, Etiam evangelica justitia est legis impletio, neque pugnat cum leg● po cuangeli●am enim lex non aboletur sed ●●. b litur, id ib.  not by us but another imputed to us.  
Even Gospell-righteousnesse is the fullfilling of the Law; neither doth it sight with the Law, for the Law is not abolished by the Gospel, but established.  
DIST. 6. Christ may be said to keep the law in reference to our justification 2. ways. 1. for us. 2. in our stead; in the former sense it's admitted not in the latter. The former imports only it had an inflluence into our justification, and did contribute that which was of absolute necessity thereunto. The latter imports that the keeping of the Law was primarily required of every man for his justification, since the fall: And that God (man being unable) sent Christ to perform it in their rooms: which supposition stands convict of manifest untruth, in the former distinction, and else where.  
See the former Distinction, and the place and you shall see it cleared: It's indeed opposition to the Apostle almost in terms, Ro. 8. 3, 4. as hath been also showed, and shall bewhen I come to that Scripture afterwards.  
DIST. 7. justification of a sinner, I mean Passive▪ though ●● be the same entire effect may be ascribed to many causes very different.  
This if it be a distinction, we subscribe to; and think it against yourself, when as you establishing the ordination of God that Faith shall justify, deny faiths doing it as receiving, in that name, we have observed both to have their place and yield it of all the rest of the causes.   

CHAPT. FOUR Containing EXAMINATION of a Delineation of Juctification in the Causes of it: According to the Conclusions and Distinctions laid down.  
I Shall be very brief in Examination. Your scope is to discover the weakness of arguments, brought against your Conclusion that is, that faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousness and not the obedience of Christ. If I paste what hath not this scope, I suppose I do enough to our purpose: You promise' rules.  
Rule. 1. There are 4. causes to which every being is to b●● reduced.  
This I grant, though there are who refer all to 2. & some 3. and some 5..  
2. And your second, I grant.  
3. I'll de●●urre on the the third, till I come to application; yourself say in an improper sense there's some exception; and I know not that causes are not improper as well as proper.  
P. 69. P. 5. Causes ●●e either remote or near. The personal holiness and active obedience of Christ to the Law, is a● efficient remote cause, qualifying him for such sufferings, whereby Justification was pro●●●ed, but had no immediate influence ●her●u●te.  
Sir, I think it as near as the sufferings of Christ, seeing its essentially requisite, to make his death and suffering to effect Justification, as yourself: which will appear if we prove it part of the matter, and that it's applied in the form thereof.  
Pag. 73. You make our subject the matter of an accident, and that it hath ●o other but the subject or object, and wish it noted as concerning a special vein of the question.  
In your application you say: Pag. 77. God is the efficient of Justification and no other kind. But whether is he not the final cause? Doth he it not for himself? The glory of his wisdom, mercy, Justice? if so he is efficient and final.  
When you speak here of God, out of authority, and power, and mercy justifying; you name not Justice, yet the Apostle joineth that with grace, 3. Rom. 15 etc.  
So Christ is the impulsive moral external cause, his death, 4 Ephe●●●●. 3. Rom. 24. Neither can the death of Christ with any show of reason, or with any colourable construction of congruity of speaking, be referred to any other cause, but the impulsive only.— And it's yet more repugnant to reason, it is to make. Christ himself, or any righteousness of his whatsoever, the matter or material cause of justification: as the Socinian discoverer; Pa. 139. or the form. But it's a strain of unreasonableness above all the rest, to make them the material and formal cause too.  
Now to these in Order.  
Again, I grant Christ a Moral, external, impulsive cause; a meritorious cause of his death; yet his Active obedience may not be excluded. To this kind of cause, say you, Pa. 81. must be reduced the active or personal righteousness of Christ: And whenas you add, though it be not satisfactory simply and directly in itself, nor contributing any thing immediately by way of merit to justification. How can it be truth seeing of that Active obedience. You said but now, that: that these were directly and essentially requisite to make his death and suffirings justification and life? Sufferings cannot exclude his Active obedience, being directly and essentially requisite, to that end. And also seeing it qual●f●eth in part our sacrifice of Christ, for that fullness and height of acceptation with God, of which offer what's essential will not be put a far of from sufferings when they produce this effect.  
You say Christ dying righteous, and being God, his death holds out weight and worth, merit and satisfaction for the whole World, Pag. 203. and call it the qualification in part, for that meritoriousness of his death: which may stand the whole World instead for their justification, Pag. 204.  
When as his blood is mentioned, his obedience is not excluded by which we are righteous 5. Rom. 19  
And when as you urge those words for his sake, Eph. 4. though there be truth in them as applied yet the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God hath been gracious unto you in Christ.  
Obj: But cannot be referred to any kind of cause else, but the impulsive only.  
1. Christ is not only the impulsive efficient, but principal, ●araeus calleth him, 
* Cansa adjuvans quia impetrat, efficiens principal●s quia una cum patic justificat.  an adjuvant cause, because he obtaineth, and efficient principal because together with the Father he justifieth.  
The Son of Man hath power to forgive sins, he is exalted, a Prince and Saviour to give remission of sins; we are justified in the name of Christ, by the spirit of our God.  
Obje. It's a great fault that Mr. Walker maketh Christ or any righteousness of his, the matter or material cause of our justification.  
Mr. Walker was not the first by many that speak and writ so. 
* Paraus on Visi●us Catec. p, 355. he saith, satisfactio Christi est causa materialis justitiae nostrae And the learned show this in the margin. Whenas he had said observandum ergo, non eodem sensu dic● nos gratia Dei et merito Christi— justificari; prima intelligitur de causa ●●. pulfiva in Dco se und● de causa materiali; When we are said to be justified by themevit of Christ, it's meant of the material cause, and than merito Christi iustificamur partim ut causa materiali justificationis quatenus obedientia Christi nobis applicata placemus Deo, et câ quasi veste induti projusti reputamur partim ut causa impulsiva procata●ct●ca et meritoria, quatenus p●opter cam n●s ab absolvit; he saith nihilpraeter meritum Christi est justitia nos●ra ●oram deo. Justificamur●d abus rebus sed dv●ersimod● fide ut instrumenta apprchendente justitiam; merit● Christi ut causa materiali nostrae justitiae pag. 359. Ego docendi causa materiam appellabo, de justit act. et pass. 173 his materia justificationis est quad ●●plexi illa Christi justitia, alij, 3. posteriores justitias Christi, materiam, etc. statuunt. Tertij du●● tantum justirias Christi posteriores materiam faciunt; pag. 174, you see himself and all agreed in th●, by his judgement. Mr. Perkins. see Mr. W●t. defence. p. 210. See Cossac. Thes 11. drafit p. 62 Calvin. l. 3. instit. c. 14. p. 17. and in Rom, 2. 21. and c. 3. 24 so Trelcatius p 80. Bucanus ad c. 1. p. 310 Chamier de justif. c. 1. l. 21, p. 5. junius Thes. in augurat. our Doctor Do●nham. l, 1. c. 5. p. 2. Doctor Pridea●● dejustif. p. 156. Mr. Forbs, mothing saith he, in heaven or in man. or without man ● the matter of man's righteousness before God, except on ●ly Christ. c. 22. p. 85. etc. You see it is the matter nay beth against your third rule in part.   
Now let us hear your argument, against this.  
Pag. 85. 1, By making these the material cause of Justification they divest and spoil them of the honour of causality, which is proper unto them, and seven times more honourable than that which is this way attributed to them, vid. of that causality we call meritorious.  
1. Than they are both meritorious which you see me to deny, p 81.  
2. Did we deny it meritorious, your argument might be to some purpose. It's requisite, that the essential causes of our Justification, should have worth in them, and be meritorious.  
But this cannot be, say you, by our third Rule. That no one cause whatsoever, can put on more habitudes, or causality than one, in respect of the same effect: So that if Christ be the meritorious and impulsive cause, which is granted on all hands, even by the men against whom I reason, it cannot be deemed the material cause also.  
1. Your Rule is false as by that instance of God, who is the efficient and final cause. Himself doth all for himself, the last end, of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever, Amen, 11. Rom. ult. God's self is the end which moveth himself, the efficicient, to work.  
The Logician calleth this a most clear Axiom, the last end and the first efficient is altogether the same thing: or that God in 
Praeclarum ●x▪ joma, res omnino eadem est ultimus finis, et prima causa effitions. scil, deum proprie loquend● nihil agere propter finem a se diver sum, K●k●●og▪ de fin●.  proper speech doth nothing for an end divers from himself.  
2. Your Rule is false in the judgement of all those who give Christ the meritorious cause, and the material, as I have proved.  
3. Yea I pray you consider whether Christ be not a final cause also, whether he had not respect to the glory of himself as mediator? Was it not God's covenant with him, on his execution of Office? 55. les. 5. that he having glorified God on earth, and finished the work he gave him to do, prayeth for 17. Joh. 5. and now O father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was, it's not essential glory▪ but what God covenanted to give him on finishing the work of man's redemption, and the Saints have given it to him, 1 Tim. 6.14, 15, 16, and Iu. 25. and what was that high exaltation of Christ to the Philippians,, but the glory of his mediator-ship?  
Who knoweth not but man believing is an efficient? You also call him the matter of justification,, and you make the great subordinate end which lieth fairest and fullest in view to the sight of all men, the advancement of persons justified to that exceeding height of glory, etc. p. 84. and faith is an instrument and impulsive cause, true as you. p. 83.  
2. You argue, the righteousness of Christ Active or Passive or both, cannot be the matter of justification, because the matter of a thing is always ens incompletum, until the introduction and union of the form with it which gives perfection and being and existence to it, but Christ's righteousness hath a perfect being neither can it fall under imagination: whatform it should be capable of that by union with it, should add beauty and perfection to it.  
The righteousness of Christ how perfect soever in itself, yet hath the nature of ens incompletum, where and so long as it is matter not applied by God's imputation, & the faith of such as do believe as the nature of man, though compounded of Elements, is incompletum, in regard of that effect man, before information.  
Application of the righteousness of Jesus Christ in stead of a form compleateth not the matter, but the Justification of a believer.  
And yet than hath it & insomuch (as it were) its desire, it's appetite to it, and acquiescence in oying it, as being intended by God and Christ to that work believers Justification, and other end, as we say of natural matter.  
3. If it be the matter either properly or improperly so called; Matter properly so called it cannot be which they call materia ex qua: because this kind of matter, I. Is proper to substantial natures, only is itself always a substance, is always a part of the nature and the weaker part of it: Whereas justificasion hath only an accident all being, not substantial, etc. not in the predicament of substantia: 3. It cannot be a part of justification, it being an action, this a form or quality: and one predicament all being, cannot be of the nature of another: Lastly being of that infinite perfection and worth it cannot be the weaker and less worthy part.  
I Answer: Matter, properly so called, we cannot affirm it to be, nor yet do; whence the labour you take here is lost: When you say matter is proper to substantial natures▪ you seem to speak of all substantial natures, and so to belong to forms, and they shall be material.  
When as you say it cannot be the matter of justification, it being an action, that a quality: You cannot but remember that accidents simply are reduced to quantity and quality, and justification being a just making, as there must be somewhat that hath proportion to matter ex qua, so Christ's righteousness consisteth of actions, and his passions were active as before, so that there's good analogy; but I might paste this.  
2. That it cannot be matter improperly called, may be demoustrated, for that it is either in qua or cerca quam: the subject or object. The righteousness of Christ can be neither of these.  
There is a third that's neither subject nor object. Yourself in your explanation of this cause prove a third, the whiteness in the wall. It's enough there be some kind of analogy to matter properly so called in accidents. As yourself speak to the whitening of a wall, there must be some matter; this I call the colour in chalk or lime the subject; this is the matter the Plasterer useth to white the wall, the chalk-stone or lime in which the colour is not that that whiteth, but qua whiteness adhereth, her's analogy; So when as the Lord maketh just and righteous, he doth it with the righteousness of Christ; as the wall is made white with that colour, so a believer righteous with righteousness; and in this I see the judgement of almost all Divines concurring, as before. And thus I pass to what you say it must be.  
It must be either the subject or object of Justification, God or man: the former is uncouth; it must be than subjectum recipiens, or objectum, and than that, I believe there's no other matter.  
But Sir, if man believing be the matter, either quâ man, or believing? not qua man, a substance cannot be the matter of an accident or action: if quâ believing faith's an instrument, and so an efficient, and by your third Rule cannot be the matter. And though our subject and object are termed matter, yet the Logician telleth you, that its confusion of those which matter 
Abutimur nomine materiae cum illud tribuimus subjecto et objecto, ipse Malancthon saith, that Logician Keckerman: de Materia.  and abuse: who therefore handleth them distinctly.  
Before I pass to the form, I'll consider what's said to the instruments.  
P. 12. Here you confess, faith by the uniform Doctrine of Reformed Authors, is an instrumental efficient.  
Of this we have spoken; Divines make it an instrument, and give the effect to it, because of that of which it is an instrument, the righteousness of Christ so all. Musculus and Aretius, as is showed. The impulsive is Christ's righteousness which is not of the same kind with faith, and there's the same reason of other places, where deliverance is given because they believed, which was but a flying for refuge to God in Christ, and laying hold by faith as an instrument, that which hath the promise.  
How Sacraments should become instrumental causes or means of Instification, must be known by enquiring at the Oracle at Rome for neither the Scriptures nor the Reformed Religion have any of this learning in them.  
Sacraments are visible words, and their office is to sign and seal to believers, the whole Covenant in the blood of Christ. The Apostle calleth Circumcision, the sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, 4 Rom. 11. by which justification and pardon: and when as the Supper of our Lord is the New Testament that is a sign and seal of the New Testament in the blood of Christ shed for remission of sins.  
I question not but they are powerful instruments for confirmation of our faith, of Justification and pardon 
See Dr. Prid. ●● just. p. 156.  of sins; and I remember not that I have read the contrary, otherwise I hold them not causes instrumental.  
And now for the formal cause:  
And here passing the Pontifician opinion which maketh it to consist in Faith, Hope and Charity, come we to your conceit of the opinion of the Socinian discoverer, Mr. Walker, which is, 
P. 139.   
Not better but rather at far deeper defiance both with reason and truth. What's the matter?  
Doubtless her's too much matter to make a good form.  
But if all be rightly taken, there's what doth it. Justification is by the communion and imputation reciprocal of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us: that which followeth showeth how it's effected by the Spirit dwelling in us working faith; this reciprocal imputation and communion is the formal cause of our Justification.  
By this the matter is applied, we are made perfectly righteous, and freed from our sins. Against this you object:  
If the form stands in that communion between us and Christ, than Christ is justified with the same justification.  
Had you put in and reciprocal imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us, you would have perceived, what's communicated on either side.  
And you know we all hold we are justified formally (that is, as it were by a form there being a kind of analogy) by the same righteousness with which Christ is justified, though not modem mode, which you must destroy before you get the mastery.  
2. That communion is not righteousness directly or indirectly, conforming to the Laws equivalently or interpretatively, and therefore:  
The righteousness of Christ is the matter communion and imputation thereof with him, is ever the form, not communion but communication, imputation, application of righteousness, you mistake him.  
3. The formal cause must needs be the impression of the effect of the act of Instification, the effect of God, as himself, p. 137. Where as communion ariseth from the Holy Ghost, and therefore its impossible that this communion should be the cause formal of ●ustification.  
The effect of God's act justifying is justification, how that shall be the formal cause of itself, I cannot yet conceive.  
Let it be granted an act of God, yet it's by the communion of the Spirit in that place, as if we were not justified by the Spirit of our God, or the Spirit were not God, as if God did not justify us by calling us to fellowship with his Son; so we partake of his righteousness and justification, and God calleth and causeth that union and communion by the Spirit, and mutual imputation.  
4. This communion between us and Christ, is a consequent of our justification, and taketh not place, nor hath being till after we be fully and completely instisied; this he teacheth when be writeth it ariseth from communion with the Spirit, which is (hedon believing, and consequently after our Instification, for Instification followeth faith closely, as imagination itself can imagine, its evident from 7 Ju. 39 & 15. Acts 8. 2 Acts 28. & 6 Acts 5. Acts 8. 15. 16. Acts 11. 17. with 15 Acts 19 so that union followeth, and can not be the formal cause.  
1. When you speak of a full and complete Justification, 
An individual act and Whole together.  you intimate an incompleate one and degrees, justification hath none but is [actus individius & simul torus.] as Divines speak, and thereby difference it from sanctification.  
2. It's a most unsound position and unworthy a Divine, which maketh communion a consequent, and after justification, for by fellowship with Christ we have fellowship with his death and resurrection, and so sanctification and justification; In whom we redemptiou, remission of sins, Col: 1 Eph: (all is to the fellowship of God's Son, in Whom we partake of righteousness and redemption.  
When Mr. Walker saith, it ariseth from fellowship or communion by the Spirit, he saith, that communion by the Spirit is before it, its rise is from thence.  
Grant the Spirit shed abroad in believings (which yet in order of nature is first causing believings, God by the Spirit calleth to faith whereby we receive Christ, and have union and communion with him, by both these we are one with Christ and have communion) it followeth not that it's after justification, but before to union and communion and so justification, and though justification followeth faith closely, yet its faith in Christ uniting and causing communion with him, from whence also sanctification arriseth, which in order of nature is before justification, qualifying Faith, and conditioning the person to the same.  
That believers shall and do receive the Spirit, maketh not for you, for the Spirit received justifieth, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God: 1 Cor. 6. 11. God doth it by his Spirit, Acts 15. 8, 9 God giving the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles as well as the Iewes, put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. God by the Holy Ghost purified their hearts by faith, in regard of sanctification and justification.  
Acts 2. 39 they must believe and repent and be Raptized for remission of sins, when it's said, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: the meaning is, that extraordinary gift which they heard and saw at that time in others, which all believers have not; and I entreat you to tell me whether believing and repentance are not the gifts 
See Act. 8. 15, 16. & 19 2. & 11. 15.  of the Holy Ghost given such by the Lord: Act. 6. 5. both are coupled, Faith and the Holy Ghost, and he giveth the Holy Ghost to believers, Acts 11. 15. but whaws that to prove the giving of the Holy Ghost after justification?  
Your 5th. is the same with your first argument, and hath answer there, and if you would have understood his words, you might perceive he understood a reciprocal imputation, in which as we are asserted to be made partakers of his righteousness, he was of our sins.  
And justification of Christ as well as us might follow, if righteousness were communicated or imputed to him in Mr. Walkers speech by the Holy Ghost, or from us, but these are dreams and mistakes you say,  
If communion be reciprecall, imputation is not, which yet, is affirmed by the same breath, because this is an act of the Father, where as communion floweth from the Holy Ghost, these are acts really diffiring, impossible to combine as one form. etc.  
The consequence is denied, and the reason that they are two differing acts; both denote but the application of the matter, which is by analogy the form, or introduction of it, and when you prove it because one is done by God the Father, the other by the Spirit, you seem to forget that both persons are one God, and that God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost justify: the Spirit is the Spirit of our God and we are justified by the spirit of our God.  
7. Reciprocal imputation by itself cannot be the form, because it comprehends two distinct acts of God, imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, which really differ, now its impossible that any form should be made of plurality os ingredients.  
They are the same acts of God; God on man's believing conferreth the righteousness of Christ on him, and acquitteth him of his fins, they being by the same act put upon the score of Christ. This I suppose was his meaning.  
And if our question were of a form properly so called, we might nearken to your axiom, and yet put you to work to tell us what is for ma misti, whether it hath not many ingredients, whether the forms of the several elements are annihilated, or made matter, or are ingredients to the form, and if not, how there can be a resolution of them, and how there are still their proper qualities; but this were to be wanton.  
For accidents its manifest, learning as a form maketh learned, and when we judge one so indeed, it's from all or many sorts of learning, there's not only a plurality but multiplicity of Learning.  
2. It's impossible, because only the believing sinner is (as hath been fully proved) is the matter of justification; now the form is ever in conjunction with the matter proper to it, and never with any other: Christ being no believing sinner, is no fitting matter for the form of that Instification to be coupled with it, it cannot be that imputation of sins to him should be the form is self.  
That which is the foundation is sandy, that a believing sinner is the matter of justification, it's showed to be so before; there's no justification of Christ aslerted, and so no need that he should be a believing finner.  
When God justifieth us he acquiteth us of our sins by the same act he removeth them from us, he translateth them to Christ's account.  
3. No imputation whatsoever, or of whatsoever can be the form of Instification. 1. Because it's no righteousness, where as a forms of justification must of necessity be a righteousness; righteousness imputed is a righteousness, but the imputation of righteousness cannot be righteousness.  
Righteousness, its true, must be to make one righteous, but that's the matter, imputation of it or it imputed is the form, the introduction of this which is imputation hath the place of a form.  
2. And this introduction giveth denomination, it's a constitution of a man righteous.  
9 The Author falls of from this, and affermes the righteousness of Christ itself to be this form.  
He is like himself, and never meant other thing by it, as it seen hereby.  
10. In this voluminous multiformed description of the formal cause, there's no mention of forgiveness of sins, as if they had no dealing together, Reformed Divines think them of near affinity.  
And so do we, for the one is the cause, the other the effect or consequent, as is often said.  
3. Neither can that opinion stand which maketh the imputation or application of the righteousness of Christ, the form of justification.  
This is the same, and how you have proved it we have seen, you need not repeat it, and yet you further argue against it.  
If the righteousness of Christ be the matter and imputation thereof the form, than one righteousness must be the form of another righteousness, because the form must needs be a righteousness; if the matter and form be a righteousness, one must inform the other; a greater absurdity than the reason of any considering man can bear  
I deny the consequence. I deny the proof, that the form must needs be a righteousness: the opinion is, the application of that righteousness is the form, so the Author, you make, and you must bear the absurdity.  
2. Than what is less perfect shall be the perfection of that which is more perfect, now this imputation being by the acknowledgement of the Authors of it somewhat inherent, must be of inferior worth, neither can it be conceived any thing should be of a perfecting nature of the righteousness of Christ.  
1. That rule you apply here to accidents, before appropriated to substances; to matter and form properly so called: you must consider whether it will hold in both. The Author you speak of holds not that we are justified by, to be inherent in us: It's out of us in Christ, ours only by imputation, inherent they deny it to be, or ourselves so justified, they distinguish between the denomination of one just and justified: the former is from what's inherent the latter from what's extrinsecall.  
And you may conceive, how Christ's righteousness being matter until it be in conjunction with the form 
Dau. p. 360 and so p. 361.  that is imputed or applied, hath not its end to which it is ordained, is but in potentia, and so by application actually attaineth it, our justification, and glory of Christ, and God's grace. Than is it in its perfection, When as it produceth the effect & not before considered as matter.  
4. The Scriptures favour it not, neither do the Authors so much as pretend Scripture for it.  
Why do you answer the Scriptures this way if it be a truth? that's tried, and shall be in examination of your answers.  
