Lutherus Redivivus: OR, The Protestant Doctrine of JUSTIFICATION By Christ's Righteousness Imputed to BELIEVERS, Explained and Vindicated. PART II. By John Troughton Minister of the Gospel, sometimes Fellow of S. John's Coll. in Oxon.  Augustin. Epist. 105. Ad Sixtum Presbyterum Romanum. Nullane ergò sunt merita Justorum? Sunt planè, quia justi sunt; sed ut justi fierent, merita non fecerunt: Justi enim facti sunt, cum justificati sunt; sed sicut dicit Apostolus, Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. 
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Lee near Popes-Head-Alley in . 1678.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
IN the former Part of this Work I endeavoured to open and refute the Novel Opinion of Justification upon condition of Obedience to the Gospel: Which (however plausibly worded, and vented) is in substance no other, than the Old Popish Doctrine of Merits and Justification by Works: And wherein it is refined from the old School-Notions, it cometh but so much the nearer to Socinianism, from whence the whole Platform of this Doctrine was taken, and differs from it very little.  
In this present Treatise my work is to explain and confirm the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by God, and received by us by Faith, which is denied by the Assertors of Conditional Justification. They are indeed almost as loathe the People should know, that they deny us to be justified by the Merits or Righteousness of Christ, as once Steph. Gardner was, That the Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace should be preached to them: And for the same Reason, viz. The saving of their own Credit: And hence they tell us, That the Term of Imputation of Righteousness, is still to be retained: That Christ meriteth our Justification, That he is our Legal or Prolegal Righteousness, etc. They speak as like our Orthodox Divines as they can, that it may not commonly appear wherein they differ: Yet in all this, they mean no more but that Christ by his Obedience, or Death, or both, obtained a New Covenant for us, i e. the Evangelical Law, which if we fulfil, and continue in it to the end of our Lives, we shall have our Sins pardoned, shall be accepted and saved. So that the Righteousness for which we shall be accepted, and made Heirs of Eternal Life, is our Obedience to the Gospel, not the Obedience or Righteousness of Jesus Christ; and with them the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness to us for Justification, is our being justified by our own Obedience to the Gospel-Covenant, which Christ procured by his Righteousness; not our being justified or accepted to life for the Righteousness of Christ intended, and performed immediately and only for us, as all Protestants have hitherto taught, except the Dutch Arminians, and their Followers. They do endeavour to obscure and perplex the Question what they can, partly by the Rhetorical, and sometimes Imprudent Expressions of Popular Preachers and Writers, (which ought rather to be interpreted and qualified, than exagitated to the prejudice of Truth) and partly by the Philosophical Notions and School-Terms accommodated to this Doctrine as well as others, and too much transferred from the Schools of the Learned to the Pulpit and popular Congregations: From both these they pick matters of quarrel against this received and fundamental Truth: And always propose the Question in such terms, that it may seem they dispute only against the Antinomians, or some that have spoke too like them; or else some Logical Notions and Formalities of School-Divines: Amongst all that I have read with some care to know the true state of the Question, and what the New Doctrine of those men is, I have not met with one that doth fairly and ingenuously state the Question according to the Sense, which they intent, and dispute for: But they always thrust in some terms liable to exception, which belong not to the substance of the Question itself, e. g. They usually propound the Question thus:  
Whether Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, so that we are accounted by God to have done and suffered all, that Christ did and suffered for us, whether we fulfil the Law in him, and suffered the Penalty of it in him.  
And then they infer from the Doctrine of Imputation in general, what followeth only from their misrepresenting it, That we satisfied for ourselves, obeyed and suffered for ourselves, were our own Mediators and Saviour's, etc. Which Consequences seem not only uncooth but absurd I and are readily received by the unlearned and precipitant Wits, who had rather seem ingenious in finding fault with old received Doctrines, than take pains to understand them throughly.  
I have endeavoured to divest the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness Imputed, of the Additions, both of School-Notions, and popular Rhetoric; and to present it in the plain Scriptural dress, to prove it by plain Scripture and Arguments deduced thence, in the three first Chapters; and then to examine their Objections against it, which, when they are leveled against the Question as it is plainly stated, are so inconsiderable, that I cannot but wonder, that Learned and Pious men should lay so great a stress upon them, as to innovate, and alter the Doctrine which all the Protestants have professed, writ, and died for; this is done in the fourth Chapter, In the fifth and sixth I examine the original and true meaning of the opposite Opinion and refute it. In the rest of the Book I explain and defend the Instrumental Office of Faith in justifying us, and answer the Objections against it.  
The Question betwixt us is plainly this.  
Whether God doth justify Believing Sinners, i. e. acquit them from Gild and Punishment, and give them a Right to Eternal Life for their own Obedience to the Gospel? Or immediately for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for them, and trusted in by them, as it is declared in the Promises of the Gospel?  
The former they affirm, and we have disproved in the other Part: The latter they deny, and we affirm, and ●●ove, viz. That God doth accept believing Sinners, and gives them a certain grant of Eternal Life directly and immediately for the Obedience of Christ ●●ought for them and proposed to them 〈◊〉 the Promises.  
We say further, As to impute Sin 〈◊〉 to account a man a Sinner, and judiciously to charge his Sin upon him to ●●s Condemnation; when a person hath ●●thority to do it: So to impute Righteousness is to account a man Righteous, and judicially to discharge him ●●om accusation, and to grant him the privileges and Benefits belonging to 〈◊〉 Righteous Man: And therefore when righteousness is said to be imputed 〈◊〉 us without Works, the meaning is, ●●at God accepteth us as Righteous, ●schargeth us from all the Accusations 〈◊〉 the Law, and grants us Right to all spiritual Blessings without any respect 〈◊〉 our Obedience: But immediately ●●d properly for the Righteousness of ●●rist, wrought for us, which is therefore said, to be imputed to us; because 〈◊〉 are reputed or accepted as righteous for that Righteousness alone, trusted i● by us upon the ground of God's own Premise of accepting us in Christ, an● Christ's Intention of doing, and suff●●ring all he did for us alone, to the ●●tent that our sins should be taken aw●● and we are made Heirs of Eternal L●● thereby.  
Our Opposites on the other side aff●●● That Christ did not obey or suffer 〈◊〉 Penalty of the Law of Works for 〈◊〉 properly, that we should be justified 〈◊〉 that Obedience or Death of his: B●● that God imposed on him a certain, ●●culiar Law, made up partly of the M●ral Law, and partly of some Spe●● Commands to him, which he fulfilling as a Mediator betwixt God and M●● God thereupon might justly, and perhaps would, give men as moderate, 〈◊〉 easy a Law, by fulfilling whereof the● should be saved, the obedience whe●● to should be their Righteousness, th●● which should give them right to Life.  
Against this Opinion divers Learn● and Pious Men wrote in the form Generation: As Mr. Caple in an Appendix to his Treatise of Temptations, Mr. Anth. Burgess in his Second Part of Justification, Mr. Lyford his Book against Errors, Mr. Blake, and reverend Mr. Norton of New-England, Anno 1653; in Answer to one Mr. Pinchin, who denied the Imputation of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience ●o us, or that it was performed for us ●s Obedience to the Moral Law; But ●hat Christ was a Mediatorial Sacrifice for us, much after the same notion that 〈◊〉 now vented, of his fulfilling the Law ●f a Mediator: Which Book of Mr. Norton, because it is not very common, I will transcribe the Sum of it, ●s it is reduced by himself into three Particulars in the Conclusion; and the ●ather, because it declareth the thoughts ●f the danger of this Opinion, which ma●y would persuade us differs but in words from the Orthodox, and the Difference 〈◊〉 of no great consequence, and that ●●e do not rightly understand the meaning of their Authors, for whom they ●ave so great reverence: Like the Physician who seeing in a dissected Body, ●hat all the Nerves have their Original from the Brain, said, he should have believed it was so indeed, if Aristotle 〈◊〉 not writ that they proceed from the Hea●● Mr. Norton's words are:  
Taking Heresy for a Fundament●● Error, 
p. 267.  i. e. such as whosoever ●●●veth and dieth in, cannot be saved● The Dialogue containeth three Heresies: The first denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect un●● Christ, and his suffering the Punishment due thereto: The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law, and there with that he obeyed for us as ou● Surety: The third denying the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification, destroying the very Being of a Sinner's Righteousness by taking away the Obedience o● Christ unto the Law, and Imputation, which are the Matter and Form, i. e. the essential Causes of Justification; and placing a Sinner's Righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or Pardon of sin, such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny itself to be the Effect of, but denieth, yea and defieth the very Being of the Mediatorial Obedience of Christ to the Law for us.  
With him in this his apprehension concurred divers Ministers in New-England, as appears by their Letter annexed to his Book, which is subscribed, John Cotton, Rich. Mather, Zech. Simmes, John wilson, William Thompson. And having prefaced so much concerning the nature and weight of the Controversy, I commend the Book to the serious consideration of the Reader, and am  
Thine in the Work of the Gospel J. TROUGHTON.   

Lutherus Redivivus: OR, The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed to Believers, Explained and Vindicated.  

CHAP. I. The Nature of Justification explained, and that it is not a mere forgiving of Sin.  
THE Doctrine of Justification by Free Grace and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, hath been so abundantly defended by our Protestant Writers of every Nation and every University, professing the Reformed Religion, that I need say little to confirm it; and especially seeing I have met with nothing in our late Authors objected against it, but what hath been frequently objected against it by the Papists before, and as frequently answered by our Writers: The chief Work is to discover the Artifice wherewith the New Doctrine of Conditional Justification is covered and made plausible; whereas it is indeed the Old Popish and Arminian Doctrine of Justification by Works, as I hope I have in some measure proved in the former Part. Yet that this Treatise may be complete, and that we may not seem only distruere aliena, and not at all adstruere propria, I shall endeavour briefly to explain the received Doctrine of Justification and imputed Righteousness. And first of the Nature of Justification. Our fore cited Authors and their Friends generally affirm, That the Justification of a Sinner before God is nothing else but a full Pardon of all Sins, both of Omission and Commission, whereby all guilt and obligation to punishment being removed, Man is restored ipso facto to his former State, and to all those Privileges which by Sin he forfeited. This they maintain that they may the more effectually overthrow the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, supposing that if the bare Remission of Sin doth both acquit from Punishment and restore a Right to Life or Blessedness, than there needeth no positive Righteousness to be imputed to entitle to life and to make us acceptable with God. This is the main drift of Mr. Hotchkis his Book about Imputation of Righteousness; 
Great Propis. p. 110. etc.  and is largely prosecuted by Mr. Trueman, not without many confident mistakes. But this Opinion overthroweth their own Doctrine of Justification upon condition of our Obedience, as well as ours of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and more; which I thus prove.  
Mere Pardon of Sin is nothing else but a Discharge from the Process of the Law, that a Man should not suffer the Penalties of it, but enjoy quietly his former freedom and privileges notwithstanding his Offences. Now this Discharge requireth no Righteousness at all, our own no more than Christ's, This Pardon makes a Man righteous in the Law (they say) i. e. The Law hath no more to do with him or to say against him; he is as free from all condemnation as if he were innocent, and had fulfilled the Law. Hence it follows that a Man is justified without the intervening condition of his own Obedience: If any positive righteousness be necessary to pardon, it is not mere pardon: And why may not Christ's Righteousness imputed be joined with and be the Cause of Pardon, as well as our own sincere Obedience? To say a Man is justified upon the condition of Gospel Obedience (which is our Inherent Righteousness) and that he is justified by the bare Remission of Sins, is a Contradiction. Moreover, these Authors do acknowledge that Christ merited the Pardon of Sin, so that a Sinner is justified or pardoned and so restored to favour for the sake of Christ's Satisfaction. Doth it not then follow that the Death of Christ is the Cause of Pardon; than it is not mere pardon, but pardon procured or merited: and if Christ's Death be the meritorious cause of pardon to every Believer, than it is imputed or applied to every pardoned sinner: For no cause can produce its effects without Application to the Subject, in whom the effect is wrought; and the Application of a meritorious cause to the Subject for whom it meriteth, is Imputation, or accounting that what was done by that Cause was done for that Person. And thus we see this Doctrine maketh more against themselves than against us. But that Justification includeth more than Pardon of Sin, even a positive Righteousness, whereby Man is accepted to Life Eternal, I shall thus evince.  
1. From the Notation of the Words. To Pardon is only to release from the Penalty of the Law; but to Justify is to Acquit in Judgement, to discharge from guilt and accusation, Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? it is God that Justifieth. It is confessed that to justify an innocent person is to acquit; but to justify a Sinner, they say is only to forgive him: But in what Language doth the word so signify? When the King pardoneth an Offender, doth any man say, doth the Law ever say the King justifies him? A Brother is commanded to forgive his Brother from the Heart; and so Job did no doubt forgive his Friends, and yet he saith, God forbidden I should Justify you. 
Job. 27. v. 4.  Is any Man said to justify him whom he pardoneth? Why should the Scripture besides the familiar words of Pardoning and Forgiving use another term, viz. to Justify? which in its Etymology and common use signifieth to declare Righteous, and yet mean no more by Justification than bare Forgiveness.  
'Tis said, A full Pardon makes a Man righteous, forasmuch as he that is discharged from all Sin, is accounted not to have broke the Law; and not to have broke it, is all one as to have fulfilled it: But this is a mistake; He that forgives an Offender does not therefore account or make him Righteous, though he will not exact the Penalty of him. Pardon doth suppose a Man to have been a Sinner, and so it leaves him as one that hath deserved punishment, though by favour he is exempted from it; the Law still chargeth him with sin and sentenceth him to punishment, though the Judge supersedeth his Sentence and will not execute the Law.  
But it is said, 
Great Prop. p. 121.  Pardon is dissolutio obligationis ad poenam, dissolveth the Obligation to punishment; and when there is no obligation to punishment, a man is innocent and hath right to impunity.  
I Answer: The Antecedent is untrue; The Obligation to punishment ariseth from the  Nature of the Law, which (being broken) exacteth punishment as a due Debt. The Wages of Sin is death, Rom. 6.23. So that if pardon take away the obligation to punishment, it maketh sin to be no sin: But sin is sin though forgiven, and the Sinner deserves to die although he shall not die. Pardon taketh away the Ordination or Destination of a Man to Punishment that he is not appointed to die, but not the Obligation that he doth not deserve to die. I conclude Pardon doth not render a Man as innocent, as no Transgressor, and therefore 'tis not all one with justifying or declaring righteous.  
2. From those Phrases whereby Justification is expressed, Eph. 1.4. It is paraphrased thus: As he hath chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. He who is only forgiven his Sins, is not accounted as holy and blameless: Pardon supposeth guilt and that which some call reatum culpae, the guilt of the fault remaineth after pardon, viz. That such a Man hath broken the Law, and by such habits or actions he hath been disobedient to the Commands. Pardon only takes away reatum penoe, the appointment of a Man to punishment, therefore there must be something more to render men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy and blameless before God, and Objects of his Love. Rom 4.3, 4, 5. Justification is called Imputing of Righteousness; And Rom. 10.5, 6. Justification by Works and by Faith are opposed by the Names of the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith. To justify therefore is to reckon or to declare in judgement, that a Man is righteous, and as if Man had been justified by the Law of Works he had then been pronounced righteous: So now he is to be justified by Faith, he is to be declared righteous by the Righteousness of Faith, though not of Works. Therefore Justification is more than Forgiveness.  

Object.  'Tis said Pardon maketh a Man Righteous, as if he had not broken the Law.  

Answ.  
Ans; w.  This hath been answered before: I am sure we should take it very ill if one that hath greatly offended us, and received his life and all from our Mercy, should plead that he is as good as an innocent or righteous person, because he is exempted from the Punishment he deserved.  

Object.  A person of quality argues thus: If pardon be not a Sinners Righteousness, and maketh him not righteous, than a man may be pardoned and be unrighteous still in the eye of the Law; which he thinketh absurd, 
Justific. Evangelical, p. 18.  or else there must be a medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous, which he thinketh impossible.  

Answ.  Both parts of the disjunction are untrue: the first, that he that is pardoned is not unrighteous still: for if by favour punishment be remitted, and no satisfaction be made to the Law, than the Law remains broken still, and he is a Sinner still though forgiven. For it is not the Law that pardoneth (if that might take effect it would condemn) but the Lawgiver by his own Prerogative; which pardon is not therefore looked upon as the fulfilling or the Righteousness of the Law. But if (as in our case) the Law was satisfied, and by reason of that satisfaction man is pardoned (as this worthy Author acknowledgeth a little before) than that satisfaction of the Law repaireth the Breach of it, and so there is the real righteousness of the Law, first imputed to a Man, and then by reason thereof he is pardoned, i.e. acquitted from punishment to which he was obnoxious before: And thus here is a fair Contradiction that a Man is justified by a righteousness satisfactory to the Law yet barely pardoned. The second part of the Disjunction; That there is no medium betwixt being righteous and unrighteous is also untrue; we speak of a declarative Righteousness. Now it is apparent that there is a Middle betwixt being justified and being condemned, viz. Medium negationis, or rather privationis. Adam before he fell was not condemned, having not yet sinned; nor was he justified, having not finished that course of obedience to which life was promised: It is true he was righteous inherently, and also in the eye of the Law, so far as he had obeyed, and so far might be said to be justified, viz. Inchoatively. But in this Question we take justification for that perfect Act whereby a Sinner is fully acquitted and accepted to life eternal, and thus Adam was not justified, and therefore in a middle state: So then, Pardon doth not make a Man righteous or justified, but in the precise Notion of it, it is a Middle betwixt condemnation and justification, viz. Non-condemnation, but if you add that a Man is forgiven for Christ's sake, than you add something besides Mere Pardon and so desert the Question.  
3. I argue from the nature of Justification ●s it is discovered in its immediate and most proper Effects; the chief whereof is this, That ●t giveth a firm and immutable Right to Eternal Life. Our Opposites and we differ about ●ustification in this Life: They say it is imperfect and mutable, we say 'tis perfect and immutable; but we agree in this, That Justification whenever it is perfect and complete gives an immutable Right to life, such as shall ●ever be lost as Adam's was.  
Hence I argue, Mere Pardon or Relaxation ●f punishment doth not give an immutable ●ight to life, but only restores a Man to the condition he was in before, and leaveth him as subject and liable to lose it by new sins as e●er he was: But Justification by Christ doth ●ot only restore Man to the Condition he was ●n before, subject to change, but giveth him ●n unchangeable Right to Life Eternal; therefore it is more than Pardon: And further, that which gives an immutable right to life, must suppose the Law to be fulfilled, which promised life, which being fulfilled, there is nothing further to be required, nor any further danger of a threatening of death, but man is to be declared Righteous, and to receive the promised Reward. But Justification giveth such a ●ull and immutable right to life, therefore it supposeth fulfilling of the Law, by ourselves ●r another; and a Righteousness thence ari●ng, for which we are declared Righteous ●nd receive the promised Life.  

Object.  'Tis said, Full pardon (such as God's Pardon is) delivereth from all punishment, sensu & damni, 
Trum. ut supra.  from all positive punishment, and from the privation of all Privileges which were or should have been enjoyed before; and this is equivalent to a right to life in the nature of the thing. For when a Man is exempted from all punishment and restored to his for men Estate or Favour with God, he is then in stat● quo prius, in the condition he was in before he sinned.  