Ult. Bish. Davenant is absolutely against the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and pleadeth for the righteousness of Christ imputed.  
The imputation of Christ's righteousness, or Christ's righteousness imputed to be the form, is all one with them; either denote the application of Christ's righteousness; the expressions are therefore indifferently used by them and now as if it were different you dispute against that, Christ's righteousness imputed to be the form.  
1. Because it is the efficient it cannot be the form, it cannot have more habitudes.  
The vanity of that rule and argument is opened before.  
2. These must needs hold the person justified, to be the material cause thereof, on which supposition, I reason thus.  
Not individual form can inform two several subjects, really differing Christ and the sinner.  
1●. Their's no necessiy, the contrary hath been showed, and so your supposition is begged, and what is built on it frivolous.  
The righteousness of Christ, which we teach the matter of Justification, applied to thousands, the whole body of Christ, how different soever from themselves and Christ denominateth all; Christ just as inherent in him us justified, as applied to us.  
Christ and we are one mystical body, all called Christ by virtue of which union and communion, that which is the heads, is communicated to the body; the husbands to the spouse, the Church.  
3. And when as you object we are not one natural body, not therefore capable of the same natural form.  
You fight with your shadow: Not man affirming either. When as you reason,  
2. Than the same sinfulness of nature may inform them also, and Christ should be sinful and corrupt with the same, that is in the believer.  
It's true, both we are righteous by his righteousness, and he a sinner by our sinfulness neither inherently, both by imputation.  
3. Than the meritorious cause may be the form.  
True as applied or imputed and if so be there were not worth in it applied, it could not justify.  
But the one is extrinsecall, the other always intrinsecall, he that is always without cannot be ever within.  
It's true of natural forms, not of all that are accidental when man is said to be justified it's by a Passive denomination: It is not absolutely necessary that this denomination 
Et non est absolute necessarium ut haec denominatio petatur a formainhaerente aut supponat formam inhaerentem.  cum hommem dkimus amatum, honoratum absolutum; haec omnia de ill● vere dicuntur in quo non reperitur forma in haerens. He sheweth is out of Gulielm, Paris, and Vasques rejecteth it. Dave. ●. 27. p. 360  be taken from an inherent form or should suppose it, as when we say a man is beloved, honoured, freed, all these are truly said of him in whom there is not found an inherent form.  
4. Than is a believer reputed righteous with the righteousness of Christ: but that not to be so I demonstrate, for be that may be reputed righteous with the righteousness of Christ may be lawfully reputed never to have sinned: because that righteousness which admitteth sin in the same subject with it, can be none of the righteousness of Christ the essential property whereof was to be his who never sinned, but that a justified person should be reputed not to have sinned, is notorious.  
I deny that he that is reputed righteous, with the righteousness of Christ may be reputed never to have sinned: I deny, that because his righteousness admitteth no sin in the subject who hath sin, it cannot by imputation be a believers: It's true it cannot be subjectively in us that are sinners.  
It may be by imputation, so we that in ourselves, are sinners are in him righteous, as he who was in himself righteous was yet a sinner, by the imputation of our sins though not by inherency.  
5. Than are they righteous with that which is meritorious and may have the merit of such righteousness he ascribed to them: and they reputed meritors of whatsoever is due to such a righteousness, which giveth them the redemption of the World.  
This reason is a popish one, urged before, and fully satisfied by our Authors answering them, of which I have given a sufficient account before, and will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You object it was, meritorious as in him not as imputed to us, which you call a begging of the question, and is a position manifestly convicted of untruth. Let the reader Judge. 2 You add.  
2. The meritoriousness of it must needs be essential to it, and inseparable, it goeth with it.  
I grant it for the person to whom its imputed, the believer receiveth it and it's given him not for others to save them with, or communicate to them, but for themselves. And Authors clear this in the place I named before.  
6. If the righteousness of Christ be the formal cause, either that which is moral alone, or ceremonial alone, or mediatory alone, or of all, or some two. But neither,  
I answer the two first are the same, for the Ceremonial righteousness was required in the second Commandment, being the manner of God's worship contained in his word, which with his sufferings (you call mediatory) make up one full righteousness, the righteousness of our mediator, that by which imputed we are justified. His active and passive obedience: against this we have nothing, your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and last, are Arrows shot at random, they hurt not your opponents nor profit yourself.  
7. and lastly, It's the confession of the learnedest abettors of the way of imputation which hath been opposed in this Treatise, deny the righteousness of Christ imputed to be the formal cause of justification.  
Whenas Dr. Prideaux denieth that we are formally justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed: His words immediately following are of an inhering form.  
Dr. Dounbam teacheth it a false charge that we hold our 
An non formam quam libet inhaerentem qua formalli●er justi denominemur semper explosimus?  selves formally righteous, by that righteousness which is not in us, but out of us in Christ, that not we but Christ was formally just by that which is in him.  
And that he doth not deny the righteousness of Christ imputed to us to be the formal cause of justification, see by two passages of the same Author, the one immediately before, the other after. The title of that fifth Chapter is, and that against your Mr. A. W. That the formal cause of justification is the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  
And having said, But the thing wherein chief they err, is, That which Socinus the Heretic they deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and consequently do hold, that neither the active nor passive obedience of Christ, is that which is imputed to us for righteousness What than? Forsooth the act of faith. He addeth, Of these men's error I shall not need to say much in this place, because besides that which hath been already delivered, in the 3. Chapter I have plentifully and fully proved in my whole 4 h. Book, that the righteousness of Christ is the matter which is imputed to justification, and in my whole 5th. Book that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is the form of justification. And having said, he wondered they could be so absurd, etc. these words follow, But we teach that Christ's righteousness both habitual and actual, by which he was formally just, is the matter and the imputation thereof the form of justification.  
We say that the righteousness of Christ itself is not the formallcause of justification, or that by which we are formally just, but the imputation of it, etc. The righteousness whereby a man is formally just is inherent in himself, for what is more intrinsical than the form. But Christ's righteousness is not inherent in us more than our sin was inherent in him; And yet as he was made sin or a sinner by our sins, not formally (God forbidden) but by imputation, so we are made righteous by his righteousness, not formally (as we are justified, or in ourselves but in him, viz. by imputation.  
Not formally or in ourselves, inherently is the thing he denyeth, not the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and so all.  
Thus Dr. Davenant 
* Atque hoc extrinsecum licet non habeat in nobis existentiam formae Phisicae, supplere tamen vicem ejus, atque illo scusu recte dici formalem causam justificationis nostrae ubi deest formalis intrinseca seu inhaerens, where he explaineth that term, c. 27. p. 361.   
And thus I follow you passing to another opinion, p. 28. Remission of sins which hath the fairest and largest 
P. 28.  quarter in the judgements and writings of Protestant Divines, to what is done in the former Treatise. 1. and 5. Chap. you add 2 eminent Divines. That you are to prove, is that remission of sins is the formal cause of Justification.  
Pareus, the light of whose reading and judgement together could discover no other opinion touching the formal cause of justification, either in the Fathers or any chief Protestant writers, but that it should stand only in remission of sins.  
In the words you cite or place, there's not one word that remission of sins is the formal cause of Justification. 
It's true, he layeth down that opinion, solum● passivam christi obedientiam esse justitiam nostram, et justificationem sola remissione peccatorum dfiniri, which he saith is proved by an Argument a materia, an other à forma justificationis; the proof from the formal cause is, Scriptura totam justificationem nostram definite remissione peccatorum propter sanguinem Christi. Ergo sola sanguinis effusio est id cujus imputatione justificamur, et remissio peccatorum est tota justitia nostra: here though the effect be remission, the cause is the blood of Christ impated; as the righteousness of Christ is the matter, so the imputation thereof is the form, as it's called; and else where, Omnum consensu nos morte Christi justificari cum propter eam habeamus remissionem peceatorum, p. 174.   
Imputation of righteousness is the cause, remission. of sins the effect, with PAREUS. 
Remissio pecatorum fit per justitiam imputatam perfectam, Castit. de justif. 389. and else where to Bellarmine. Falsum quoque Apostolum e● non imputatione peccatorum, colligere imputationem justitiae. ●mo hunc non ex illa colligit sed per illam declarat ut cuivis textum adspicienti manifestum est praecedit enim imputatio justitiae, ver. 6. Sequitur exegeticè remissio tectio non imputatio peccatorum. ver. 7. 8.   
And when as he calleth it our whole justification how c●n it be the formal cause of itself? neither where it is so termed if you show the same, can it be maintained.  
As for Mr. Gataker, though he cite many that hold justification to consist in remission of sins, yet his words are, for my part I deem erroneous, and suppose I have elsewhere evidently shown it so to be: and its marvel you would quote him in this cause. The thing is evident, neither will your seeming large sense given to him, 
Justificatio nostri coram deo et remissio peccatorum sunt revera prorsus unum et idem, ut patet ex Rom. 4. 6. 7. Justificatio et remissio peccatòrum plane non sunt idem.  excuse you.  
When as Piscator had said, our justification before God and remission of sins are truly one and the same.  
Mr. Gataker, justification and remission of sins plainly are not the same.  
And though he hold them not to differ as the whole and part he addeth, It is rather a necessary consequent of effectual justification. 
Potius est justificationis efficacis consequens necessarium. p. 11. & p. 21.   
And when as Piscator had said, he had once and again demonstrated, remission of sins and imputation of righteousness, to be plainly one and the same.  
Mr. Gataker answereth, Yea but this is not as yet demonstrated 
Remissionem peccatorum et justitiae imputationem unum prorsus idemque esse.  by you, neither truly will it ever be demonstrated.  
As for the 3. Mr, A. W. He is the man whence you must be denominated, what constant opposition he 
Imò hoc nondum a te demonstratum est nec vero unquam demonstrabitur. p. 45.  found, is known.  
For proof making you promise':  
1: justification being an action hath no form properly called, nor any form properly a part of it.  
2. The respect it hath is but as it makes an alteration in the person, or rather his condition.  
3. The precise effect of that act is the form.  
4. Our Question is of a sinner's justification by the blood of Christ.  
5. We inquire of that which is constitutive, Gods making a man righteous, whence declaring followeth: And thus I proceed to demonstrate the truth of that proposition, that remission is the formal cause of Justification.  
1. I take granted, your fourth; it's of such a justification.  
2. It's granted, it hath no proper form, and that properly it can not be a part, yet there is a form, and that's a part, it's constitutive as yourself, essential, a part.  
3. That it makes a real change, for it makes a sinner just, it maketh an unjust man righteous.  
3. That the effect of the act of God justifying is the form, I deny, its whole justification, and all such essential parts as make it up, and you must remember the forms act hath efficacy, for dat esse. see c. 3. didst. 1.  
4. It's granted, it's constitutive of justification, as anima rationalis of a man. And now for your Demonstrations.  
1. Because remission of sins is the first precise effect of that act, therefore it's the formal cause of Justification, there's noother imaginable effect intervening, there's an immediate connexion between justification and the sinner's absolution, when it's called justification from sin, 13 Acts 38 so 6 Rom. 7 he that is dead is justified from sin, this is the first privilege that comes upon a sinner by means of justification.  
1. I deny the consequence, the effect is passive justification as you distinguish, and that signifieth most properly and most frequently that complete and entire effect, wherein all their several influences and contributions meet and centre together, p. 38. Whole justification, the entire effect, and the form are not the same, the form is but a part of a thing, and cannot be the entire effect.  
2. I deny remission of sins, the first precise effect, there's imputation or application of righteousness, of which justification is an effect, as is showed out of Mr. Wotton, 1 tr. p. 84. of righteousness communicated, on which pardon followeth.  
Neither doth their connection prove it, such is there between sanctification and justification; and for that place Acts 13. you urged it to this purpose once before, and have an answer in the fift argument.  
2 Because remission of sins giveth denomination of justified, it is the form.  
Grant this, (though the illustration be not by whiteness and whitning, wherein you make whiteness the form, which is the effect, the form is whiting, application) you must prove the minor, that it denominateth, which you do thus.  
If a sinner be therefore and thereby justified because he hath his sins remitted unto him, than remission of sins giveth denomination of the justified to him.  
This is a mere begging of the question, what's to be proved; and I deny a sinner therefore justified, unless you prove it, justification by an effect, or thereby, your Reason.  
Because justification it is a vindication or exemption from punishment.  
It is so in effect, that is that followeth, but somewhat is supposed thereunto, just making and being just, else will it be the justification of a wicked person abomination to the Lord, as both the Scripture, and Divines pleading the same.  
3. Remission of sins is the formal cause of justification because it is that alteration and change that's caused in the person justified by that act of God.  
1. I deny the consequence, every change or alteration the person, is not the form.  
By that act of God is not the form, so peace of 
A.  conscience should be so, for its an alteration which supposeth pardon, which supposeth imputation of righteousness, whence justification and so pardon, etc.  
2. So is justification itself in that change that's made, yet is it not therefore the form of itself, nay it's an effect of the form. Your Reason.  
It's a politic act, and it hath a suitable effect, not a Moral, the change is not so, now, than this there's no other imaginable act, before this he was under guilt, now freed by this.  
It's a divine act▪ and though it be granted politic and that the effect, there's a Moral change, such a man as hath his sins forgiven him, was under guilt but now free; true, he was also unjust whence that guilt, and now he is righteous, constituted righteous, holy and unblamable, white as snow, whiter by a beauty put on him, whence remission a consequent, here's an other change  
4. That which makes a justified person completely righteous before God is the formal cause of justification, this cannot be denied by our keenest adversaries.  
I answer, making is ambiguous, every cause maketh the efficient the final, the material, the formal, a blunt man might make exception. But let it pass, let us see your assumption.  
But remission of sins maketh a justified person formally and 
G.  completely righteous, because he is as clear from sin or the guilt as he that kept the Law and never transgressed.  
I answer, remission maketh not formally righteous, and I deny the reason, for though he be without sin's guilt, nay so righteous, the cause is righteousness imputed, supposed, by Christ's obedience we are constituted righteous.  
5. If remissiion of sins be perfect and complete righteousness, than is it the formal cause of justification.  
The light set up to this.  
Because no perfect or complete righteousness can be found in any man that hath sinned, but that which is given and conferred by God in his justification.  
But remission of sins is a complete righteousness, which proposition hath been often alreedy exalted upon the Throne of evidence, and unquestionableness of truth.  
It is and hath been as often denied, and with reason too: be it so, let the Reader judge; but now we must take a further demonstration.  
That righteousness which needeth not fear the presence of a most district judgement of God, is a complete righteousness. But remission is such, it will hold weight and measure.  
That which▪ you are to prove is that remission is a complete righteousness, this you prove it by, beggeth what's the question that its righteousness, every thing that will abide the presence of God is not by and by righteousness, in our love there's no fear, yet is it not righteousness by which we are justified, when as you add.  
What shall hinder but that immediately on remission of sins ensue a perfect union of love and peace between them.  
In these you seem to lay down the issue of pardon to be a union of love and peace between them; It's true there's a love and peace that followeth, but as for an union as if that followed and did not go in nature before, is not to be suffered, we have showed the word saith, in whom we have redemption, remission of sins in his blood, its what we have in him, and therefore must be first in and have union, its what we have by communion, participation of his righteousness as we have showed, which supposeth union, remission of sins without union is remission of sins not by and in, but out of Christ.  
6. You argue. For givenesse is the formal cause, because it is the righteousness which God imputeth in justification, which you prove to follow, because the righteousness which God imputes in justification, must needs be the formal cause thereof.  
The minor is the assertion of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 4. 6. God's imputeing righteousness, ver. 7. is interpreted to be forgiving iniquities and covering of sin.  
1. It is our tenet, that righteousness imputed is the formal cause of justification.  
2. But we deny that righteousness to be forgiveness of sins: It's not righteousness; It's an effect or consequent of justification by the righteousness of Christ imputed, and of that righteousness of Christ we have showed, the Apostle to speak, ver, 6. and ver. 11. and this not our own but as received by faith of the God of our salvation.  
7. Remission of sins reacheth home unto, and is given to men by God for their justification, therefore it is the formal cause thereof, this is evident, because by the formal cause we mean nothing else but passive justification.  
I answer. 1. Many things may be given by God for justification some ways or other, which yet are not the formal cause thereof, the word and faith are given for justification.  
2. I deny remission given for justification; I assert justification given for pardon, for it is its effect, or consequent, as hath been often showed; Rom. 5. 16. mention is made of remission, a gift: There's also mention of the gift of righteousness, whence justification and pardon also, ver. 18. 19  
And if remission of sins be justification passive, the effect of God justifying, it cannot be the formal cause thereof, it hath as good an efficient, so the formal cause active thereunto as yourself, where you name that distinction. par. 2. p. 37. It can not be cause and effect both, before and after itself, the whole and a part.  
Lastly, Remission is the formal cause, because that & not imputing sins signify the same privilege, which you prove because the Holy Ghost interpreteth the righteousness which God imputeth by non-imputation of sins, Rom. 4. 6. compared with ver. 8. and the righteousness that is imputed in the formal cause.  
1. I grant that righteousness imputed is the formal cause. 2. And that remission and non-imputation are the same: Yet deny the consequence, and that because remission of sins is not righteousness, neither that which is imputed, the text calleth it faith, which is not forgiveness of sins, and being faith, it must be in a figurative sense, takeing in the righteousness of Christ's righteousness, as we have proved from ver. 6. and ver. 11. otherwise there is no perfect righteousness to be imputed, no formal cause. I have often shown none imputation the consequent of imputation of righteousness. And thus for your reasons. I shall be ready to examine any other reasons, and you shall find an answer to what you say in the following Chapters.  
1. Your Answer to that objection; Remission of sins is no true righteousness, in the 4●h. conclusion, is there satisfied.  
2. That objection, That the righteousness of Christ must be joined with remission of sins to make the complete form of justification is none of ours, see c. 11. 1. par. of your Treatise.  
3. That objection, that remission of sins is the consequent or effect of justification, therefore not the cause, answered in this Chapter is there maintained▪ Mr. Gataker telleth Piscator so often.  
4. 5. That the righteousness of Christ imputed or imputation of the righteousness which is the same. is the form, is maintained against your exceptions.  
6. None object that the communion between Christ and the believer is this formal cause: this also is cleared in this Chapter.  
7. That objection, that justification may be where there is no remission of sins, and remission where there is no justification, cleared c. 3. of this 2. par. and sect. 29. of this, is not objected by us, what is there laid down is there examined.  
And thus by what is said in answer, the Reader may judge of your description of Justification, for brevity's sake I avoid the running over of the same things, and so pass to your 5. Chapter.   

CHAP. V Wherein SCRIPTURES are cleared, brought for the imputation of Christ's Active obedience with their true sense according to the Judgement of the best Expositors of the Protestant Party.  
YOur first Section containeth a Preface, and its Application: the Preface.  
When Men conceive thereby thoughts countenanced from heaven in the Scriptures, their confidence lifts up itself very high. The reason you give is: The opinion in this case being their own, must needs have a strong and perfect sympathy with all the powers of nature yet unsanctified and so must needs engage these, and being looked on as a divine truth— It engageth all the powers of grace to contend for it. Hence an extafie of zeal for main enance— resolutions of sacrificing credit, name, estate; friends, himself upon the honour and service of it in case it be opposed.  
One sign thereof is the maintaniers are ambitious to heap us citations of Scripture proofs, without end to overwhelm their adversaries, when as it is to be suspected that what is every where is not where, when men shark about for Scriptures, and sinned not those that freely offer themselves.  

The Application.  
The Scriptures are many which are mustered, by the masters of Imputation which we oppose, amongst all theirs not one that speaketh plainly or directly to the business, they speak not, but the spirit of men in them, and now come to give a perfect account, by examination— the greatest part have been touched and clovered and you begin with those of the Old Testament.  
I Answer, Your reface is common, I grant all: The Masters of Imputation whom you oppose (as you call them, may retort all on your selt▪ mutato nomine ac te fabula narratu; and may say the Man hath a face that cannot blush, who pretends this opinion of yours, and interpretation to be according to the best Expositors of the Protestant Party.  
It's known those were the adversaries of Socinus, of Arminius, Mr. Wotton Papists and yourself, who deny imputation of the righteousness of Christ and are against the figurative sense of those words, Ro. 4. I have showed it, and appeal to the World.  
The Masters you elsewhere instance in Doctor Davenant, and Doctor Downham, trace the same steps, and are above your envy. I hope I the lest of thousands not worthy a name amongst them shall be able to show it. Away with vain words, let us go to down right blows. I'll follow you foot by foot and though I cannot found who allegeth them, and consequently inform myself of their following the same (you mentioning not the Objectors or Authors whence you take them) you laying them down also as weakly as can be. I am sure without the force I found in our Authors.  
Yet I will examine all as I am able.  
The covering of sin, is by some conceived to be by the Active righteousness or obedience of Christ, which God imputing covereth all their sins therewith.  
Answ. We confess covering of sins, non-imputation and forgiveness all one, and that these are done by Justification as consequents thereof: Yet is there wherewith and this I aslert the obedience of Christ constituting us righteous, 5. Rom. 19 I say not the active obedience all one, but the Passive also That Mr. Gat. and Piscator, and Pareus, hold imputed to this effect you must if you be not on Sec●●us part, and if you hold that, the active being an essential requisite is not to be excluded, as before  
The Prophet hath this Phrase, my God hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the Robe of righteousness, 61. Jes. 10. as there is a covering of sin there's wherewith all.  
The Apostle, Rom. 4. 6. 11. besides non-imputation 
Author's thus ordinarily Mr. Zanchie speaking of, insufficiency of inherent rihgteousnesse, saith, opus habet, tum perfecta Christi justitia qua tanquam veste preciosa illius labes contegantur j uxta illud, Psalmi 32. Beati quorum remissae sunt in iniquitates, et quotum tecta lunt peccata, etc. proinde a postolus hanc justitiam per se solum considerans et ab altera distinguens, dixit se nolle inveniri, etc. ad▪ Philip. 3. 9 Praeclare vero etiam justinus Martyr, Epistola ad diogneium: Quid allied (inquit) peccata nostra tege●e potuit quam Christi justitia▪ In quo alio nos iniqui et impij pro justis habe●i possumus nisi in solo De● 〈◊〉 O dulcem perc●nctationem; O imper vestigabile artificium; et beneficia e● p●ctationem orane ● superantia ut iniquita● quidem multorum in justo uno a● scondatur justitia autem unius faciat ut multi injusti justificentur, Pareus. whence he proved what he had said that the Gospel evidently witnesseth God ●● nec ●egere iniquitates nisi per Christi obodientiam, c. 4. ad Rom. ad dub. 3. quarta denique p 315. Hac (innocntia Christi qua nos induit) nos instructi assiduam peccatorum remissionem in fide obit, nemus; Hujus p●r●ta●e velatae nostraesordes et imperfectionum immunditiae non imputantur. Sed velut sepultae ●ontegutur ne in judicium Del veniant. Cal. l. 3. c. 14 Se. 12. Vb●●n Christum insiti sumus ideo justi apparemus coram deo quia ejus innocentia conteguntur nostrae iniquitates l. 3. c. 17. Se. 10. Fides offered nudum hominem Deo ut Christi justitia iuduatur, Cal. ad Phil. 3. 9 Who also out of Ambiguity▪ ose useth that of Jacob in Esau's apparel. Ita nos sub Christi primogeniti nostri fratris praeciosa puritate delicescere u● teitimonium justitiae a conspectu Dei eferamus, inst. l 3. c. 11. p. 13. Tegi dicuntur peccata▪— tum quia Christi justitia sunt expiata tum quia eadem nobis per fidem imputata tanquam nitidissima veste operiuntur, ne in conspectum Dei deformitus corumveniat, Paraeus Castig, de justif, p. 491.  mentioneth imputation of righteousness, on which non-imputation followeth.  
These are enough to show that besides that remission, there is by Scriptures and our authors, the righteousness of Christ, by which there is that covering of sin. What you speak against this that the active obedience of Christ cannot cover.  
Seeing sin is wholly dissolved by the passive obedience of Christ, and this before the imputation of the Active oebdience of Christ and that that which is wholly dissolved needs no cover.  
We have no such opinion, that sin is forgiven by the passive obedience, imputed before the active, we hold the imputation of both together, which make up our full righteousness, and that by these imputed we have Justification, and so concerning dissolution or remission of sins, in regard of guilt and punishment.  
It cannot be by the Passive alone, its insufficient seeing the active is absolutely neceslary to the merit thereof and an essential requisite to life, ex concessis.  
4. You say the active obedience of Christ is so fare from being a covering of sin, that its rather a means of discovery, setting it out.  
I Answer that's not to purpose, yet you grant it an essential requisite, to the Passive obedience, and it's doing away our sin.  
As for that crotchet of yours about covering of fin it crosseth yourself and your authors who make them the same, and I will not spend time in consideration of it not being to our purpose.  
2 Place. p. 3. Jer. 23. 6. and 33 16. Where its said Christ shall be called the Lord our righteousness. You answer,  
1. It is not said the righteousness of the Lord shall be our righteousness, nor that is shall be imputed to us for righteousness.  
1. When it's said he shall be the Lord our righteousness, It must needs be so in regard of his righteousness.  
2. His being our righteousness infoldeth faith, receiving Christ the Lord, 2 Col. 6. our righteousness may be rightly supplied, and that implieth God's giving him for that, the imputation of it: the Apostle, Rom. 4. 6. supplieth the word. And S● Paul's desire is to be found in him, not having his own righteousness.  
It's all one with that place, where he is said, to be made 
Mr. Zanchie, est enim Christus ipse per fidem apprehensus quatenus ipse pro nobis legem perfectissima obedientia servavit, quatenus item, ipse sua morte et Sanguine peccata nostra expiavit, patrique reconciliavit, etc. Hi●respectibus Christus est justitia nostra, ideo merito Apostolus cum vocat justitiam nostram, 1 Cor, 1, De quo antea Hierom, 23. Et hoc est nomenejus quo vocabunt cum Jehova justitia nostra, in 3. 6. Epist. ad Philip. p, 196.  unto us of God righteousness, and we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him, 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 2 Cor. 5 ult.  
So Paraeus when as in answering Bellar●ine he had said 
Sed me●onymico sensu dixit fidem 1. Christum fide appreheasum esse nostram justitiam; addeth quem sensum Meronymicum si oppugnat adversarius, certe non Lutherum impugnat sed spiritum sanctum blasphemat qui Christum express vocat ju●ti●iam nostram 23. Ler. 6. ●●●●●. 1. 30. Castig. l. 1. c. 4. P. 418, 419. Sec c. 10. p. 501. 502. where 1 Cor. 1. 30, and this place of. jer. are vindicated, pro imputata Christi justitia. In answer re which. Bel. giveth us the whole cause, ●● Para. ib. & Ames. Ch●. c. 17. p. 24. 25. Bell. ener. p. 145. de justis. Tom. 4. so Chamier de justit. c. ●. whereby this place, etc. He proveth that we are just non nostra inhaereate, where he citeth an excellent testimony opening this text, Cirillus Glaphyron. 5. c. postreme. Hoc est ●omeo ejus quod voca verit cum Dominus josedeck in Prophetls, regnavit eaim super nos justus rex Christus justitiam secit nomen vero ipsi Iosedeck hoc est justitia Dei, justificati enim sumus in ipso Id circo etiam dicit Deus te Pater appopinquat celeriter justitia mea et misericordia mea revelabatur misericordia enim et justitia nobis factus est Christus a deo ae Patre. So where he proveth us justfied, aliena justiti●, c. 17. he citeth this text, Sect. 2. To which I may add Doctor Downham who two times urgeth this text to this purpose. l. 1. c. 3. p. 5. 1. 4. c. 2. par. 2 Which is enough so give a taste of this Scripture by Protestant Divines and that against Papists. You except.  of Luther.  
2. It's against Gramaticall and Rhetorical importance of the expressure of the words, disagreeing from Scripture phrase, to put such a sense on them as Ch ist is our righteousness by imputation, the imputation of a person was never heard of therefore.  
That's your opinion, it's not so of learned men, as you hear, it's no more than Christ being made to us of God, righteousness, or that our being made the righteousness of God in him of which before: Our righteousness implieth imputation or donation of God to us believing, for righteousness by which we must stand holy and unreprovable and unblamable in the sight of God.  
3. The direct meaning is. He shall be acknowledged by the Jews, the great author and procurer of that righteousness or justification in the sight of God, for righteousness is put for Justification, Cap. 3. p. 3.  
1. I answer Justification and righteousness differ as cause and effect as in your, 3. c. Sect. 3. righteousness is the cause, Justification the effect.  
2. Grant this place than to be meant, he shall be called the Author and procurer of our Justification, but yet by righteousness which is a cause thereof: We yield it the meritorious cause, and the matter, and being applied, imputed, ours, the formal cause: so that the direct meaning establisheth our interpretation, we granting him the Lord our righteousness, by his righteousness made ours to produce this effect, Justification: I hope you that interpret him the author of Justification will not deny righteousness, the cause. And as for application you must grant, he must of necessity be our righteousness, that he may be to us the author of justification.  
1. Thus according to his name is his work, he justifieth us by his righteousness applied.  
2. Thus is he the procurer of our righteousness and the effect thereof Justification, which are not but where he is our righteousness, that is, his righteousness is applied.  
3. And thus remission of sins shall have it's due place, to be an inseparable consequent of Justification, or just making, as that's an effect of the Lord, becoming our righteousness, this putteth both those and all consequent privileges. And thus I pass to the fourth par.  
Some have digged for imputation in that field, Jes. 45. 24. 
Third Place See, 4.  Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.  
You suggest.  
1. There are several readings and interpretations of this Scripture. And  
2. Answer there's not the lest breathing of imputation so much wondered after.  
3. The direct meaning and import is doubtless, only a profession made by him of his free justificati by God in and through Christ.  
I answer, wh● at last you give us the true and direct meaning, it was vain to pretend several readings and interpretations and want of pregnancy in the place, to build a disputable point of faith on.  
2. When as it's a profession of free justification by God in and through Christ it must be by Christ's righteousness and in him, which denoteth application, imputation.  
3. The sense is most plain in the words of the interpreters In Christ the Lord I have righteousness, having it infoldeth Gods giving it and our application by faith, we grant justification and pardon to be as effects enfolded. It's a profession of justification by righteousness possessed in Christ.  
I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in 
Loc. ulo Jes. 61. 10.  my God: for he hath clothed me with the garment of salvation, he hath covered me with the Robe of righteousness. These garments and Robe are conceived to be the righteousness of Christ imputea as a Robe or Garment put on them, wherein and by which they stand justified in the sight of God.  
You answer.  
1. This clothing with righteousness, etc. bore expressions chief, if not only of the Church of the Iewes in their restauration from Babylon, if not that under which they lie now at this day, external and temporal, not justification by Christ.  
Neither by the Robe of righteousness are we to understand the whole obedience of Christ to the Moral Law, there not being word, syllable, letter, tittle, leading to such an interpretation, but in the effect of the righteousness that is of the truth and faithfulness or graciousness of God: or both deliverance from captivity safety and other sweet and comfortable privileges.  
Grant this of the Jews, than or now, It's not only: as by the 3 first Ver. It's of Christ, and there's neither Iew nor Gentle in him, & preaching the Gospel It's not to beconfind.  
Grant it of the Jews especially now.  
That it's of externalls and temporals and not of justification by Christ, is very inconsiderately asserted.  
1. Deliverance, safety and other sweet and comfortable privileges, confessed seem to import more than outwards and temporals.  
The 3 first verses show that Prophet and Christ anointed to preach other things than temporals, there o'er other evils on them, than temporals supposed and remedies preached. There's more in that ver. 6. there's the instauration of divine workship Christ shows that he will adorn his Church his Spouse, with righteousness, lief, and eternal glory. Instauration as Scultetus in locum. 
Cultus divini Christus oftendit se or naturum ecelesiam sponsam suam justitia vita et gloria aeterna. Tremel. & jun. pro fat. ad caput. etc.  there's more external, ver. 6. internal, ver. 8. In everlasting joy, ver. 7. I will direct their work in truth, Scul. Moore in that, I will make an everlafting Covenant with them, ver. 8. There's Christ and righteousness and pardon and all spiritual blessings with Christ. It shall be seen ver. 9  
God shall be their God, they shall greatly rejoice in him, for this, he hath clothed me, etc.  
And what is meant by this, let Saint john show you 19 Rev. 7. 8. where the Spouse of Christ returning shall be clothed with fine linen clean and white, which is the righteousness of the Sames. God shall do it by application of the righteousness of Christ's Robes of righteousness, garments of salvation of all sorts. But let us proceed. You say,  
2. If we carry those metaphors in and understand them of justification by Christ, the promise supposed to be contained in them, and to be made to the Church, will not be suitable or proper thereunto, because the Church is already and at all times clothed with the robe of the righteousness of Christ in such a sense, that is, in a justified condition by him: Yeaher justification is that which gives her her very being as she is his Church. it's to promse what they have, so that doubtless it is no Spiritual privilege, as lest not justification by Christ of all other.  
1. That these are supposed ever clothed with the righteousness of Christ, justified, than, or now is worthy consideration further.  
Than though there were some justified they were but few: many the most Uncircumcised in heart in their sins, only justified Sacramentotenus in regard of Circumcission, the sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, outwardly circumcised a truth of many, elect ones, for their present state, to be justified in their call when God shall call them to repentance and pardon them. Than God's promise is to work these, and so their return, 44 Ic. and yet the Church.  
Now, they are not called, not justified, cut of for not submission to the righteousness of God for establishing their own righteousness, to be justified when as the Lord shall call them.  
I deny than that promise not suitable to them that they do not need justification: your supposition that this was and shall be that people's state before their call is groundless.  
That justification gives a Church the very being of a Church as this was Visible is groundless, uncircumcised in heart were members of the Church; yea hypocrites are so: even such as are the Catholic Church or invisible ones, Saints indeed are first in nature's order sanctified, before justified; the promise of pardon is made to repentance, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us, etc. wash you make you clean, put away the evil of your doing, cease to do evil, learn to do well, and than if your sins were, etc. 1 Jes. The Scriptures abound this way; yea in order of nature before sanctification there's effectual call: call to faith and call to fellowship with Christ whence that sanctification and so justification, and its call that giveth her her being as she is the Church. Ecclesia is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you know calling out that a consequent privilege of those that are called out, distinct, whom he called he justified, Rom. 8. so that this objection is of no value.  
Lastly, If we understand it of outwards and temporals, as Musculus and other Interpreters, the Metaphor will be found sweet and lively, and consonant to other Scriptures.  
The Jews and other N●tions clothed themselves according to their condition, they had times for sackcloth, they were now as Captives, prisoners; he will change their estate and make them free, possessors of their own land, honourable, all this is signified by the change of their habits, proportioning clotheses to their dignity, so 19 Rev. 7, 8. which you clear and answer by the way) It's not of justification or righteousness, but the great honour Christ will bestow on them justified long before.  
It's given in remembrdce of herrighteousnes, that is, her holiness, etc. under persecution.  
Pure and shining linen, that is the bright glory, wherewith the Church is invested, is said to be the righteousness of the Saints, because the reward of it, the linen is, etc. a reason why the Saints so arrayed.  
It's Parallel is, c. 3, 4. these shall walk in white, for they are worthy, they are the reason. So the great City was clothed in fine linen and purple, 18. Rev. 16. there's nothing inward meant, touching the inward condition of the Church, much less his justification by the active righteousness of Christ, and it's strange to build a dog maticall point of faith upon metaphorical expressions, there being no plain ones to warrant it.  
1. I believe not that Musculus or any other, hold it of temporals, only, Musculus is not in mine hands. I have instanced in Sculretus; and Tremelius, and junius are clear for spirituals; if all the interpreters in the world were of that opinion, unless I were blind I must oppose them, as by the particulars in the Chapter; of which before.  
2. I grant outward temporals to have their place, freedom, their lands, honour and that habits were proportionable by other places of Scripture. I deny there was not spiritual freedom, right to the creatures, and true honour, which is of God, consisting in spiritual Privileges.  
Nay the latter are, what are cast in over and above.  
Jun. & Tremel. Note that 
ᶜ cjus et authoritas ecclesia vindicata per Christis in res omnes creatus, quae per antishesin miseri et ignominionsi status, precedentis illustratur, in ver, 6. 7.  the right and authority of the church over all created things vindicated, which is illustrated by opposition of a miserable and ignominious estate foregoing.  
But there are far higher privileges promised, Christ was anointed for other matters, as in the 3. first, etc.  
Their is that acceptable year of the Lord, reconciliation with God, redemption comfort. They shall be trees of righteousness. Their ss an everlasting covenant in which God becometh their God in Christ: showing it in sanctification, justification, adoption, in giving the spirit to all those ends, to the exercise and growth of grace the saving of the soul, and resurrection of the body. These are prime blessings, and primely intended; though you (as if the Old testament contained none of these) see nothing but externals, temporals.  
3. If sweetness and livelynes, and consonancy to the Scripture, be our card and compass. Let any spiritual man judge.  
1. If there be sweetness and life in temporal freedom, possessions, honour. Spiritual excelleth, it's of an higher kind, there's no comparison between them, were man in the greatest want of the one, having the other, he were an happy man: and on the other side, miserable in the midst of those without these: that man did never taste God in these, and is blind wholly that judgeth otherwise.  
2. For agreement with other Scriptures.  
This hath so, as where mention is made of putting on Christ; where we are said to be found in him, as Paul. 3. Ph. 9 When he desired to be found in him, not having his own righteousness, which importeth that he would be found in, is the righteousness of Christ: It's as in agreement, of which see our examination of your 6. Argument out of Phil. 3. 9 and what is urged in defence of 32. ph. 1. the first Scripture passing which  
Let us consider those in the Revelation 19 and 3. and see whether there be nothing inward meant, or of the inward condition of the Church, much less Justification by the active obedience of Christ.  
The words are, And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of Saints.  
Christ the Husband in the call of his people (his ancient people the Jews, as it seemeth) giveth her to be arrayed, clotheth her with fine linen, clean and white, which is explained to be the righteousness of the Saints, the righteousness which God giveth them, and they receive by faith.  
Her's not only the privileges and return, but the righteousness of the Saints, a spiritual thing which you cannot exclude by your interpretation, and it's expressed.  
2. Though metaphors are used, they are explained, they mean the righteousness of the Saints.  
3. When as this is a dogmatic point of faith. 1. it should have moved you to more care and fear of adventuring to oppose it against all the reformed Churches: Your error if it be proved, will be the greater in regard of Preaching and printing against it, it will be against a dogmatic point of faith.  
Let us now to the interpretation of chief Protestants; you have brought not one for your interpretation which yet was your promise.  
As in the argument of that, 61. Jes. Jun. saith, 
d Christus se ostend ●se ornatutum ecclesiam Sponsam suam justitia, in the very words of this their seemeth agreement, here's Christ adorning his spouse with righteousness.  Christ showeth that he will adorn his Church his spouse with righteousness.  
Are speaking of the ornament of his Church showeth whence it 
Aretius' in locum. De ornate Sponsae locutus; ostendit unde illum habeat nimirum a sponso Christo, datum est ci, hoc est a Christo. datumest, solius enim sponsi est vestire sponsam et ornament is donare. Deinde nominat vestimentum Byssum purum et splendidum, hoc est can, didum, stola est innocentiae, bonorum operum quibus nihil est splendidius coram Domino nihil purius. 30. exponit vestitum hunc nihil aliudesse, quam justificationem sanctorum. igitur vestitur Sponsa Christi Justificationibus, hoc est meritis et justitia sui Sponsi. Hoc etiam dixit Apostolus ad Philip, 3. 9 Comperiar in ipso non habe n● meam justitiam quae ex lege est led quae est ex fide Christi, illam in quam quae est ex Deo justitiam per fidem. H●c justiti● ornatur Sponsa.  hath it, that it is given by her husband Christ to her, that is, that it is given by Christ for it is the office of the husband only to clothe his spouse, and to give her raiment, than he calleth the garment linen pure and shining, that is the white garment of innocence good works than which nothing is more shineing before the Lord, nothing more pure. 3. He expoundeth this raiment to be nothing else but the justifications of the Saints, therefore is the Church adorned with the justifications of Christ; that is, with the merits and righteousness of her husband: this the Apostle said, Phil. 3. 9 That I may be found, &c, the church is adorned with this righteousness.  
Harken to learned Brightman, Illi alteri) that you 
Quae squalida ●u●pis, nuda ne pannis obsita jacebat antea byssinae vestes dantur quibus deformem suam nudi●atem operiat. Haec autem Byssus est Jesus Christus factus ●oster ad Justitiam et salutem per imputationem; qua veste carebant Judaei d●m respuentes Dei filium, ejusque justitiam propriam justitiam constituere studierunt, sed tamen insiti per fidem renunciabunt suae pristinae spei et hanc salutatem amplectentur, amicti hoc uno glorioso, indumento. Haec Bissus est pura et splendida; Pura ratione justificationis, quia sistit nos coram Deo in culpatos et irrepre●ensibiles, immunes omnis labis et maculae; Splendida respectu gloriae, tum apud Deum qui peopter hanc puritatem in suo filio nos haeredes constituit aeterni sui regni tum apud homin●s quibus adoptionem nostram splendidissimis suis fructibus indicat, etc.  may see it to have the same scope with that, 61. jes.)  
To them (the church of the jews) which before lay filthy, naed, in rags, linen clotheses are given to cover her deformed nakedness, this linen is Jesus Christ made ours for righteousness and salvation by imputation, which garment the jews wanted, whilst refusing the son of God and his righteousness, they endeavoured to establish their own, but being inset by faith; they shall renounce their own old hope, and shall embrace this saving one, being arrayed with this one glorious garment. This linen is pure and shining pure in regard of justification, because it presenteth us before God unblamable and unreprovable, without any spot or wrinkle, shining in respect of glory as well with God, who for this holiness in his Son, hath constituted us heirs of his Eternal Kingdom, as also with men to which he showeth our adoption with its shining fruits.  
The place more clearly and fully expresseth the Protestant sense, who take righteousness for good works; as Beza, which yet he calleth, vivae fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum.  
The Rhemists acknowledge, that when we say, bona opera meant, that they are the fruits and effects of Faith, and of the justice we have by only faith, Remist. in locum. Which they denying Doctor Fulke replieth. This Text compared with Rev. 7. 14. showeth whence the beauty of this garment cometh, verily not of the justice of men but of the blood of the Lamb, and the merit of his Sacrifice, 1b. If you say that's not the active obedience, you must hold your peace, seeing that maketh the other meritorious and is an essential requisite thereof confessedly.  
Who also addeth in truth all these justifications (good works) are the effect of one justification which is by faith, only in the merits of Christ, ib.  

f Mr. Brightm. after on these words. Bissus enim justifica●iones sunt sanctorum non ex seipsis aut rebus insitis mamat, sed soris haeret in externa veste, nimirum Christo quem per unam fidem induimus, and than. Nullla similitudo dilacidius ante oculos ponit imputationem justitiae per fidem, quam haec vestis tam ●rebro in-Scripturis usurpata▪  Linen are the righteousness of the Saints, not from themselves or what floweth from what is inward, but it cleaveth from without, in our outward garment, Christ whom we put on only by faith: No similitude doth more clearly put the imputation of righteousness by Faith, than this of a garment so often used in the Scriptures.  
But let them remember this merit to be given to the garment, not 
And on the 3. c. v. 4. to the Papists, he saith, Sed meminerint hoc meritum tribui vesti non corpori. id est imputationi justitiae Christi qua tanquam veste induim●r. Brightman.  to the body, that is, to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, with which as with a garment we are clothed.  
Places of the New Testament.  
3. Rom. 21, 22. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifest●a being witnessed by the law and prophets even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe.  
They say is here meant the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, who is God imputed to all that believe.  
When as this place is urged by ours against Pontificians, etc. by righteousness, none mean the active obedience of Christ excluding the Passive, they speak of both▪ you Answer.  
1. This text is fully opened, Trea. 1. c. 4. and found to speak plainly for the imputation of faith, no ways for the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
Let the Reader judge, and to that end look so fare bacl and he shall found, that argument satisfied.  
And in this text faith is not mentioned as righteousness, but what is distinct from it, that righteousness is by the faith of Jesus Christ.  
2. Some by the righteousness of God understand God's faithfulness in keeping promises as Ambrose.  
On examination before our learned have found it ootherwise, and the scope of the Apostle showeth it.  
3. By, the righteousness of God is doubtless meant that that method way or means which God himself hath found out to justify or make men righteous. Of which, c. 3. S. 2. p. 40. Or that very righteousness by which we stand justified or righteous in the sight of God, neither have I found any that understands it of the righteousness of Christ.  
The method and means God hath found, and is revealed is Christ and his righteousness, to prove which and help you, you may meet with both out of Par●us, and Calvin on the place, see before.  
Let Beza be consulted with, what may be understood by 
Quid vocabul● Justitiae Dei intelligatur, per. secta nimirum illa et summa integritas humanae naturae qu● quisquis donatus est (donatur autem credentibus in cam) qui h●c integritate secundum carnem absolutissime praeditus est, no stri causa ut postea declarabitur. ●istitur coram deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut loquitur Paulus, 1 Col, 23. Ea igitur a Paulo dicitur justitia Dei nou medo quia grat●itum Dei est donum etc. in 1 Rom. 17.  the word righteousness, forsooth that perfect and highest integrity of his human nature, with which every one is endowed (it is given to those that believe in him) who is endowed according to his humanity with this integrity most absolutely, for our sake as shall be declared afterwards. He is presented  God holy unblameable and unreprovable. That therefore is said by Saint Paul; the righteousness of God not only because it is the free gift of God, etc.  