Answ.  By this Argument, Pardon should restore man into the Condition of Adam before hi● Fall, which is apparently false: For that i● the State from whence he fell by sin, and to which Mere Pardon must restore him, at leas● when it is complete, at the last Judgement: but neither than is man restored into Adam's condition, but to a new State of Happiness by the Redeemer.  
Besides, this Argument makes strongly against themselves, for the Condition from which man fell was but a State of Probation, wherein he had no immutable right to life; therefore Pardon restoring him but to his former Condition, putteth him again but into a State of Probation, and giveth no certain right to life. Nay by this Doctrine Sin is not pardoned in this Life: A Man is not acquitted or put out of danger of punishment, seeing his Salvation dependeth upon conditions which must be in fulfilling till his lives end: So that Pardon with them is no more, than a Suspension of punishment, together with a promise of life and impunity if man fulfil the Conditions of the Gospel. This putteth a Man into a possibility of life, but giveth him no actual or certain Title to it, and therefore is not Justification.  
4. The next Effect of Justification is a new Heart or Grace to fit and bring man to life which Justification entitleth to. The Spirit of Sons and the Glory of Heaven are the Fruits of Adoption; but Life and Happiness simply, and the Spirit of Sanctification are the Effects of Justification, Heb. 8.10, 11, 12, 13. The new Heart is promised as an Effect of forgiveness of sin. Hence I argue, That which gives with the right to life all the means necessary to attain life is more than pardon of sin: But Justification by Christ gives a right to all the Means necessary to attain eternal life, as well as to life itself: Ergò, The Reason of the Major is, pardon in the common notion of it, and with our Opposites, doth only put a man into that state or favour he was in before, but in that condition there was no certainty of grace to persevere and to come to life. When we pardon an Offender we receive him into our former favour, and lay aside all thoughts of enmity, but we do not count ourselves engaged by all means possible to endeavour to prevent his offending for the future; that care resteth on him; therefore if Justification give a right to the Grace of God which shall be effectual to bring us to life, it is more than pardon, or putting us into our former condition wherein we had no such promise. Mr. Truman ingeniously confesseth (what is the natural consequence of his Opinion) That Christ by his Satisfaction did not purchase grace to bring men to life, 
Great Propit. p. 203. etc.  but only a Law of Grace, whereby it was possible for all men to be saved i● they would, and God might justly save them, if they performed the Terms of that Law. He saith, Indeed Christ by the supereminency of his Person and Redemption did deserve that his Death should not be in vain, and consequently that some men should have grace given them 〈◊〉 bring them to Heaven, but that he did not preperly merit this Grace should be given them; So that this is a point of honour to Christ, not o● Justice or Debt upon the account of his Sufferings, that some should have Saving and Persevering Grace. Yet he acknowledgeth that th● Father of his own good Pleasure giveth this grac● to those whom he hath chosen: So than the gift o● Grace is the immediate Fruit of Election not of Justification. But this Doctrine is as fall● as new: Man's Sin deprived him of Grace as well as of Happiness, and therefore if Christ purchased a right to Happiness for him (which shall be proved in the next Chapter) he purchased Grace also to attain it; the Means are included in the end. The loss of the denial o● Grace is the Effect of Sin, therefore the restoring of Grace is the Effect of full Pardon and Justification. The Scriptures teach that all sulness of Grace was given to Christ, that we might receive of his Fullness Grace for Grace, John 1.14, 16. He hath power to send the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever. Joh. 14.16. And the pouring out of the Spirit was reserved till his Work of Redemption was finished, and he should be possessed of Glory, John 16.7. And then he promised the Spirit ●o lead us into all truth, to reveal himself to us, and to glorify him in us, v. 12, 13, 14. Lastly, He prayed for sanctifying Grace and perseverance for them that did, and all that should hereafter believe, till they all come to be one in him, John 17.15, 16, 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace committed to the Mediator, if not purchased by him, and why doth he intercede for that he never bought and paid for? If then Christ purchased Grace as well as a Right to Life, than Justification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life itself, and so is more than Pardon.  
5. I argue from the Impulsive Causes; Pardon is an Act of mere Mercy, but Justification is an Act of Justice; therefore it is not mere Pardon. God justifieth Believers not as a mere Act of Favour, though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulsive cause of Justification, and all the Fruits of it, but immediately, it is an Act of Justice, Justice being the immediate Impulsive Cause. It is not only a Just thing with God to justify a Sinner through Christ, that he may do it without wrong to his Justice, as some gloss it; but it is an Act of proper Justice, having received satisfaction to his Law, to justify and acquit him; it would not be just to deny it. This is intimated, Rom. 8.33, 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? It is God that Justifieth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Who shall indite or implead them in course of Law or Judgement (or else there is enough to be charged against them.) The Reason is, because it is God that justifieth, God who is to be Judge, to give the Sentence, and therefore will justify judicially or as an Act of Judgement: And the ground of this is in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Who shall condemn in Judgement, seeing Christ has died and so satisfaction is made to Justice? When we pardon an Offence, which we might justly punish, we do cedere de jure, forbear our Right, and Justice gives place to Mercy; but Justice cannot pardon or acquit unless it be satisfied, unless it have what is right and due according to Law.  

Object.  But it is said, That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law, so it is an Act of Justice as well as of Mercy: 
Vid. Justiif. Evang. p. 23.  So Truman. They say a Sinner is not pardoned, by Free Grace and Absolute Pardon, but upon conditions and terms required in the Gospel to be performed by him, which when he hath performed, the Evangelical Law doth justify him, pronounce him pardoned, and so his Pardon is an Act of Justice according to the Gospel Law, though not according to the Law of Works, which is content with nothing but Satisfaction.  

Answ.  Let any fair Disputant judge whether this 〈◊〉 not to shift the Question: They have said, ●●at Justification is mere Pardon, bare Pardon, nothing but Pardon, and yet it is not ab●●ute Pardon, but Pardon upon condition to 〈◊〉 performed by him that will receive Pardon. ●●re not these Conditions when performed our ●●angelical Righteousness? This they con●●d for; And are they not a positive Righteousness? Yes, they are Gospel Obedience: ●●hat sense is it then to say we are pardoned ●●thout any positive Righteousness, that Pardon alone is all our Righteousness. It may be ●●ese conditions are so small and so necessary to ●●e receiving of pardon ex natura rei, that ●●y are not to be accounted as any righteousness: Nay, but in the Gospel Law, all the ●●oral Duties that were required in the Covenant of Works are required still, though not ●●th the same necessity of perfection: And ●●w they are much more difficult than before. ●●me Moral Duties are required also and necessary, which were not directly nnd properly ●●uties under the First Covenant; as Self-de●●l, Mortification, and bearing the Cross. ●●sides these the Gospel prescribeth new possible Duties, which neither were nor could be ●●uties under the Law of Works, viz. Faith, ●●ve, and Obedience to the Mediator, with 〈◊〉 holy and reverend use of all the positive In●●tutions of the Gospel. Are these small things, ●●s it necessary to mere Pardon, that the pardoned should not only return to their form Duty, but also receive new Terms, and Conditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince subdue Rebels, and then promi●● them Impunity, if besides returning to the●● ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive some new Terms; which he shall please to impose on them, doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way 〈◊〉 Mercy, so in a way of Sovereignty, giust them new Laws, and making advantage to himself and accession to his Power by occasion 〈◊〉 their misdemeanour? Besides, this is ve●● improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law: For a Law is properly preceptive, and judicial Proceed are acquitting or condemning for keeping or breaki●● the Law. Pardon is granted by supersed●● the Sentence of the Law, at least the Execution of it, or by a Promise or Declaration 〈◊〉 Grace, which when established for security's sake and promulgated, is sometimes called a● Act of Grace, yet it hath not the full Nature of a Law. It is the Sovereign Legislator wh●● pardoneth, who hath power to relax the Execution of the Law; a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of those men is, Th●● God seeing through the Fall it was become impossible for man to keep, and so to be sa●● by the Law of Works, was pleased to ma●● a new, milder, and easier Law, and to decla●● that if they would keep it, they should 〈◊〉 pardoned and saved: Pardon then with the●● is nothing else but a waving of the Covenant of Works, i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant, if they will submit to his new Covenant; so then for all their specious words of mere Pardon to exclude Christ's Righteousness, they only mean that God will not execute his First Covenant which men have broken, but will save them if they fulfil his Second Covenant, i. e. will be righteous and obedient according to the Gospel, and thus they acknowledge a righteousness of a man's own, besides pardon whereby he must he justified.  
6. The Law requireth a positive righteousness by the fulfilling of it: The end of every Law being obedience to it. 
Just. Evang. p. 38, 39  Therefore Justification cannot be Pardon of Sin without Imputation of Righteousness. 'Tis said, That the Law of Works required a sinless perfect righteousness, which Christ hath satisfied for; but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant, accepting an imperfect Righteousness. But this is nothing to the purpose; let the righteousness be such as the Law will accept, perfect or imperfect, it is all one, if the Law doth require a positive righteousness, than a man cannot be justified without it: And do not they themselves teach that the Gospel requireth obedience to it, as our Evangelical Righteousness, therefore that cannot justify us without a righteousness conformed to itself. 'Tis said further, Legal Justification, 
Ibidem.  i. e. according to the Law of Works, requireth a fulfilling of that Law, but not Evangelical Justification, A fallacy in words: Legal and Evangelical Justification differ not specie sed modo applicationis, not in the righteousness which justifieth, but in the manner of its application to us. Had we fulfilled the Law of Works, we had been legally justified by our own righteousness, but now Christ hath fulfilled that Law for us we are still legally justified, to wit, by the righteousness of that Law; yet in an Evangelical or Gracious manner, that righteousness being not our own but Christ's imputed to us (a● shall be proved in the next Chapter) and I beseech you when men are justified, i. e. pardoned, (say you) what Law is it that accuseth them, for the violation whereof they are pardoned? Is it not the Law of Works? (for i● they break the Gospel Covenant there is n● more sacrifice for sin.) There must then be a legal Justification by that Law of Works, unless it be wholly waved and made void by the Gospel.  

Object.  But the Law of Works is satisfied by the suffering of Christ, and so pardon of all sins i● a sufficient Justification from it: 
Great Prop. p. 116.  There needeth not Obedience and suffering too.  

Answ.  The Law doth not directly and immediately require both obedience and suffering the penalty, but obedience only is the end of the Law; suffering the penalty is no fulfilling of, or proper satisfaction to the Law, but a recompense to Justice for the breach of the Law, that so contempt may not lie upon it: so that if the Law be broken it doth accidentally require both obedience and suffering of punishment; the latter for the recompense of injured Justice, that the Law may not be despised or broken impunè, and the former as that which is the proper and natural end of the Law. When a man suffereth the penalty of any Law, the Law is so far satisfied that it can exact no farther punishment, but doth he therefore deserve the rewards of the Law, as if he had obeyed it? He is indeed restored to his former State, i. e. punishment ceaseth and he is admitted to the privilege of other men to live in obedience to the Law for the future, but he hath not the reward of obedience, nor is accounted for his suffering to be upon the same terms with the obedient: In like manner, our Lord Christ by suffering the penalties of the Law did recompense the injured Honour and Justice of God, and of the Law, so that it could require no more punishment of him or of those that believe in him; but he did not therefore deserve the rewards of the Law, they were procured by his obedience to it. It is not true of the Law of God, that it requireth either to be obeyed, or that the penalty should be endured; for so men should obey and fulfil the Law in a sort by going to hell for breaking it. The Law promised life only to obedience, not to the suffering of death; therefore Christ by suffering of death did fulfil what the Law required, but accidentally and secondarily by reason of sin, but by obeying the Law he fulfilled the primary and immediate end of the Law, and so merited the promised reward. There must therefore be a righteousness of conformity to the Law, whereby must be procured a right to life, as well as a suffering of the penalty, whereby a stop is put to further punishment, which is all that mere pardon of sin amounteth to. Upon these grounds I take leave to describe Justification an Act whereby God doth acquit and accept a Sinner as righteous unto life eternal for the righteousness of Christ, whereby he hath fulfilled the precept and suffered the penalty of the Law. Justification actively taken is God's Act acquitting or declaring a man righteous; passively taken it is a man's state or relation to that Act of God, being declared and accepted as righteous, of which as it supposeth a change from a former state of guilt and condemnation; the terminus a quo, or state from which he is tranflated is a state of Sin and wrath; the terminus ad quem, is a state of absolution or being righteous before God; pardon of sin or stop of punishment is included in it, or doth immediately result from it; so that Justification is one single Act and not several concurring to make it up, though divers things are given or granted by it, either immediately or consequentially, as flowing from the immediate effect or benefit of it. The main Argument against this Doctrine is, That the Scripture doth frequently describe Justification by pardon and forgiveness, as if they were aequipollent terms: But the reason of this is, First, Because men being sensible of sin and misery, do first look after pardon, and therefore pardon is promised as that which will be most welcome and comfortable to them; and also because men should be fensible of their own guilt, and in capacity of making satisfaction to God; and therefore that the righteousness by which they must be justified is not their own but Christ's, nor contrived or provided by them but by God himself for them. What then, Justification is called pardon of sin, ergò, it is nothing else but Pardon; This is no consequence.  

Object.  But the Apostle, Rom. 4. fully describeth Justification, the nature of it; and he saith, v. 6, 7. That Blessedness cometh by forgiving, 
Justif. Evang. p. 27.  covering, not imputing sin.  

Answ.  But he saith also, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now in the place here quoted, Gen. 15.6. and the context, there is a promise of positive Blessing made to. Abraham, and he believed that promise, and this was accounted to him for righteousness. Shall we say Abraham believed, and this was accounted for pardon of sin? There is a positive righteousness intimated as well as a positive act whereby it was procured and applied, and positive promises granted thereupon. David indeed under great horrors for his sin comforts himself most with apprehensions of forgiveness as most suitable to his case, but what good will the fullest pardon imaginable do a man without a certain right to eternal life, and a promise of effectual Grace to bring him to it? will he not sin again and so lose the benefit of his former pardon?  

Object.  But a Sinner is capable of no other righteousness, but that of forgiveness.  

Answ.  What then must become of the Evangelical Righteousness of Faith and Works, which they contend for? A Sinner can have no other righteousness but mere pardon, if it must rest upon him to satisfy or to provide satisfaction for the Law: But doth this hinder God's providing and bestowing on him the righteousness of his Son? As a Bankrupt is capable of nothing, but to have his debt freely forgiven him, for aught that he can do towards satisfaction, yet this hindereth not but his Friend may pay the Debt for him, and so render him solvent in Law.  
'Tis once more said, 
Object. Iust●●. Evang. p. 35, 36.  If a Sinner be not made Righteous by pardon, but may be counted a Sinner still, then by the same reason, when Christ his Righteousness is imputed, that being not his own Obedience he may be counted a Sinner still, and so be Righteous and a Sinner at the same time, which implieth a loud Contradiction.  

Answ.  It is no Contradiction being not eodem respectu, not in the same respect or in the same sense: A man is a Sinner in himself and righteous in Christ, the Law pronounceth him a Sinner, and sentenceth him to death, but the Lawgiver who is above the Law accepteth Christ's fulfilling the Law for him; and thus being admitted upon Christ's account, the Law itself must acknowledge him Righteous.   

CHAP. II. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers explained and proved.  
HAving proved that to Justify is to accept as Just or Righteous, and likewise that our own Obedience is not, cannot be, the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God, it remaineth that it must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, for and by which we must be justified, and this is now to be proved. But before we come to the Proof we shall briefly inquire, What we mean by Christ's Righteousness, and what by the Imputation of it. The Righteousness of Christ, which we say is imputed to a Sinner for his Justification, is that Righteousness which he fulfilled or wrought in conformity to the Law of God, whereby the Law violated by us, was fulfilled, and satisfied for us, and in our stead, Rom. 10.4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth. Therefore it is not the Righteousness of his Divine Person, which is imputed to us; for that is Infinite, such as men are uncapable of, and 'twas never required from them: Yet the Perfections of his Godhead do add the meritorious Dignity to his Satisfaction. Nor is it the connate habitual Righteousness of his Manhood: For this is presupposed to enable to the performance of the Law, but not properly required by the Law, yet the Law requireth the preservation and exercise of perfect inherent righteousness. Adam was created perfect to make him capable of receiving a Law of perfect obedience; therefore that Law supposed a Holy Nature and only required continuance in that perfection of Nature which he had received. In like manner, it was necessary that Christ should be born with a perfect, holy Nature, that he might undertake the fulfilling of the Law for us; and the preserving and exercise of that Holiness once received was a part of his obedience to the Law: but that Holiness as natural and habitual was antecedent to the obedience of the Law, and therefore no prober part of it. Christ's Righteousness then which is imputed to us, is his Holy Life in obedience to the Law of God, and his voluntary obediential suffering the Penalties of the Law unto death itself, for us and in our stead. By the latter he made satisfaction for our sins and breach of the Law, and by the former he fulfilled the Law in the proper and principal design of it, and thereby purchased eternal life, which was promised by the Law to them that fulfil it. By obeying the substance of the Moral Law, as given to Mankind and suffering death, the Penalty thereof, he satisfied the Law and wrought Righteousness for men in general; and by obeving the Jewish Law, and suffering the penalties, and that kind of death threatened, and accursed particularly by ●t, he wrought righteousness for the Jews, Gal. 4.4, 5. Now when we say, This Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believes, reckoned or accounted theirs, Rom. 4.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not mean, that they are accounted to have done and suffered those Actions and Penalties which Christ was Author of and endured. Christ and Believers are still distinct, natural persons, and so the actions and passions of one person cannot be reckoned properly the actions and passions of the other: Nor do we teach, by imputing Christ's Righteousness to Believers, that God looketh upon them as if they had done and suffered in their own persons what Christ did in his, in any proper sense. For Christ only is accounted the Author of his own Righteousness, and though Believers be justified by it, yet the honour of working that righteousness, and of being the proper subject of its Inherence belongeth to Christ alone. But by Imputation we mean, that God accounteth the Righteousness of Christ to have been wrought by him for every one that believeth, and doth justify or accept them to life eternal: for that very righteousness believed or trusted in, according to the promise of the Gospel, and so Christ's Righteousness is reckoned theirs, or reckoned to them, put to their account, as if it were theirs, not efficienter, but effectiuè; not as if they had wrought it, but that they may have the full benefit of it, and be justified by it as effectually as if they had obeyed the Law perfectly in their own persons. This is that which our Divines mean by saying Christ righteousness is ours in law, that Christ and Believer are one in Law, viz. that the Law ●f God is as truly and sully satisfied for us by ●he righteousness of Christ, as if we had fulfilled it ourselves; and that God being pleased ●o admit of the fulfilling of the Law by Christ ●or us, the Law doth pronounce us righteous ●nd Heirs of life, for that righteousness which Christ wrought in obedience to it. In this ●ence also they say, That the very formal righteousness of Christ is a Believers righteousness or imputed to him, viz. not that a Believer is reckoned to have wrought that righteousness as an efficient cause of it, nor that Christ's righteousness is transfused into him, implanted in him, as the subject of inherence, ●ut that the very righteousness which Christ wrought was intended and wrought for him by the Son, and is accepted for him by the Father, that he is justified for it and entitled to life eternal. Christ is the efficient & the subject of Inherence of his own active & passive obedience, but the immediate benefit of it as satisfactory to the Law is a Believers, and he is the subject of it, a subject of external denomination; he is denominated righteous from that righteousness wrought for him and accepted in his behalf. Thus it is not forma inhaerens, but denominans, not an internal but an external Form. When a Debtor is discharged, his Surety paying the Debt, the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment; he paid not the Money, 'twas not his but the Sureties, yet the Money being paid for him, in his stead, for his benefit, by the Surety, and accepted for him, instead of his payment, by the Creditor, he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him, placed to his account, as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money.  
Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification, 
Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460, 461. Synop. Leidens. disput. 33. Th. 21, 23.  and others the Matter or Material Cause; both mean the same thing, viz. That Christ's righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God. I will not contend about terms of Art, in so great a point whereon Salvation depends, yet it seemeth more logical to say; In Justification, man in the Matter or Subject, viz. the Person justified, Christ's righteousness is the Form, that by which he is constituted righteous, or just before God: Imputation, Gods accepting this righteousness for him, is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form, even the Application of Christ's righteousness to the person justified: God the Father is the Efficient, accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christ's righteousness. The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed; and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendered capable of receiving Christ's righteousness or having it imputed to him: And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. From ●●ence I inser, that Imputation of Christ's righteousness and Justification is all one and but ●●e real Act, and so Arctius defines it: Justi●atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita, 
Lib. Probl. loc. 25.  fa●●a a Deo, respectu meriti Filii Dei, ad salutem ●●ni credenti. Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christ's righteousness is imputed to a Sin●er; The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness: But this makes it more perplexed that it is to impute righteousness. We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ, ●●t in a Physical sense as if it were inherent or adherent to us, but judicially. We are accepted as righteous, i. e. discharged from punishment, and entitled to life for it, and this 〈◊〉 to be justified. We may indeed make it Formal Acts, or formally distinct; the one thereby Christ's righteousness is placed to our account, or reckoned to be done for us; the ●ther, whereby we are accepted or entitled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness: But it's really ●●e same thing, to account Christ's righteous●● be wrought for us to satisfy and fulfil the ●aw of God, and to accept us and give us ●ight to life for that righteousness. God in ●s Promise proposeth life to Sinners, on the account of Christ's satisfaction, in which when ●●ey believe and trust, there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them, and hereby righteousness is imputed to them, or they are justified, Thus, Rom. 4, 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works, he saith, v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness: Then to justify or impute Christ's righteousness is all one, and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness, i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christ's righteousness, and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak, as if we were actually interessed in Christ's Person before we are his righteousness. God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of li●● through the righteousness of Christ, and hereby we are accepted and justified, and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way. Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life, and the Christ is most properly given to us, or w●● are actually interessed in his person; in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election, but this was not actual and proper.  
These things thus explained, the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly th●● Whether God justifieth men and entitled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law? The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine, and now to be proved.  

Argument 1.  
1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam: Christ is called the Second Adam, the Second Man, 1 Cor. 15.45, 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come, viz. Christ, Rom. 5.14. Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind. Hence I argue: As Adam's Disobedience condemned men, so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them: But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation, they are condemned for them; therefore they that believe, have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and by that are justified. The Major is largely proved by the Apostle, Rom. 5.12. ad finem; where he showeth, That Justification and Life come into the World, in like manner as Death and Condemnation did, each by a common Person, and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind. As many were made Sinners, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by one Man's Obedience, so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19 They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner; unrighteous by Adam's disobedience, righteous by the obedience of Christ. But this I suppose will not be denied, and he that denieth the Minor, viz. That Adam's disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian. But because i● this Age all the Foundations are destroyed, we shall prove it from the forecited Text, Rom. 5.12. where the Apostle affirms, That by one man Sin and death entered into the World, and Death passed upon all men; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether we translate it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i● whom all have sinned, (as the the Fathers did against the Palagians) meaning Adam, 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned, or in quantum, for as much as all men have sinned; the Sense is all one: Sin and Death came upon all men from one man, i. e. Adam, and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him. But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said, Many are dead by the Offence of this one man, viz. Adam; And v. 26. The Judgement or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and v. 17. Death reigned, had its full power upon Man kind by means of this one Man: And v. 18. By the Offence of one, Judgement came upon all to condemnation, all are condemned for his Offence: And v. 89. The reason is, because by that one man's disobedience, peccatores instituti sunt, they are made, constituted Sinners; whence the Argument is strong: All men be condemned, dead, sentenced, adjudged to death for the Sin of Adam; therefore that sin is accounted theirs, imputed to them, not as if they had personally been the Actors of that Sin, or that it did inhere or adhere properly to them, but Adam's sinning as the Head of Man kind, and as it were for all men, they are accounted to have sinned in him, so as to incur all the punishment of his Sin. Now let it be observed that ex adverso in like manner cometh the Gift of Life, of Justification, and the Gift of Righteousness by Jesus Christ; by his Obedience men are made righteous, justi constitutisunt, are constituted righteous: But men were made Sinners by Adam's Sin, and so fell under the Sentence of death, before they sinned in their own persons, without their own personal disobedience, through being destitute of grace they must needs sin, and so add to their punishment: Therefore they that believe are made righteous in Christ, with his Righteousness before any personal righteousness in them, without the condition of their own obedience: though being made righteous in Christ, they receive grace to be obedient, and so to be fit to receive the Inheritance given them in Christ.  