Beza on the text those words, of Jesus Christ. 
Id est quae ha', betur Christo vel quae Christo nititur. Hoc enim addendum fuit ne quis ex▪ istimaret fidem esse illud quod justificat, quum sit duntaxat instrumentum quo Christum justitiam nostram apprehendimus.   
That which is given to Christ, or which resteth on Christ: for this was to be added jest any one should think faith to be that which justifieth, when as it is only the instrument by which we apprehended Christ our righteousness.  
Read the passages out of Calvin and it shall be evicted that the man that met not with Christ's righteousness was either willingly blind or negligent.  
3. Rom. ult. The last ver. of the 3. Rom. is laid hold on as a favourer of their imputation.  
It's not ours but the Lords: Let imputations be laid on it, as that it's ours it doth but conform them who do so to that brood of Papists with whom they have this in common, that they cannot endure the word, as elsewhere hath been observed. The words are, Do we make void the Law through faith? God forbidden! yea we establish the Law. You say,  
They conceive that the Law cannot be said to be established by faith or by the doctrine of faith, but only by imputation of Christ's fulfilling of it.  
We say the Law is established by faith when as it is said to justify us, it doth it by application of Christ's perfect obedience to the Law, active and passive imputed unto us. What say you against it?  
1. That there's no necessity that in this place should be meant precisely the Moral Law, Calvin understands it of the Moral and Ceremonial, etc. therefore he is far from conceiving, that the imputation of Christ's righteousness should be established by Paul's affirming the Law to be established by faith.  
Let it be understood of both, the Moral Laws establishment cannot be denied to be by faith, nor that of the imputation of Christ's obedience, by that establishment, but confirmed also. Calvin telleth you, When as 
Vbi ventum est ad Christum, in co invenitur exacta Legis justitia, quae per imputationem etiam nostra fit.  we come unto Christ, in him is found the exact righteousness of the Law, which also by imputation is made ours. The righteousness of faith is the exact righteousness or obedience to the Law, which is by imputation made ours.  
I see not what this is to prejudice our doctrine, or to what it tendeth.  
2. You say it's more probable that Paul here asserts the establishment of the Ceremonial Law, etc.  
To what end is this? I know not truly, and therefore will pass it. It establisheth both.  
3. When you say there's no necessity that the Moral Law should be established by the imputation of jesus Christ.  
1. I answer that cannot be excluded. See Calvin, see also Paraeus, who answer that other objection, that faith establisheth the Law in sanctification, which none deny. Calvin and Paraeus oppose not these, but establish both.  
2. As for what you object fourthly, I include in the obedience by faith in which I hold justification: those 2 make but one consideration, and they are not to be separated. fifthly, Your last conceit crosseth all before, so that here's no answer to the objection of the enemies of Christ and the Apostle who thought them enemies to the Law, and their doctrine, Mat. 3. & Acts 15. which 
See Chemnit. exam. p. 352. de justif.  yet is laid down to be the scope of the Apostle, both by Calvin and Pareus in the place.  
This hath been an unpleasant digression, how that text and for what it's urged you may better consider. where we urge it to show that righteousness by which we are justified must be anexact conformity to the Law. For which see places urged from interpreters.  
Rom. 4. 6. To whom the Lord imputeth righteousness.  
That righteousness can be no other than but the righteousness of Christ. To this you answer,  
1. This is fully opened in mine answer to Mr. Walker, p. 41. whither the Reader is desired to repair for answer. I desire it also, for mine answer thereunto, he shall found it full.  
2. That the Apostle rather requires a righteousness suitable to every man's condition, than that of Christ, which hath no such property already, presented in this discourse, there shalt thou find it examined also, C. 2. sect. 5. p. 7.  
3. That righteousness which God is said to impute, is placed by the best Expositors in remissiion of sins. so Paraeus.  
Of him we have seen before, in our Defence of Mr. Walker, and in this place he calleth righteousness and fin immediate contraries, in which the consequence is necessary 
Contraria immediata, in quibus necessaria est consequentia á negatione unus ad positionem alterius et contra: ubi peccatum, ibi non est justitia; tibi non peccatum ibi justitia; recte igitur Apostolus, beati quibus Deus non imputat peccatorum; ergo beati quibus imputat justitiam.  from position of one to the position of the other, and contrarily, where there is sin there righteousness is not, where sin is not there is righteousness, therefore the Apostle rightly, blessed are they to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, therefore they are blessed to whom he imputeth righteousness.  
It followeth not therefore there's no imputation of righteousness. But è contra ergo imputat justitiam. Paraeus, in Rom. 4. 7. Thus that great engine doth batter your 
Observa 1. hoc versu. 6. express doceri justitiam imputatam, Deus imputat justitiam ergo est justitia imputata. Hunc igitur lacerent Sophistae ut velint nunquam nobis execurient  own Bulwark. Paraeus in the same place urgeth, as observable.  
Observe. 1. in this 6. ver. imputed righteousness expressly to be taught: God imputeth righteousness, therefore there is imputed righteousness: Let the Sophisters tear this as they please they shall never take it from us.  
Therefore expositors exclude not, nor can imputation of righteousness as we have seen, and with Paraeus his leave, that righteousness is subjectively in Christ, as ours show, and that out of the Apostle, 2 Corin. 5. ult.  
4. To impute sin signifieth, either to look upon a person as justly liable to punishment, or to inflict punishment for sin: the latter I find most frequent, either to hold a man liable to punishment, for sin or to execute punishment; than to impute righteousness importeth to look upon a man as a righteous person, and to invest him with those privileges.  
To impute sin infoldeth a man a sinner and guilty of death and Gods chargeing it on his score, and an holding him so, so long, whether he show it in punishment or not, punishment may be deferred, God may after that inflict it, but is an infallible consequent except man repent and God forgive.  
Not to impute sin is not only not to punish, but not to hold guilty, and so to forgive, which God doth not where a man continueth a sinner, God should hold the guilty innocent, acquit a wicked man. He is therefore supposed just and righteous when as the Lord doth so, and that by the righteousness of Christ applied to him, by righteousness imputed: the imputing therefore of sin, or charging it on a man's score, denyeth imputation or application of that righteousness, the not imputation thereof putteth the imputation of righteousness ex concessis of Paraeus, and Gods laying it to our account.  
As therefore punishment is a consequent of sin, etc. God chargeing it upon a man, so the privileges of a justified person the consequents of righteousness imputed to that man.  
In the former God is a just judge, the just judgement of God is, that they that do those things should die; man's sin and perdition are of himself. In the latter righteousness is by the free grace of God, yet declaring himself just in Justification through the blood of Christ applied by Faith, which also makes further differences, destroying your conclusion. But to the last,  
Ult. Here is neither peer nor peep, of the lest ground or reason to conceive that by righteousness should be meant the righteousness of Christ.  
A righteousness is necessary as hath been showed in defence of Mr. Walker, and that there's no other to be found, by which it may be done amongst the sons of men.  
Let that place be consulted with, and you shall sinned it cleared, and that by the interpretation of Protestant Divines, Paraeus, Ames, Whitaker, etc. Let the judicious reader both read and judge.  
The next place you mention is.  
Rom. 5. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many are made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.  
Hence you say we argue.  
That as by the imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally sinners, in like manner by the imputation of Christ's righteousness men are made formally righteous.  
For your formally. I found it not in any of our Divines from this place, when as they urge it against the Papists; for to prove we are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, if you make use of these words, therefore you shall but vainly jangle, our sense hath been sufficiently expressed before.  
Doctor Downham may be seen, l. 5. c. 2. Sect. 1. See Mr. Perk Refor. cath. and Abbot defence. p. 404. Doctor Ames Bell. Eneru. Tom. 4. p. 144. It's a place urged by all Protestants against Papists, to prove the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  
To this you answer.  
1. Somewhat hath been spoken of the sense of this Scripture and the inconcludency of this argument, Par. 1. c. 21. Sect. 2, 3. where that may be also found, examined.  
2. It's not said here by imputation of Adam's sin men are formally sinners, but sinners, that is, obnoxious to death and condemnation, or sinners by propagation, so that her▪ s neither little nor much for imputation.  
1. Formally taken for inherently we mean not.  
2. When as they are said obnoxious to damnation; they are not denied sinners as hath been showed. If the sin itself had not been imputed, than as Bellarmine himself somewhere argues; neither the guilt nor the corruption, saith, Doctor Downham (I may of the rest of the punishment) had not belonged unto us.  
And he addeth which hath been observed before that.  
Things that are trasient when they are once past and gone, cannot be otherwise communicated than by imputation. ubi supra p. 27●.  
When as you say, or by propagation not imputation.  
1. None question but we are formally sinners by propagation; corruption of nature is spiritual death wherein we are conceived and borne, the deprivation of God's Image, and depravation of nature are what we have by propagation, which argueth the cause our sin in Adam.  
When as you deny imputation, and not by imputation, you run into the Pelagian Heresy, as Vossius before, where he showeth the contrary the Orthodox doctrine. You join with the Papist, of whom yet many are against you and Bellarmine himself, against himself as Dr. Downh. showeth l. 4 c. 10. Sect. 2. and Se. 4. and Dr Abbot against Bishop: all ours hold as inquination of nature by propagation so imputation of Adam's sin, whence guilt and punishment. 〈◊〉 not waste time in numbering them, harken to your master, he is amongst the Prophets here  
We affirm Adam's sin is imputed to us to our just condemnation, so Wots. in Defence Mr Perk. p. 178.  
3. Neither doth the Apostle compare one act with another, but the satisfaction with the provocation and remedy with the disease, therwise he should make sins of omission to be no disobsdience, because they are no acts, in which yet also Adam's sin stood.  
The comparison is between disobedience and obedience, disobedience infoldeth his omission & commission: Christ's obedience the perfect remedy, but what's this against the imputation of it?  
4. By the obedience of Christ whereby it's here said, many are or shall be made righteous, we cannot understand that the righteousness of Christ, which consists only in his obedience to the moral Law, but that satisfactory righteousness which he performed to that peculiar law of mediation, which was imposed on him, and which chief consisted in his sufferings, see c. 3. of this part, Sect. 4. p. 45.  
The most interpreters compare this with 2 Phil. 8. where it's said he humbled himself and became obedient unto death.  
1. None of ours mean by the obedience of Christ that which consists only to the moral law, they enfold his Passive obedience.  
2. You do not well in opposing that obedience to the Law, to what's mediatory. I have showed he obeyed not that law for himself but us and yourself hold it an essential requisite to the Passive obedience, where you have considered of this you must seek for satisfaction.  
3. When this is compared with that 2. Phi. in that you shall found not only Christ's death and sufferings, but his incarnation with all that ever he did and suffered even till death, his whole do and sufferings becoming man was his poverty, not for himself but us: neither is there here an exclusion of his Active obedience.  
When as you object, out of Paraeus (as you say) if by the obedience of Christ we understand, Universalem ejus conformitatem cum lege. 1. The Antithesis will not stand, between the disobedience of Adam, and the obedience of Christ, Adam's disobedience being but a particular transgression.  
I Answer, 1. when we understand his universal obedience to the law, it was but our debt, we exclude not Christ's sufferings, which Paraeus calleth satisfaction to the Law.  
But to the opposition, Adam's sin is called disobedience, and Christ's righteousness obedience; the one was universal obedience you say, and was not Adam's universal disobedience to the whole law? Yes, but this is a lesser reason, there is a greater.  
The effect, righteous making hath been hitherto attributed to his blood.  
We establish that the other cannot in your judgement be excluded, seeing its essential neither is blood sufficient without that which is absolutely neceslary, nay essen●iall.  
5. Suppose that contrary to Scriptures and general current of Interpreters; we understand that active obedience he performed to the Law, yet will it not follow from hence therefore men must be made righteous by imputation, for the righteous making here is the same with that, ver. 16, 17. 18. now that righteousness as he calls it, ver. 17. is described to be the gift, forgiveness of many offences, and that cannot stand in the imputation, of an observation of the Law.  
It's a weary task to run over and over the same things which yet I must do if I examine you, the Reader may see I do but follow you let it be mine Apology.  
1. It's not contrary to Scriptures, and as for the general current, the man cannot blush that denyeth we have many for us against one that opposeth.  
2. Righteous making in one and other place are the same, here more fully delivered to be by Christ's obedience, nothing but righteousness can make righteous, and no righteousness but Christ's; remission is a consequent as hath been showed that which supposeth imputation of righteousness passive all confess, but you, etc. and you hold that active obedience to be a necessary, nay essential requisite to that and meritorious, how another's righteousness can be ours, but by imputation we know not.  
6. Lastly, It's lose arguing from a thing done to a determinate manner, as Peter was slain with death, therefore, by a beast or with a Dagger, so from this that we are made righteous by Christ's disobedience to this aeterminate manner by Imputation, there being other manners of righteous making.  
This arguing is not lose an others sin or righteousness can be no other ways ours but by imputation, being transient as we have showed: I cannot be a sinner or righteous by the same otherwise, which yet the Apostle asserteth: righteousness of Christ active or passive will not do it unless it be applied, imputed by God.  
Imputation of sin is read in the same Chapter. v. 13. and so is imputation of righteousness twice in the former, but it seems it will not stand with your imputation of faith in a proper sense.  
Another text is Rom. 8. 4. that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us.  
Say you,  
It's argued that the righteousness of the Law can in no sense be said to be fulfilled in us but only by the righteousness of Christ or obedience to the Law imputed.  
I answer, this text is usually urged for our justification against Romanists, but that it should be only Christ's fulfilling of the Law excluding his passive obedience, I know none that asserteth it but this is your common practice in laying down our arguments to intimate to the world your opposition against men that are only for the imputation of Christ's active obedience.  
You tell us,  
1. Some Learned and Orthodox understand it of sanctification rather than justification.  
I answer, the scope showeth the contrary which is to prove though there be corruption in God's people, yet no condemnation to them that are in Jesus Christ: these words show what the Law could not do God sent his Son, etc. that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us see D. Downham, l. 7. de justif. c. 7. sect. 10. 11. Musculus and yourself are rather otherwise [huc omnes proprudent quos viderim Papistae] Sed nostri tamen, etc. Cham. l. 11. c. 7. sect. 18. 19 Neither doth one or an others opposition hinder, but the strength and reason of it.  
And here I'll cite some of many, who plainly interpret it that way.  
Our Homily amongst other texts, mentioneth this, whence as it taketh notice, 1 of God's mercy, so 2. of Christ's justice: upon Christ's part justice, that is the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption by the offoring of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly.— It consisteth in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the Law.— whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied: So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that do truly believe in him, he for them paid the ransom by his death be for them fulfilled the Law in his life, so that now in him and by him every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked Christ's justice hath supplied. 1. par. Serm. Salvation.  
It's a manifest allusion to this place, and these contain the Doctrine of the Church of England about this business. Let Beza follow.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Illud ipsum nimirum quod requirit Lex ut ex ejus prescripto justi et integri coram deo censeamur. Nam cum ad peccatorum remissionem et impletionem justitiae accessit etiam hoc tertium, id est, perfecta naturae nostrae integritas (quae omnia gratis consequimur in Christo per fidem apprehenso) ut in omnes facies se convertat Sathan justi sumus coram deo etiam ex illa absolutissima legis formula quam ob rem etiam dixit Apostolus supra se legem non evertere sed stabilire.  
In nobis, non dicit Apostolus a nobis. Neque enim idcirco in nobis nulla est condemnatio quod justitia fit in nobis inchoata: sed quia in Christo sumus in quo plene sumus sanctificati, etc.  
Bullinger. Ex loco infert, secundum posterius sequitur ex priori, nempe cum lex nos nec vivificare potuit, neque nos praestare potuimus, quod lex requiret a nobis, Deus qui Dives est misericordia, et bonitate filium suum misit in mundum ut hic incaranretur, moreretur pro nobis atque ita peccatum imperfectionis nostrae tolleret, et perfectionem suam nobis conferret in fide; quae est perfectio et plenitudo legis, Constat ergo ex his Christum implevisse Legem et hunc esse perfectionem in orbe omnium. Der. 3. Serm. 8. p. 137. 1.  
Deinde implevit legem Dominus quia voluntati Dei absolutissime per omnia satisfecit, cum sit ipse sanctum sanctorum in quo nulla est macula, concupiscentia prava nulla, peccatum nullum. In eo est dilectio Dei perfectissima, et justitia per omnia absolutissima, et hanc nobis imperfectissimis communicate gratis, si credamus condonat enim nobis peccata factus pro nobis expiatio et communicat nobis suam justitiam quae imputativa vocatur.  
Aretius, hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prorsus suit complendum etiam 
See Chimnit. de justit. P. 255.  in nobis ideoque Christus induens nostram carnem, nostro nomine perfecte prestitit Legem, Math. 5. non veni etc.— pertinet hoc membrum ad beneficij Christi applicationem ad nos ad Rom. 8. 4.  
Chamier. Sed nostris tamen magis placet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligi jus Legis duobus comprehensum capitibus: uno paenas decernente adversus peccatores, altero ctiam sic plenam obedientiam exigente, nec aliter quenquam absolvente. Quorum neutrum nos in hac carne peccati poteramus praestare, itaque nihil erat certrus aeoerna damnatione. Sed providit Deus, et dedit Mediatorem a quo utrumque impletum est; et quidem pro nobis: nam et paenas dedit violatae legis et legem tamen plene implevit. Utrumque illud cum sit pro nobis non habet amplius quod a nobis requirat, it a que jam pro certo ●ulla damnatio est ijs qui sunt in Christo. l. 11. ●. 7. Sect. 19  
The justification of the Law is fulfilled in us or by us, because the righteousness of Christ through faith is so reckoned unto us as if we ourselves had done it, etc. Cartw. Annot. in Loc.  
Dr. Davenant, answering Bell. citing this text thus, Respondeo ad primum Locum: et si nos non implemus Legem, tamen justitia Legis impletur in nobis qui inserimur in Christum; primum, quia Christus satisfecit Legi, pro omnibus membris suis, patiendo mortem carnis; secundo quia illorum nomine exacte ad minimium usque apicem totam legem implevit, etc. c. 52. de actuali justitia, p. 562.  
Idem Deus suo decreto (quia homo per peccatum infirmatus fuit) transtulit legis impletionem in christum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, atque voluit ut illa obedientia et justitia quam christus in carne nostra praestaret per imputationem nostra fieret. Ergo, etc.  
Probatur, ex Rom. 34. Sensus loci hic est: Christum a patre missum renatos omnes et sibi insitos, a damnatoria vi legis et peccati exemisse, poenam nostro nomine sustinendo; quam nos sustinere non potuimus, legem nostro nomine implendo cum nos implere non potuimus; atque sic nos in christo reputamur totum jus Legis implevisse, quia et perpessi sumus propter peccata nostra poenam quam lex intentat, et praestitimus simul exactam illam obedientiam quam ipsa effla gitat. c. 28. arg. 4. p. 365.  
Ergo hoc ad veniam referre necesse est: quia dum nobis accepta fertur Christi obedientia, Legid satisfactum est, ut pro justis senseamur— sed quia suam justitiam nullis communicat christus nisi, etc.— Calvin in locum.  
Ubi non aliud Complementum designat quam quod Imputatione consequimur. Calv. instit. l. 3. c. 11. p. 23. adlocum, & Rom. 8. 3.  
Eo enim jure communicat nobiscum Dominus christus suam justitiam ut mirabili quodam modo quantum pertinet ad Dei judicium, vim ejus in nos trans fundat.  
Aliud non sensisse abunde liquet, ex altera sententia, quam paulo ante posuerat quemadmodum per unius obedientiam constituti sumus peccatores ita per obedientiam unius justificari: quid aliud est in Christi obedientia collocare nostram justitiam nisi asserere eo solo nos haberi justos, quia Christi obedientia nobis accepta fertur ac si nostra esset. etc. vice.  
Paraeus in locum Altera causa finalis liberotionis nostrae per Christum fuit, ut jus Legis impleretur in nobis hoc est ut maledictioni Legis maledicta morte crucis Christi satisfieret, eaque satisfactio nobis imputaretur non secus acsi a nobis impleta fuisset. Impletur in nobis dum nobis imputatur per fidem, hoc est acceptatur a deo quasi per nos praestita dum propter eum nos a peccatis justificat. Observe his phrases and imputation.  
I have been too large enough, if not too much of conscience to show our sense by Interpreters. Let us now consider what is opposed.  
2. It cannot be meant of active obedience imputed, because it must be such a righteousness and fulfilling which may be apprehended a proper effect of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh, ver. 3. The latter is intended a fruit of the former; now Christ's active obedience or imputation of it cannot be that effect, condemning sin is by death, and he that hath the guilt of his sin taken away by death needs no other righteousness or imputation whatsoever; as Conclus 1. & 4. 2. cap. of this Treatise.  
Beza showeth the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
a Nulla ratione potest hanc interpretationem admittere; neque nunc Apostolus agit de morte Christi et nostrorum peccatorum expiatione, sed de Christi incarnatione et naturae nost rae corruptione peream abolita, etc. See the place.  can by no reason admit this interpretation, neither doth the Apostle now speak of the death of Christ, and the expiation of our sins, but of his Incarnation and the corruption of our nature abolished thereby. and he giveth 
b Condemnavit  condemned, 
c Abolevit.  Abolished, as you, and 
Nam imputata nobis Cstristi sanctificatione peccatum pro nihilo habetur, quam vis supersunt reliquiae ejus in nobis.  shows how it doth come to pass for sin is accounted nothing though the relics thereof remain in us, by Christ's righteousness imputed unto us.  
2. Suppose it of forgiveness of sin by death, you cannot exclude imputation, nor imputation of the active obedience of Christ, Christ's death not imputed doth not do away guilt, and Christ's active obedience is an essential requisitc as you say to that. Let us entreat you than that both may be imputed; what you say is examined.  
3. But it must be the end of condemning sin in the flesh. Not, but an other end of sending Christ, etc. one was for 
Alteza was saith paraeus, ut jus Legis impleretur in nobis, ut maledictioni Legis maledicta morte crucis, satisficret ●aqu● satisfactio nobis imputaretur non secus ac si à nobis ipsis impleta fuisset— Impletur in nobis d●m nobis imputatur.  sin, the other was that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, that by the cursed death of the cross satisfaction might be made to the curse of the Law, and that satisfaction imputed to us, as if it had been fulfilled by us.— It is fulfilled in us whilst is it imputed unto us.  
By the sufferings of Christ Paraeus meaneth his whole poverty, obedience from his Incarnation to his death, from which Christ's active obedience to the Law cannot be excluded, it was part of his subjection and humiliation, and as for you, your grant that its an essentiaell requisite to what is mediatory will stop your mouth.  
3. It's an uncouth expression in them, for it denotes subjective inhesion or some kind of efficiency: friends of imputation affirm Christ's righteousness subjectively in him, in us by imputaeion, not by way of efficiency, for they are not works, therefore an imputed righteousness cannot in any tolerable construction be said to be fulfilled in men.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yourself (p. 14. in 7.) give us the clear meaning of the place: in us or upon us, made good and fully manifested in us or upon us, viz. in our justification.  
In which sense their's neither subjective inhesion of the righteousness of the Law nor efficiency.  
2. When as it's said to be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] we deny it [a nobis] in that name with Beza, and may oppose with him. 
Sed quia in Christo sumus in quo sumus plene sanctificati. nam quod de imputata Christi sanctificatione dicimus ita accipiendum est ut sciamus non id ●ir●o ●●● sanctos coram Deo haberi quod Christi hominis integritas sarciat quod nostrae deest sed quod ille nos in solidum sanctificavit in sese in eternum.   
But because we are in Christ, in whom we are fully sanctified, for that which we speak of the imputed holiness of Christ, is so to be understood that we may know that we are not therefore accounted holy before the Lord because the integrity of the man Christ, doth piece out what is wanting to ours, but because he hath wholly sanctified us in himself for ever.  
It is fulfiled in us whilst it is imputed by faith: that is, it is accepted of God as done by us, whilst for it he justifieth us from our sins.  
4. If complete obedience which every believer according to the great variety of their several callings and conditions, etc. stand bound to perform: it's not truth it's fulfiled in them, by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, scarce a believer but 
Impletur in nobis dum nobis imputatur per Fidem; hoc est acceptatur a Deo quasi per nos praestita dum propter cam nos a peccatis justifiy cat.  stands bound to particular acts not found in the works of righteousness performed by Christ.  
It's strange when as he fulifilled allrighteousnes, but of that see the place, and the next argument taken from its superabundance, etc.  
5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated righteousness signifieth not conformity with the Law; but that justification which was the end and intent of the Law, etc.  
And yet you see they hold and gather the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that contention about the word will not stead you.  
6. Neither must we of necessity and with all preciseness, understand the moral law, and that it cannot be meant precisely of the moral law is evident:  
1. Peter Martyr hath these words, I say those words cannot 
Ista inquam verba non possunt exponi de lege ceremoniarum. loci Com●d● ju●●it. Sect. 2o,  be expounded of the Ceremonial law.  
And the concupiscence he comforteth himself against is undeniably in the moral law, and that was it which had the promise of life.  
1. To your Arguments, I know not that the Ceremonial Law or judicial were impossible, burdensome it may be; or if, there's no comparison between them for impossibility, with the moral. The wisdom of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God nor can be, not to that law.  
2. It's false that they built so much on those as these; And if it were granted the moral law cannot be excluded from man.  
When as you say.  
4. The moral law suppose it had not been weak by the flesh, could not by exact observation have justified Jews who were bound to the observation of the other two, and had been found sin s.  
But you must consider both these were added because of hat weakness; and suppose it, which destroyeth your supposition.  
And when you say.  
It's evident that by the righteousness of the law in this place, the Apostle meaneth such a law which of itself was able to justify had it met with strength in men answerable to it, and therefore it cannot be meant here determinately of the moral Law which hath no such ability in respect of the Jews.  
You see not how you destroy your own assertion, for the moral law was able but on our weakness disenabled: It had that ability to whole mankind, the man that did it should live: of whatever Nation or condition.  
As for your determinately and precisly I have no skill in them. (if they pleasure you aught) I know not who against you useth them.  
4. Lastly, because Jews had been never the nearer justification by the righteousness of the law imputed from Christ, being under the transgression of other laws.  
Christ fulfiled all righteousness, which imputed is as large as they need, and how it can follow that the moral Law is not meant, were there's a fulffilling all righteousness, or a righteousness imputed, which is the fulfilling of all righteousness, I conceive not.  
7. The clear meaning of the place seems to be this, that that justification or way of making men righteous which Moses writings, held forth, by faith in the Messiah to come, to be made good or fully manifested upon us, who walk not, etc. giving evidence the great justifier of Men, MOSES foretold is come, etc.  
1. This interpretation is confirmed by the sweet agreement it hath with such a fullfilling of the Law in those that believe and live accordingly, and the sending of the Messiah, as in the former, etc.  
What truth soever there be in that, that, what Moses prophesied of is fulfiled in such, as believe; and that there's an agreement, as in the reason. Yet it's not the scope of the place, which hath been showed.  
Besides that interpretation we give of imputation of the righteousness of Christ agreeth both which Moses and David, as the Apostle showeth. It's a fullfilling of what Moses spoke ●n thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, and with Gods sending of the Messiah which was to make an end of sins and to bring in everlasting righteousness, of which Daniel, etc.  
The sense of fulfiled is not lost in our exposition, Calvin 
Dum nobis accepta fertur Christi obedien● tia legi satisfac tum est, ut pro justis censeamur, in loc.  found it when he said, when as Christ's obedience to the law is given to us, satisfaction is made to the law, that we may be accounted just.  
He designeth no other fullfilling to us than that which we attain by imputation. 
And when bee saith, non aliud complementum designat quam quod imputatione consequimur.   
See before; and Paraeus; surely, when as Christ came to fulfil it he did so and it is fulfiled in us when as it is applied. As if we had done it.  
3 You say questionless, righteousness here is the same with that Rom. 3. 21. witnessed by the law and the Prophets, and 
Impletur in nobis quando applicat●r.  established, ver. 31.  
Of the text Rom. 3. 31. enough hath been spoken twice before, and also the 21. vers. Thither I sand the Reader that I may spare often doing over the same, See Calvin on both places.  
And to your fourth, I grant this place agrees with that, Rom 2. 21, 22. 25. etc. But deny in either, that the righteousness of God, that is, the way or means, God useth for Justification stands in remission of sins, only seeing it must needs be by righteousness and seeing remission of sins is a consequent of Justification, it cannot be a way and means of God unto it.  
And Secondly, I deny that it can well be called the righteousness of the Law.  
Thirdly, though it was not so fully revealed in the Law and Prophets, as after Christ's incarnation and death, yet Christ was a Lamb slain from the beginning of the World, and so sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, the virtue of it had the same effect, but this last is not to our business.  
The next Text which cometh to your understanding used from this cause is.  
9 Rom. 31, 32. But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness, wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.  
That is, had the Jews who followed after the law of righteousness believed in Christ, they had attained the Law of righteousness, that is, should have had the righteousness of the Law performed by Christ imputed to them.  
Had the Jews who sought after righteousness and Justification by the works of the law, by their obedience to the Law of God, believed in Jesus Christ for righteousness and Justification they had attained righteousness and Justification, God had imputed it, they had received it and been justified by it. But they knew not this righteousness of God, they submitted not to it, they rejected Christ and it, and would be justified by performance of the Law, and so missed it. 
Noluerunt eam amplecti, Paraeus nolen●e, ejus justitiae subdi; hoc est fide amplecti.   
1. It's said c. 10. 3. they knew not God's righteousness, that which he revealeth in the Gospel, Christ our righteousness or his righteousness, the righteousness of GOD our Saviour, 1 Pet. 1. They went about to establish their own 
Ignorantia et superbia quadam justitiam Dei in Cstristo oblatam contemnunt et abijciunt, contemnunt finem legis qui est Christus. Ignorant quam in Christo fide consequamur, Par, in ver, 4.  righteousness inherent; that which was not, or short of what God required to that end. they submitted not to it, they would not embrace it by faith.  
They would be justified by there own works, not another's.  
They ignorantly and proudly contemned it, etc. The Gentiles obtained righteousness, 9 c. ver. ●0. as a gift given by God, received by faith as an hand See Paraeus in the Margin.  
Let us now examine your answer You say,  
1. By the law of righteousness they sought after but could 
Obtinuerunt fide in Christum ve●bum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 innuit, justitiam ut donum a Deo; offeiri: fide ut manu a nobis accipi. ut s pta, c. 5. vers. 17. Fides apprehendit justitiam gratis imputatam— Istam apprenenderu ●t fide accipientes remissionem peccatorum et do● num justitiae in Christo. there Obser. 5. Aliud sit fides a●ud Justitia. justitia ex fide est imputata, Cham. de Justif. c. 3. Sect. 25. 859.  not attain, is not meant the moral Law: or any law properly so called, moral ceremonial or judicial, but as after Justification or righteousness, as in answer; the fifth.  
1. I answer, Justification and righteousness really differ as cause and effect, and may not be confounded: You might more properly say righteousness to Justification.  
2. I his they sought but attained not, because they sought it by the works of the law, that is by obedience to the law nor only the moral but coremoniall law.  
3. When you say. God had given them those laws.  
I Answer none urge the seeking of the Law, as not having them; but the Law as a means of righteousness to life. When you add,  
Their study to keep the law, could not be a cause of coming short of righteousness.  
I answer yes when as they did it to attain righteousness to Justification; It was a pharasaical practice; condemned by Christ and his Apostles; holy obedience to the commandments, for ends required by God is on thing, for righteousness and Justification is condemned because it's impossible and for many reasons else.  
2. To the second answer I reply, we mean righteousness.  
3. As Calvin and Musculus, neither do we restrain this ●o the Moral law, and this satisfieth the 3 also.  
4. Neither could either do them good, supposing their attainment, being sinners, though it be impossible which is all I will say to the 3.  
5. Your fift is granted it was righteousness to justification as before They sought it than by the works of the law, and could not attain it, it was not the course or means of God. There is another way than which the Gentiles walking in obtained perfect righteousness, by, and for Justification, that is, the righteousness of Christ given us by God, applied by faith.  
The next Place is.  
10. Rom. 4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.  
Therefore (say the masters of that way of imputation, which we desire to hedge up with thorns.) the righteousness of CHRIST or the obedience performed by him, to the morali Law is that which is imputed to those that do believe for their righteousness.  
Let the Reader peruse, that which was taken out of Paraeus, it serveth to lead us to the opening this place. 
Quod praeter justitiam operum sit justitia alia. quae est fidei seu Christi.  That which they (seeking righteousness by the law, establishing their own,) were ignorant of, and submitted not to was the righteousness of faith, the righteousness which faith receiveth and God imputeth, so here the Apostle showeth. 
Solus Christus cam prestat ad justitiam cuivis credenti. At justitia fidei imputatur, dubiorum ex plic. p. 796. 5.   
Paraeus (having showed that the law was given to give life) and the impossibility of attaining it but by coming to Christ, not by the laws fault but want of obedience in us not able to obey it) he saith, only Christ performeth it to righteousness to every one that believeth. 
Diximus alibi, quomodo Dei justitiam fide in duant homine, quia sc. imputatur illis Christi justitia. Calv. in loc. Ab ipso uno (Christo justitiam gratuitam petamus, See Tossan id ib. Postqnam tamen omnes ●n reatum conjecit novam substituit in Christo justitiam, quae operum meritis non acquiritur, sed gratis donata fide recipitur; id ib. Bera showing that the attaining the end of the law, not hindered by any quality of the Law, but the viciousness of our flesh addeth. Cui demum ita medetur Christus ut in eo uno gratis per fidem nobis imputato finem legis consequamur, per illum justificati qui pro nobis legem implevit, pronobis maledictiones omnes in se recipit, et in quem pro nobis omnes benedictiones sunt effusae ut fieret nobis justitia sanctificatio, &c quam obrem etiam Apostolus dixit supra, 3. 31. se per fidem non tollere legem sed stabilire in loc Paulum opinor non modo legem a Christo impletam dicere sed de hujus impletionis efficacia nobis videlicet per imputationem justificatis, id ib. Intelligitur (●ocus) de verâ et persectá justitià quam in Christo gratis imputato consequimur. Paraeus having spoken of those texts. Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. and 10. Rom. 3. saith, perpetuo intelligit eam justitiam, quam Deus peccatori credenti donat, non per infusionem sed per imputationem interpret Apostolo, Rom. 4. 6. 11 Castig, p. 22. see p. 497. of the same. Dr. Davenant urgeth thus text in the place before p. 365. 10. Rom. 3, 4. Hic finis de quo loquitur Apostolus est primaria legis intentio, sc; ut homine n justificet et ad vit am perducat per ejusdem observationem, quia aaetem nostro vic●o, contrarium potius in nobis, efficit; succurrit Christus et suâ obedientiâ omnium crdentium nomine praestità primarium finem legis implet; hoc est justificat suos et ad aeternam vitam perducit, ib. thu he urgeth against Papists. For the justice of God in the verse. (10 Rom. 3.) vers. 4. is put the perfect fullfilling of the law by Christ which is every one's righteousness which doth believe. Cartw, annot. in Rhemists. This place is urged by out Homily, and what is gathered thence on that of Rom. 8. 3. we have heard Dr. Downham urgeth it, l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 9   
Which as before he calleth righteousness imputed.   

Let us now examine your answers.  
1. There's 〈◊〉 of Reason that by Law in this place should be meant the righteousness of the Moral Law precifly and 〈◊〉.  
That the Moral Law is meant is enough, I know none exclude the Ceremonial Law, and that will be special, being eterna lex et eternae obligationis, as yourself.  
2. It's not true that the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers (supposing such imputation) should be called the end of the M●●●●● Law, for nothing can be properly said the end of a thing, but only that which in reason may be obtained by it; there's an utter impossibility that justification by Christ should be obtained by the Moral Law: obedience hath no causality, to such an effect, it may more reasonably be said the end of the Ceremonial Law, as tipifying Christ and his blood, not as a Law; which was to expire on Christ's coming.  
The text is, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth; what man shall in vain look for by the works of the Law, by faith in Christ he may obtain on that ground.  
Justification might be obtained by the Law, the fault was not in the Law, but ourselves, as the Apostle and Expositors: thence impossibility as before. We urge not that justification by Christ should be obtained by the Moral Law, but faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ, and yet the Moral Law accidentally (as Mr. Gat.) leadeth to Christ, and instructeth, as yourself in ult. Christ is the compliment of both for righteousness, the perfection of them.  
3. That which you give the mind of the Greek Authors; that Christ exhibited to them that which the Law propou●d●● to its self, but could not, viz. justification. Is what say. (if you add righteousness) as the text. and Chrysost. some to Justification, without righteousness there's no Justification.  
4. The 4. yourself reject.  
5. Is because by his incarnation and death he put an end to the Mosaical dispensation; you say its a truth but no true exposition.  
1. It's no truth, de ceremoniali verum, de morali non item, so Paraeus of it. It standeth not with what he delivered c. 3. ult. per doctrinam fides Legem stabiliri. So Tosanus to that place.  
2. It's no true interpretation as Tossanus, ibid. from the scope.  
6. The plain meaning seems to be this, that the Law (meaning the whole Mosaical dispensation, was given to the jews by God for this end, that it might instruct them of the Messiah to come to die for them, that so they might believe in him accordingly, and be justified: and further to prepare them for the Messiah himself and perfect service of God which he should bring with him.  
1. If this be Gods aim in the whole Mosaical dispensation, it's of that part the Moral Law and how is there than an utter impossiblillity that justification by Christ should be procured or attained by the Moral Law? sect. 19 secondly, the whole was given by God to them say you) for this end that it might instruct them of the Messiah, that so they might believe and be justified. I know not but these are inconsistent.  
2. Whenas Mr. Gataker rather inclineth that Christ was the end of the Law, for that reason simply, quia lex revera populo Deslata est quae a● messiam viam premuniret, quoderat ministerij Mosaic● praec●pium ●u●●s.  
Though there be a truth in it, that the Law instructeth and leadeth to Christ Ceremonial yea and Moral, as Mr Gattaker (which latter I know not how it will consist with your opinion in point of preparation and yet you must hold it because it's the office of the whole)  
1. Yet that's confessed accidental.  
2. There's an other given by Gomarus, with us. 
Finis Vox, aut complementum (ut Chrysostomo placet) aut causam cujus gratiâ Lex est, designat, nempe obedientiam perfectam, quae cum nobis natura desit, soli vero Christo adsit ea nostra fit perfidem, ut justi simus et jus vita aeternae obtineamus.   
It's true, it's called strained but without reason given, 
Interpretationem Chrisostomianam ego quidem non illubenter admisserim: Christum Legis complementum dici qui Legi anobis violatae plenissimam pro nob●s satisfactionem exhibendo eam quam consummatissime implevit. (quo modo et illud accipio quod ad Rom. 3. 31. de lege per doctrinam Evangelicam stabilita dicitur.  to omit that it's the common tenet, and Mr. Gattaker saith,  
3. Chief and properly. 
Peruse et maxim proprie (saith Paraeus noting that you give accidental) Christus est finis Legis hoc est complementum, et perfectio quia Legis impletio in solo Christo est et habetur si●ut dicit ipse, non unei legem solvere sed implere, Implevit. Moralem Conformitâte naturae et vitae quam solus ipse habuit et habet. 2 Satisfactione pro maledictione et pro peccatis nostrisper humilitatem et mortem. Et perse finis legis fuit, justificatio nostra quia precipit perfectam obedientiam et hanc praestantibus promittit vitam. Paraeus.   
Neither doth Mr. Gataker deny this legis finem per se.  
4. I demand why finis per accidens shall exclude that which is per se? and for the scope its proper, the question is how the Gentiles obtained righteousness, how the Jews missed it, these sought it by the works of the Law, they knew not God's righteousness, submitted not to it, Christ in quo solo legis, imple●io est et habetur, who therefore is the 
Justitia ve a now est nisi per impletionem Legis, & legis impletio non est nisi●n Christo. Neque is justitiam meruit sibi; erat enim in se ipse justitia eterna. Alijs igitur est finis Legis, ad justitiam, hoc est justitiam meruit, quibas vero? ca● vis credenti, Lex hunc habet finem ut facientes legem et juste viventes justificentur saith Tossanus, Illum finem assecutu est solus Christus et nos assequimur dum fide eum apprehendimus; Ità in Christo exhibetur et praestatur vera justitia quam lex requirit modo ●●● eum credamus. Offertur quidem justitia omnibus donatur can 'em et impatatur solis credentibus.  perfection of it, and this is that of faith, and that righteousness of faith is imputed (as Paraeus else where) and when he demandeth ad quid? he answereth, ad justitiam out of the text and,  
Grant the Law now by accident leading to Christ, yet in Christ the compliment and perfect fulfilling of the Law it is and is to be had, est et habetur. It's to righteousness, which is not without fulfilling the Law and it's all one in Christ merited for them that believe, given to them that believe and imputed.  
Christ's conformity and humility, was nothing else but perfect fulfilling, his whole poverty consisted in these, and is our richeses.  
The text would be granted if no more were urged than Christ's sufferings and passive obedience, but you that hold the other an essential requisite to the efficacy of that passive obedience, cannot exclude it, and this text is evident for full obedience to the Law.  
But I'll return to you. You confirm what you say,  
1. By the renor of the context, for his meaning is doubtless Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness by the observation whereof as their own, they sought to be justified, which was as well of the Ceremonial as the Moral.  
This excludeth not the Moral Law, nor that in Christ is the perfect fulfilling of it to righteousness, and so justification of believers.  
2. Neither yet, that the Ceremonial Law was a Schoolmaster to Christ. 1. Seeing thereby unquestionably is meant the whole frame of body or the administration of Moses, as yourself in the same place, and by this you oppose yourself to Mr. Gattaker, who is only for the Ceremonial Law, which yet concerned not every believer (which is the Apostles here) but Jew's, and so long the words had a truth before it, and will have eternally, so that the main scope is that the only way to find righteousness to justification is by knowledge of Christ and submission to Christ the righteousness of God: Faith in Christ is the way of obtaining righteousness before God, and that because he is the Compliment of the Law to that end, in eo est as habetur; Let me be found not having mine own but that which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God, which is so per imputationem as Paraeus out of the Apostle, c. 4. ver. 6. & 11. of which before.  
The next text is,  
1 Cor. 1. 30. But ye are of him in Christ jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom and righteousness, etc.  
Because Christ is said to be made to us of God righteousness therefore the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.  
Here is less colour for the deemed imputation, than in any of the former Scriptures.  
Let us a little view Interpreters, for by them you did propose to give us satisfaction.  
Your adversaries as you call them, who suppose and propose strength in this place for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, are all Protestants that I know not one excepted.  
To satisfy your Hearers and Readers I will inquire a little into Expositors. 
Calvin, Quo intelligit nos ejus nomine acceptoresse deo quia morte sua peceata nostra expia●●●●, et ejus obedientia nobis in justitiam imputatur, nam cum fidei justitia in peccatorum remissione et gratuim acceptatione consistat, utrumque per Christum consequimur, In Locum; see him Instit. l. 3. c. 3. Sect 19 This I find urged, pro in putata Christi justitia, against Romanists, and vindicated in the castigatore of Bellatmine. Paraeus bringeth it into form thus, Justitia nostra seu nobis donata justificamur. Nulla ●li● nisi Christi justitia nobis per fidem imputata, est nostra coram Deo justitia. Nulla igitur alia nisi Christi justitia nobis imputata coram Deo justificamur. See him large. See what's mentioned on, 23. Jer. 6. before, for both these places go hand in hand. See Ames. p. 144. and Chamior sect. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 24. Justitia à Deo nobis factus est quia in eo solo justi habemur, reputamur illius merito justi. Aret. In Loc. Tossen. in Loc. Sic justitia nostra per sanguinem ad Rom. 3. Et quidem justitia non exparte sed tota nostra justitia, per remissionem peccatorum et imputationem totius suae justitiae, sic jer. 33. p. 19 ad Locum. Seeing we had no such virtue as to obtain righteousness for us of the Lord, Christ was given us by the Lord who performed perfect obedience to the Law, that by his obedience we might be made righteous, for this obedience of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith, is that righteousness of ours, 5 Ro. 19, etc. placed in Christ, who is made unto us of God wisdom, Righteousness, 1 Cor 1. 30. etc. And this is our righteousness Christ himself, whose righteousness and Innocency being ascribed to us, doth bring assured remission of sins and true righteousness, Dr. Whittaker p. 229, 230. in Camp. et Dure Paul affirmeth Christ to be made unto us, ibid. See Joh. Crotiu on that Text, 1 Cor. 1. 30. & 23 jer. 6. Si Christus nobis factus est justitia ergo non ipsi nobis sed sumus justi per imputationem ibid. De justitia imputata p. 391. See him confuting Exceptions of Bellar. and Be anus. Novinus ae ●u●pollere Christus est nostra justitia; et Christi justitia est nostra justitia, Christus enim nec qua est persona nec ratione quarum vis aliarum perfectionum est nostra justitia, sed ratione obedientiae satisfactoriae, si ratione obedintia et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christus sane non potest esse nostra justitia, qum, ipsius justitia nostra sit justitia, p. 39, 394. ubi nobiscum citat patres. 327. and Dr. Downham de Justit. l. 4. c. 9 Sect. 3, etc.    

Let us now hear you.  
1 Christ is no otherwise affirmed to be, or to be made Righteousness to us than wisdom or sanctification, therefore there's no more ground to conclude hence imputation of Christ's righteousness for our righteousness, than of his wisdom etc. This is unsavoury: This special manner cannot be made good hearse. The meaning is he is made the Author or sole means by way of merit, purchased for us by his death.  