Object.  It is objected by a learned and grave Person, that in this place, v. 19 we are not said to be justified with Christ's Obedience, 
Hotchkis, ut supra. p. 43, 44.  but by it, and that by signifieth an efficient or meritorious cause, but with a formal cause; and that we may be said to be justified by the Obedience of Christ, as it merited Justification upon the Terms of the Gospel, but not with it as imputed to us.  

Answ.  Forgetfulness of Grammar is no wonder, scarce a fault in his Age; but that tells us, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) when construed with a Genitive Case doth signify cum with, as well as per by, and gives this example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum gladiis: The same also say the Lexicons. So then by the favour of the Greek word we may translate it with the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous. Moreover by signifieth the formal Cause, which is causa per quam; and with an Instrumental Cause, 
Part 1. p. 229, 230.  not a Formal, as hath been showed: And thus this distinction is grounded upon a mistake both in Grammar and Logic. But he farther saith that here is no word of Imputation or imputing Christ's Obedience to us, and that it is barely said, By his Obedience we are made Righteous. I answer; It is necessarily implied, we are made righteous by the Obedience of Christ, as we were made Sinners by the Disobedience of Adam, but his Disobedience made us Sinners by imputation, or being imputed to us: ergò, the Comparison is expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If this Author's sense be admitted in the latter words, it must be affixed also to the former, i. e. If we are made righteous by Christ's Obedience only, because he merited that we should be justified if we obey the Gospel; than it must follow, we are made Sinners by Adam's Disobedience, only because he merited by his Fall, that if we sinned we also should perish: If Christ only brought in a way of righteousness how we might be justified if we observed it, than Adam only brought in a way of Sin, how men might be condemned, if they trod in his Steps; but this is absurd. To return, that Adam's Sin is properly imputed to us I farther prove from Eph. 2.3. We were by Nature Children of wrath even as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the rest of men. Grotius his gloss upon these words, viz. That the Apostle meaneth only the Gentiles, who were born out of the Church and out of the Covenant, and therefore were by nature Children of Wrath, is against the words of the Text. For the Apostle having spoken of the Gentiles in the two former verses, putteth himself and the Jews into the same condition in this verse, saying, Amongst whom we all had our Conversation in times past, and we were by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children of wrath, even as the rest. All men therefore are by nature Children of wrath, i. e. are born Heirs of wrath under the Sentence of Condemnation. For as Children of Life, Children of the Kingdom, signify those that are Heirs, under the Promise of Life, so Children of Wrath are those that are Heirs under the Sentence of Condemnation. Now I demand how all men should come under the sentence of condemnation and inherit it as their natural (though woeful) Birthright, unless adam's Fall be sharged upon them, and so as soon as they have a Being derived from him in a natural way, the Sentence pronounced against him, is ●n force against them also. Suppose God might justly have deprived all Mankind descending from Adam, of his present Favour, and of the Gifts and Graces, Privileges and Benefits which Adam enjoyed, because Adam had forfeited them, and could not therefore leave them to be enjoyed to his Posterity. A● a Father spending or forfeiting his own Inheritance and Honours doth deprive his Children of them, though they are not therefore made guilty of his Offence; yet how will it consist with Justice, besides the loss of all Privileges, to adjudge, sentence men to death, before any Trial is made of their Obedience, whether they will not do better than Adam did, or a● lest do something that in their forlorn Estate may move some compassion to them, and mitigate their misery. This is our Case, we are born Heirs of Death; Judgement and Condemnation is passed upon all men, taketh hold of them as soon as they are men: How can this be without any guilt chargeable upon them? and if there be any it must be the guilt of Adam's Fall: 
Ezek. 18.20.  God declared that the Son should not die for the Father's Sin; it would certainly be high injustice in men to deprive the Posterity of an Offender for ever, not only of their Father's Inheritance, but of all possibility of return and recovery of themselves, so that they should ever be dealt with as Malefactors. Much more is it consistent with Divine Justice to punish all Mankind, not only with the loss of Adam's Privileges, but with Eternal Death inevitably (for any thing the Law provideth to the contrary) merely because they descended from him without trying or expecting how they would behave themselves. There must therefore be a Gild upon all men by nature, viz. the Gild of Adam's Sin, and that must be imputed to them; and if that be imputed, than Christ's Righteousness is imputed also to them that believe. Moreover, if Adam's Sin be not imputed to us, then are we not guilty of the breach of the First Covenant, ●en we were never obliged to yield perfect obedience, nor is the want of it properly a ●● in us, and so men are born in such a forworn and lost state as the Scripture prescribes ●●em to be. The reason of the consequence is, ●e were never under the first Covenant in ●r own persons, it was made with Adam, ●t with us; and if his breach of it be not impted to us, it must follow that the Covenant is intended for him only, not for his Posteri●●; his Obedience should not have profited them to Justification, as well as his Disobedience not hurt them to condemnation; and ●●s the Covenant of Works is wholly made and by Adam's Fall, nor was it ever renewed a Covenant of Life. Moreover, 
Mr. Baxter's Preface to the Treat of the 2 Covenants, p. 2, 3.  our Opposites teach that the Covenant of Grace was ●●de with all Mankind, immediately after 〈◊〉 Fall they had all new Terms of Life given ●●m in Christ: If then Adam's Sin be not im●●ed to his Posterity, they have indeed lost ●●se blessed Privileges which Adam sinned ●●ay, and so could not convey to them, but ●●y were not at all obliged to the Covenant of ●●fect obedience, but were all immediately in under the Covenant of Grace, and are ●●y to answer for their neglect of, and disobedience to that. Thus much for the first argument from the Imputation of Adam's   

Argument 2.  
Christ was made subject to, 
Bradshaw de Just. c. 18.  and fulfilled the Law to which Man was subject, and the which Man had broken: Ergò, his Obedience of Righteousness is imputed to us: For he was not made subject to that Law for his own sa●● but for ours, nor did he fulfil it for himself but for us; he fulfilled it not simply as a general Law of Obedience, but as the Law give to Man and broken by him; therefore what he did in this case was done in Man's stead, a●● to be imputed to him for his Righteousness that the Curse of the Law might be remove and the Blessing of the Law might descend up on Mankind.  
Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind, 
Vid. Homilies of the Church of England.  & Christ is the Righteousness of all them that 〈◊〉 truly believe in him: He for them paid the Ransom by his Death: He for them fulfilled 〈◊〉 Law in his Life: So that now in him and 〈◊〉 him every true Christian Man may be called Fulfiller of the Law, forasmuch as that which their Infirmities lacked, Christ's Justice has supplied. But this consequence will not 〈◊〉 denied, it is the Antecedent that must be proved, viz. That Christ fulfilled the Law wh●● was given to and broken by Man, and that was made Subject to that Law. For to av●● this Argument our Authors have devised new Notion; That Christ fulfilled not the Law as given to Man, knowing that than his Righteousness must be imputed to Man, but the teach that Christ fulfilled only a particular Law given to himself, which they call the Law of a Mediator, which consisteth so much of the Law given to Mankind in general, and of so much of the Jewish Law as the Father thought fit to appoint him to perform, and also of some particular precepts peculiar to Christ alone, wherein Men were not concerned; which Law if Christ would fulfil, Men should have a New Covenant of Life given them: But they could not be justified by his fulfilling this Law, because it contained not all things to which they were obliged; and moreover did contain some things peculiar to Christ in which Men were not concerned. It must therefore be proved, That Christ was obliged to and did fulfil the Law of perfect Obedience given to Men, and the Jewish Law which concerned that Nation. It is sometimes said by our Opposites, That Christ is our Legal Righteousness, that Righteousness which the Law of Works required of us: If so, than he must have fulfilled and satisfied that Law; but this hath been touched before: I argue therefore, Christ was subject to the Law of Mankind, else he needed not to have been Man: The only reason why Christ was made Man is, that the same Nature that sinned, might also satisfy for Sin; it must therefore be by fulfilling that Law which concerned Humane Nature. For if any other way of satisfaction might be admitted, why might it not be accepted from a Person of another Nature that was not Man? If there was no necessity that the Law broken by Man should be fulfilled, but that it was sufficient that something should be done to repair God's Honour some other way, though his Law was not properly satisfied: Why might it not have been enough if Christ as God only without assuming any created Nature, would have undertaken to conquer the Devils, to bring all Mankind to Repentance, to accept once of Pardon, and to restore them to perfect Obedience again: This would have repaired the Honour of God and of the Law, as much or more than the procuring a New Covenant of Salvation for Sinners, which for any thing Christ did merit, might have never took effect in any: Why might not this have served without his taking Man's Nature upon him? Moreover the Angels are obliged by the same general Law of Love to God and their Fellow creatures that Men are; though the particular Wages of exercising it be different. If then it were enough that Christ fulfilled some Generals of the Law without being obliged to all the Particulars that concerned Men, why might it not have sufficed him to have taken the Nature of Angels, and not to have come down into this miserable World, for in that he might have performed the Law of a Mediator. However, à fortiori he needed not to have been the Son of Adam born of a Woman and in the same condition with other men, or to have taken upon him the Form of a Servant, Phil. 2.7. He might have been immediately created as Adam was, and not have derived his Nature from him, if it were not that he must be subject to the same Law which Adam had broken. It is said, Gal. 4.4. That God sent forth his Son made of a Woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons. If Christ could not redeem the Jews without being born a Jew, subject to their Law, then neither could he redeem the Sons of Adam in general, without being himself the Son of Adam, subject to the same Law that he was. I argue also from the Nature of the Law; The End of the Law was Obedience, and for failure that the Penalty of it should be suffered; and this was the absolute established Decree, or Sanction of God: It must therefore be fulfilled by some one, it was not done by Men, therefore it must be by Christ. To say that some of it was fulfilled and some Honour done to it by the Mediatorial Law is of small moment; for this did not fulfil it or satisfy the End of it: The Law as a Law and as a Covenant betwixt God and Man was clearly laid aside if Christ fulfilled it not, and all Mankind after the Fall were by him brought under a Covenant of Grace, and so the Law is made void by Faith, contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 3.31. Our Saviour also testified of himself, Mat. 5.17. That he came not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law: This was the End of his coming into the World, and his fulfilling was his obeying, performing the Law as he had said before, Mat. 3.15. It becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness: Therefore he was Baptised, and therefore much more ought he to observe the Law which was of ancienter Institution. This is confirmed by the Reason he giveth for his fulfilling the Law, Mat. 5.18. viz. That not one Jota or Tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfilled, though Heaven and Earth might pass away. The Sanction of the Law is more stable than the Ordinances of Heaven and Earth, and must attain its End: Therefore every Child of Adam must be subject to it. Our Saviour adds, v. 19, 20. That he was so far from relaxing of the Law, that on the contrary he affirmed, whosoever should break the least Commands, and teach others so, should be shut out of Heaven: Nay that he required a stricter Observation of it than the Scribes and Pharisees for all their pretended severities in some things. Now that all this was meant of the Law as given by Moses, chief of the Moral Law, is manifest by his proceeding to expound and vindicate the Commandments in his following Discourse, v. 21. to the end, from the slight Comments of their present Teachers. In like manner when it is said, Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to all them that believe, Rom. 10.4. It is meant of the Law of Moses; for it is immediately added, v. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man that doth them shall live in them. Now Christ is the End of the Law, not simply by waving it and disannulling its Obligation; for then the Law should not have its End, nor be unchangeable as he had told us it was: but He is the End of it for righteousness to them that believe by fulfilling it in his own person for them; so that, their Righteousness or Justification may not depend upon their own Obedience to it. Again Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, Gal. 3.13. being made a Curse for us. How was Christ made a Curse but by bearing the Penalty of the Law for Sin? For the Curse is not only the Matter of Punishment, the evil inflicted, but formal punishment, viz. Evil inflicted for Sin, for the satisfaction of Justice and the violated Law. Now how came this Curse to fall upon Christ? Even by the Law itself adjudging him to it. For thus the Apostle argueth, v. 10. They that are of the Works of the Law, under the power of it, are under the Curse. And v. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us. This is the Argument, Men cannot be justified by the Law, for that curseth all that are under it; but we shall be justified by Faith in Christ, v. 12. because he bore the Curse of the Law for us. He must therefore be under the Law as we were. And it is further proved, because it is written, i. e. the Law saith, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree. 
Deut. 21.23.  What is this to the Death of Christ, if he were not under the Law? And if he were under the Jewish Law which pronounced the Death of the Cross accursed in special manner, then by the same reason, he was under the Law of Adam, which pronounced Death in general as a Curse for Sin. Lastly, If the Sufferings of Christ were not inflicted by virtue of the Law of Works, than they were not Penal, nor had they any thing of God's wrath in them, for it was that Law only that threatened a Curse: They were only Prudential, viz. that something should be suffered which that Law threatened, that so it might decently be laid aside. Now if Christ were subject to the Law as to the Curse, he was also subject to the Precept, and so his Obedience was in our stead, and therefore to be imputed to us for our Justification. We were not obliged to the Law of a Mediator; Christ fulfilled not that in our stead, if then he did and suffered any thing in our stead, it was in obedience to our Law, and so to be placed to our Account.    

CHAP. III. More Arguments to prove the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us.  

Argument 3.  
THirdly, I argue from those Scriptures which call Christ our Righteousness, and say we have Righteousness in him. He is not our Righteousness inherently, his Righteousness is not implanted in us, therefore it is ours by imputation or not at all, Isai. 45.24, 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness and Strength. This is a Prophecy of Christ and Salvation by him, which is to be brought about by this means, viz. having Righteousness and Strength in him. If we translate it as some do, In the Lord there is Righteousness and Strength; the sense is the same; but our Translation agrees best with the following Verse. Now how have we strength in Christ? Surely he communicates grace and life to us, and doth not only procure and grant a Covenant of Grace; he must likewise communicate Righteousness to us, and that his own, not a Righteousness wrought in us, or else it is not distinct from grace or strength mentioned in the Text, which the next words also confirm, In the Lord shall all the Seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. It is a justifying Righteousness distinct from Grace or Strength infused into us which we have in Christ, and this cannot be ours but by Imputation.  
Jeremiah 23.5, 6. This is the Name whereby Israel shall call him, The Lord our Righteousness. Who this is, the former words show, sc. the Righteous Branch to be raised up to David, i. e. Christ: as also the Reason of this Name, because in his days, his People shall be saved, and chief with a Spiritual Salvation; this is because he is Jehovah our Righteousness. Our Salvation springs primarily from hence, That we are made righteous or justified before God, and this righteousness comes from Christ. As God is our Wisdom, our Strength, etc. because he is the Author of it in us and to us, as also our Guide and Protector; so Christ is our righteousness, i e. the Author of righteousness to us, and that he will justify us by it.  

Object.  Some object against this, That in chap. 33. v. 15, 16. Jerusalem the Church seems to be called by the same Name: This is the Name whereby she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.  

Answ.  But the Context showeth that it speaketh of the same Person, and almost in the same words, sc. the righteous Branch of David, etc. And therefore learned men translate it, This is the name of him, who shall call her, viz. The Church, The Lord our Righteousness: So Junius translates it, also the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others; but if it be meant of the hurch, as Mr. Gataker contends it must, 
Gataker in locum.  it only because the Name of Christ is put upon or, as being clothed with his Righteousness the New Jerusalem, the Gospel Church, named Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there, ●●om his Presence in her, and as God himself pleased to take upon himself the Name of ●●s People. Ps. 24.6. 
Ezek. 48.35.  This is the Generation 〈◊〉 them that seek thy Face O Jacob, i. e. the ●●●d of Jacob.  
Dan. 9.24. Seventy weeks are determined ●●on thy People, and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression, and to make an end of ●●ins, and to make reconciliation for Iniquity, and 〈◊〉 bring in Everlasting Righteousness. Daniel ●●d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews, ●●d the forgiveness of their Sins, and that not ●●r the sake of their own Righteousness, but ●●ods great Mercy, v. 18, 19 He is answer●●d that the City shall be built again, and the people saved by the Messiah, v. 25. and that 〈◊〉 his being cut off, not for himself, v. 26. ●●plying that it should be for them, and that ●●en should be brought in everlasting Righteousness whereby Israel should be justified and ●●ved. This is the Righteousness of the Mes●●ah, for none else is a standing and everlasting ●ighteousness: Ours is mutable and subject 〈◊〉 fail, Hos. 6.4. Neither was our righteousness in special manner to be brought in by ●●e Death of Christ, it had been before in the Sanctified in all Ages of the Church. It was a new Righteousness then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Christ; though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were saved, yet it was not actually wrought, and Justification by it distinctly declared till now. Therefore it is all one with finishing transgression, making an end of sin, making reconciliation for the people, which is plainly Justification to be had by this Everlasting Righteousness.  
Rom. 5.18, 19 As by the offence of one, Judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. All men were condemned by the offence or sin of Adam: So they that believe shall be justified by the righteousness of Christ; the free gift o● grant of life comes by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, as the sentence of death came by Adam's unrighteousness. The 19 v. makes it clearer: As by the disobedience of one many are made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous. Adam did not make way by his Sin for men's condemnation, he did not only render them liable to death if they should sin as he did and break the same Covenant: But he brought them under the Curse and Sentence of death absolutely by and for his Sin, so that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipso facto as soon as they have a Being: In like manner Christ must not only make way for men's Justification, or procure them a Covenant, whereby they shall be justified if they perform it, as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator; but he must also justify them, entitle them to life, so soon as they believe in him, by and for his own Righteousness and Obedience. One Exception against this place hath been answered in the former Chapter.  
Another excepteth: 
Object.  The Apostle doth not say, IN one man's obedience many shall be made righteous, 
Just. Evang. p. 72.  but BY one man's obedience (as a consequent and effect of it) many shall be made righteous. As the effect of one man's disobedience, many come to be shapen in iniquity, and brought forth in a sinful condemned nature; so as the effect of one man's obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State.  

Answ.  The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifested before. The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used, signifieth BY or WITH, which is the proper sense of the place; the term IN would be more obscure: And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated, Rom. 14.20. To him that eateth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with offence; but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely prosecuted, p. 68 etc. That Adam's personal disobedience is not imputed to his Posterity; but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation, he did corrupt his Nature, and so begat Children in a sinful mortal State. But I have before proved the Imputation of his Actual Sin. I now add, Do Mankind derive a sinful mortal Nature from Adam by mere necessity of Nature, seeing the effect must be like the cause? or by virtue of Divine Constitution that his Posterity should inherit the Fruits of his Sin? If by necessity of Nature (as this Author seems to intimate) then the Soul of Man must be ex traduce derived from the Parents; else it could not be born sinful by necessity of Nature, and then it must be corrupted with the Body, and cannot exist without it, and at best must be raised with the Body, and sleep in the dust till the last day (as the Socinians teach:) Nor would the want of original righteousness, no nor positive dispositions to sin in our Nature as derived from Adam be sinful in us, they be poena & causa peocati, the Punishment of Adam's Sin, and the cause of Sin in us, but not peccatum, our Sin, no more than the natural Diseases of the Body, which we derive from our Parents; For that which comes by mere natural necessity cannot be a Sin: But if it be by Divine Constitution, than the meaning must be, either that God appointed that if Adam should sin that one Sin, than not only he should perish, but that he should also propagate a sinful, mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception; and then the sin and misery of all Mankind is directly and properly the punishment of Adam's personal sin only: which, besides the horror of the thing, that so many millions in all Ages should be made miserable both here and for ever, as the punishment of another man's Sin, in which they were no way concerned, is also against Gods own Law. The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers, nor the Fathers for the Children, but ●very man for his own sin, Deut. 24.16. Or ●lse this Constitution must mean that God appointed that Adam shall stand or fall for all his posterity, and then his Obedience or Disobedience must be imputed to them and be Cause ●f their life or death, even the immediate Cause.  

Object.  Some say this Obedience of Christ is only is Sufferings according as he is said to be obedient to the death, Phil. 2.6. and to have ●●me to do the Will of God in offering up his ●wn Body, Heb. 10. v. 6. to the 11th.  