1. As I find this Text urged by Protestants for Imputation, so I find in Papists this objection. Becanus maketh it, to whom joh. Grocius and Cham●●e give a particular answer.  
2. Though there be granted something general wherein Christ is said to be all those, it followeth not but there are special differences. 
Aliter, saith Chamier, sanctificatio aliter justitia nimirum vel inhaerenter vel imputative. Et hoc quidem tanto certius quanto distinctius posita justitia et sanctificatio; nam justitia inherens eadem est sanctificatio quia utra que inhabitu utra jue in operibus justiò quae eo ipso quod iusta sunt ●uod sancta, sect. 20. & sect. 21, unless therefore the Apostle shall twice say the same, tegungenda est a sanctificatione iustitia, et quia sanctificatio est iustitia inhaerens, accipienda justitia pro ea, quam nos imputatam dicimus. So he.   
For sanctification is the same with righteousness inhaerent, and therefore must it be an other righteousness which we call imputed.  
Paraeus giveth it to the Apostle out of Rom. 4. 6. & 11. as before. He showeth the same out of Bernard. Crotius answereth more largely to the same purpose, and citeth Fathers for it, sect. 44. and 46. proving the same, p. 397.  
And though this manner cannot be made good hence in the word and phrase, yet you see there's a necessity of distinction; and whenas the Scripture saith, that by 
Et tamen non negemus, effective, factum meritorie sapientiam justitiam sanctificationem, redemptionem, certe enim ille mecitus est à deo qui ●uid gratiae aut habem●s aut habere possumus, sed nimirum mer●it ut, et inherenter sanctificemur et imputativ● justificemur, etc. c. 17. sect. 23.  his obedience we are constituted righteous, and showeth the way imputation of righteousness, Rom. 4. 6. 11. we may well supply it, and thereby put a difference.  
3. To the second part of your answer, it being made by the same Jesuit, Chamter answereth, granting his merit and extending it to justification by imputed righteousness, aswell as to our inherent sanctification.  
For the reasons you give:  
1. The word righteousness is frequently put for justification.  
You must remember that is by a metonymy, for its the cause, justification the effect; and if he be made justification he must be made righteousness to that end cause and effect put each other.  
2. That righteousness is still given to the death of Christ, and never to his active obedience.  
It's righteousness aswell as passive obedience, and due on our behalf to God by his eternally obliging Law.  
We exclude not Christ's death.  
What you lay down is the question and is no stronger than your proofs.  
And its wonder to me how you can exclude it who make it essentially requisite to the meritoriousness of his sufferings, and these not to be separated, as before.  
3. We profess both active and passive, It's not therefore against the principles of themselves, none hold it of his active obedience only, that ever I read of, but the man of clouts yourself put up and shoot at in this business.  
4. Expositors are for this. Who by Christ's being made righteousness unto us, understand our justification or just making by 〈◊〉: some placing it in Remission▪ some ascribing it to his sufferings, none to his active obedience or imputation of this to us.  
1. What Expositors have done we have given a taste, and 2 there's none that take it for active obedience alone and imputation thereof excluding Christ's passive obedience. 3. Many join the active and passiv both, all that I know, either directly as those you oh pose, or in effect; whenas they make hat which indeed was active also as Christ's whole humiliation our obedience as Paraeus. a as for imputation▪ I know no enemies it hath but Soci●us, 〈◊〉 and Mr. Wotto● (Mr. Ga●aker disclaimeth it: So doth Piscato●, justitia. 1. cujus sa●isfactione nobis donata atque imputata justi sumus. M●ton. effecti. 〈…〉 and P●raeus) and Papists: and yet the evidence of truth is such as from this place where he answereth Calvin he yields what we desire: and Imputation as the Mars. of Controversies observed to us, and is to be seen l. 2 de justif. c. 10. sect. deinde: and that out of Bernard.  
So such as place justification in remission of sins which supposeth righteousness and that of Christ and that imputed or applied to that end, it being an effect or consequent, as Mr. Gattaker himself, and ours at at large before showed.  
And it's but your presumption to think that on your Popish objection answered before you made it, which you will not take notice of, that Imputation of Christ's active obedience will not more be urged or contended for from hence.   

The next is, 2 Cor. 5 ult.  
For he hath made him to be sin for us▪ who knew not sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  
As our sins are imputed to Christ, so Christ's righteousness meaning his active obedience, is imputed to us. Mr. Gataker hath well observed, this place is pregnant against themselves.  
Let us a little view Expositors on the Text, and see whether there be a man opposite to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I still say active and passive from this text. 
Bell. Dicto lo●o, giveth it to Calvin and others: hinc enim se●ui 〈◊〉  nos justi s●mus ipsa justitia dei quae est in Christo, sicut ipse dicitur peccatum, i● est peccator▪ pe● peccata qu● sunt in nobis; ut enim imputantur i'li peccata nostra i●a imputatur nobis justitia illius. Calvin in loc. Justitia hic non pro qualitate aut habitu sed pro impuratione 〈◊〉 eo quod accepta nobis sertur Christi justitia, nunc ad 〈◊〉 redeamus justitiae e● pecca●●. Quomodo justi▪ sumus ●oram deo▪ qualiter ●c. Christus f●it peccator. Personam enim nostram quodammodo suscep●, ut reus nostro nomine fieret, et tanquam peccator judicaretur non proprijs sed alie●●s 〈◊〉— I●a ●●● nunc justi sumus in ipso non quia operibus proprijs satis●aciam●● judicio▪ Dei ●●d quoniam 〈◊〉 Christi justitia, quam ●ide indu●mus ●● nostra ●iat, in loc cit l. 2. Instit. c. 16. sect▪ 6. Nam ●ilius dei omni 〈◊〉 purissimus iniquitatum tamen nostratum prob●●m ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac sua vicissem puritate nos ope●uit. Vides non in n●bis sed in Christo esse justitiam nostram, nobis tantum ●● jure competere quia Christi sumus perticipes, si quidem omnes ejus divitias cum▪ ipso possidemus, in loc Instit l. 3. c. ●●. sects▪ 23. Sic Beza, in loc. Justitia dei ad est▪ justi apud deum▪ et ●uide● justitia, non n●bis 〈◊〉 sed qu● cum in Christ● sit nobis ●e●●idem a d●o imputatur, ideo enim addi●●● est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic e●go sumus▪ justitia Dei in ipso ut ille est 〈◊〉 in nobis, nempe ex imputatione, where he showeth how Christ ●● made sin. Pareus Castig. l. 2. c. 10. p. 509. Propositio nostra est manifesta, etc. et assumptio pa●●●. Cha●ie●. of th● place, in quo magnum pondus, qu●a non tantum nos dicimur ●acti justitia, sed etiam Christus factus peccatum, 〈◊〉 vis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. August 〈◊〉. c. 41. d● justis. c. 17. Sect. 38. 〈◊〉 peccatum ●t nos justitia noc nostra sed De 〈◊〉 nec in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse peccatum non 〈◊〉, sed nostrum not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in nobis. Secundus locus 〈◊〉 evincitur Christi justitiam 〈◊〉 nostram per imputationem habetur, 2 Cor. 5. ●●● Dr. D●venant c. 28. p. 367. Vtr●mqu● hoc loco habemus et Christo imputatum quod nostrum ●uit e● 〈◊〉 vici●●●m imputa●●● quod Christi suit. So Dr. 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 1. Sect. 4, 5, etc. So Dr. joh, 〈◊〉 ubi supra▪ disp. 8. Sect 47. 397. 〈◊〉 Bell. 〈◊〉▪ Abbo. against bishop. Dr. Whit●ake, ubi supr● 〈◊〉 in locum ut nos effice●●●●● justitia Dej; hoc est justi 〈◊〉, imputativa justiti● tanquam veste or naremur. In ipso significat extra Christ●● 〈◊〉 esse justiti●● qu● nos possimus 〈◊〉 et qu● val●at i● conspect● de●, ●b. Toss●●●s ut nos 〈◊〉; hoc est justifica●●mur non justitia inherente, said ●o propter unione● eum illo et imputationem eju● justiti●, in loc. 〈◊〉 although we ●e in our s●lves altogether sinful and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet even that man that is impious in himself, full of iniquity, full of sin him being found in Christ, etc. putteth away his sin by not impuring, taketh 〈◊〉 away the punishment thereunto due by pardoning is and accepteth him in jesus Christ as perfectly 〈◊〉 as if he had fulfiled all the whole law. I must take heed what I say. But the Apostle saith God●●●● him to be sin who know no sin▪ etc. such we are in the sight of God the father, as the very son of God himself. in the world but this, that man hath sinned and God hath suffered, that God hath made himself the sin of 〈◊〉, and that men are 〈◊〉 the righteousness of God, 〈◊〉. Hooker on the 〈◊〉. ●. 4. p. 7.   
But you must be hear●.  
1. There is no footing in the Scripture for the inference drawn from it, her's nothing of 〈◊〉 of our sins to Christ or his imputation of righteousness to ●s, Christ's being made sin imp●r●s ●● such imputation, etc.  
We deny it, let's see whose reasons are best  
2. Dr. Davenant, saith there's not the same power of 〈◊〉 ●●righteousnesse, to make Christ ●●righteous, which is of his righteousness to make th●se that believe righteous, see more Sect. 19 p. 26.  
You heard the Doctor's Argument. I spare more but remit you to what's answered to that named place.  
3. Th●●'s not so much a● the face of comparison, between Christ's being made sin for us, and our being made the righteousness of God but the latter i● affirmed a● the effect, ●nd, and consequent of the f●rmer.  
1. there's an agreement, as he was we are and both no other way than by imputation. W●●ton def. Perk. p. 175. And Dr. Abb●● ib. p. 400. who maintaineth the comparison against Bishop, when Bishop, denied comparison: Mr. W●tt●● answereth there is some comparison or likeness employed by the Apostles.  
2. Grant this the effect the former the cause the for mere cannot be, nor 'cause this effect without imputation. Nor yet the latter without application, imputation of the same.  
3. Thirdly, in him must import faith and God's imputation, thence participation of his righteousness, not in ourselves but another, him, which can not otherwise be as you are often answered.  
4. The clear meaning is, that God for that end made Christ sin, that is, a sacrifice for sin; that we may be made, etc. That is a society or remnant of righteousness, after the peculiar manner of Justification or righteous making, which God hath contrived through the sacrifice and offering of his Son.  
This is but a general, and it's taken up by parts after, to which we will give particular answer.  
1. It's a frequent expressure to call the sacrifice for sin by the name of sin simply.  
It's granted and yet the same tell you, that interpretation, a sacrifice for sin, is short, and that he was made sin, without which he could not be a sacrifice; not by inherence but imputation.  
So Doctor Downham. If God did make Christ a sacrifice 
Beza tamen natio Antithesis pos. it ut potius Christus dicatur factus esse peccatum pro nobis i peccator non in sese, sed ex omnium nostrorum pecatorum reatu ipsi imputato, e●hujus rei figura suit hircus illc geminu, cajus homentio Leu. c. 16 Beza in loc m. Et si patros non nulli peccatum in't elligant hostiam peccati tamen uterque sensus stare potest quoniam utrogue modo Christus factus est peccatum pro nobis, tum qula peccata nostra ultro in●e derivavit gesta●da, luenda, tum quia victima factus pro illis revera luit. P 110. tamen sensus haud dubio est ve●ior, et Chrysostomo placuit, etc. he was debtor coram Deo: quid est antem debitor coram Deo nisi peccator cum debita nil sunt nisi peccata. Pareuscastig. l. 2. c. 10. p. 510. Thus Parzus to Bellarmine objecting as you. S. Crotius p. 401. and p 406. who proveth it from the type, 16. Leu. Audio illi imponi peccata populicum portare peccata, unde polluebator hircus ipse et polluebatalio, que causa est quod absolutione indigerit. qui ipsum tetigeret ver. 24. and 26. hun tipum fuisse Christi non dubitantivere Christiani tolle nanc imputationem peccatorum a Christo et vetus ceremonias falt in annis, quip cui non respondetet veritas, etc. 407.  for sin he imputed our sins unto him, etc. neither can it be conceived how he should be made a sacrifice for our sin, unless our sin were imputed unto him. Who showeth the agreement between the types and Christ, p. 267, 268. See Mr. Wotton defence. Perkins. the place may be expounded otherwise, he made him to be counted a sinner, etc. Thomas and Catherine & p. 190 of Defence, our sins were charged to him as the sins of the people were in a type laid on the escape goat, Leu. 26. 21. It's Mr Perkins argument, Dr, Abbot defendeth it largely, p. 204.  
2. To express a number or company of justified one's Sect. 3. p. 45.  
There it's examined.  
Of that from the righteousness of God, we have spoken, it's of God's donation and contrivement, I and of God, that person as before.  
4. The effect is meant, deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin not impatation of his active obedience.  
If the effect be meant, it followeth not that the righteousness of Christ expressed shall be excluded, imputation of righteousness, the passive none exclude, and you cannot the active if it be an essential requisite to the passive, remission followeth justification or just making (as you speak) a man cannot be made just but by righteousness.  
Your sixth is but an affirmation of expositors without places the contrary is largely showed. I suppose.  
One Scripture more, whence the argument being more ridicalous, it shall be insisted on with more brevity.  
You are a merry man that can laugh at Arguments brought from God's word, all are ridiculous, this more with you, you laugh at all Protestant Divines, and truth itself, God may laugh at you in ago, when you shall stand, and be found not in Christ's righteousness, but, a weak faith.  
3. Gal. 10. For it's written cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the books of the Law, and do them.  
The argument is given in thus.  
If every one be cursed that abideth not, etc. than can no man be justified but remains accursed, who hath not the perfect obedience of Christ to the law imputed to him, because no mancan obtain such personal observation thereof.  
You say, it deserves not an answer; and the man of the argument is confederate with Stapleton the Papist, at lest in part: who maintains against Calvin, that the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith, are not two, but one and the same righteousness.  
I know not the man of the argument, neither yet reason of your slighting him or it.  
2. Confederacy with Stapleton is a great matter, It seemeth in the man of this argument. Your confederacy with them out of your own mouth must be acknowledged a great crime.  
3. The righteousness of the Law, which Christ in our stead as our surety performed for us; Active and passive, which latter Paraus caleth obedience to the law, is all one with the righteousness of Faith, that which faith applieth to our Justification.  
Yet is he no confederate with Stapleton, seeing righteousness of the law with him is, that which is inherent in us. Which hath no agreement with us, but rather with you, who establish faith and that instead of that of the Law; and what is it but a part of inherent righteousness, required by the law? You call it righteousness on 3. Phil. 9   

But let's hear your answer.  
1. If there be no other way to dissolve the curse but Christ's perfect fullfilling the law, woe a thousand times to the World: For 1. That there's none such hath been proved. 2. If it were it would not dissolve the curse, it cannot be but by the blood of Christ. He must be made a curse.  
These are words, and so is your first Reason, and your second: For we exclude not Christ's blood that's obedience as the Apostle and Paraeus as before: and how can you exclude Christ's Active obedience, which you confess Essential to the blood to this effect dissolution of sin, that it may be a sacrifice?  
2. He that's fully discharged of non-continance, is out of danger of the curse: and it's consistent with the opinion opposed to ascribe perfect forgiveness to the passive obedience, without imputation of the active to that end that's pleaded not to bring men of the curse has under the blessing, or promise' do this.  
1. Christ's sufferings are not in themselves a full discharge, they must be imputed.  
2. They must have concurring as an essential requisite, Christ's active obedience, if which they be imputed they take away the curse: did you never hear of this before: and yet dispute it so often?  
Yourself confess, where there's perfect forgiveness, that man is perfectly righteous; I'll say so too. That I require is that as you affirm it you show us a cause, and tell us wherewithal.  
We can when as we name the imputation of both, as there's righteousness given us there is a cause.  
And so when as you make the Active obedience an essemsiall requisite to his sufferings, there's a cause. You that deny it, deny the cause. But as we have showed before the imputation of both must be supposed in the same; her's pardon, her's righteousness, her's no curse her's a blessing and the causes: yourself deny Christ's death enough without that essential requisite: chew on this good Sir.  
To omit that just making goeth before pardon as before: and the contrary were the abemination spoken of urged by ours to justify a wicked person.  
3. Imputation of a perfect fullfilling of the law from another cannot makes him such, a continuer in the law who breaks it daily and leaves him under the Curse.  
All the imputation in the world of whatsoever from whomsoever cannot make him that hath not continued to have continued in them.  
This argument is a bloody and merciful spirit bearing down all before it to hell.  
Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive obedience which is our Tenet, meke him a continuer in the works of the Law, notwithstanding the many things wherein all offend, in God's account: those that hold the imputation of the Passive obedience alone do so, or must grant no man living in God's account a perfect fulfiller of the Law, or perfectly righteous, which yet you argue for; for it taketh away sins and that man is perfectly just as you teach.  
Whenas therefore you say all the imputations under heaven, of whatsoever, from whomsoever can not; you oppose imputation of an others righteousness or obedience simply, imputation of that which is passive of Christ also. And now let the Reader judge whose argument or tender is a bloody one; for deny this imputation of Christ's obedience, ex concessis, and all are as by nature, Children of wrath still, and under the curse. These are but words.  
5. Ult. The meaning is, every one that expecteth justification by the Law, the Curse will fall heavy upon him. It's to be limited to the universality of them only who depend on the Law for justification.  
1. I grant that every one that expecteth justification by the Law is accursed, by this Scripture; but this answereth not the Argument, which is that therefore to avoid that curse there must be perfect obedience imputed by which we must be perfectly righteous, and avoid the curse, we must have it to avoid the Curse, either our own or another's, it's impossible by our own obedience, we must have it by another's, and that cannot be but by imputation, and so might pass the rest as not to the matter.  
2. It's a truth of those, but it must not be limited to them; if so, than only justiciaries that look to be justified by the Law personally performed are under the curse and not sinners simply (especially, which in the Church, and so under the Law) impenitent men though they hate that opinion are under the curse, by that place of Scripture.   

Your first Reason.  
1. What the Law speaketh, it speaketh to all that are under the Law, and no other, and those that expect it by faith are not under the Law but under Grace, the curses concern them not, against such is no Law, etc.  
1. This proveth not that those only that will be justified by the Law, are under the curse; it's a truth of others who seek it not that way, being yet under the Law, as all are that are not under Grace.  
No man denyeth what you say of the believer in Jesus Christ, neither doth it prove your restriction, or limitation: Faith in Christ, applieth the righteousness of Christ, of which before, By which we are justified, and have no condemnation, and it establisheth the Law.  
2. Say you the context leadeth us to this limitation. 1. because the preceding words are, for as many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curse, for proof of which he allegeth this text. 2. It's proved by the 9 ver. those that are of faith are blessed with Abraham: these, not those that would be justified by the Law, which he proves because they were under the Curse. So that continuance, etc. is only required of those either to avoid the Curse or obtain a blessing; who seek to be justified by the works of the Law, and not of those that believe and depend on Christ for justification.  
I grant as before, justiciaries accursed, only believers blessed:  
And to the 3. the just to live by faith: Is the curse therefore limited to justiciaries? Not, but it's true of other sinners simply.  
When as you conclude,  
Therefore that justification which we have by faith in Christ cannot be said to be by a continuance in all things Written in the Law to do them, because it's nothing else but justification itself by, the Law.  
1. What agreement there is between this conclusion and what you took to prove, the limiting the curse to Justiciaries, I understand not.  
2. I know none that defendeth that justification by faith is by our continuance in the Law to do it. It's by the righteousness of Christ his active and passive obedience, his dying for us and fulfilling the Law for us, or death with his obedience that essential requisite, in our Doctrine apprehended by faith, imputed by God, by which we avoid the curse, and enjoy the blessing, as before.  
Sect. 29. Whereas it may be objected, may not a man be justified by faith and that Law, and be l●tit●led to a righteousness of that Law by faith; you answer ver. 12. the Law is not of faith, he cannot fulfil the Law one woves or other by faith, it requires a personal observation, of which c. 8. 1 part. (and than tell us) that here's we Sanctuary for pretended imputation, but an high hand of heaven to overthrew it.  
I need say no more than what I did immediately before answer, we pled not for personal observation, more than you, yet observation by another we urge; that others passive obedience with its essential requif●te as you call it.  
The former is not of faith this is the righteousness of faith, and profefle in these words of our Homily, Christ in the righteousness of all them that believe in him, be for them paid the Ransom by his death, be for them fulfilled the Law in his life; so that now in him and by him every one Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law, for as much as that which our infirmity lacked, Christ's righteousness supplied.  
As for the place you refer the Reader to, he may find it examined.  
Some pled, Phil. 39 but we having elsewhere upon a diligent search found this Scripture looking a quite contrary way, etc.  
1. The Some, are all Protestants against Papists: 2. you found it not but endeavoured to make it look a clean contrary way; but in vain as on that place is showed. See Zanchius on the place in the Margin. 
In Christo●●●mpe insitus et incorpotatus eoque habere non suam propriam justitiam, quae videlicet ex lege est, id est operiam, sed justitiam Christi quae per fidem habetur. Hi exuti propiia— Induuntur justitia aliena hoc est Christi qua vere justi faecti, etc. ibid. Sola aliena vere, in conspectu Dei justificari possumus— Est una epraecipius controversijs quae inter nos sunt et Pontificios non postrema. In Christo est, fide tantum a nobis apprehensa-Opus habet— Tam perfect a Christi justitia qua tan quam veste pretiosa illius labes contegantur juxta illud, p. 32. beati quotum, etc. 1 p. c. 6. Nempe Christi imputata qua sola vere in conspectu Dei justi reputamur. Est nostra non alia ratione nisi quatenus per fidem apprehenditur et nobis imputatur ..— Merè aliena est justitia et tantum nostra per imputationem nam neque actione fidei nostrae justificamur; sed ea ●c tantum quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae est Christus cum sua obedientia justi censemur, et sic illid intelligo credidit Abraham et impatatum est illi ad justiciam, Gen. 15. 6. quid reputatum? non actio qua sed id quod crededit seu ut alii loquuntur, ipsa fides non sui apprehendiatis sed objecti apprehensi respectu— Haec vero est. Tum Christi ipfius obedientia qua pro nobis et legem implevit et mortuus est. 2 Phil. et 5 Rom. per hunc enim justi, constatuuntur multi est credentes- Denique haec justitia est Christus id ipse factm pro nobis, obediens usque ad mortem, 1 Cor. 1. & 2 Phil. haec demum est illa justitia de qua loquitur Apostolds quae sola fide percipitur, non est igitur nostra propria sed aliena non nisi ex illa habetur id que manu fidei— Quare-Et nisi per justitiam quae est in Christo justus esse nemo potest nostra sola imputationenon ut opus, etc. Sed ut justitiam Dei in se apprehensum habens justificat, sicut oculum non ut aurium Sed vinum in se continens sitim exting it. Capite 5. concludit sicut per in obedientiam Ad ae nobis nimirum imputam facti sumus omnes peccatores, sic per obedientiam Christi nempe pa: iter imputatam, not qui in eum credimus justos constitui, etc. ubi textum profert, 9 Rom. 29 30. 10 Rom. 3. Zan. in lo. Hinc seq●●●r neque actione fidei nostrae tanquam vel justitia vel parte justitiae no, justificari. ib.   
And thus I have examined the Scriptures which you oppose. Let the Reader judge whether you are as good as your words and undertake.  
Arguments against faith in a proper sense propounded and answered.  
1. Arg. That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God, can have no agreement with the truth.  
But the imputation of faith in the sense declared doth so.  
Ergo.  
The minor is proved, because if God should impute faith for righteousness he should accounted that to be so which is none.  
The major is confessed an anointed truth, the minor is denied, and to the proof answer is made.  
This was the plea of that fanatique Spirit Swinkfildius as Zanchie: and the Council of Trent as Calvin observeth, to prove that the word justification was not to be taken in a judicial sense for absolution, but in a Physical or Moral sense for constituting or making a man properly and completely just, and is the common argument of Papists, for justification by inherent grace: yet I conceive it very unjust to charge either with Swinkfieldianisme or Popery.  
The plea is good as it's made by us, and made good out of the Learned in our vindication of Mr. Walker, and that by our Orthodox Divines.  
What Swink fieldius held I cannot find though I have sought, and cannot speak to it, it's not in that place of my Book.  
For the Popish opinion of just making by inherent righteousness, and ours by what's imputed, they differ as a opposed opinions, the question is of that which constituteth a man properly and completely just: we deny inherent righteousness, by the same argument faith, these are imcompleat and imperfect, there's somewhat else that doth it, and there's the perfect righteousness of Christ, here is a truth answering God's account, see it at large before.  
And methinks the word just making should not conform us to them more than yourself, who use the same often, as somewhere I have gathered and observed to you.  
2. It doth not follow God should accounted that for righteousness which is none— for faith is righteousness, in truth and propriety of speech.  
It's not perfect righteousness, and therefore it's not enough that it be righteousness, it must be perfect, what maketh a man so in the saight of God, if God should pute that which is imperfect for this righteousness, God's judgement shall not be according to truth. It shall be but in herent righteousness if you stand to that and what the Papists urge. You say,  
3. You mean not Gods accounting such an act, a righteous act, much less that he esteemeth it a perfect observation of the Law. But that God looks on a believer, and intends to do as graciously as it were with a man perfectly righteous. Of this further, c. 19 1 par. sect. 6. & 7.  
1. I answer that which is imputed is not only righteousness, but exact conformity to God's Law, such doing such suffering.  
2. I add, When God looketh on a believer so, and dealeth so its not with respect to faith but that perfect obedience foe Christ, which faith apprehendeth, it's in his beloved, in him I am well pleased, is but the applying instrument.  
3. That's not all, it constituteth righteous, holy, unreprovable, unblamable, in God's sight, a believer is so though not inherently, in and by the imputed righteousness of Christ, as Christ himself, because with his righteousness, which faith in a proper sense doth not, and therefore.  
4. Best writers say, God accounts men righteous or perfectly just, who have for givenesse of sins, and are not so in exactness of speech.  
I grant it, we are not so in ourselves, yet in exactness of speech are so in Christ: It's certain from forgiveness of sins, which is a consequent of righteousness imputed, yea of Justification, those do not exclude Christ's righteousness, nor imputation: but suppose it, and so doth Mr. Gataker, of the passive obedience, and you must do so if you will not hold with Socinus, and if you hold the imputation thereof, what's essentially requiste, cannot be excluded.  
But what's all this to your saiths' imputation in a proper sense, all hold it relatively taking in the object, as before.  
Object. 2. If faith in such a sense should be imputed for righteousness, than should justification be by works or somewhat in ourselves: But the Scriptures reject Works and all things in ourselves. Ergo You answer.  
1. Either by works and somewhat else in ourselves is meant the merit of works, o● else by way of simple performance. In the former the Proposition is false, and consequence donyed, faith may be imputed in the declared sense, and yet not by merit: If in the latter sense so the minor is false, for the Scripture rejecteth no where every thing that may go under the name of works, or that may be done by us from having to do inthe matter of justification, God attributeth justification to faith which he calleth works, 6 Joh this is the work, etc. thus Writers call faith a work.  
1. That you oppose is the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the formal cause of justification; you deny Christ's righteousness the material, and it imputed the formal cause: You establish faith. Our argument is, if by faith, than by a work or somewhat in ourselves; when you deny the consequence, if it be taken by its merit.  
I answer, that which justifieth as matter or form, must have worth and merit, so hath Christ's righteousness, and therefore we pitch on it, otherwise it could not be the matter or formal cause though imputed, and we know works cannot merit, when all is done we are unprofitable servants: So yourself, 1 Treat. p. 191. And therefore also we may reject faith in proper sense because it's not of worth and value, it cannot justify formally. In the latter sense the Scripture rejecteth works yea faith as a work as the matter or form. Paul will be found not having his own righteousness, not faith, the place it hath is only as an instrument, receiving that by which we are justified; as an hand by which we receive richeses by which we are rich, as a golden Cup, Non ut aurium sed vinum in se continens sitim extinguit, as Mr. Zanchy but now, in regard of the object, that which is proper to the righteousness of Christ is given by you to faith, and it excludeth Christ as you defend it, the Argument is strong against you.  
3. Object. Imputation of faith for righteousness in that sense makes justification not of Grace. To this you answer,  
I deny the minor, there's anentive consistence between faith and Grace, 2 Ephes. 8. Rom. 3. 24. it's purposely required, 4 Rom. 16. It's free because nothing is required but a receiving, believing is nothing else but a receiving that righteousness the justification which God giveth us with his Son, 1 Joh. 12. So that there's no prejudice to grace.  
1. It's a good argument.  
2. Though what you say be good and true of faith as an instrument receiving the righteousness or justification which God giveth by Christ his Son, in which speech the weight of justification is put on what is received, the righteousness of God's Son, which is our expressure against Papists, wherein Christ's righteousness is allowed the matter and meritorious cause, and its application or imputation the form, where it's given faith as the instrumental cause only, but to the object to be that by which we are made just.  
3. Yet this answer will not serve you, if you remember the question; if you consider faith is not in conjunction, but opposition to Christ's righteousness, and in a proper sense, that of an instrument is relative, and so is receiving, you exclude Christ's obedience, the object, deny a figurative sense, thus I affirm it a work, and righteousness in its self, a man's own, I deny it, subordinate to grace or Christ, but in opposition.  
4. Argu. Faith's imputation for righteousness in this sense is an occasion of boasting unto the flesh.   

This you deny.  
Because it's by God's gift, 2 Eph. 8 its what he receiveth, and if why boastest thou thyself, no man hath just cause.  
The minor is truth:  
That's no cause of denial because it is received, therefore it's not an occasion to the flesh: It's true, there's no true cause, yet the flesh will take it, and it's an occasion given it. The Pharise gloried in what he did, and looked to be justified by it, and yet he knew he received it, and therefore thanked God, they that urged works of righteousness with faith and Christ and Grace, yet still gloried. The Apostle therefore will be found not having his own righteousness, and will have that of faith, Christ's; this excludeth boasting not faith which is held all one with do this, and which is set in opposition, as by you and not the righteousness of Christ.  
2. Suppose the act of believing were from a man's self, yet he hath no cause of boasting, because the weight of glory given it, and consequents, are not given it for its worth, but by God's good pleasure.  
As a man to whom a King for taking a pin from his sleeve should be made honourable, and it were ridiculous he should brag. This is the case of faith, though a believer hath given him forgiveness, right and title to heaven, it's no ground of boasting.  
When God chooseth weak and foolish things, occasion of boasting is put of, had men fulfilled the Law, there were cause, because they, had done it out of themselves, abilities essential to nature, which are not in faith, or the act of believing  
1. The act of believing is a man's own, when a man lives by faith it's by his own faith, though God giveth him ability thereunto.  
2. It's an act of obedience and righteousness as you say, and the Scripture saith, Paul would be found, not having his own righteousness, and not of works of righteousness which we have done.  
3. Papists may answer so of charity; etc.  
4. So long though there be not 'cause there's occasion for the flesh, the flesh may, will and doth take it.  
That it's not given for its worth but God's pleasure is not enough, God's pleasure is only in Christ, in whom only is worth, which you exclude as an enemy to it, in the very question, and not the righteousness of Christ: had faith its place of an instrument (the good pleasure of God being in Christ) taking in the object it were somewhat: your proper sense endureth it not: The King that doth it for a pin, is not every way free, we deny a pins-worth in faith: a pins-worth and a pounds-worth diffen not in kind but degree: a faith in this similitude is worthy, though it be never so little.  
Receiving, giving pardon and heaven to God's Grace in and for Christ's righteousness are excluders of boasting, nothing that excludes that righteousness of Christ establisheth Free grace.  
5. If faith in a proper sense be imputed for righteousness than are we justified by that which is imperfect, what needeth a justification.  
You say, you have me● with such an one, and answer,  
1. The words import either we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is perfect, or that somewhat which is comparatively weak and imperfect, may somewaies concur, and contribute thereunto.  
In the former sense it false, it doth not follow if faith be imputed, there's nothing perfect required, it supposeth more things than one, Christ's perfect atonement for sin, which if it had not been there had been no place for the imputation of faith, etc. upon this it is that God imputes our faith to us.  
If saith be imputed, we are justified by that which is imperfect, is as clear as the Sun.  
When you say it opposeth Christ's atonement.  
1. The effect you give it is not that by his sufferings imputed by God and applied by faith we should be justified, which is all one with our tenet if it be taken with what you call an essential requisite, active obedience.  
2. Nay you make Christ's merit to be faiths imputation which is the Socinian and Arminian tenet.  
3. And do what you can it's but imperfect and cannot justify otherwise than as an instrument applying the object, Christ's active and passive righteousness, to what followeth.  
If in the latter sense, that somewhat that is weak and imperfect may sometimes concur and conduce to justification, so the proposition is granted and the minor goes to wrack, for that faith and the Minister by whom, are weak and imperfect, both which concur, ministerially and instrumentally we may be justified by what is weak.  
Our question is about what we are formally just before God or justified, whether imputation of faith in a proper sense or the righteousness of Christ.  
When we assert the latter to be that by which we are formally just before God, we deny it by faith in a proper sense: That which God imputeth to righteousness must be perfect, it cannot constitute us perfectly righteous, else, faith in a proper sense is▪ imperfect therefore it cannot; take faith now for an instrument in a relative sense we do, It's true how weak soever, because it layeth hold of and applieth what is perfect, but in a proper sense, denying what's figurative, and opposed to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, it cannot be so.  
It's one thing to be ministerial and instrumental, an other to be the material and formal cause, so much as you take from perfection of those yea from merit and worth, so much you take from the perfection of our righteousness, no effect can exceed the cause of it.  
6. Argu. Some have opposed the imputation of faith we pled for, seeing God should rather receive a righteousness from us than we from him. But in justification God receives not a righteousness from us, but we from him.  
The major follows not, that God should receive from us or not we from God. 1. Because faith is not a righteousness properly, but that God by the means thereof, and tender of it looks on us as righteous, not as made meriteriously or formally righteous by it, but as having performed the condition to which the promise is made of making us righteous, meritoriously by the sufferings of his Son, and formally by remission.  
Whose reason this is I know not but if faith be imputed, etc. we receive not from God a righteousness, but God from us, by the tender thereof say you God looks on us as righteous.  
To the Reason, 1. Faith in a proper sense, is properly a righteousness, that which is called inherent. It may both with truth and properiety of speech be called and counted a righteousness, yea the smallest degree, so you, p. 176. on tender of this that followeth, so that we still receive not.  
2. That which is excluded is denied, that whereby we are formally justified, and therefore that which is asserted, faith in a proper sense should be by opposition the formal cause; that its a means in our sense is not questioned, and that which maketh us formally must be as righteousness so having worth.  
3. Faith when as it's a condition is not to be understood in a proper sense and in opposition to the righteousness of Christ, but a relative sense taking that in, for that received and applied is the condition, and by it are we (as meritorius and formal) made just, that righteousness consists in the sufferings of God's Son as you, not excluding Christ's active obedience that essential requisite, to make it meritorious, thus it receiveth from the Lord, excluding this, it receiveth not but tendereth to him remissionof fins is a consequent of justification, and therefore cannot be the formal cause.  
2. If faith were righteousness, it follows not, that God receives from us a righteousness, we rather receive faith from God for our justification.  
Our receiving faith from God, hindereth not that on our tender and his receiving it, God receives righteousness from us to our justification, which is denied.  
3. Our imputation of saith supposeth a righteousness given unto men and received from God in justification, because it could not be traly said that God doth impute faith for righteousness, unto any man except he should make him righteous upon believing. Now as it is impossible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousness in one kind or other, so it's impossible that righteousness whereby a man is made righteous in justification, should be given him from any but G●d; and this is forgiveness of sins.  
If imputation of faith supposeth a righteousness given whereby man is made just in justification, than God in justification giveth a righteousness whereby and without which it's impossible that a man should be made just; and this must needs be that which formally justifieth; your words they are, I subscribe; the question will be what it is? either faith that's imputed of remission of sins, or Christ's righteousness active and passive.  
Faith is not that 1. faith supposeth this. 2. Indeed it's that by which this is received▪ be it either righteousness 
Whenas causae applicanti tribuitur quod proprie et immediate pertinet ad rem applicatam, as Dr. Davena. p. 371. explaineth that Place, Rom. 4. 5. quia fides apprehendit et applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi trib ●itur quod re●pse Christo Debetur. Zanchius. neque actione fidei nostrae justificamur sed ca re tantum, quae per fidem apprehenditur, quae est Christus cum sua obedientia justi censemur et sic illud intelligo credidit Abraham, etc. quid reputatum ● non actio quâ sed id ●●od credidit, sive ut alij loquuntur, ipsa fides non sui apprehendentis, sed objecti apprehensi respectu, so Zanchius on Philip. 3.  or remission of sins. 3. It is not perfect righteousness. Remission of sins cannot be it, for though we receive it by faith, yet 1. it's but a consequent of justification as before. And 2. It's no way righteousness, it hath not the definition of it, and therefore cannot possibly be that which maketh righteous; the truth than is▪ that its the righteousness of Christ, by it the word saith, we are constitued righteous as the word showeth, God imputeth righteousness. Faith taking in this object by a Metalepsis, is granted imputed.  
The difference will be than what righteousness, passive, or both active and passive; and thus this controversy being an other cometh in. I hold both and so must you, when the Active is an essential requisite to the passives meritoriousness. Let these particulars be considered and they will notably tend to the streighting this Controversy.  
What you further say you have answered, in that to Mr. Walkers are examined, and what you say in defence of yourself not to be an Arminian and Socinian in this point, and the weakness of the charge that is laid on the contrary opinion, we have examined what is charged on the active obedience of Christ by P●raeus and Piscator, c. 2. sect. 8. conclus. 7. where Mr. Gattaker is also mentioned, whither I remit the Reader and yourself.  
When you infer, Impartial men judging between both parts, would clearly see to set the Saddle of Arminianism and Socinianism on Our opinion as the right Horse. I entreat Judgement and desire no favour Sir, Mr. Gataker accused by Lucius of that crime denied it on this ground he held the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ, justitia imputatâ quam a Christo habemus justifica●● nos cum ipso contra S●cinum ex aequo agnoscimus. sect. 84. sect altar. p. 8. n. 36. In that name himself and Piscator are free, Mr. Wotton and you his 
Just itia imputat quam a Christi habemus, justifica●● nos cum ipsa contra So inum c▪ equo agnoscimus, p. 84. sect. 8. n. 3.  Scholar are left in the lurch, and Paraeus is free, between whom and us though there be controversy, whether only the Active and passive or both are imputed, to which you have sto●ne for shelter of you in your opinion of the Tocredere, yet I suppose, Piscator, Paraeus and Mr. Gataker abominate your imputation of faith in a proper sense denying a metonymicke sense. I am sure Paraeus telleth Bellarmine denying the metonimick sense, he did not so much oppose Luther in it, as blaspheme the Holy Ghost of which before.  
And I must tell you It's before the Reader to Judge how you have cleared yourself of agreement in this, not only with Arminius and Socinuus, but with the Papists. In this you have a common purse, and it's a point of faith as you call it. And those not as points in which Papists and we agreed but such as are defended by Papists, against the Reformed Churches, and controverted. Neither have we assailed you merely, with words but Scriptures also and Reasons. Neither are they calculated for the meridian of Women and Childrens temper alone, we profess no special skill in that, but for men of understanding, let them judge of them, and the Lord give true understanding.    

CHAP, VII. Arguments are proposed (as you ●ay) an● you desire acceptation of Answers elsewhere given without repetition.  
YOur entreaty is mine own, let all be considered together.  
1 Argu. If there be no standing in Judgement before God except we be endued with perfect righteousness, than must the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us in our justification.  
But there is no standing for us, etc.  
I deny the consequence, there may be no standing in judgement before God, and yet the righteousness of Christ, in the sense controverted not be imputed. Remission of sins purchased by the death of Christ is so, as in the 5. first conclusions, p. 3. & 4. Yea our Divines as Calvin find sufficient strength for confidence in the death of Christ alone.  
1. The righteousness of Christ asserted by us is his active and passive obedience, what weakness is it than for you to assert his passive obedience by way of opposition unto us, and to deny imputation thereof. And I appeal to the Reader how you can exclude the active obedience of Christ, and separate it from the passive, which you assert the purchaser of pardon, when as yourself call that active obedience an essential requisite to constitute the passive obedience meritorious.  
Calvin doth not exclude the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the Law from Christ's death; I appeal to what's answered before out of him.  
2. Remission of sins is no righteousness, neither is it to be confounded as if it were the same with Christ's death, they are cause and effect: remission indeed is a consequent of Justification; let the Reader observe the Reference.  
2. Arg. He that is justified by an others righteousness must be justified by Christ's imputed, for no other righteousness is fit.  
But every man that is justified is justified by the righteousness of an other, and not his own.  
1. I deny the Major, a man may be justified by the righteousness of another, and yet no necessity of Christ's active obedience (of which only the question i●) to be imputed to him, the passive obedience of Christ: by merit of which communicated in free pardon without further righteousness derived upon them in a way of imputation or however, of which sec 4. or 5. Conclus. p. 5. 6. 7.  
I answer, by the righteousness of Christ we mean active and passive, and I never read of one that held the active alone, you do but fight with a shadow.  
2. And shown but now that you putting the passive, cannot exclude the active, the passive without that isnot meritorious and that the imputation of both are necessary to justification of which pardon is a consequent.  
Your communicated and our imputed are one with us and with you, or else with Mr. Wotten and Socinus you deny imputation of Christ's passive obedience in which you are deserted even by Mr Gattaker, etc.  
To the Minor, by a●stinction, a man may be said to be justified by the righteousness of another and not his own: Either 1. by way of merit, or 2. by way of form, whosoever is justified by the righteousness of another and not his own, is justified by the merit of the righteousness of another and not his own.  
In the latter sense it's altogether untrue, for the righteousness where with a man is formally justify does always his own by donation and possession and not another's, except only in respect of procurement Christ's, or collation, and so it's Gods. Remission of sins whereby a believer is formally (a● often) is a man's own in such a sense a● repentance or faith.  
Every man that's justified, is justified by the righteousness of an other and not his own, the distinction is Saint Paul's, 1 Philip 3. and answer, that that which doth formally justify is also meritorious it cannot justify applied, that hath not worth and merit in it, as ours truly teach.  
Christ's righteousness we grant as the material so the meritorious cause, and it imputed that which supplieth the place of a form. So nothing that is our own (inherent suppose) is or can be.  
Righteousness may be said to be his own and man formally justified either inherently as Faith, Hope, and Charity which are not only given but by way of infusion and so inhere only in those to whom it's given, or else by imputation, so as the sin inhering in such as believe is Christ's, laid on him as in the Type, and so is the righteousness which is in him subjectiuly, is ours given by God, and received by us, this also is given by God, ours by his donation and possession as Christ is, who dwelling in us by faith is the subject of it.  
Now by formally you may know (and do acknowledge somewhere I remember) we mean not inherently, that's the Popish form of Justification which we oppose; this is so our own as it is not another's, so is my Faith, and Hope and Charity.  
And you shall never prove that we are justified by that which is so our own and not others.  
That we are justified by, is Christ's inherently or subjectiuly only, though ours by donation and possession, not subjectiuly further than as Christ in whom it is dwelleth in us, by his Spirit and faith, it's his and ours as he is the Lord our righteousness made unto us righteousness.  
Remission of sins, though ours by Christ's procurement and God's donation received by faith, is no righteousness, as hath been answered and proved, and being a consequent of Justification as hath been answered and proved, can never formally justify. It cannot be before and after justification, neither doth it inhere in man as Faith and Hope, nor can it therefore be so our own, as they are.  
The Argument you may read in Chamier, de justit. c 17.  
justificatio per alienam justitiam, est imputativa. At nostra justificatio est per aliena in justitiam. which he proveth and defendeth against Papists ibid.  
3. Argum. If believers have a true and real communion with Christ, than is his righteousness theirs by imputation. But the former is certain, therefore.  
1. The proposition wants truth, because a true and real communion with Christ may stand without his active obedience being made theirs by imputation, see c. 10. sect 4. & 5. of the former par c. 2. p. 9 & 10. of this 2. par  
The question is what maketh man righteous; we assert the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed or given us, and applied by faith: we add this is done by real. Communion, for so our finners are counted actually to him, and his righteousness to us. It be cometh ours for making us just. To your exception, Communion is denied where his active obedience is not made ours. It's a demonstration, Communion is the cause, Christ's active obedience its being, ours the effect, it's like that of the Apostle; as many of us as are Baeptized into Christ, are Baptised into his death, 6. Rom. 3. the difference is, his death is named and not his active obedience: It's not excluded more than his Resurrection; and if it infloweth and concurreth; be an essential requisite, to the efficacy of his death, With what face can you granting the one, deny the other? Imputation than is the business: but imputation of Christ's passive obedience is granted to us by Piscator, Paraeus, and Mr. Gataker, we are altogether here against Socinus and Mr. Wotton, and you being Judge, the essential requisite cannot be left out. Imputation is nothing else but that act of God whereby he applieth that to us that believe, be not offended with those that speak thus with Saint Paul 4. Ro. 6. 11. who as he saith, by the obedience of Christ we are maderighteous, c. 5. saith, when God justifieth he imputeth righteousness. Let the Reader see your places examined.  
And Sir, if the feet be sinful, they need righteousness, and if they are made righteousness (not having of their own else) it must be by the righteousness of the head, communicated or applied to the same. Once the Apostle saith, we are complete in him who is the head, 2 Col. where we see it a truth of the body and by Communion.  