Answ. 1.  This maketh nothing against our main position, viz. That the Righteousness of Christ is ●●puted to us, and we justified by it: For ●hether it be his Death only, or his Life and ●eath both, for which we are accepted and ●stified it is all one in this Question, so long 〈◊〉 imputation of that Righteousness to us be ●e way whereby it justifies us: And if they ●ean that his Sufferings are his only obedience here mentioned to make us righteous by procuring a Covenant of Grace to be fulfilled ●● us; then they might as well have said, His ●●tive Obedience without his Sufferings doth ●●ake us righteous: For the Text leads to ●●e no more than the other. And Mr. True●●an when he had disputed against the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience, and for the Passive only, and yet that must be only to procure a Law of Grace; afterwards fairly grants, That in this sense, viz. of procuring the Covenant of Grace, both Active and Passive may be said to be imputed to us.  
2ly. But the words will not bear this sense Adam's Actual disobedience made us formally Sinners, and guilty of death: So the Obedience i e. the Sufferings of Christ, procureth right to life for us. Thus they must run, but when is the Parallel? The Sufferings of Christ can not be said to make us righteous formally, a● this Author tells; Sufferings are not righteousness; much less suffering the Penaltys o● the Law for the breach of it; but Christ suffered the Curse of the Law for our sin against it his Sufferings delivered us from the Curse o● the Law, it having been born by him; but could not make us righteous according to th● Law, that we should obtain the reward 〈◊〉 Life: It is true Christ was obedient in his Sufferings, and did the Will of his Father in offering himself; if they had not been voluntary and obediential, they could not have been meritorious, but that his Sufferings as suffering of the Penalty of the Law are his only Obedience that justifies us, or that he performe● no other obedience for us, doth not follow at all.  
1 Cor. 1.30. Christ is made unto us of God, Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, that he that glorieth, may glory in the Lord. Here is expressed that God hath made Christ our righteousness, sc. by giving him to satisfy the Law for us; and accepting us for his righteousness: And here we may observe, that the Apostle purposely proveth against the despisers of Christ; the Greeks who boasted of their own Wisdom, and the Jews who trusted in their own Works, v. 22, 23. that Believers have all in Christ, v. 24. and that they are in themselves, weak, foolish, nothing, v. 25.28, 29. all their excellency is in, and from Christ, and therefore their righteousness and Justification, as well as their Sanstification. Farther observe, that Righteousness here is distinguished from Wisdom and Sanctification, and therefore must mean that Christ is our justifying Righteousness, or that we are justified by Christ as our righteousness; ●f we were to be justified by our habitual and actual holiness as the Condition of the Gospel, ●hen righteousness and sanctification are all ●ne.  
Lastly, The Apostle saith we have all these ●n Christ, that he that glorieth, may glory in the Lord: We may glory in Christ, in that we ●ave all grace from him; but how shall we glory in him as to our Justification, if we be not justified by his Righteousness, but by our own, though wrought by the help of his grace; even as Adam if he had kept the Law of Works, would have been justified by his own righteousness, and might have gloried in himself, that he had done his duty, though it was by the power of the grace and assistance of God.  
2 Cor. 5.21. Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Here righteousness by a usual Hebraism is put for righteous: we are made the righteous of God, i. e. before God, or acceptable with him in Christ, by or through Christ, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Dative case is often used: and how are we made righteous by Christ? even by his being made sin for us, as he satisfied for our sin, so by that satisfaction are we made righteous; as he that knew no sin was sacrificed, punished for our sins: so we that had no righteousness, are made righteous by him, and this must be by imputation. Thus B, Usher out of Claud. and Sedul. in locum. That this righteousness therefore is not ours, nor in us, but in Christ, in whom we are considered as Members in the Head: Non nostra, non in nobis, sed in Christo quasi Membra in Capite. Rel. Just. p. 15.  

Object.  Against these two Scriptures it is excepted, that in the former it is only said, that Christ is made our righteousness, 
Hotchkis, p. 191.  not that his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness.  

Answ.  Christ cannot be made our Righteousness any other way, than by imputing his perfect Obedience to us, and therefore the Scripture in saying the one in words sayeth the other also in sense.  

Object.  To the latter place, 'tis said, That it saith only that we are made righteous by Christ being made a Sin Offering for us, not by imputing his Obedience to us.  

Answ.  If Christ was made a Sacrifice for our Sins, than our Sins were so imputed to him as that he was punished for them; and if this make us righteous, than his bearing the Punishment of Sin is imputed to us, and so his Righteousness is imputed.  
Phil. 3.8, 9 That I may win Christ, and be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The Apostle in this place exhorteth to rejoice in the Lord, i. e. Christ, v. 1. and to beware of Judaising Christians who joined the Works of the Law with Christ, v. 2. saying, That true Believers are the true Circumcision, the true people of God, even they who rejoice in Christ and have no confidence in the Flesh, i. e. their own Works, v. 3. And then reckoning up what he had to allege for himself from the observation of the Ceremonial and Moral Law, v. 4, 5, 6. he saith, That he counted all this loss for Christ, v. 7. and not only what might be alleged from observing the Law, but whatever else might be thought excellent or a ground of selfconfidence and rejoicing, v. 8. Yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus, etc. that I may win Christ and be found in him, etc. From hence it appeareth that the Apostle speaks of Justification by Christ in opposition to being justified by any thing else, and of rejoicing in him contrary to any rejoicing in ourselves. In the 9th. v. therefore he opposeth being found in Christ, to having his own Righteousness which is of the Law, sc. of any works whatsoever, and explaineth it by having the Righteousness of Faith, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith: What can the Righteousness of God mean when opposed to his own Righteousness of the Law, but either the Righteousness of him which is God, or a Righteousness which God provideth for him, and which he did not work himself, which is Christ's. Also the Righteousness of Faith is opposed to the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of God by Faith opposed to the same Righteousness of the Law, must be a Righteousness which God gives us by believing; and this is the Righteousness of Christ imputed.  

Object.  It is excepted, By the Law he means the Jewish Law, and by his own Righteousness he means that which was his own when a Jew, 
Hotchkis, p. 190.  not that which was his own when a Convert to the Christian Faith; and that the things there opposed are Judaisme and Christianity, or Judaical Observances, and the practical knowledge of Christ; so that our own Evangelical Righteousness is not there opposed to the Obedience of Christ.  
1. 
Answ.  If the Apostle here only compare the Jewish and Christian Religion, than all he meaneth is that the Christian Religion is far more excellent than the Jewish; but he cannot oppose them properly in the matter of Justification. For the sincere Practice of the Jewish Religion did justify the Jews (according to this opinion) as well as the Practice of Christian Religion justified Christians. Yea methinks these Authors who (some of them) can allow the Idolatrous Heathens to be justified by their obedience to the Law of Nature, and hope in God's Mercy, though they have no express knowledge of Christ, should not deny that Jews may be saved by their Religion and their Hope in the Messiah, if they be only ignorant who he is and not malicious against him: If so, there must be more meant by opposing Faith to the Works of the Law, than the Law merely as Jewish.  
2ly. The Apostle doth not only renounce the Works of the Jewish Law, but all other things which may be thought matter of confidence in ourselves, v. 8.  
3ly. There is the same reason for the renouncing Christian, as Jewish Works in Justification, and those are Works of the Flesh when trusted and rejoiced in as well as these. For the Moral Law is the same to Christians as it was to the Jews, and all the Evangelical Precepts were the same to the Jews as to us; if then they could not justify them, they cannot justify us. But if this Author intent only the Ceremonial Law, it is contrary to the Text; for after mention of the External Rights and Privileges, the Apostle saith, He was blameless as touching the Righteousness of the Law; which must mean the Moral Law: and the Ceremonial Law, when in force, had its part in justifying as well as the Moral, and now it is abrogated it cannot be damning if practised out of ignorance only. 
Acts 21.20, etc.  But that the Righteousness of the Law here doth by parity of reason exclude Christian Obedience from Justifying, is thus proved: This is not the Righteousness of God, sc. of God's providing, but our own Righteousness as well as Jewish Obedience was: It is also the righteousness of a Law, the Gospel Law, though not the Jewish Law, Melanct. in Rom. p. 8. Vocari lex debet ubicunque praecepta leguntur, sive in libris Mosis, sive in libris Apostolorum, etc. And further, It is not the righteousness of Faith, or by Faith any more than the Works of Jews: For, No Law is of Faith, but be that doth it shall live by it, Gal. 3.12. It is spoken immediately of the Jewish Law, but the Reason extendeth it to every Law; he that is justified by obedience to any Law, liveth by it, is justified by doing it, not by believing. And it may be said of the Gospel in our Author's Sense, He that doth it shall live by it, as truly as of the Law of Moses or Adam. It hath also been showed, that the Law hath some Faith joined with it, viz. the trust to be justified by performing that Law, and therefore when doing and believing are opposed as irreconcilable extremes in Justification, believing must mean a trust in another's Righteousness, not in our own, for that is doing; and thus the righteousness of Faith here excludeth all our own Works, therefore must be the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Add to all this, That the Apostle in this place doth not speak of Christian Religion (as this Author saith) or of the Doctrine of Christ, but of his Person and what he wrought for us: For having expressed his desire of being found in him not having his own righteousness, etc. he subjoineth immediately, v. 10, 11. That I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection, and the Fellowship of his Sufferings, etc. If by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the Dead. And v. 12. That I might apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ. These things concern Christ himself, not the Precepts of his Religion.  

Object.  The general Evasion whereby those men wave the force of these and the like Scriptures, is this; 
Hotchkis, p. 44, etc.  That Christ's Righteousness or Obedience is ours in the Fruits and Effects of it, but not our Righteousness properly, viz. That Christ's Righteousness is not that for which we are accepted of God immediately, 
Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 116.  but that it is the morally efficient, or meritorious Cause of our Righteousness, i. e. that we shall be accepted with God if we fulfil the Commands of the Gospel, because Christ hath removed the Old Covenant of Works, and purchased this New Covenant for us.  
1. 
Answ.  Here it may not be amiss to advertise the Reader of the equivocation that lies in these Words (especially as used by some Authors) whereby they hid their sense and deceive many, sc. when they oppose the Imputation of Christ's righteousness to the Fruits and Effects of it, which with us are not opposite. For by imputation of his righteousness we do not mean that Christ's righteousness is transferred to us and made inherently ours, or that we can be denominated righteous by it as if we had wrought that righteousness, but we mean that for the obedience of Christ God doth immediately pardon and justify them that trust in it, and give them a right to all the Fruits of it, as truly and validly as if it were their own personal righteousness; so that God doth hereupon account the Law to be satisfied, and like to be purchased for them without any thing to be further done by them as a condition of life. But their true Sense is, That the Obedience of Christ is ours remotely only, sc. that it hath merited a New Covenant which if we perform we shall live.  
2ly. According to this Sense Christ's righteousness is no way our righteousness: It may be the means of benefit to us, but it doth in no sense make us righteous, or is the cause of our righteousness or justification, which the Scriptures alleged do intent. This is thus proved; It is none of the four kind of Causes, nor reducible to them; therefore it is no Cause. The Antecedent I thus prove; It is not the Material or Formal Cause, this they grant, For than we must be immediately justified by it, it must compose our righteousness; they sometimes call it the matter of our righteousness, but without sense: It is not the Final Cause, Christ's righteousness is not the end for which we are justified: It is not the Efficient, neither Physical, nor Moral: Not Physical, for than Christ's obedience must actively work obedience, or righteousness in us, which is absurd. Not a Moral Cause, or Meritorious (which they most insist on.) For Christ did not merit Grace, whereby we should obtain the Gospel, and so be justified as they acknowledge, seeing he died for all alike (though thus he would be but a remote meritorious Cause of Justification, meriting that for which we should be justified) but he merited only the Covenant of Life upon sincere obedience to the Law he should prescribe. All then that he is the Meritorious Cause of is the New Covenant; for when this Covenant is promulgated it is left to men whether they will obey or no, and so whether they will be justified or no: He hath merited nothing further. Now if any man come to be justified by performing the condition of this Covenant, can Christ be said to merit this Justification for him, which as to his Merits was contingent, might or might not be, and depended wholly upon his own Will and Obedience? If a man procure a Charter for a Town, and make them a Corporation thereby, and by virtue of this Charter they that serve an Apprenticeship shall have the Privileges and Freedom of this Town, shall it be said of those that thus come into the Freedom some hundred years after, that their Freedom was merited, bought or procured by him that procured the Charter? Surely they themselves merit their Freedom, the other was but an Instrument of procuring the Charter. In like manner, if Christ only merited the Covenant, by performing whereof men shall be justified, surely men themselves are the proper, meritorious, immediate causes of their own Justification, or Righteousness; because they fulfil the condition whereto it is promised, and which is the formal righteousness for which they are justified; and Christ is but an Instrument of procuring the Covenant, and an improper remote, and contingent cause of their Justification, by their fulfilling it. And thus in their sense Christ is no true Cause of our Righteousness.   

Argument 4.  
Fourthly, 
Mat. 20.28.  I argue from these Scriptures which say, Christ laid down his Life as a Ransom for us, redeemed us, 
1 Tim. 2.6. Col. 1.14. Tit. 2.14. Rev. 1.5. Isa. 43.3. Exod. 30.10, 11. Num. 18.15.  that in him we have redemption, and that he washed us from our Sins in his own Blood: From whence I argue, Redemption is of persons, a ransom and price is paid for persons, not for Laws and Covenants; and this was typified by the redemption of Israel out of Egypt, whom God saith he redeemed and gave Nations for them: By the Redemption of the First Born, and of the whole People whenever they were numbered; and by the year of Jubilee, which is called the Year of Redemption. I subsume, Ransoms and Redemptions if not paid and purchased by the Persons themselves who were in Bondage, are imputed to them, i.e. they are immediately delivered, set at liberty, by the payment of them, as much as if they had paid the Prize themselves: Therefore if Christ properly redeemed, bought, purchased us, paid a Ransom or Prize for us, than it is imputed to us: we must be delivered by that very prize and ransom, as much as if we had paid it ourselves. Our Opposites are loath to speak downright with the Socinians, and to deny that Christ's Death was a Prize and Ransom for us, but they must and do interpret this Ransom, Prize, Redemption, etc. to be all improper and metaphysical: Thus Mr. Trueman saith, That the immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction was only a Satisfaction to Justice, 
Gr. Prop. p. 86.  that God might be ju●● though he should pardon Sinners, and that he might pardon them saluâ justitiâ, upon what terms he pleases; not that he must pardon them come what will of it, or else be unjust not that Sinners should ipso facto be pardoner the Prize being undertaken, paid and accepted. And again, 
p. 89.  Christ's Sufferings were not proper payment, but a valuable consideration or you may call it a refuseable payment, though it be not properly payment at all. And Mr. Hotchkis paraphraseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tix. 2.6. not a Ransom, but something instead of a Ransom; they do therefore implicitly yield, if Christ's death was a Ransom and Prize for us, that then we must be immediately delivered by it, which is all one with his Righteousness being imputed to us, and in denying the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, they do deny, That his death was a Ransom, Prize or Payment for us, against the current of the Scriptures. They make all the Effect of the Obedience of Christ to be only the removing of that necessity which lay upon God to condemn all men, for breaking the First Covenant, so that he might if he pleased save Sinners by any other Covenant: 
p. 86.  So Trueman expressly. From whence it follows, That notwithstanding the death of Christ God might have refused to have made a New Covenant, or to have saved any Sinner if he pleased: Which also the Synod of Dort charged upon the Dutch Arminians, Proprium & integrity finem mortis Christi fuisse, 
Act. Syn. Dordr. in Judic. Theol. Mag. Bri. Art. 2.  ut Deo Patri acquireret jus & potestatem servandi homines quibus vellet conditionibus. How far then was Christ from redeeming men, if God after the death of Christ, would have been just though he should have saved no man? Moreover, how can we be said to be washed with Christ's Blood, if Pardon and Justification was not immediately procured by it? Under the Law, when the People were sprinkled with the Blood of t e Sacrifice (in allusion to which Christ's Blood is called the Blood of Sprinkling, Heb. 12.24.) they were immediately discharged from g●ilt and reconciled. If then we are sprinkled or washed with Christ's Blood, we must in like manner be justified and reconciled by it, which is imputation of his Righteousness: If Christ only procure a Covenant, by fulfilling of which we may be justified, his Blood might ratify and zeal the Covenant (as the Socinians teach) but it reacheth not our persons, nor are we cleansed by it, unless remotely and per accidens, as we are justified by fulfilling that Law, to the Truth whereof his Blood sealed.   

Argument 5.  
5ly. I argue from the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law: The Highpriest at the time of Sacrificing wore a Crown of Gold, 
Exod. 29.36, 37.  whereon was engraven, Holiness to the Lord, in token that he was to bare the Iniquities of the People's Services; 
v. 9, 10, 29.  he also bore the Names of the People upon his Shoulder and Breast to present them before the Lord: Both the Highpriest and other Priests in their daily Sacrifices made reconciliation for the People, though few of them were present; and when the People were present to bring Sacrifices for themselves, they confessed their Sins over the Head of the Sacrifice, putting their Hands upon it, and by this means reconciliation was obtained and preserved for the People. What then the Priest did and was done unto the Sacrifices was imputed to the People, they were accepted by and for these things done for them immediately without further conditions, therefore Christ's Righteousness is immediately imputed to Believers, and they are reconciled by it, without further conditions.  

Object.  It is said that these Priests and Sacrifices obtained only a Political Reconciliation, sc. to the Church and Public Assembly.  

Answ.  However they were imputed to the People or else they could obtain no reconciliation at all. But why were those Sacrifices means of Political or Ecclesiastical Reconciliation, more than the Sacraments of the Gospel? Baptism admitteth into the Church, the Lord's Supper continueth Communion in the Church, and in case of Excommunication, a Readmission to the Supper is a Means of Reconciliation with the Church, and a Token of it. Will they say that these Sacraments signify or convey nothing of Christ, but are mere Political and External things, as the Socinians. (whose notion this is) do? The truth is, as the Sacraments of the Gospel represent Christ come in the Flesh; so the Priests and Sacrifices of the Law represented him as to come: Therefore it is said, Col. 2, 17. All the Services of the Law were a shadow of good things to come, but the Body (or substance) is of Christ. And Heb. 9 v. 7, to 14. They signified and were Figures of what Christ was to do, in making way into the Holiest of all by his own Blood. The Priests and Sacrifices therefore were Types of Christ, and the Representation of him lay chief in this, That as the Priests by their Service, and the Sacrifices by their Blood, did Symbolically reconcile men to God, and admit them to all the Privileges of his People: So these things were Pledges and Signs that they should be really reconciled to God, and inherit the Promises by the Obedience and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Great Highpriest, and the Best-Sacrifice. Therefore as there was an Imputation in the Type so there must be in the Antitype: As the Priests and Sacrifices bore the People's Sins, made Atonement ●or them, and so reconciled them to God; so ●he Obedience and Sufferings of Christ must justify by being done for us, and so accounted or imputed to us. It is in comparison with the Levitical Priest that our Saviour is ●aid to be the Surety of a Better Covenant, Heb. 7.22. viz. a better Covenant than they were Sureties of; for with them he is compared throughout this Chapter: Now what the Surety doth is imputed or reckoned to him for whom he is Surety. The Socinians and Arminians from them interpret these words to mean only that Christ is God's Surety to us, in that he did ratify the New Testament by his Blood and thereby confirmed to us all the Promises of God: but though Christ hath ratified God's Covenant, and hath undertaken that it shall be made good to us, yet he is our Surety, he undertaketh for us also to stand betwixt us and the Father, to procure reconciliation and acceptance for us and our services. This is manifest from the comparison of the Levitical Priest here made: For as Moses and the settled Priests after him did represent God to the People, in covenanting with them, sprinkling Blood upon the Book of the Law, and upon the People, whenever there was occasion to make Atonement for them: So also did they represent the People to God: Moses spoke for them, carried their Promises of Obedience to God, and received his Commands to them; wherefore when they sinned in the Golden Calf, God said to him, Thy People whom thou hast brought out of Egypt have sinned, etc. And the Priests stood betwixt God and them, came into the Tabernacle to appear before God for them, which the People might not approach to, offered Sacrifice, made Atonement for them, and Intercessions also both daily, and upon the solemn annual Expiation: Yea the Priest bore their Iniquities, Eat the Sin-offering in the Holy Place, as taking the People's Sin upon them, Levit. 6.26. Ch. 10.17, 18, 19 They were therefore Sureties for the People to God. In like manner Christ also must be our Surety in offering himself for us, in making reconciliation and intercession for us, yea and in performing the Law for us in his own person, that we might be pardoned and accepted and have new Hearts given us: 
Heb. 8.8.13.  else his Covenant would not have been a better Covenant than that of Moses, and the Levitical Priest.   