2. It wants reason, it hath neither colour nor show of truth in it, that the unick and Communion which believers have with Christ, should of necessity imply or draw with it the appropriation of his active obedience by way of imputation, at lest such an one, as is the golden Apple, etc. that is so that it become thence formal righteousness, either in whole or in port, for what difference can be assigned out of that union and Communion which interceds between Christ and a believer; why rather the active obedience or righteousness of Christ than the wisdom or power or glory of Christ should be made the believers by imputation.  
The question is of justifying, that it may be done, there must be righteousness, the Scripture saith, that by Christ's obedience we shall be constituted righteous, and the Scripture doth tell us of imputation thereof. So is Christ made unto us, of God righteousness. The wisdom, power, glory of Christ, though they have place in my Justification, etc. yet do not as his righteousness make me just, and the Scripture which teaching imputation of righteousness, mentioneth neither the imputation of his wisdom, power or glory, we are wise according to what is written.  
5. Arg. If there be no other end reason or necessity why Christ should fulfil the Law, but only that his obedience thereunto might be imputed unto us for righteousness in our justification. Than is not the imputation, thereof to be denied.  
But no other end reason, or necessity can be given.  
But.  
The monor proposition i● unsound, therefore 〈◊〉. 1. T▪ gai●● Authority, to his Doctrine, he did what he taught. 2. T▪ God's glory● therefore, he, did it as a debtor with all mankind's, and as mediater to that Law. 3. For exemplariness; 5. Eph. 2 4● to 〈…〉. 5. It kept him i● God● favour, 〈◊〉 Joh. 10. 6. It's of absolute necessity to fit the Sacrifice to the Altar, etc. which ●● largely argued so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at 〈…〉 the pretended imputation, and 〈◊〉 against such as say the 〈◊〉 of the natures, did sufficiently qualifi●it. 7. It qualifieth him eternally to his Priesthood. 8. His own 〈◊〉. 4. Joh. 34. Therefore th● Argument, from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it otherwise is weaker. Passing with denial that he did the Law as a debt or for himself, and that which, I might say else that the holiness etc. of Christ is a necessary result of union of both natures.  
I answer. I know none that urge this argument, and that there was no other end. Neither is it needful: when as you press all these it followeth not that our justification was not an end: and that this was an end with the rest, that necessary concurrence which you here pled, and calling it an essential requisite to Christ's suffering for justification showeth it, which inflowing and concurring produceth the effect by imputation, or application. God's imputing it to us, and our applying it by Faith. That this was his end is evident, where it i● said that by the righteousness of one many shall be made righteous, which it never attaineth, but by imputation or application.  
5. Argu. Because we are debtors to the Law in punishment and perfect obedience also, otherwise our sinning against the Law should exempt and privilege us from subjection to the Law.  
This minor I name because the major hath nothing said to it, and you say,  
It laboureth of ambiguity, when it saith, we are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience, as well as in matter of punishment, it may be true and false. If the meaning be believers are debtors to the Law in perfection of obedience to justification it's utterly false, there's no need to depend on it. It's freely by blood, 5. Rom. 9 Neither are they debtors in regard of punishment, Christ having born it.  
It's true, unbelievers are debtors in both respects, if they mean to be justified, otherwise than by Christ, because there's no third way, he must keep the whole himself.  
Unbelievers as you say are debtors in both, to do and suffer to justification. Very well, their surety than must pay their debt, if he will be their justifier he must suffer he must fulfil the Law.  
Put Christ doing and suffering, and man a believer, I yield he is not bound to do, to live, he was before faith, by faith, being a partaker of the satisfaction of Christ,  
God accounting the same unto him, it's as if he had satisfied, his surety hath done it, he than is acquitted, freed from death, freed from strict rigorous performance of the Law to Justification from personal obedience, this is what we say.  
When we speak of Christ's blood, it's our mind. But you must not exclude his active obedience, that fulfilling of the Law (which is eternalex and aeternae obligationis to life, (being my debt: and where is the merit of that blood if it be without Christ's obedience to the Law, which you call it's essential requisite to our life?  
2. You have our meaning, our question is to justification: and though obedience by sanctification as gratitude be granted by us a debt, yea and in order of nature in some degree before justification as conditioning faith, and qualifying the person to the promise, we intent it not in this question, what you say in the 3. place.  
3. We are not privileged from keeping the Law no not in respect of justification because we have transgressed it, but are 1. uncapable of such keeping, whether personally or by imputation, which may amount to justification. 2. and that the release we have from such observation to justification accrueth to us to justification, by Christ's death for ●●, Rom. 7. 4.  
1. If transgressors are not privileged from that obedience in respect of Justification, It's their debt still, and must be satisfied.  
2. Though we are incapable of observation, such as amounteth to justification, & exemption from punishment, whether personal or imputed, by the death of Christ, whence we have freedom from punishment; yet death being not all it's insufficient to satisfy; and where there is an impossibility of what is personal, imputation is necessary, both are our debt, our sureties satisfaction is of both, and yourself grant, Christ's death insufficient without the concurernce of his active obedience, as an essential requisite; you cannot exclude it, there's hope you may come over, you must or eat your own grant. You say,  
4. God never required of any man but only Christ exact obedience to the Law and subjection to punishment due, conjunctim, but divisive only, the Law saith, do this and live, and he is not threatened that fulfilleth it, punishment is on supposition of sin.  
You grant God required both of Christ together, why? but because he was our surety, and both our debt, to our freedom from punishment and life, both were necessary therefore required of him, therefore he took our nature and obeyed to death.  
2. A sinner we speak of, and he is a debtor of both, he oweth subjection to punishment for sins simply, for his inability to obey. He oweth obedience to life, God's Law is a Minister of death to such and promiseth not life but to doing, it concerneth Christ because of us; us as principals, him as our surety. Yourself said but now.  
It's true, those that believe not in Christ, may 〈◊〉 said in this sense to be debtors to the Law, aswell in matter of perfect obedience as of punishment if they mean to be justified and escape punishment otherwise than by Christ p. 109.  
Than both are required conjunctim of them, aswell as their surety, and therefore of their surety.  
You add,  
5. In case a man hath sinned and suffered (by himself o●●r other for him) he is not further a debtor to the Law in point of justification; because the 〈◊〉 is of equal consideration to the Law, to absolute conformity. So that ●s no man is or over or can be bound to fulfil the Law twice for his justification. So there's no reason that he that hath suffered to the full, the penalty of the Law, which suffering is everyway as satisfactory to the Law as exactest obedience, and of one and the same consideration, it's to require a double satisfaction.  
1. In point of justification life is enfolded, and in case a man suffers by himself or another bore suffering is not equivalent to exact obedience, towards attainment of his life, it's seen in the Devil and damned, who suffer for themselves, they are fare from justification or life. He fulfilleth not the Law once to life, who only suffereth and doth not.  
So that we being unable, it being impossible to us to fulfil the Law▪ either way to life; you see an absolute necessity of Christ our sureties doing and suffering to our life; to omit the insufficiency of either without the other. You can never escape this Argument.  
6. Argu. But there neither can be any justification without a perfect righteousness, nor any such righteousness found but only the righteousness of Christ performed to the Law. To this as guilty and weak you answer.  
1. Though it be true that justification cannot take place without a perfect righteousness it being nothing also but a making a man perfectly righteous, yet such a tale of acts as Christ performed to the Moral Law determinately, is not of any absolute necessity ther● to, for if the jews were justified by Christ's righteousness, the Ceremonial Law also must be included as before, 1 Tr. c. 18. p. 3.  
1. I take what is granted, and that there's no justification without perfect righteousness, it's of good use, it's our minor proposition in part.  
2. I know none limiting Christ's obedience to the Moral Law, it was to whatsoever, though that was a perfect rule of life, and as for the Ceremonial Law it was reducible to the 2 Commandment, as God manner of Worship so that this aliquid is not against what we urge, see the place whereunto you refer.  
2. It's not absolutely true, there's no perfect righteousness to be found but only that of Christ, there is as absolute and complete a righteousness in the Law as Christ's, and it's more probable that God furnisheth them out of the Law itself for Christi sake, than that he should impute Christ's to them See c. 2. sect. 5. etc. 5. sect. 2. 2 par. You mean remission of sins.  
1. Remission is no righteousness. 2. It's not in the Law. 3. Such as have it are not furnished out of the Law with it, see the places examined.  
3. Perfect righteousness wherein justification consists, and wherewith men are made formally l●st, is nothing else but remission of sins, as in. 2. & 4. c. of this par. etc. 5. sect. 5. 1. par. etc. 4. sect. 28. of this latter, and that Calvin excludes not only Regeneration but all other things whatsoever, and that others bring horrid blasphemy on his head.  
This third is the same with the second many times urged, and answered. See the places I appeal.  
Sect. 16. It is so seeing it is equivalent to, and virtually contains the most absolute obedience to the Law, as hath been demonstrated, c. 2. p. 4. 2. par.  
See it there answered.  
2. It may bare the name of righteousness, and that which is complete, because it hath the privilege of Christ's righteousness, as elsewhere.  
There it's answered, so faith should be perfect righteousness, I and charity in its place, it hath the promises of privileges, and that's enough as yourself though it hath not the nature and essence of a perfect righteousness, what if it hath the name so long as it hath not the essence? but it hath not the name neither will similitude serve the turn, as there is showed.  
This Argument doth not complain but glory it hath no satisfaction, seeing there's no other righteousness.  
7 Argu. Do this and live is an everlasting rule, therefore the active obedience of Christ must be imputed to Justification.  
This is a truth, you answer.  
I grant it an everlasting Rule, he that doth it shall live, but this is not to purpose, it's without the face of an Argument, because whosoever abideth, etc. shall live whether the righteousness of Christ be imputed yea or no. I deny it either is, ever was, or will be, a perpetual rule for men to be justified by, and that he only that doth this can be said to be justified, for God hath always had an other, believe this and live, see c. 4. 1 par. and answer to Gal. 3. 10. c. 5. 2. par.  
If this be an everlasting truth, he that doth this shall live, that is perfectly fulfil the Law, it's as everlasting that he that doth it not shall never live.  
None can do and live without the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  
This I find Mr. Perkins his Argument, That very thing that must be our righteousness before God must satisfy the justice of the Law which saith, do this and live. Now there is nothing can satisfy the justice of the Law but the righteousness o● obedience of Christ for us, See it in Mr. Wortons' defence, p. 170  
If it be a rule of life everlasting, it is of justification, and must be answered as debt by ourselves or surety.  
2. God hath not always had that believe and live, or else God required faith in Christ of Adam in innocency expressly, and God did never require do this and live. Or else they are both one.  
3. Believing to life is believing in the Lord Jesus, applying his perfect do and sufferings, it's an instrument or hand taking in Christ's righteousness, not opposed to it, or excluding of the object, so all as before▪ and let the Reader see your former deeds this way in those places examined.  
8. Arg. That righteousness which God accepteth in our behalf is the righteousness imputed to us in justification. But the righteousness of Christ is that which God accepteth on our behalf.  
You deny the Major and distinguish on the Minor. The reason of the first is because God may and doth accept for us which he needs not impute, as the prayer of Abraham for Isaac.  
So these for whom Christ's sufferings were accepted, receive unspeakable benefits by them, yet it followeth not God looks on them as if they had personally endured, which is the imputation specially opposed in this Treatise, but because they be the sufferings of his Son.  
1. The proposition is firm, that he accepteth to justification is righteousness imputed.  
2. God accepteth not Abraham's prayer to Ishmaels' justification, or the justification of any other. Perfect righteousness doth it, God accepteth no other, and there's no way else to have it but God's imputation.  
3. Those for whom God accepteth Christ's death, have Christ's death imputed to them to justification and are looked on as men that have satisfied, not by their own personal sufferings, but those of his Son our surety.  
2. To the Minor, If by obedience is meant that he performed to the Common Law considered a part from that he performed to the Law of a Mediator. It's false, for God did not accept that on those terms to justify us with it or for it, as hath been ten times said and proved.  
If you means his passive obedience, so it may be granted, but than it will be a paralogism with 4▪ terms.  
1. We mean Christ active; and Passive obedience as hath been told you twenty times; and this we contend due in Christ as a surety by the Law of mediation.  
We say, what he did to the Moral Law was our debt, which our surety must pay, that we may live, it's part of his obedience by which we are made righteous. 
Qui sponsor pro nobis factus est at que totius nostri debiti solutionem in se suscepit, illius obedientia atque justitia nobis imputatur, et imputata valet eque ac si propria et nobis inherens fuisset. See p. 370. Christum autem ordinatum et acceptatum a deo pro sponsore nostro testatur Apostolus. 7. Herald 22. At Christus nostro nomine non modo subivit per pessionem crucis sed etiam impletionem Legis. Quando igitur in jus vocor, atque debitum Legis a me exigitur, ostendo: side justorem meum hoc debitum exolvisse, atque proinde me liberatum esse atque Chirographum illud quo obligatus tenebar, deletum esse et ab●ogatum. 2 Col. 14. Atque sie Christi justitia mihi prodest a● justificationem periude ac●● in ●● repertarta 〈…〉 fuisset, atque hoc est supplore vocem causae formalis, unde completi dicituur in Christo 〈◊〉 innobis, ver. 10. Argumenty.   
When you grant it of his sufferings, how can you exclude his obedience to the Moral Law, teaching the world that that obedience was an essential requisite to the benefit of justification; and it's no paralogism.  
9 Arg. If. Christ were a public person standing in the place of all those that should believe in him, than all he did and suffered are reputed as don and suffered by these, and imputed to them. But Christ was & c  
1. The Major is weak and untrue, his standing in the place of beluvers is no ground that all that he did and suffered are leaked on as done and suffered by them, as his incarnation, birth, circumcision, subjection to Joseph, etc. Redemption of the World, why should I a believing Gentile be looked on at one circumcised, what advantage have I to be looked on in Christ as one that was subject to Joseph, how should I fear and tremble to conceit that God should look on me as having redeemed the world out of the greatest acts Christ did.  
This argument is put in public words not proper to disgrace it, whose it is, as laid down I know not, but think it your own.  
I would put it, That which Christ did and suffered as the surety of believers in their stead, which they were debtors in to God; that's looked on as done and suffered by them▪ their's by imputation, the Scripture showeth him our surety: this is our Church's language, and it is Dr. Davenants Arg.  
Had you taken our Arguments as laid down and urged but this Doctors, it would have been somewhat: such hungry laying them down as is found in you, leaveth out their hart, and is not ingenuous.  
And here we may see how what you object would vanish, redemption of the world was none of my debt. It's enough that in him I have redemption.  
2. It hath been demonstrated that it's not truth to say the sufferings of Christ are locked on as mine, it may be said he suffered in my stead, we cannot be said to be punished for the same sins in and with Christ for which we have remission in his death, as Dr. Willet.  
1. Your demonstrations (as you love to speak) are all examined, and that in its place.  
2. We say no more but that he suffered in our stead, it is, perinde ac si in me reperia, aut à me prestita fuisset.  
What my surety doth, is as if I had done it, and so our Homily, every Christian man in him and by him may be called a fulfiller of the Law, what was lacking in us being supplied by him.  
3. The issue of the business is not all, our question is not about the effect, justification pardon, life. But that by which; which is granted to be by satisfaction made to God our Creditor by our surety Christ, which as it was performed for us, is ours imputed as the Scripture, the word saith, we have it by fellowship with his blood. I and with his obedience to death, by his obedience we are made righteous, when you say,  
4. It's not so sound a truth as supposed, that Christ stood in the stead or place of believers, in all things performed by him ... Christ did a thousand things and suffered many of which we had no necessity as to be borne of a Virgin:  
1. This is the same with the first: as it's laid down out of the Doctor, there are no such unlimited words, but as our surety, and as satisfaction for our debt.  
That we keep ourselves to, we say Christ for us; and we say that he was obedient that by it we may be made righteousness: You will us to see, c. 3. sect. 11. of the 2. part. Which you shall found examined.  
2. If Christ suffered many things we have no need of tell us whether it was for himself, or whom or in vain  
Arg. 10. If we cannot be justified by the righteousness of Christ otherwise than by imputation of it, than must it needs be imputed to us in our justification.  
But there's no way of being justified, but only by the imputation of it.  
You answer.  
The active obedience of Christ hath influence otherwise, qualifying the person for the Sacrifice of himself, by which justification is purchased, as before. That it's not by imputation hath been proved by 3 demonstrations and 4. and that our quiver is well nigh exhausted. I know not 2 Arguments more really differing.  
1. Your Demonstrations against imputation are all examined.  
2. Put that influence of the active obedience in to the sacrifice of Christ to make it propitiatory, I hope it doth not deny imputation, that's granted by those that hold only Christ's passive obedience: It's urged and observed by them that they may not be accounted Socinians, nor numbered with them. I see you will leave them there and be so yourself if you deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  
The Scripture layeth down imputation of righteousness, which is God's way of application, his giving it to us clothing us with it, without which we shall never be the better for it. And it followeth not that our quiver is exhausted because you know not more, one may judge you willingly ignorant. Let any man read our Worthies in this question, against Papists, and he shall read many arguments untouched; I wisse Arrows feathered and headed and shot in an other manner of bow, by an other manner of arm than is presented by you.  
They stick in the Babylonians sides, and you and they shall never be able to pluck them out.  
To omit that there's not one, but is managed against your gainsaying. But I will not word it.  
11 Arg. If we may be said truly to be dead with Christ, crucified, quickened raised, and to sit in in heavenly places with Christ, than may we be truly said to have fulfilled the Law with Christ also (there's no difference) and consequently it's imputed to us and counted ours.  
But we may be, etc.  
I protest against the Major's consequence, etc.  
Whose this is I know not, nor am I bound to spend time about it. It may be you made it as a man of clouts yourself, or mared it otherwise made, that you might shoot at it: the force that's aimed at (if I miss not) is to the same purpose that we have spoken to in that head of Communion of which enough, and so I'll pass to your last named argument.  
Arg. 12 Whosoever is a sinner and so continueth whilst he lives cannot be justified otherwise than by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. But every man, Christ only excepted is so.  
You Answer.  
If there be no other way or means the condition of the world is miserable, for such there's none, as hath been proved, beyond all reasonable denial, except I be mistaken:  
But blessed be the Father of mercies.— who without that Key hath opened an effectual doors of justification to sinners, believers are not under the Law but grace and there's no condemnation to them, and if any man sin we have an Advocate, etc. Dissolving guilt needs no imputation of the active obedience, the propitiation by blood hath done this service, before this imputation is supposed to come at them. The merit of Christ's death is not so far exhausted on pardon that it will not serve to acceptation, etc. Adoption is from his blood. The perfect holiness of his person and righteousness of his life presupposed as hath been said. He that hath communion with his death shall not know what to do with the imputation of his life, after it, but enough if not more than enough of this before.  
Here's enough indeed, and more than enough of this.  
1. Let the Reader judge an otherwhile, you may be mistaken, and in a miserable case, being so professed an enemy to imputation, and the cause of mistake to so many others.  
2. Who questions believers being under grace, or saith that they have condemnation? etc. will not these stand with imputation of righteousness? are you alone the Dr. of those conclusions? are your adversaries, enemies to those enclusions? you take too much upon you.  
3. Dissolving guilt needs imputation of righteousness; nay, thence followeth non-imputation of sin as the Apostle. And Paraeus so answereth Papists as before.  
4. Dissolution of sin's guilt by Christ's, blood before imputation is dissolution before application that which putteth the effect before the cause, your friends will not hold with you.  
5. Let the merit of Christ death be infinite if it be not applied, imputed by God, received by us, it will not have any effect, there's neither pardon, nor adoption; there must be communion with his death first, before there be the effects, which is by imputation.  
And who seethe not but that despised things, the holiness of Christ's person and righteousness of his life are supposed by yourself, to this efficacy of his blood, to make it a Sacrifice to justification, that without which Christ's death was in vain? and must there not be fellowship with it, bloods essential requisite also.  
Fellowship with one and other are together, not first with death than life, the issues are from both; imputed or given to us, received by faith. Will you separate blood and it's essential requisite or communion with them to Justification? you cannot.  
And now you make an end with, we have overcome, and yet I am not satisfied, and I have laboured to give you an account thereof, the issue I leave to God, praying in your form; The Lord by his Spirit lead us in to the way of truth and keep us that we turn not aside either to the right or left hand, that we may be sound built up in our holy faith and fitted for his everlasting Kingdom.  
Amen.    
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Add 1 Arg. p. 48. 1 Par. for first, p. 49. put 2. 2 par. for justitiam justitia. p. 12. for which righteous, in p. 13. p. 16. not to himself but us, read Christi p. 19  

2 Part in the Conclusions, Errata.  
For comprehensive, p. 76. par. 2. l 36. read comprehensor. and in the ne: tl. for hypostacie hypostatique. and p. 77. for even ours. l. 2. and for quam qnia. ib. l. 11. for Laws p. 78. read Law. for mere read none. l. 11. for truth, p. 8. penult. l. which for Dontiam r. Dawnham. p. 82. for in, p. 84. 2 par. as, for in or. p. 87. l. 34. for and, p. 88 one, l. 11. for for. p. 88 l. 18. so, deal by. l. 2●. ibid., for false, false, p. 89. l. 13. for corpopis, corpori. p. 89. for after both parts read sanctification se● before p. 91. for propitiation r. propagation. p. 92. for for, as ibid. l. 30. for, 8, 5, Rom. p. 93. for Christ's, Christ. p. 94. 4. 2. for fear, read, p. 95. for depri, deprivation. p 95. l. 33. for jud. joh. p. 97. add, is after william. p. 97. l. 30. for, when, than. p. 100 l. 7. deal A. p. 106. for, for, so. p. 107. for marvellous, meritorious. p. 110. add, or, we are or. p. 112. l. 2. for one, our. p. 112. 20. for nad, had. ibid. l. 37. for. Papists, Popish. p. 113. l. 2. deal, part of. p. 119. l. 2. and 5. in its ibid. and read for, in, is, ibid. for our the. ibid. l. 4. for 15. 26. ibid. deal that. ibid. l. 34. for our the. ibid. l. ult. deal, in the Margin. p. 12. for quadruplexi, quadruplex. p. 120. for Cossac. Tossan. from folio 120. to 127. mend what's amiss. for which with. p. 124. amended. p. 15, add in. p. 138. 31. for good God. p. 141. l. 21. ibid. add or, of Christ or, l. ult. for one are. p. 149. l. 34. deal her. 150. for minimium, minimum. p. 168. folio it right from fol. 119. to 113. for librotionis liberationis. p. 169. for insolent insolvent p. par. 2. p. 64. l. ult. Ceremony for Ceremonious p. 189. for merciful, unmerciful, p. 189. l. 31. for oculum poculum, p. 193. for pure impute, 194. read reapse, p. 202. and Socinus for Sociniws, p. 203. and put out, nor p. 204. l. 8. deal, is, p. 206. l. 17, righteous for righteousness, p. 208. p. 9▪