Argument 6.  
If our sins were imputed to Christ, than his Righteousness is imputed to us: The Reason of the consequence is, If Christ did immediately suffer and satisfy for sin, so as to take away the deserved Punishment of it, and to recompense the violated Law, this very obedience and suffering of his must be our righteousness and justify us, there needeth no more than a full satisfaction to Justice for our sins, and the fulfilling of that Law which we had broken. 
Bradshaw de Justi. Ch. 16. Th. 2.  Deus peccata nostra Christo imposuit quod Christus pro nobis factus dicitur peccatum, non quia peccata à nobis commissa in illum revera translata sint, aut quasi: Deus mentis suae conceptu (ut de Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loquamur Christum existimaverit ea ipsa peccata commisisse, quae nos ipsi commisser amus; sed quia apud Deum perinde habetur, ipséque à Deo Christus perinde accipiebatur ac tractabatur, ac si ipse ex persona propria ea omnia commisisset. But this is not denied, we must therefore prove that our sins are imputed to Christ, where we must first premise what we mean by it, and then prove it. When we say our sins are imputed to Christ, we do not mean that they were translated to and made inherent in him, o● that he was accounted to have sinned, to have been the Author, or any way the Cause of our sins, or that God looked upon him as such: These things we account blasphemous; but we mean that Jesus Christ in all he did and suffered did intent to satisfy the Law of God which Man should have kept, and particularly in his Sufferings did intent and actually bore the punishment due to our sins, to satisfy the Law thereby; and that the Father in imposing this Obedience, and in inflicting these Sufferings upon Christ, did intent that his Law which man had broken should be satisfied thereby, and that Christ should bear the Punishment of our Sins; and further, that God did accept of these Sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction for our Sins, and did look upon his Justice as executed and satisfied in him. Thus our sins are said to be imputed to Christ, because he was truly, and in the Fathers, and in his own intentions punished for them. He was not reckoned an Offender, but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Punishment due to Offenders. Many labour to make this Position odious by misrepresenting it, and putting it into harsh and unscriptural terms: But the Question is plainly this, Whether the Sufferings of Christ were truly and intentionally the Punishment of the Sins of Man laid upon him; whether Christ was properly punished for their Sins? And this the Scripture abundantly and expressly affirmeth.  
Isaiah 53.4. He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows: Yet more plainly, v. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed: v. 6. We have gone astray, etc. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all: v. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken: v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for sin: v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many: And the means whereby he cometh to justify them is, because he shall bear their iniquities, v. 12. He bore the sin of many. Can any thing be more express? If Christ was wounded, bruised, stricken, offered as a Sacrifice for sin, than he was properly punished for sin; and though the other terms, bearing of sin, carrying our griefs, etc. may have a larger interpretation, yet being joined with those other more express and significant words, they are to be taken in the same sense.  
Galat. 3.13. He was made a Curse for us, etc. The Curse is the Punishment of Sin, laid upon a person in pursuance of the Sentence of the Law: Christ then was punished, the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to satisfy the Law.  
2 Corinth. 5.21. He was made Sin for us: Our Author's paraphrase this, He was made a Sacrifice for Sin; the Sin-offering being sometimes in Hebrew called Sin: And the Interpretation is not much amiss, but the Sacrifice for sin died for the Sinner, and did typically bear the punishment of his Sin: Therefore Christ the Antitype did really undergo the punishment of Sin. It is to be observed that our Lord was put to death without the City, on purpose to answer the Type of the Sin offering in special above the rest of the Sacrifices, which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp, Leu. 6.3. Heb. 13.11, 12.  
1 Peter 2.24. Who his own self bore our sins in his own Body on the Tree; by whose stripes ye were healed. Here it is expressed that Christ in his own person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross, in his own Body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins.  
Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively: 
Trueman ●. ●rop. p. 89.  The Sufferings of Christ were not properly an Execution of the Law (though they may figuratively be so called) but a satisfaction to Justice, that the Law-threat might not be executed: They mean, That Christ's Sufferings were for sin, i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace, and possibility of Pardon, but not that he satisfied offended Justice, by bearing the Punishment of Sin, in his own person. Now this is not to die for sin at all, nor to bare sin, be wounded for it, or stricken for it, but only to suffer by occasion of sin, as sin was the occasion that Christ suffered to bring in a way of Pardon; and so as Christ's Righteousness is not the cause of our Justification, but the occasion of it, that which made some way for it (as we have proved above) so also by this Doctrine our sins were not the cause, had no proper influence upon the death of Christ, but were an accidental occasion of it; because if we had not sinned, he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon. What can be spoken full and clear enough, if these plain Scriptures may be so easily waved? The same Author saith, 
p. 86.  That Christ's death was a Satisfaction to Justice, that God might be Just if he should pardon, not an Execution of the Law, but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be executed. I answer: The Justice of God is twofold, Absolute and Essential, which is the infinite Holiness of his Nature, whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himself, or limited and ordinate, which is a voluntary Obligation, which God hath laid upon himself to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath prescribed them. I demand which of these Christ satisfied, not the first, any further than as it is included in the second, viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and essential Holiness to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws, when he hath given them Laws to act by: For this Author and his Friends do not deny that Essential Justice might have been content to have pardoned and restored Adam, and us in him, without the death of Christ, it must therefore be limited and ordinate Justice, which Christ satisfied. Now by this Justice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law, to see his Law fulfilled and executed, and that it attain the end for which it was made; therefore there is no satisfying of this Justice but by having the Law executed. To talk of satisfying Justice, of which the Law is the Rule, without executing the Law, yea that the Law might not be executed, but taken out of the way, is by fair consequence a Contradiction.   

Argument 7.  
7ly. I argue; Either Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, we are justified immediately by believing in it, or Christ only purchased a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we should be justified. There is no medium betwixt these two in the Question about Imputation: but the latter is false, therefore the former is true. This is that our Opposites contend for, That Christ only purchased, that we should be saved if we should perform that new Law, which he should give us: But this shall be particularly considered in the Sixth Chapter.    

CHAP. IU. An Answer to the Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.  
WE are now to examine the Arguments which are brought against this Doctrine; where as I shall pass by none that I meet with which seem to have any weight, and whose solution may add any evidence to this weighty Truth; so I shall not count myself concerned in a great number of Objections, that are heaped up by some against it, some being mere devised cavilations, and many nothing to the purpose. For our Opposites deal in this Argument as the Arminians did in the point of Reprobation, load it with calumnies, or with the unadvised expressions of some particular men, but say but little that concludeth against the Truth itself. Their usual Fallacy is Plus in conclusione quam in praemissis, or ignoratio Elenchi; when the plain Question is, Whether we are accepted and justified for the Righteousness of Christ wrought for us, and given to us by the Promise of the Gospel, and accepted by Faith; And their Arguments should conclude against this naked truth, they usually conclude against Imputation of this Righteousness as expressed by the Antinomians, or by Popular and not Logical Men, or else against some terms of Art applied to this Subject. The like they do when they dispute against the Imputation of our sins to Christ; yet some Instances of this kind I must take notice of, that the Reader may be the more excited to observe it in their Books.  

Object.  Christ's Righteousness is the Morally Efficient, sc. the meritorious Cause of our Justification, 
Hotchkis ut supra, p. 23.  therefore it is not the proper matter, or properly a material Cause of it: Matter being an internal constitutive Cause, and an efficient and external Cause, which cannot agree to the same thing.  

Answ.  The Question is not (nor did ever any man say it that knew what he said) whether Christ's Righteousness be a proper material Cause, as Matter is opposed to a Form: When it is said to be the Matter or formal Cause of our Justification, it is meant only Analogically; Christ's Righteousness consisted in Actions and Passions, which were neither Matter nor Forms as taken for Internal Essential Parts of any thing: But when these Actions and Passions are the thing for which a man is justified, they are analogically called the Matter of his Righteousness, because his Righteousness is made up of them; and as a man is accepted for these very Actions and Passions wrought for him, and imputed to him, so they may be called the Formal Cause of our Justification, as a man is denominated Just before God from that Righteousness: And thus as Christ's Righteousness is analogically called Matter or Form, so it may analogically be said to constitute a man Just or Righteous before God, or to be pars constituens hominis justificati, quatenus juscificati, as any other Accident, moral or physical,  or , being appli d to the subject maketh the concretum ex subjecto & accidenti, and so the subject in that composition is as the matter, though otherways perhaps the Efficient; and the Accident as the Form; both are the Constitutive Parts of that concretum, yet Analogically. Thus much for the Logic of this Argument, now for the Divinity. It is true that Christ's Obedience offered as a Ransom for all the Elect in general is the Meritorious Cause of their Salvation, but when it is applied to each particular person (as all Causes must be applied to the Patient that they may produce their Effect) it is that thing for which God doth accept and justify them in particular, and so is said to be the matter of their Righteousness, the Material, and by some the Formal Cause of Justification, 
de Just. ch. 22.  vid. Dau. Atque 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, etc.  
2. 
Object.  If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us, than we are freed from all obligation to Obedience: If he hath obeyed for us, 
Trueman ut supra, p. 118.4.  what need is there of our obedience, we cannot mend his, and if he hath done all, there is nothing left for us to do?  

Answ.  We are freed from any obligation to obedience of that kind and to that end for which Christ obeyed: His Obedience was the Fulfilling of the Law of Works, as a Covenant of Life, and by fulfilling it he purchased life for us, and so was the perfective end of that Law or Covenant for righteousness to them that believe, Rom. 10.4. Perfect obedience to the Law of Works is not required of us, that we should live by it, or perish for lack of it, as it would have been, had not Christ obeyed for us. But it doth not follow from hence that we are freed from all Obligations of Obedience upon other accounts, viz. as Creatures to a Creator, as Servants to an absolute and sovereign Lord, as Children to a Father, and as the Preparatives to an Eternal Life; upon these accounts we must obey still, though not to be justified by it: Christ himself is not freed from the general obligation of obedience to God, as he is a Man, though he hath finished his satisfactory Obedience to the Law as the Means and Covenant of Life, and is for ever acquitted from the Obligation thereto: In like manner his Obedience hath acquitted us from all obligation to the Law as the way of life, yet not from all Obedience. But this Argument, as all the rest of this Author in the same place, is leveled against a Popular Expression of this Doctrine, and are nothing to the main Question, viz. That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us, that we are accounted to have obeyed in him, to have fulfilled the Law, to have done and suffered all in him, etc. which Position is true only in this Sense, That all which Christ did and suffered was intended for us, is given to us, and doth as really justify us, as if we had fulfilled it ourselves. But it is not true that God accounteth us to have personally obeyed in Christ's obeying, or us to have suffered in Christ's suffering, to have fulfilled the Law in his fulfilling it: For than we must be accounted to have satisfied for ourselves in him, and to have purchased our own Justification. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is God's, accounting it to be wrought for us, and so he accepteth us for it; but not his accounting us to have wrought it, or to have been actively righteous as if we had fulfilled his Law.  
But did not Christ obey as a common and public person for all the Elect, 
Quest.  and so he and they are one in Law, and so what he did they are accounted to have done.  
Christ was a common and public person in that he intended his Obedience not for himself nor for any one person, but for the whole Company of the Elect: Christ and they are one in Law, in that the benefit of his satisfying the Law, was intended for them, and in time conferred on them: But he was not a common person, or one in Law with them so as they might be properly reckoned to have done what he did; for this holdeth only where the common person is a Delegate or Commissioner of others, when they appoint him their Representative, give him his Instructions and Authority to act in their Name, than they are looked upon as doing what he doth, and not else. But it was God the Father and not Men that sent Christ, and appointed him to die for the Elect, gave him all his Instructions what to do and suffer, and then accepted it for them, being done by his own Appointment, not by theirs.  
But are we not made Righteous with Christ's Righteousness, 
Quest.  and so may be accounted to have obeyed, or fulfilled the Law in him?  

Answ.  We are made righteous with his righteousness, not morally, as if we were made personally Holy and obedient by it, or were so accounted by God; but legally we are made righteous, that is, justified by his righteousness, acquitted from condemnation, and accepted to life eternal. Therefore we are justified as sinners, as ungodly, Rom. 4.5, 7. in the way of repentance, and acknowledgement of our sins, by faith in the promise of life through Christ. But we are not justified as innocent or blameless in ourselves: Justification doth not find us righteous but makes us righteous, viz. it acquitteth and reconcileth us guilty, condemned sinners for the righteonsness of Christ; and thus we are made righteous in Law, such as shall not be condemned, but have eternal life.  
Are we then justified according to the Premiant and Retributive part of the Law, 
Quest.  and not according to the Preceptive part also?  

Answ.  We are justified according to the Precept as well as according to the Promise, Christ having fulfilled or obeyed the Precepts for us, and thereby procured all the reward that was promised, with some addition of happiness, because of the eminency of his Person and Obedience. He also purchased deliverance from the Curse threatened, by undergoing the Curse for us, yet we cannot be said to have obeyed the Precepts, or to have born the Curse in him in any proper sense: He did it in our behalf, that we might thereby be justified and brought to life as certainly as if we were innocent, but not that we should be accounted really innocent in our own persons. 
M. Baxt. 4. disput. of Just. p. 263.  As for the distinction of Righteousness according to the Precept and according to the Sanction, or retributive part of the Law, and that again divided into the promise and the threatening: 
Idem Answer to Dr. Tully, p. 50.  Righteousness according to the Promise being jus ad donum, a right to the thing promised, and righteousness according to the threatening being jus ad impunitatem, a right to impunity or to escape punishment; this distinction I say as to the matter of Justification, is very needless and impertinent. For it is the fulfilling of the Precept which gives right to the reward promised, and the violation of the Precept which entitleth to punishment. What though the righteousness of obedience to the Precept, and the right to the blessing of the Promise differ as the cause & effect, yet the latter doth oppose the former, when we are to be justified before God; so that if we have right to life on the account of Gods Promise to the righteousness of Christ, and this righteousness be his obeying the precept of the Law, than his obedience to the precept is imputed to us also, and is the foundation of our right to the Promise: The like is to be said of our right to impunity, which is founded upon Christ's suffering the punishment for us, and therefore his suffering the penalty is imputed to us also, and thus that which is built upon this distinction falls to the ground, viz. That Righteousness as to the Promise and Threatening of the Law being in some sort distinct from the Righteousness of Obedience to the Precept; that therefore we may have the former without the latter, i.e. we may have a right to life by the promise of the Gospel, and a right to be delivered from wrath, and yet Christ's Righteousness of Obedience and Suffering not to imputed to us. For this is the immediate Cause and Foundation of our right both to avoid the penalty and inherit the promise. The rest of Mr. Trueman's Arguments I pass by as being directed against the Antinomians only and not touching us, as also what he writes against the Imputation of Christ's active and passive Obedience in the sense before explained, which is repeated by a later Author, 
Just. Evang. p. 54.  as being partly impertinent and partly answered in the first Chapter. This later Author giveth us three Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, 
p. 56.  though he doth (as the others before him) miss the state of the Question; reporting our Opinion thus, That Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as if we are accounted to have personally done and suffered what he did: 
p. 57  His third Argument runneth wholly upon this mistake, therefore I shall pass it by, the two first deserve some consideration.  

The First Argument is:  
If every Believer be personally righteous before God in the very individual Acts of Christ's Righteousness, 
p. 58.  one of these two things will thence ensue: Either that Christ in his own person did perform all the particular Acts of Righteousness required as due from each saved person; or else, That every saved persons righteousness before God is identically and numerically the same with Christ in his public capacity as Mediator, and so every saved person is personally righteous with a Righteousness that hath a stock of merit in it, sufficient to save the World.  

Answ.  This Argument is untrue both in the dilemma and in the consequence: In the dilemma, because there is no opposition betwixt the Members of it, viz. Christ's performing the obedience due from every Believer, and their being righteous with a Righteousness that hath an infinite merit in it: These are not destructive the one of the other: The consequence is untrue, because neither of these things follow from the Doctrine of Imputation. The Error of this worthy person proceeded from his thrusting two Arguments into one, when the Form of it would not bear it: I shall therefore take leave to separate them and answer them apart.  
The one is, If we be justified by the very personal Righteousness of Christ, than he must have performed all the Duties that belong to every particular Believer, the Ceremonial and the Moral to the married and to the unmarried, to Parents, etc. But this he neither did nor could do: Ergò.  

Answ.  We grant that Christ did not perform all the particular Duties of every particular Believer, nor was it necessary he should. They acknowledge that what Christ did was sufficient to satisfy the Law of Works and to purchase a new Covenant of Life, though he performed not the particular Duties of every particular Man. If it was sufficient for this, why is it not sufficient to justify us by immediate Imputation: They will not say that our obedience to the Gospel doth fill up the Righteousness of Christ wherein it was short or desective, why might it not then justify us absolutely by the mere application of it to us as well as purchase that we should be justified by New Obedience? This is further manifest by this, That the Substance and End of the Law, sc. universal Love and Subjection to God in whatsoever he doth or shall command is equally the Duty of all men, and every one must habitually keep the whole Law: This was chief intended by God, and to be attended by Men; the particular Duties are various, and something are the Duties of one which are not of another; and in many cases things are and have been Duties at one time which have not been at another. It was therefore sufficient that Jesus Christ had the habit of all Grace and the readiness to obey his Father in any thing that he should require, as well as in those things which he did actually perform, and that he did obey actually in as many things as the Father thought fi● to impose on him, which were not a few: The Law had its end by him, even personal Obedience, and those particulars wherein he observed it were more honour to God than if we had all observed our particular Duties, because of the Dignity of his person, and the supereminent measure of Grace and the Spirit from which he did obey. This is evident à pari: Adam brought condemnation upon all men, not by breaking every particular Command, which might concern every particular man, but by one act of Disobedience, by breaking our Command, whereby his universal Obedience was tried; Why might not then the Sovereign Lawmaker impose upon Christ so much particular Duty for so many years as the Exercise of the Universal Habit of Obedience that was in him, and accept it as if he had fulfilled every particular of the Law? If he that offendeth in one Command is a Transgressor of the whole Law, James 2.10. Why may not he that keepeth it in all particulars required of him, and that was able and ready to keep it in any other, had they been imposed, be accounted to have kept the whole Law? If they say, that Adam virtually broke the whole Law, I say that Christ virtually and habitually kept the whole Law; Therefore this was sufficient that we might be justified by his Righteousness. The same is to be said concerning the Sufferings of Christ; he did not suffer all the particular Punishments due to every particular Sin of all Believers, nor some of the circumstances of any punishment, viz. Eternity and Desperation, etc. yet he suffered the Wrath and Curse of God which was the substance of the Threaten, and in such an eminent manner as no mere Creature could have suffered, and with a Mind habitually ready and able to have endured any other particular Punishments if the Father had thought fit to enjoin them: It was death in the general, the Curse of God, which was the Substance of the Threatening; God dispenseth the particularities of Punishment as he pleaseth, bearing more and longer with some than others, giving more and greater Mercies to some than others, and will exempt some, even of the Wicked from Natural Death, even those that shall be found alive at Christ's Coming: The particularities therefore of Punishments are not Essential to the Law, and Christ did bear the Substance of the Curse with all the Particulars of it, which God thought sit to inflict, being ready to have born more if it had so pleased the Father. Why is not this sufficient to justify us by Imputation, in concomitance with his active Obedience, as well as to procure our Justification, upon fulfilling Gospel-Obedience, which they contend for? By this also we may answer that Argument which all our Opponents use as unanswerable, viz. That Christ paid not the idem but the tantundem, not the very Obedience and Suffering due from every particular Believer, but something in lieu of it, and therefore it cannot be imputed to them for Righteousness: For Christ did both, performing the idem in the Substance, obeying the same Law which obliged them in his universal Obedience, and suffering the Substance of the Curse, and also in as many particulars of obedience and suffering as the Father thought fit to exact of him, and this which was so far idem, the same, being performed by such a Person, was tantundem, equivalent to all the rest which were not actually done or suffered by him: Yea he did habitually in the readiness of his Mind, and virtually in the interpretation of his Actions and Passions do and suffer all the rest. What some add, That Christ did not do and suffer the very individual Duties and Sufferings of each Believer, 
Trueman ut supra.  is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things being not individual before they exist, and Actions and Passions, such as our Duties and Sufferings be, are individuated by the subjects wherein they exist, at least in part, as are all other individual accidents, which cannot be but in that individual subject wherein they are. This therefore is impertinent.  
The second Particular in this Argument is; If every Believer be justified by the very Individual Righteousness of Christ, than every saved Persons Righteousness before God, is identically and numerically the same with Christ's, in his public capacity as Mediator, and so with a Righteousness that hath a stock of Merit in it, sufficient to save the World.  

Answ.  We grant the whole, That every Believer is righteous with that Righteousness which Christ wrought as Mediator, and which is infinitely meritorious: nor doth what is objected, in the least disprove it. 
p. 59  It is said, that Christ's Righteousness was the righteousness of God-Man, that no creature could perform any thing in that manner, and with those circumstances as he did; yea, that some things which Christ did, would be unlawful for Man to do, and that all he did and suffered, was in pursuance of the Office of a Mediator: the whole comes but to this, that men are not, could not be the authors, workers of the Righteousness of Christ, either in the matter, circumstances, or immediate ends of it, and therefore they cannot be justified by it: this is no consequence, they are justified by it, as wrought for them by the Mediator God-Man, though not as wrought by them. Moreover, though the Righteousness of Christ and a Believer be numerically the same righteousness, the infinitely meritorious Righteousness of the Mediator; yet it agreeth to them in divers manners, and so hath different effects: it is Christ's Righteousness as the efficient who wrought it, as the Mediator performing it in pursuance of his Mediatorial Office, and thus it is one perfect and complete public Righteousness, satisfying the Law, purchasing eternal life for all the Elect, whereof Christ is the only immediate and proper subject; but it is a Believers righteousness secondarily, as being intended and wrought for him, that he should be justified by it, and so his only, so far forth as he stands in need of it; not as Mediatorial, or meritorious, or universal extending to others also; it is infinite and meritorious as it is in Christ, not as it is in a Believer; for there it is an infinite meritorious Righteousness accepted for him, so far as he needeth it, not as infinite or universal for all the Elect. Thus also we may answer what is commonly said; if we are righteous with Christ's Righteousness, than we satisfied for ourselves; we are our own Mediators, seeing by that righteousness Christ satisfied and was our Mediator. For the matter of the righteousness may be imputed to us, and not the circumstances and qualifications of it; we may be accepted for that righteousness, and yet not be accounted to have wrought it for ourselves or others: it is a common rule, Quie quid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis; a thing is received according to the capacity of the receiver; not always according to the extent of the thing, or the virtue of the efficient. The Sun which is seen by half the World at once; the sound which is heard by many thousands, are seen and heard by each one in particular for themselves, but not accordieg to that universal extent whereby they are seen and heard by all the rest. But to come nearer the case, God's act of Creation and conservation is infinite, and yet every creature created and preserved thereby is finite: God's course to the actions of the creatures is infinite as proceeding from him, yet it maketh not the actions of the Creatures infinite; yea, all the acts of creation, preservation & concourse are of the same species, of the same sort as they proceed from God; it is not one kind whereby Men and Angels are created, preserved and assisted, and another whereby the same things are done for lower creatures, but the same infinite power of God applied to each one according to their necessities, yet this Identity of the Divine Acts doth not make the Creatures to be of the same species or nature, or to exist in the same manner, or all to operate with one kind of Action. In like manner the Righteousness of Christ as wrought by him, and proceeding from him, and intended for all the Elect, is infinite and meritorious, but as applied to every single person, it procureth so much pardon as they have need of, and satisfyeth so much of the Law as they are obliged to, and so purchaseth Eternal Life for every one according to their necessity and station. Of the same nature is that common Objection, viz. If we be justified by Christ's Righteousness then are we as righteous as Christ; which followeth not, unless his Righteousness was applied to every particular Believer in the same manner as it agreeth to Christ, which is untrue. Christ is righteous inherently, as the immediate, proper Subject of his own Obedience, and actively as the Author of that Obedience, as he that in his own person fulfilled the Law: A Believer is not at all accounted the Author of that Righteousness, is not looked upon as the person that obeyed, nor is he the subject of inhesion, in whom that Righteousness doth inhere properly and physically, but he is a legal, secondary subject, who receiveth the immediate benefit of that Righteousness, as being intended for his Justification. Again, Christ wrought his Righteousness for all the Elect in the Office and Person of a Mediator, and so was not only righteous as a single person, but also as a public person; but each believer is righteous as a single person, by that public and universal Righteousness of Christ applied to his particular case and necessity. If a Debtor be discharged by his Sureties paying the Debt, may he be said to be as good, as solvent a man as his Surety, because the Sureties Payment is imputed to him. If an Innocent person be accepted to die for one that deserves it, may the Guilty person be said to be as innocent, or to have satisfied for his Crime, as much as the Innocent that died for it: The Payment and the Punishment are accepted for the Debtor and the Guilty; so that they are freed by them, but the honour of being solvent and innocent, of paying and suffering, 
p. 61.  for a Friend, belongeth not to them but to the Sponsor.  
This Authors second Argument is, 
Object. 2.  If we be justified by the Acts of Christ's Personal Righteousness, then are we justified by the Works of the Law; but it's the Apostles whole design to the Romans, to prove that we are not justified by the Works of the Law nor unsinning Obedience; Ergò.  

Answ.  Never any Orthodox Divine denied that we were justified by the Works of the Law, wrought for us by Christ, but on the contrary it is the soundation of the opinion of Imputation, that the Law of Works cannot be waved but must be fulfilled, both by obedience to it, and suffering the punishment when it had been once broken; and this being impossible in our own persons, God sent forth his Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh; and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, Rom. 8.3, 4. That which justifieth us is the Obedience of Christ to the Law of Works, but we are justified not in a Legal but in an Evangelical way, because it is the Gospel that granteth us forgiveness upon the obedience of another, and not the Law. Etsi haec Christi obedientia legalis nobis imputata, 
Bradshaw de Just. c. 18. th'. 7.  pars sit aliqua justitiae illius quâ coram Deo justificemur: Non tamen inde concluditur, nos ex legis operibus vel ex parte aliqua justificarieo sensu quo ab Apostolo ea opera excluduntur, Rom. 3.20. Galat. 2.16. & 3.11. Cum lex illa postulet, ut quaecunque preceperit in propriae nimirum cujusque persona, non autem per sponsorem, aut vicarium quemquam praestentur. The Apostle to the Romans proveth that we are not justified by our own Works wrought in our own persons, but not absolutely, That we are not justified by the Works of the Law in any sense; but on the contrary, when he saith we are justified by Faith, this implieth that we are justified by the Obedience of Christ trusted in, or applied by Faith: What is here further said toucheth not us, viz. If Christ's Righteousness be so imputed that we are accounted to have done personally what he did, than our being justified by his Works, is all one as if we were justified by our own. For we do not maintain, that Believers are accounted to have wrought what Christ did, but only that it was accounted to have been wrought for them; and yet it is not true, that upon supposition that they are accounted to have wrought in Christ, that it is all one as if they had wrought it themselves. For still they did not obey the Law, but another for them; nor did the Law account itself to have been fulfilled by them, but the Lawmaker accepted another's Obedience for them, and so discharged and rewardeth them in the right of that Obedient Person. But this manner of expression holdeth only when the Law alloweth a Delegate or Substitute, and the persons concerned do choose and give him his Authority and Instructions to act in their name which is not in our case.  

Object.  It is further objected: If our Sins be imputed to Christ, so that his Righteousness should be properly imputed to us, than would they corrupt his person, and he must be accounted a Sinner, guilty of all that we have done.  

Answ.  Our Sins are imputed to Christ not as if he should be accounted the Subject of our evil Nature and Habits, or the Author of our Commissions or Omissions, but that he should bear the Punishment of them, and so satisfy the Law which was broken by us. This doth not corrupt his Person or make him morally a Sinner. If a Surety pay a Debt for another it maketh him not guilty of the imprudence, dishonesty, or ill-husbandry whereby the debt was contracted; but he having undertaken to satisfy for the Debt, the Law requireth payment of him as if he were the Debtor, and so imputeth the Debt to him: If an innocent person be accepted by the Lawgiver to die for an Offender, it maketh not him an Offender, though he be punished in the Offenders room and the offence as to the Punishment be imputed to him: Yet we may say, That legally Christ was made a Sinner and his Person corrupted, in that he having undertaken to satisfy the Law for Sin who had not broken it in his own person, nor was obliged to such satisfaction before, doth now become a Debtor to the Law, to suffer the Penalty of it, having interposed himself betwixt the Law and the Persons that had offended. And thus saith Dr. Twiss: 
● vind. Grot. lib. 1. sect. 26. p. 211. Col. 1.  Look on what manner Christ bore our sins on the Cross, in the same manner may our Sins be said to have been in him or upon him, and we Sinners to have been in him as he bore our person, or suffered the punishment of our Sins. Negari non potest Christum tulisse, sive gestasse peccata nostra in ligno, ergò, qua ratione gestavit peccata nostra, eadem ratione peccata nostra illi inerant, aut saltem incumbebant; atque eadem ratione & nos peccatores illi incubuimus; idque nondum habita à nobis posthumis in ipsum fidei, decimus omnes redimendos fuisse in Christo, non quidem ●er fidem insitos, sed quatenus dari dicuntur ipsi à patre, & quatenus ipsorum personam sustinuit.  
Bellarmin to add strength to this Objection, 
de Just. lib. 2. ch. 7.  saith, If our sins be imputed to Christ, then must be not only be counted a Blasphemer, Murderer, etc. but also a Child of the Devil, seeing those for whom he died were Children of the Devil.  

Answ.  This is but in terrorem, to affright us with hard words: A Child of the Devil is taken two ways; First by Imitation, for one that is like him and doth imitate his Nature and his Actions: So the Jews are said to be of their father the Devil because they do his Works, John 8.44. And Elymas a Child of the De●il, as being very subtle and obstinate in perverting the right ways of God, Acts 13. Thus all men by nature are the Children of the Devil; but Christ was not, nor doth it follow That because our sins were laid upon him ●● bear the punishment of them, he was the● fore the Child of the Devil, i.e. like him ●● Nature and Disposition. The Imputation ●● our Sins did not alter Christ's Nature, though it did alter the State and Relation of his Person for a time, making him obnoxious to the Law as if he had been an Offender.  
Secondly, A Child of the Devil may mea●● one that is delivered to the Power of Sata●● as the Executioner of God's Wrath, he h●●ving the power of Death, Heb. 2.14. 〈◊〉 Children of wrath are those that are born o●● noxious to wrath, and thus (though the te●●● is hard and irreverent) we grant the thing, vi● That Christ suffering for sin, was also made o●● noxious and subject to the Power of the Devil, both in his Temptations and in his last Sufferings, of which he said to the Jews, This ●● your hour and the power of darkness, Luke 2●● 53. of the Prince of darkness: And again The Prince of this World cometh and find●● nothing in me, John 14.30. This is so far fro●● making against us, that it confirmeth our Doctrine. The Devil is God's Executioner 〈◊〉 inflict punishment for sin, but Christ the innocent and perfect Son of God was delivered in●● the Power of the Devil for a time, to be vexed and troubled by him, therefore it was 〈◊〉 the Punishment of our Sin.  

Object.  These Authors unanimously complain, that ●he Scripture no where saith in express words, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to ●s.  

Answ.  All Scholars know that this is the first Ca●il of Innovators to weaken the Faith of the unwary. For themselves grant this concludeth ●ot, It is not read expressly in Scripture, therefore it is not the Doctrine of the Scriptures: say themselves grant it, as in express terms 〈◊〉 other Questions, so by their Practice in the present Controversy; They having new mouled Divinity in this last Age, and put it into ●●ew terms, and unknown both to Scripture ●●d Antiquity: They that complain of us for ●sisting upon the term of Imputation of Christ's ●ighteousness, as not contained expressly in scripture ought in all justice and prudence to ●●ve showed us first the Chapters and Verses ●here their Terms of condition, causa sine qua ●●n, first and second Justification, remediaing Law, a Law of Grace, and the like are 〈◊〉 be found. Moreover they know, that Im●●tation of Righteousness is a Scripture Term ●●n times used in the 4th to the Romans, and ●●at Righteousness is said to be imputed without Works, to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, v. 4. ●herefore this Righteousness cannot be a man's ●wn Obedience; and also that Christ is said Scripture to be our Righteousness, made of ●●od Righteousness to us, and we made the Righteousness of God in him; which are equivalent to his Righteousness being imputed to us. The Learned may find every one ●● these Objections against the Imputation 〈◊〉 Christ's Righteousness, with some others ●● the like kind urged to the same purpose by Bellarmin and answered by B. Davenant for substance as we do, 
de Justi. Cap. 24.  and B. Downam in many Chapters of his Learned Discourse of Justification.  

Object.  It is further objected, Our own works an● said to be accounted to us for Righteousness as that Act of Phincas in slaying Zimri an● Cozby, Numb. 25.7, Psal. 106.30, 31. And restoring the poor Man's Pledge, Deut. 24.13. It shall be righteousness to thee before the Lord And the keeping of all God's Commandments Deut. 6.25. It shall be our Righteousness if 〈◊〉 observe all these Commandments before the Lord Therefore Christ's Righteousness is not immediately imputed to us for our Justification.  

Answ.  When our own works are said to be ou● Righteousness or accounted for Righteousness it is only meant that God doth accept then and reward them. Thus he promised Phines' the Priesthood for ever, which was yet revoked for the sins of Elies' Sons, 1 Sam. 2.30. etc. And the Reason subjoined showeth ho● this Righteousness was accounted, viz. Th●● that honour me I will honour, and those that a●● spise me shall be lightly esteemed: It was accounted for Righteousness, i. e. honoured and rewarded. Thus mercy to the Poor shall be our righteousness before God, i.e. he is pleased with it, and will reward it with like kindness when we need it, Psal. 41.1. And our keeping all the Commandments shall be our Righteousness, shall be accepted and rewarded as the obedience of Children. But all this proveth not that we shall be made the Children of God, have our sins forgiven, and be entitled to Grace and life for our own obedience. We acknowledge obedience to God's Commands is our Righteousness, whereby we are morally and inherently righteous, i.e. conformable to God's Law and Will; and this, while imperfect is our inchoate or imperfect Righteousness, and when it shall be consummate it will be our perfect and complete righteousness; as B. Davenant saith well against the Papists Calumnies, the Just. cap. 22. But the Righteousness for which we are pardoned, accepted and made Heirs of Life, must be every way a perfect and complete righteousness, even the righteousness of Christ, as the same Author saith, Apertè affirmamus Deum justissimum neminem justificare, h.e. 
cap. 22. p. 311.  (ut exposuimus) à reatu absolvere, justum declarare, ad vitam aeternam, quae est justitiae praemium, acceptare, nisi interveniente vera & perfecta justitia quae etiam verè fiat ipsius justitia. And again, Dicimus neminemjustificari nisi qui donetur justitia tam cumulatâ tamque perfectâ, 
Ibid.  ut Deus in illum oculos conjiciens non possit eadem donatum pro jnsto non habere.  
It is pleaded that Faith is imputed for Righteousness in the same manner that other Works are, and so justifieth but as they do, and is our Righteousness as they are; and thus they interpret Gen. 15.6. Abraham's Faith was accounted for Righteousness, i.e. it was reckoned a noble and excellent Act of Faith with which God was well pleased and would reward it.  

Answ. 1.  Faith in the Promise of Pardon and Life, of mere Grace and Free Gift cannot be counted any part of our Righteousness: To trust in the general, in the Goodness, Power and Promises of God is required by the Moral Law, and is a Natural or Moral Duty, and so a part of our universal Righteousness or Conformity to that Law: But to trust in the Promise of Forgiveness and Mercy (which only is the Faith in question) is not required by the Moral Law, but supposeth us Breakers of it, and to be under its Condemnation; it only seeks for Mercy proposed in a new, supervening Promise, and therefore is not our Righteousness as Works are.  
The Apostle taketh occasion from a notable Instance of Abraham's Faith in a particular case, 
2ly.  and its obtaining the Promise of Great Blessings, to argue, That Faith in the general Mercy of God in Christ doth obtain Justification, Rom. 4.2, 3. and that with the exclusion of all works, v. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, Faith is imputed for Righteousness; and this Justification is explained by having sins forgiven, covered, not imputed, v. 6, 7. Faith therefore is imputed for righteousness only as it doth obtain the forgiveness of sin, & the acceptance of them that have no works, that are ungodly in themselves; and this must be by the Righteousness of Christ, not by its self being our righteousness.  

Object.  It is also said, If we are justified immediately by the Righteousness of Christ imputed, then there is nothing for us to do to obtain Justification; we must only believe we are justified and we are justified.  

Answ.  There is nothing for us to do to purchase Justification; this is done by Christ: But we must apply this purchase to ourselves by believing or trusting in it, flying to it for Justification. When a Ransom is paid for a Captive, there is nothing left for him to do to purchase his liberty, yet he must accept and challenge the Fruit of this Purchase to himself, before he can enjoy it. Though Adam hath procured and entitled to death upon all his Posterity, yet that Curse reacheth not us till we receive a Being from and do habitually consent to his Sin. In like manner Christ purchased life for all the Elect, yet they do not partake of it till they are engrafted into him, and we do, at least habitually, consent and trust to be saved by him.  

Object.  Lastly, it is argued, If Christ's Righteousness be properly imputed, than we should perfectly be delivered from all sin and misery and immediately brought to Heaven.  

Answ.  Justification itself obtaineth remission of all sins, and an immutable right to life, or the Favour of God, and an actual entrance into that Favour; this every justified person doth obtain upon believing, 1 Joh. 5.12. He that hath the Son hath life. Rom. 8.1. Justification hath its proper effect in this life, viz. it taketh away sin and the Curse or Obligation to Punishment, it reconcileth to God, and brings us into that Favour which will endure for ever; but God having redeemed us by his Son, intendeth not only to justify us from our sins and give us the Life promised by the Law, but also to make us his Children, to give us glory in Heaven, to make us Partakers of his Son's Glory and Kingdom: And for this it pleases him to breed us, to nurture and sit us for it, by conflicting with sin, by overcoming the World and the Devil, that the Glory of his Son and Grace may appear the more: Therefore the imperfect troublesome state of Believers in this life is not because their Justification is not perfect, but because God hath a further design in it, for his Glory and their good.    

CHAP. V The adverse Opinion propounded and examined: Pelagius and Arminius the Authors of it.  
OF all that ever troubled the Church with their Errors, the Pelagians and their ●ate Offspring the Arminians have most perplexed it with their Opinions, partly by their importunity, reviving them and urging them ●afresh from time to time, so that the Church hath had little quiet from them for the last twelve hundred years, though their Opinions have been most frequently and most fairly examined and unanimously refuted above any Errors whatsoever, and that both by particular Writers of all Ages, and also many Synods greater and smaller: But principally by their dishonest Art of misrepresenting the Orthodox Doctrine to persuade the Simple that they oppose particular men's Sentiments, not the Doctrine of the Church, and by covering their own Opinions, propounding them plausibly and ambiguously, that the Falsehood may ●ot be easily discerned, that at once they may insinuate with the Simple, and have retreats ●o avoid the Arguments of the Learned, wherein they do like those that sculk in Woods and Thickets, whom it is as hard to find out as it ●s to conquer. It was a sit Epithet that Hie●om gave Pelagius, Coluber ille Britannus, that British Snake: For he had his many wind and fold, and for his advantage could cast his Skin to. When he was taxed to deny Grace, ascribing all to man's free Will, he protested to ascribe all to Grace, and yet meant thereby nothing but Nature or Free Will, which he called Grace because it was the Gift of God; 
Vossius Hist. Pelag. lib. 1. pars 1. Joh. Latius Hist. Pelag. lib. 1. par. 1.  and when all his Opinions were summed up and objected to him in the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda, he openly and severally renounct them all with Anathemas, and all by equivocal words, keeping the same meaning. The like did his Scholar Caelestius, when called to an account before the Bishops of Rome and Africa; Fostus and Cassianus the Semipelagian Leaders trod in their steps, as the same Authors out of Augustin and Prosper have showed. Arminius and his Followers have not come behind them in this Art. The Preface to the Synod of Dort and Lubertus sufficiently insorm us how Arminius strove to cover his Opinions, 
contra Bersium.  till he might by secret insinuations gain a party to stand on his defence: When he was suspected of novelty by the Presbytery of Amsterdam, Sancté protestatusest, etc. he solemnly professed that he knew no man in the Low-Countries, that had a mind to bring in Innovations in Religion. His Disciples were of the same temper, which they shown both in the Synod and in their own Writing. By the same Art their Followers amongst us at this day create us much trouble, especially in this point of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed, about which they had their Doctrine from Arminius: Popular Insinuations is the best of their Rhetoric; Generals, Equivocation and Tergiversation is the greatest part of their Logic, which we shall make now to appear by enquiring what is their Opinion concerning the Effect of Christ's death and obedience, who deny us to be properly justified by it, or it to be imputed to us: They do agree to retain the Term of Imputing Christ's Righteousness. 
Just. Evang. p. 51.  The notion of Imputation in general (saith one of them) is no way to be opposed, it being impossible that we should receive benefit by, and the effects of what another doth without some kind of Imputation. But thus Socinus will say, What Christ did was imputed to us, i e. it was nostro bono, for our good and benefit. Mr. Baxter chargeth Dr. Tully with the breach of all that is Sacred, 
Answ. to Dr. Tully p. 18, 172.  for saying that he denyeth all Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and telleth us that he doth not only hold it in some sense, but in a larger sense than many do, viz. That not only his Passive Obedience is imputed to us, but his Active also, yea his Habitual and Divine Righteousness so far as influential to give merit to his Obedience; and yet all this is but words. For whosoever asserteth the infinite value of the death of Christ, must and doth acknowledge the concurrence of his Active, Habitual, 
Papaeus.  and Divine Righteousness, to make his death an infinite Prize, which it could not be unless the person dying, were God, of a perfect, holy Nature, and of perfect holy Life till the time of his death. But he that useth a common word (as this of Imputation is) and in that Question and Matter to which it belongeth properly, and useth it in a sense quite different from the common acception and state of the Question, doth but equivocate in retaining that Term. Though Protestants have differed about the Righteousness of Christ imputed, whether it be the Passive only or the Active also, yet till of late there hath been no question among them about the meaning of the term Imputation; all understanding thereby that we were justified and accepted to Life Eternal for the Righteousness of Christ intended and wrought for us. But it is more strange that he who is so earnest to be accounted a maintainer of Imputation, should no better defend himself from the accusation of denying it. For when a few lines would have expressed any man's meaning in this point, who was willing to be understood, he gives us many distinctions, divisions, 
chap. 2. p. 48, etc.  and sub-divisions, and fifty Propositions to explain in what sense he holdeth Christ's Righteousness imputed, and in what not, and yet confesseth after all these that he doubteth he hath not made his meaning plain enough, to those who are not exercised in the Controversy, who had most need of his Explication, and therefore addeth more distinctions and propositions to make his meaning plainer, 
chap. 3. p. 79.  which is as well performed as if a man endeavouring to wash an Aethiopian white, should first plunge him into a River of Water and afterwards into a Vessel of Ink: He goes ●n with the same Art and Chap. 4. 
p. ●9.  instead of opposing the Drs. sense of Imputation and de●ending his own, he thrusts together all the ●ences of Imputation, which he denieth both ●he sound and the unsound, and then disputes against Imputation with 43 Reasons, but against what or in what sense he would not have ●he People but only his Friends to understand. 〈◊〉 this be reconciling to devise new terms and ●ew questions, if confounding things be clearing of them, if hiding one's meaning with mul●itudes of words be to explain onesself, then ●his Author hath acquitted himself well. I will ●dd another instance of his Explications: I did assert that Christ's Righteousness (even habitual, 
Appeal to the Light, p. 1.  active and passive exalted by his Divine ●ighteousness) being the fulfilling of his Law and Covenant of Mediation, hath perfectly merited Reconciliation, Pardon, Adoption, Sanctification, Glory, and all the good which ever ●●e receive, to be given us freely in his own time, and on his own terms, by his New Covenant, by ●is Spirit, and by his Providence; and that we are as justly and certainly justified, pardoned, and saved by and for this meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ, as if we had done and suffered all ourselves, and that he suffered for us and in our stead, that we might not suffer, and fulfilled all Righteousness for us that were Sinners, to those proper uses we have and need no other Righteousness, and though it be not Scripture Phrase, we may truly say that thus Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, etc. This was writ to avoid the charge of denying Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and therefore worded in Protestant Phrases as much as could be, and yet a different sense couch in them, viz. in those words, to be given us on his own terms, and by his New Covenant whereby is intended that Christ merited ●● Reconciliation, Justification, etc. to be given to us as the immediate Effects of his Purchase, but to be given us upon the fulfilling the Commands of the Gospel, so that it is ●● Christ's Righteousness that justifies us, or ● imputed to us to Justification, but it did only merit a New Covenant or Law by fulfilling whereof we should be justified. We shall not endeavour to make plain what these men would obscure and hid, viz. the difference betwine them and us in the point of Imputation. It is the usual Protestant Doctrine that Jesus Christ undertook to fulfil that Law which men broken and to bare that Punishment which their Since deserved in the behalf of his Elect, and that God accepting this undertaking of his from Eternity, and the performance of it in time did therefore promise and grant pardon of sin, right to eternal life, and his Spirit, and all spiritual blessings to be conferred upon each of these Elect Persons, when by the Grace of Christ they should claim them, and put their trust in him: Hereupon we say, when a man is actually pardoned and intituted to life by virtue of this undertaking and grant, that Christ's Righeousness is imputed to him, i. e. that these benefits are bestowed upon him, for that Righteousness which Christ wrought and ●●d accepted, and he flieth to for Salvation ●●d for no other reason: And hereupon ari●●h in justified persons an immutable right to ●●e and the Grace of God to bring them to it; hereupon they may be certain of their Perse●●rance and Salvation: But on the contrary ●●ese men teach, first, That though Christ ●●d materially fulfil the Law broken by men, ●●d boar the Punishment due to their sins, 〈◊〉. did many things which the Law commanded, and suffered many things which it threat●d against Sin, yet that he did not intent directly and properly to satisfy that Law by obeying the Precepts and undergoing the Penal●●s of it, but did only fulfil the Law of a Me●●ator imposed upon him and peculiar to him, which was to do and suffer such things as God ●●eased to enjoin him. 2ly. That this which ●hrist did and suffered did respect and was intended, not for any particular persons, but ●●r all mankind equally as Adam's Sin did. ●●y. That therefore this Obedience or Righteousness of Christ did not purchase Pardon, ●●stification, or any of the Fruits of it for all 〈◊〉 for any man immediately. 4ly. But that 〈◊〉 procured this only, That God being content ●●ot to insist upon the Law of Innocency, and 〈◊〉 hold man to that which was now become ●●possible through the weakness of sinful ●●esh, he should grant a Covenant of sincere obedience to them, that would repent of their ●●rmer sins and receive Christ for their Lord ●●nd Saviour, that they should be saved as certainly as if they had not broke the Law of Innocency, or had satisfied it when broken 5ly. And therefore their Justification must be mutable as their sincere obedience is. 6ly. This is then that which they mean by Impu●●tion of Christ's Righteousness, and its purchasing Justification for us, viz. That it wa● a means of taking the Covenant of Works on of the way, and of procuring a New Covenant of sincere Obedience, which if men do perform, they shall be justified or live by it, notwithstanding their sins and imperfections, a●● much as they should have been justified b● doing the Law of Works; so that this Co●●nant being the Effect of Christ's Death, 〈◊〉 the Benefits of it, Justification, Adoption etc. are to be reckoned the Fruits of it al●● and when we enjoy these Benefits, his Righteousness is imputed to us, i.e. we receive the Benefit of that Covenant which his righteou●●ness purchased. Now I demand what it is th●● justifyeth or giveth us a right to life immediately and properly? By this Doctrine it is our fulfilling of the New Covenant, the Christ's Righteousness doth not properly justify us, or immediately procure our Pard●● or Life; then this Righteousness is not imp●●ted to us for Justification. To call this Imp●●ting of Christ's Righteousness to us is a sense so remote from the state of the question, which is, By what Righteousness we are justified immediately before God; and from the very Notion of the word Imputation, and imp●●ting or reckoning to one, that I cannot call●● less than equivocation or trifling.  

Object.  But they say that Faith and Repentance or ●ur fulfilling of the Gospel-Covenant is a means ●f applying Christ's imputed Righteousness, 
4 disp. of Just. p. 264.  ●nd so is a Righteousness subordinate and subservient to his, not at all derogating from 〈◊〉.  

Answ.  By applying Christ's Righteousness they ●●ean that then we have the Benefits and Effects of Christ's satisfaction, when we have fulfilled the Terms of the Gospel. As when a Man hath served his Apprenticeship in a Corporation, than he enjoyeth the Privileges of the Charter, which was boutht or given many ●ears before; but will any man say that than ●he buying or procuring of the Charter is imputed to him? They teach that God hath promised to pardon and save them that obey ●is Gospel, what is it then that gives the immediate right to Pardon and Salvation, that ●s constitutive of a man justified in Law, is it ●ot this Obedience to the Gospel? Then this ●s it which is imputed to a man for righteousness, but Christ's righteousness is not applied is that which doth constitute us righteous, for which we are justified, but when we are justified by our obedience to the Gospel, this is a favour which we should never have had, if Christ had not purchased it: To call this applying or imputing of Christ's Righteousness, ●s to hid a Heterodoxie with usual and Orthodox terms.  

Object.  But the same Author acknowledgeth that Christ's Righteousness is our only legal righteousness, or rather pro-legally, 
p. 274. Ibid.  a righteousness instead of our righteousness or obedience to the Law: & passim.  

Answ.  If Christ fulfilled the Law of Works in our stead so that his Righteousness is accepted for our fulfilling it, then must we be justified by his righteousness without any further righteousness or conditions. For the Law being fulfilled for us, must acquit us and give us life; this we defend: but he means not so, Christ is our legal righteousness with him, not by proper fulfilling the Law of Works for us, but by taking it out of the way, so that no such perfect innocent righteousness should be required of us to Salvation; and this he mean by prolegal instead of our legal righteousness. This is still hiding his sense with ambiguous words. It remains then that by imputing Christ's Righteousness they intent nothing else but that Christ procured a Covenant of Grace, by fulfilling whereof we shall be justified and saved though sinful and imperfect, which Justification and Salvation we must originally yet remotely ascribe to Jesus Christ, because he procured this mild Covenant for us; but the righteousness which constituteth us Just in Law, and for which we shall be pronounced righteous and Heirs of the Kingdom at Judgement is our own sincere Obedience, not Christ's Obedience, as appears at large from this Author.  
It is pretended that Luther in the heat of his Spirit and Zeal against Popish Superstitions, 
Object.  let fall some words which sounded as if he thought Christ's Personal Righteousness was every Believers righteousness, 
Answer to Dr. Tully p. 15. § 11.  and their Sins were made his, which afterwards he qualified, showing that Christ's Righteousness is ●urs, and our Sins his only in the Effects.  

Answ.  But that Luther maintained the same Imputation as we do, in opposition to all works, his Sermons and Comments on the Gal: sufficiently show, and all both Papists and Protestants do acknowledge: And if by imputing Christ's Righteousness in the Effects be meant its Immediate Effects, viz. that we should be justified immediately by that righteousness trusted in immedietate formae, without the interposition of any other righteousness to be wrought by us, it is the Doctrine we contend for: but ●f this be meant (as the drift seems to be) that ●t is imputed so as to merit a New Covenant by performing of which we shall be justified, and so it be imputed only in its remote Effects, it is manifestly untrue.  

Object.  It is said again, That most of our Reformers rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of meriting our righteousness, 
Ibid. p. 16. § 13.  though some of them followed Luther's Expressions of the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness.  

Answ.  Calvin and Melancthon who do not much follow Luther's Expressions, affirm, That our Justification consisteth in remission of sins for the Merit of Christ received by Faith only, and it is most untrue that any of our Reformers talked, That Christ only merited that we should be justified by our own Righteousness according to the Gospel Covenant (as is here meant.) 
Problem. loc. de Just. 6.25.  Aretius Melancthon's Scholar defineth Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and doth charge Thammerus once his fellow Pupil under the same Master, with deserting his Masters and the Doctrine of all Reformers, for teaching, That Faith in the business of Justification includeth Obedience to the Gospel, and that we are justified by it as the Fulfilling of the Gospel, and that the Works which St. Paul excludeth from justifying, are the Works of the Law, not the Works of the Gospel, also that gratis per gratiam, being justified freely by his Grace, was meant only that for Christ's Sake our imperfect obedience is accepted to Justification and sinless obedience not insisted on; where the Reader may find Thammerus his Arguments and interpretation of Scripture there cited at large, for substance the same produced by our Authors, and sharply taxed as a deserting from the Reformation.  

Object.  It is farther said, The Papists fastening upon those Divines who held Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in its self, 
Ibid. § 16.  in the rigid sense, did hereupon greatly insult against the protestants, as if it had been their common doctrine, and it greatly stopped the Reformation.  

Answ.  Thus Bellarmin pretended that amongst the protestants there were several Opinions about ●●e Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, one 〈◊〉 Luther, another of Calvin, a third of some ●●hers, besides that of Osiander, 
de Just. cap. 22. p. 312.  to which B. ●avenant answers, Secundam sententiam illo●●m commemorat, qui Christi obedientiam, ju●tiam, nobis imputatam, statuunt esse formalem ●●usam justificationis, at haec communis est nostro●●m omnium sententia, neque quod ad ipsam rem ●●tinet, quicquam é nostris aliter aut censit aut ●●ipsit: He reckoneth this a second Opinion our Writers, That they say Christ's Righteousness is the formal cause of our Justification, (i. e. its self is our Righteousness) but ●●is is the common opinion of all of us, nor did ●●er any of us write or speak otherways, as to ●●e substance of the thing: He also affirms, ●●at all the difference betwixt our Reformers ●●as only in the manner of expressing themslves, and that Calvin who placeth Justification in Remission of sin, did yet mean that Re●●ssion to be granted for the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, and that to be the Immediate Cause of it; and therefore adds as the ●●mmon Protestant Doctrine, 
p. 313.  Absque imputa●●ne obedientiae Christi, nulla remissio peccatorum ●●inetur— haec causa est remissionis, haec cau●● acceptationis, haec causa translationis à statis ●●rtis ad statum vitae, i. e. without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness there is no forgiveness; this is the cause of Pardon, this is the cause of our acceptance with God, and of our translation from the state of death to the state of life.  
It is suggested that this offence of the Papists occasioned the Germane Divines to dese●● the Question of Imputation, 
Object.  
So Dr. Tully, § 17. q. 17, 18  and to dispute what Righteousness of Christ it is by which we are justified, and many Learned Men maintained that it was the Passive only.  

Answ.  This Question arose and was agitated among themselves as Paraeus informs us in his Miscellanies, nor did it at all concern the Papis●● who are Enemies to the proper Imputation of Christ's Righteousness passive as well as active, against his bearing our sins as well as performing the Law for us: And these Divines who maintain the Imputation of Passive Obedience only, yet maintain that to be our Formal Righteousness, by and for which we are justified, and not that it procured a Covenant of Grace only. 
Th. Theol. de Justif.  Thus Vrsin, Justitia Evangelica est poena peccatorum nostrorum quam Constus pro nobis sustinuit, credentibus à Deo gr●tis imputata: So Paraeus in the Treatise alleged, and Windeline also in his Theologia, capde Justif. Thes. 6. he saith, That the instrumental cause of Justification is Faith or Affiance in that thing, for which we are acquitted in the Judgement of God and taken into favour, even the Merit of Christ. Instrumentalis of sides, h. e. fiducia, qua id amplectimur & nobis ●pplicamus per & propter quod in judicio Dei absolvimur à maledictione legis, & in gratiam re●ipimur, nempe Christi meritum: And Thes. 7. That the satisfaction of Christ for our sin, or his Passive Righteousness is that for which or by which we are justified; Materia ejus est id ●●er quod & propter quod coram tribunali divino ●●maledictione legis absolvimur & innocentes & ●●usti reputamur; est id perfecta Christi pro nobis satisfactio, qua poenas propter peccata nobis de●● it as nostro loco ipse fuit, etc. And that Mr. Gataker hereafter quoted, was of the same mind ●s evident from his learned posthumons Treatise of Justification. In all this here is no footstep of our Author's Notion of Imputation: ●or the question is not What, Righteousness of Christ is imputed, but How it is imputed, whether formally, properly and immediately, as all these Divines affirm, or remotely only, immediately and metaphorically, as some of late ●●contend.  
In England most Divines used the Phrase, 
Object. Ibid. § 18.  That we were justified by the Forgiveness of Sin and the Impputation of Christ's Righteousness, and being accepted as righteous unto life thereon; but the Sense of Imputation few pretended accurately to discuss, etc.  

Answ.  True, they did not distinguish away the sense of Imputation, & leave only an equivocal term. Our Homilies speak expressly that we may be said to have obeyed and suffered in what Christ hath done and suffered for us. 
ut supra. cap. 2.  The Doctrine of the Church of England hath been constantly that we are justified by Faith, as an Hand receiving, as an Instrument applying the righteousness of Christ, as is manifest by the Homilies: King Edward's Catechism composed by Dr. Ponet B. of Winchester, where the Phrase of Faith, being an hand is extant; by the 39 Articles, with Articles of Lambeth; the whole University of Cambridge in the Recantation which they enjoined Barret; by the Articles of Ireland composed by English men mostly; and by the public Question disputed in both Universities, collected out of their public Records by Mr. Prin in his Antiarminianism; and sure this is nothing to Christ's procuring a Covenant of Obedience and justifying us by that: Nor do Mr. Wotton's three Assertions, as here alleged overthrow the substance of our Doctrine. We grant there is an over rigid sense of these words, We are justified by Christ's fulfilling the Law, as if we had fulfilled it in him: Yet this proveth not, That we are not justified immediately by Christ's fulfilling the Law, as intended and wrought for us. Pag. 24, 25. the Author gives us his own sense, viz. That all the Righteousness of Christ, habitual, active, passive, and divine, as advancing them in value, is the meritorious cause of our Justification. But are we accepted and justified immediately for this Righteousness? No: Yet that is the Imputation all former Divines maintained. How then? Why, for this Righteousness God maketh a Covenant of Grace, in which he freely giveth Christ, Pardon, and Life to all that accept the Gift as it is; so that the Accepters are by his Covenant or Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness, as if they obeyed and satisfied themselves, etc. viz. That the conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Believer, that Covenant doth pardon all their sins (as God's Instrument) and giveth them a right to eternal life for Christ's Merit. This is a confession of what we represented before, sc. That the fulfilling the Gospel-conditions of faith, repentance, etc. is the righteousness which gives us the immediate right to pardon and life, and that Christ's righteousness only merited this grant of life upon those conditions. It might be expected by this History of the controversy that some Divine should have been quoted which taught this Doctrine, but alas here is not one since the Reformation! Therefore I shall quote the true Authors of this Opinion after I have vindicated B. Davenant and Mr. Bradshaw, who are here and elsewhere ingeniously represented as laying the ground of this Opinion, and as maintaining Imputation in another sense than all had done before them.  
For the most Learned and Pious Bishop, It is said, p. 18, 19 That though he most stiffly defended Imputation in words, yet when he telleth what Protestants mean by it, he saith, That our own Actions, and Passions, and Qualities may not only be imputed to us, but also some  thing neither inherent in us, nor done by us; de facto autem imputantur, quando illorum intuitus & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum, aequè ac si a nobis aut in nobis essent, i.e. They are imputed, when the sight or respect of them doth profit us for any effect, as much as if they were in us or done by us: [Note that he saith but ad aliquem effectum non ad omnem, i.e. to some, not to every effect.]  

Answ.  By this we are to understand that the Bishop meant Christ's Righteousness was imputed for some certain Effect, viz. To procure a New Covenant, not immediately to justify us. I see I need not despair, but my Books hereafter may be quoted for metaphorical imputation. In truth the Bishop doth not say, ad aliquem tantùm, but to some effect, but aliquem effectum, simply meaning quemvis, any effect, sc. That things without us (he intends Christ's Righteousness) may be imputed, i.e. profit us to any effect, as well as things in us or done by us; and that the following Similitudes show, of a slothful person promoted for the Merits of his Ancestors, or a Malefactor pardoned by another's suffering in his stead, which in both cases is done by the immediate imputation of such merits and suffering, without performing conditions by the Parties. But that the Bishop maintained imputation in the same sense that we do, and almost in the same words, is so evident that I am ashamed to produce the Proofs in so clear a case. His 37th Determination is, That Justifying Faith is fiducia, affiance in God for the remission of sins through the satisfaction of Christ, that this is the very formal Act of Justifying Faith. His 8th Determination is, That the Sanctified may be sure of Salvation, which will not consist with conditional Justification, and one Proof is Arg. 4. As it is most certain that Christ paid a sufficient price for all men, so it is no less certain hanc satisfactionem omnibus fidelibus & paenitentibus imputari & applicari, quasi ab illis ipsis Deo oblata & praestita fuisset, i.e. That this satisfaction is imputed to all Believers, as if they themselves had made it and offered it to God. But I shall confine myself to that Book which is misrepresented. Chap. 22. he proposeth the Question, 
de Just habit. & actual.  Whether we are justified by the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and that be the formal cause of Justification? Where he explaineth the Nature of Justification, of Imputation, the Righteousness of Christ, and the Formal Cause of Justification, in the same terms as we do and without any difference in sense. He gives us the Sum in these words, p. 313. Vno verbo, utcunque Deus sanctificatos nos reputat, at que inchoatè justos per impressam & inhaerentem qualitatem justitiae, tamen justificatos, i.e. à peccatis absolutos & ad vitam aeternam acceptatoes per & propter justitiam Mediatoris, nobis ab ipso Deo donatam, hac side spiritúque applicatam, i.e. Though God reputeth us inchoatively righteous, or holy by the habit of holiness wrought in us, yet he accounts us justified, acquitted from sin, and accepted to life by and for the Righteousness of Christ given to us by God and applied by his Spirit and our Faith. Then he layers down two Propositions opposite to the Papists, which he pursueth to the 30th Chapter. The one excludeth Works as the Papists maintain them, the other affirmeth that the most perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ dwelling in us and uniting himself to us, is the formal cause of our Justification, for as much as it is made ours by Faith and by the Gift of God. Prop. 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis, atque per spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima obedientia, 
Ibid.  est formalis causa justificationis nostrae, utpote quae ex donatione Pei & applicatione fidei fit nostra: Observe he doth not say Christ's righteousness doth in some sense justify us, or is ours for or in some effects, but he saith we are justified for that very righteousness or obedience of Christ, this is the form whereby we are made righteous or justified in opposition to our own Holiness; and that because it is our righteousness from God's Gift, from our Union to Christ and Faith in him; and then he lays down the contrary Position of the Papists to be refuted, and answereth their Calumnies against our Doctrine of Imputation, which are much the same that are scattered in our late Authors. The Proposition is Thesis' 2. Papistarum, Mediatoris obedientia sive justitia non donatur aut applicatur credentibus, vice aut per modum causae formalis, 
Ibid.  cujus virtute & fiducia stant justificati, aut Deo ad aeternam vitam acceptati. The Bishop goes on, and Chap. 24. answereth 11 Arguments of Bellarmin against Imputation, mostly the same with those alleged Chap. 4th. Chap. 25. 
ut supra,  he answereth Beauties Citations out of the Fathers against the same Doctrine. Chap. 27. He further explaineth the Nature of Imputation, and what we mean by a Formal Cause, just as we do. Chap. 28. He proveth that Christ's Righteousness is imputed as that very Righteousness which justifieth us, which he doth by 11 Arguments, and by all the same Scriptures out of the New Testament, which have been cited above Chap. 3. and by some others, all in the same sense which we take them. Chap. 29. He allegeth the Fathers for our Doctrine. Chap. 30. He refuteth the Papists slanders in saying that this Doctrine taketh away the necessity of good works, where he hath this memorable passage concerning the difference of the two Covenants, Lex in conditione operum vitam habet ipsam vim & formam icti faederis, 
p. 396.  at Evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim & formam, operum autem conditionem annectit ut subservientem huic faederi Evangelico, non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum faedus, i. e. the Covenant of Works includeth Works in the very form of it as the conditions of that Covenant, but the Gospel placeth the form and force of the Covenant in Faith in the Blood of Christ, but that it subjoineth works as a subservient condition, not as containing any part of the Covenant. Can any thing be more contrary to the Doctrine we oppose, that the Gospel is a Covenant of sincere Obedience, and that Obedience is the condition of the new Covenant whereby we must be justified? In all this here is not a word favouring this new Opinion: Chap. 31. There is something which may bare a colour of some approbation of this Doctrine, but it is but a colour. He saith, that Works are in some sort necessary to Justification and Salvation; but that the term necessary ought not to be used in Disputes with Papists, or in Discourses to the People, lest they ascribe too much to them. Concl. 2, 3. And in the 4th he saith, No works are necessary neither Legal nor Evangelical, 
p. 402.  as a Meritorious Cause (but conditions of the Covenant are a meritorious cause) Nulla opera bona sunt renatis ad salutem aut justificationem necessaria, si per necessaria intelligamus sub ratione causae meritoriae necessaria, dico nulla, ut excludam non solummodò opera legalia, sed etiam opera inchoatae justificationis. And then Concl. 5th, he saith, Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem, 
p. 403.  ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae— ut dolere de peccato, detestari peccatum & consimilia, i. e. Some good works are necessary to Justification though not as efficient and meritorious causes, yet as previous or concomitant conditions, such as sorrow for sin, humiliation, begging of mercy, hoping in it, and the like. But by this he meaneth not that these dispositions have any direct influence on Justification itself, but that they fit the Justified Person to use and improve his Justification: This we all acknowledge that ordinarily in persons that can use their reason there are such ministerial preparations both for conversion and justification, and yet they are the causes of neither: Nor doth this hinder but that God may extraordinarily sometimes work Grace, infuse Faith, and justify men without such previous dispositions: The reason following shows this was the Bishop's sense. For God, saith he, doth not justify Stocks and Beasts but Men, and those humble, contrite, and tractable to his Word and Spirit: 
Ibid.  Divina enim misericordia non justificat stipites, h. e. nihil agentes, neque equos & mulos, h. e. recalcitantes & libidinibus suis obstinatè adhaerescentes, sed homines, eosdémque compunctos & contritos, ac verbi spiritúsque divini ductum sequentes. vid. plura. To make it more plain he adds, When we say things are necessary it doth not presently follow that they are necessary as causes, but for order's sake: Not andum quandò dicimus aliquid necessarium ad hoc vel illud obtinendum, 
p. 404.  ex ipsa vi verborum non ninuitur necessitas causalitatis sed ordinis. 
Ibid.  Concl. 6th. he saith further, Good works are necessary to preserve the state of Justification; Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum & conservandum: But how? Not as causes that work or deserve the continuance of Justification, but as means without which God will not continue it: Non ut causae quae per se efficiunt aut mereantur hanc conservationem, sed ut media seu conditiones sine quibus Deus non vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conservare. He explaineth himself, That a life of obedience is necessary, that a justified man may improve and enjoy the Fruits of Justification, and also obtain the remission of following particular sins; and to prevent a course of sin, which is contrary to the nature of a justified man: In a word, That they are no otherways necessary to the continuance, than they were to the beginning of Justification, sc. by way of concomitance and order, not of influence: Nam ut nemo recipit Justificationem generalem, quae liberat à reatu omnium praecedentium peccatorum, nisi concurrente paenitentia, etc. ita nemo retinet statum à reatu liberum respectu peccatorum consequentium, nisi mediantibus iisdem actionibus, credendi, etc. Ratio est quod haec abesse non possint perpetuo ut non ad esse incipiant illorum opposita quae pugnant cum natura justificati. 
Ibid.  Again, Quia Deus non vult carnales, etc. frui beneficio justificationis, requirit assidua opera fidei, etc. quorum praesen. tiâ arcentur incredulitas, etc. aliáque gratiae justificationis venena, at que particularium peccatorum particularis condonatio obtinetur: 
p. 405.  And Hae autem actiones non conservant vitam gratiae propriè & per se attingendo ipsum effectum conversationis, sed impropriè & per accidens excludendo & removendo causam destructionis. He acknowledgeth also, that the falls of the Godly do not lose their Justification, 
Ibid.  Concl. 7. Vtcunque justificati in via bonorum operum claudicare, atque aliquandiu extra hanc viam per abrnpta libidinum suarum aberrare possint, statu filiorum haud amisso.  
Lastly, He saith good works are necessary to salvation and our coming to Heaven; Non necessitate causalitatis sed ordinis, not as causes ●f it, but as the order that God hath appointed, that we should first glorify him on earth, and then be glorified with him in Heaven. Now what they have gained by the Bishop's Testimony; let the Reader judge: We willingly subscribe to all this in substance.  
Mr. Bradshaw's Testimony will serve them to better; 
Praefat. de Just.  they cite his Preface for their purpose: his words are, Quid enim prohibet quo minus ●traque Christi obedientia ad peccati cujusque re●tum tollendum, & ad peccatorum nostrorum omnium veniam consequendam necessaria statua●ur? quid obstat? quo minus etiam ad imputationem utriusque hoc sufficere dixerimus, quod Deus utramque cum bono nòstro admiserit obedi●ntiam, & propter cam utramque nos acceptos ●abeat, ac si nos ipsi eo quo par erat modo, legem ●livinam implevissemus, qut paenas aeternas ex ea●em nobis debitas apud inferos sustinuissemus. Here he endeavoureth to reconcile those that contend for the Imputation of either the Active or Passive Obedience alone, and saith, That we may say they are both imputed, both performed for us, i e. for our benefit, in that way that God thought fit, and that we are justified by both as much as if we had fulfilled the Law or suffered Eternal Death. But doth Mr. Bradshaw here express the manner how we are accepted by the Obedience of Christ? doth he at all derogate from our being justified immediately by Christ's Righteousness, or doth he lay any foundation for Justification by fulfilling the Gospel-Covenant? There is not a word of that here, or in all his Book: He doth indeed speak more accurately and cautiously of the notion of Imputation, and what Obedience of Christ may be said to be imputed and what not, than others do; yet in substance he agreeth with them, and asserteth the old Protestant Doctrine particularly Chap. 22, 23, 24. per totum: He affirmeth Christ's satisfaction to be the only matter of our Justification, Chap. 22. Th. 1. In satisfactione Christi supradicta, vera & sola justificationis posita est materia; And that by this Satisfaction we are not only freed from eternal wrath, but made truly righteous before God. Th. 2. Redemptio sive satisfactio illa qua pretium ejusmodi persolvitur, cujus vi peccator non à debita tantùm poena liberetur, sed etiam in foro divino vere justissiméque justus factus dicitur, non est fucata, metaphorica, etc. And that the form of our Justification is the alleging of Christ's Righteousness, Chap. 23. Th. 2. Hujus Justificationis forma est satisfactionis sive justitiae illius in gratiam ejus pro quo praestita est coram Deo factae vel alligatio vel declaratio quaevis. And lastly, he saith, That the immediate effect of Justification is Reconciliation, whereby all sins are forgiven, and God receives a Sinner into favour for the Satisfaction of Christ accepted in his behalf, Chap. 24. Th. 2. Hominis cum Deo reconciliatio ex vera justificatione orta est, qua Deus propter Christi satisfactionem gratiosissimè admissam cum peccatore in gratiam rediens, remittit eidem peccata universa ipsámque pro verè justo habet. In the Conclusion of his Book he gives us the Sum of what he had delivered immediately touching the point of Justification.  

1. Deus Pater justificat admittendo & imputando.  
2. Deus Filius satisfaciendo & advocatum agendo.  
3. Sacro-Sanctus Spiritus revelando & obsignando.  
4. Fides apprehendendo & applicando.  
5. Bona opera manifestando & declarando.   
This is the whole and usual Protestant-Doctrine.  
We must now seek some other Authors of this Opinion. 
Art. 24.  Arminius in answer to the 31st Article objected to him, saith, Christi justitia imputatur in justitiam mihi non probari dixi: Having in general terms as our Authors profess, to acknowledge that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, and that we are justified by it; yet he here denyeth, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness, and gives this reason; Quicquid imputatur in justitiam, vel ad justitiam, vel pro justitia, ad ipsum non est ipsa justitia strictè & rigidè sumpta: At Christi justitia quam ille praestitit Patri obediendo, est ipsissima justitia strictè & rigidè sumpta: Ergò, non imputatur in justitiam; i. e. That which is imputed to us for righteousness, must not be righteousness strictly and properly so called; But Christ's Righteousness was a strict and proper Righteousness or obedience to his Father, Ergò. Arminius we see taketh imputing Christ's Righteousness for nothing else, but that it procureth Justification for us, not that itself doth justify us or make us accepted; and that the righteousness which is imputed to us, whereby we are justified, is not Obedience to the Law, but something else which God for Christ's sake graciously accepteth to our Justification: 
Declar. sentent. oper p. 102.  What this is he expresseth, having said that Christ's Righteousness is the only meritorious cause of Pardon: Statuo, hoc censeo benè & propriè dici fidem homini credenti in justitiam ex gratia imputari, quatenùs Deus Jesum Christum filium suum proposuit tribunal gratiae, sive propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius, h. e. Faith is imputed to us for righteousness in as much as God hath made Christ the Tribunal of Grace, which is all one as to say with ours, Christ as a King and Judge doth justify us by and for believing in him.  
And again in answer to the 26th Article objected to him, he contendeth, That though Faith may be said to concur as an Instrument to Justification; yet the Act of Faith doth justify as it is graciously accepted for our Righteousness: Apprehensio Christi est proprior quam instrumentum apprehendens, vel quo objectum apprehenditur: Apprehensio autem est actio, itaque fides non quà instrumentum, sed quà actio, imputatur in justitiam, quanquam propter illum quem apprehendit.  
Bertius in his Epistles explaineth this that Faith is required by the Gospel instead of perfect Obedience to the Law of Works, 
contra Lubbert.  and so justifyeth us that should have done, as the fulfilling of the Command of God, with this difference, That perfect Obedience needed no Pardon and Grace, but Faith per gratiosam accepti lationem; of God's Gracious condescension is accepted as a Man's Righteousness, he being pleased to require no more of him, because of his inability to keep the Law; so than Christ's Righteousness hath purchased that we should be justified by our Faith, but itself doth not justify us. But do the Arminians by Faith mean only the apprehending or trusting in Christ's Righteousness in opposition to or contradistinction from all other Graces and Works in the matter of Justification: Nothing less. By Faith they mean Obedience to the whole Gospel, and all good Works, they say, are intended in Faith, that Faith and Repentance are all one, though sometimes they are separated and spoken of apart for clearness sake. Thus Hornbeck proposeth their Opinion, 
Sum. Contro. lib. 8. Quest. 20.  Num coram Deo justificemur non fide apprehendendo Christi justitiam, quae sola nobis imputetur in peccatorum remissionem, used fide ut est actus & opus nostrum, includens in se obedientiam operum Evangelicorum, propter quam, quamvis non ex ejus dignitate & merito justificemur? i. e. That we are not justified by Faith as it apprehendeth the Righteousness of Christ, but as it is an Act or Work of ours, including Obedience to all the Commands of the Gospel. 
Harm. Remonstr. & Socin. Art. 12, 17.  Joh. Peltius hath largely showed, That by Faith the Remonstrants' mean Obedience to the whole Gospel, and that this is it by which they would have us justified. Take 2 or 3 citations.  
Art. 12. Parag. 6. p. 157. ex Remonstr. confess. cap. 10. Hac ratione considerata fides, totam hominis conversionem Evangelio praescriptam, ambitu suo continet. Faith comprehends man's whole Conversion. Episcop. disput. 22. Fides illa quae credenti imputari dicitur in justitiam, bona opera non tantum non tollat, sed ea ipsa, aut eorum saltem faciendorum propositum natura sua in se contineat & comprehendat; i.e. Faith which is imputed for righteousness doth not exclude Works, but containeth them, or at least a purpose of doing them. Joannes Geister. Confess. Bona opera & gratia non pugnant inter sese, & sub fide etiam bona opera comprehenduntur; i.e. Grace and Works are not opposite, and Faith comprehends Works. Yea this Man was so ingenuous as to tell us, that we do not contend with the Papists, whether we be at all justified by Works (in this the Remonstrants and Papists are agreed) the question only is, By what Works we must be justified: Quando cum Papistis disputatur, non est inquirendum, an per bona opera justificemur, sed per quae opera. He would only exclude Popish superstitious Works, as our Authors would have, The Apostle Paul only excludes Jewish Works or Ceremonial Observations, from our Justification. Would you have the matter yet plainer, Adolph. Venator will put it out of question: Justificamúrne etiam ex operibus? Certè ita, i.e. Are we justified by works also? Yes verily: And the Remonstrants in their Apology boldly affirm, ex operibus hominem justificari istud non tantum non est absurdum, sed verissimum esse totidem verbis pronuntiat Apostolus, Jacob. 2. Nec evadent hunc ictum censores, cùm hunc locum pro suo more de declaratione justificationis intelligendum esse dicunt, i.e. It is so far from being absurd that a man is justified by works, that it is most true; and the express words of the Apostle James, which cannot be evaded by interpreting them of declarative Justification. Thus we see that the Arminians meant the same thing, when they said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, the Act and Work of Faith itself doth justify us, that our late Authors do when they ascribe Justification to Faith and Obedience; both agree that Faith in its usual acceptation and full latitude comprehendeth assent and obedience to the whole Gospel, and that thus it justifies and no other way, and in this how the Remonstrants do conspire with the Socinians, Peltius doth clearly demonstrate, 
ut supra,  which also the Arminians do not deny, as in their Apology; Si quis dicat hanc sententiam, Quod Fides quàtenus viva est, justificat, esse ipsissimam Socini sententiam, is, dato quod id verum sit, necesse est, ut fateatur tandem Socinum hac in parte conspirare cum reformatis Ecclesiis quoad substantiam ipsam, i.e. If any man say that this is Socinus' Doctrine, he must confess that Socinus doth so far agree with the Reformed Churches in substance: And this also seemeth to have been the true sense of Pelagius, 
vid. Vos. Hist. Pelag. lib. 3. par. 1.  viz. That men are justified and saved by their acknowledging and obeying the Gospel, for as much as he taught that under the Gospel men were saved by obeying it, as the Jews were by observing the Law of Moses, and those before Moses by observing the Law of Nature: He also ascribeth to the Death of Christ nothing but the pardon of sins; acceptance with God must depend upon men's own obedience, Christ helping them in it, by the instructions and encouragements of the Gospel and by his own Example; and this doth not much differ from the Doctrine in hand.  
Thus we see that the First Authors of these Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians, and that herein the Socinians differ little from them. Let us now inquire, seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death, to what End Christ died according to those men.   

CHAP. VI This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction.  
THE Apostle Rom. 4.25. saith, That Christ was delivered, i. e. to death, for our Offences, and raised again for our Justification: Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon, Justification, Life Eternal, to all the Elect, in the Purposes of God, and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel, by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are persuaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life, and so they are made actual partakers of his Death, and justified. But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ, must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it, and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death. What this is we shall show, and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ. I meet with two Opinions in this matter: The First, saith, That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation, Justification, etc. for all or any man, but to render God placable or reconcileable to man, i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant, purpose, or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man, but that he may now justify, forgive, and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth. Thus Mr. Trueman as before: 
Gr. Prop. p. 86.  The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is, that God might be Just, though he should pardon Sinners, that he might pardon saluâ justitiâ, not that he must pardon them, come what will of it, or be unjust— And again; The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever, and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour; and now this Justice being satisfied, and this Bar and Obstacle removed, Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases, and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet. This he had from Arminius, who having said, That Justification, Pardon, or Reconciliation of any man, is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ: He tells us, The proper Effect of it is, Reconciliatio Dei, remissionis, justificationis & redemptionis apud Peum impetratio, 
contra Perkins, fol. 76. apud Twiss.  qua factum est ut Deus jam possit, utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante, hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere & spiritum gratiae largiri, i. e. the Reconciliation of God, the obtaining of remission and redemption, viz. That God may forgive and sanctify men if he please without breach of Justice, which is now satisfied. Hereupon they go so far as to tell us, That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him, God was free to save or not to save men, or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased. Thus Grevinch contra Ames. fol. 8. 
Peltius. p. 126.  Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo, jus suum integrum mansit, pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare, nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit, sed jus & potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus & qualibus vellet, i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished, God was perfectly free to apply ●t or not to apply it as he should please, nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase, but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit. Episcopius goes a step further, and saith, There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men, and opening a way of ●ise to them, till Christ was sacrificed: 
Disp. 5. Ibid.  Deli●eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit, priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset. Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ, that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them, might now think of a way to save them if he pleased, and withal might choose whether he would save them, or propound terms of Life to them or not. It followeth ●ence:  
1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious, nor did merit any thing of the father: It is true there was an intrinsecal, infinite value in Christ's Obedience, by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person, and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men: But this is the Foundation of Merit, not Actual Merit. To merit, is to deserve a Reward, to do something whereupon a Reward is due; so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward, which Obligation ariseth from some Law, Promise, or Compact betwixt the Parties; and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law, either of strict Justice, or at least of Gratitude, Generosity, Kindness, etc. If then God was not bound by Covenant, Promise, or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men, or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered, than his Obedience merited nothing, there was nothing due, no reward proposed to him, which he would challenge; for God was still free to do what he pleased with men: God (they say) would not have been unjust, if he had not saved men (though Christ died) he was not then bound by the Law of Justice (and he could not be bound by any other Law) to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect, as man's Salvation. Christ's Death (say they) was a refuseable payment for sin, even when it was presented to the Father; God might then have refused it, and yet have been Just: But it would not have been just to have denied Jesus Christ that which he merited, that would be due debt to him. They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification? But what did he merit? Justification: Then God was not free to deny it; he must justify those for whom Christ merited Justification, or be unjust, unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality: The effect of merit is some reward deserved, given for the sake of the merit; the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise, whereby one is bound to reward that merit: If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ, but still had jus integrum, entire freedom to do what he pleased, than Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it, or upon it; and certainly this is not to merit. Thus Slatius declare. apert. Jesus Christus per passionem & mortem suam nihil meritus est, nec solvit pro nostris peccatis, veluti vas pro debitore, qui non est solvendo. If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men, and this might be the Effect of his Merit; this is not true: By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it: For then man must have been discharged without any further Covenant or Terms, which is the thing they oppose. They must say Christ offered himself to his Father in such manner, that he might take occasion from it, if he thought it, justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works, and proceed to terms of Grace, but not that he must do either; and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father.  
2ly. It followeth from this Doctrine, That Christ's Obedience and Death were not properly satisfactory to Divine Justice. The say, That by Christ's Death God's Justice w● satisfied, the obstacle of Justice was removed, But how? God's Justice in this case is nothing else but his Will or voluntary Obligation of himself to deal with men according to his Law: To satisfy God's Justice is to satisfied his Law, and to satisfy the Law is to fulfil 〈◊〉 by obedience to it, or suffering the penalty 〈◊〉 it, or both: But they will not allow, That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith, 
Ibid. p. 89.  His death was not proper Payment at all: And if Christ did properly satisfy the Law, than those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required, or 〈◊〉 be performed of them. But if Christ satisfied not the Law, how could he satisfy Divine Justice, which hath the Law for its Rule 〈◊〉 is tied to it? It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Sovereignty, that God did accept of Christ to fulfil the Law for man, to wh●● it was given, and who only was obliged by 〈◊〉 But when the Lawmakers Prerogative 〈◊〉 accepted of the Surety, and of his undertaking for the Sinner; then he himself was m●●● under the Law, and satisfied Justice by satisfying the Law; but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as Obedience to the preceptive part of the Law, or his sufferings endured as subjection to the unitive part of it; and so neither of them ●ere exacted in a way of Justice, or performed as submission to Justice, either preceptive, or punitive; and so Justice could no ●ay be satisfied by his Obedience: Moreover 〈◊〉 after all the Obedience of Christ, God was ●ree to save or not to save men, than he was ●ree either to give them new conditions of Life, ●r to proceed to destroy them, according to ●he sentence and curse of the Law of Works; and is it possible that God's Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person, and yet the Persons for whom satisfaction was made not be discharged, but Justice still be left in full force to take vengeance, if the Judge pleased? Surely among men, if Justice be satisfied either by the guilty person or by his Surety, by the Judge's consent, even Justice itself must acquit and discharge the party concerned. The truth is, By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience, and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured, but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption, betwixt the Father and the Son, was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity (if we may so speak) As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the honour of his Father, and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels, and restore them to his Favour hereupon, not as being any way obliged to it, but as an act of a Noble and generous mind, and to express some honour and requital to his Son. Thus Slating Epist. ad N. Martin. An Christus pro nob● satisfecit? Respondeo, Nos negare, i. e. Did Christ satisfy for sin? We deny it; And he gives five reasons, the last whereof is, The God could neither punish for sin, nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation.  
3ly. It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom, Redemption or Price for Sinners: For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners, than this death had properly bought or purchased nothing of him. A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it, or equal in value to it, but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement, that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers, and the property be transferred to him, and no longer remain in the Seller: If then Christ propetly bought us, ransomed us, etc. then our Salvation became his de jure, he had a right to it upon his death, and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant, or not to grant it: But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them; if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal, than his obedience is no ransom, nor was he a Redeemer, he did not purchase his Church with his own Blood, nor was that Blood a Price of their Redemption.  
4ly. It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin: The Prophet saith, He was wounded and bruised for our iniquities, yea his Soul ●us made an Offering for Sin, Isa. 53.5, 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon, but left God still free to pardon or ●ot, than he did not die for sin, sin was not ●he meritorious cause of his Death, nor was ●he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death, but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners: Sin could be ●t the most but a remote occasion, or causa ●ne qua non of the death of Christ: if that had not been, God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness, and ●o there would have been no occasion of Christ ●o die, to remove that obstacle out of the way. And yet it is not easy to imagine what these ●en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice, which hindered his Mercy to Sinners, which was removed by Christ's Obedience. For ●oth they, and their Friends the Arminians ●eem generally to grant, That God of his infinite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin without satisfaction, so that his absolute Justice 〈◊〉 as not an obstacle to his Mercy; and for his Law, and that Justice which respecteth it, Christ (say they) did in no proper sense satisfy 〈◊〉, and therefore his Obedience could have ●o proper respect to Divine Justice, much less ●o sin that had offended Justice.  
5ly. Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation ●r Atonement for our sins. The Apostle, 1 Joh. 2.1. saith, That Christ was a Propitiation for our Sins; that he loved us and washed us from our sins with his own Blood, Ap●● 1.5. But this is true only accidentally and eventually, if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon, not that he must; and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death: Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ; his death may improperly be said to have made atonement or reconciliation for them, because it occasioned it, 〈◊〉 made some way for it; but that which left God still entirely free to pardon, or not, that did not appease his Anger, remove his displeasure, reconcile him, or obtain his good Will (as is the nature of a Propitiation or propitiatory Sacrifice) nor was it immediately 〈◊〉 directly intended for that end.  
6ly. Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World, that he gave his Son to die, or to the Son's Love to Mankind, that he gave himself. For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death, both to the Father and the Son, men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it; it would have been medium ordinatum, a proper means, designed to bring about their Salvation. But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour, in case he should forgive Sinners, but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it, no, nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World, or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him; it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son, neither could the Son know, when the Father was not resolved. Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption; and Christ's Merit, Satisfaction, Ransom, Sacrifice, and all that belong to it are but improper Metaphors, and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth; and Christ himself must be at most, but an honorary Mediator and Redeemer.  
The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is, That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace, or Conditions and Terms of Salvation, by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved. Thus the Arminians used to speak, That Christ died viam salutis pandere, to open a way for men's Salvation, to purchase conditions whereupon they might be saved, whereas before their Salvation was impossible, by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works. Act. Syn. Dort. Art. 2. Remon. Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconciliavit, ut Pater propter ipsius meritum, salva justitia & veritate sua, novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus & damnationi obnoxiis hominibus inire & sancire potuerit & voluerit. Thus Mr. Baxter faith, That Christ purchased Justification and life to be given by his New Covenant; not that he purchased these absolutely, to be certainly given to any persons, but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace, whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience. And this must be the sense (if any) of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salvabiles, salvable; and to render their Salvation possible, being impossible before, while the Law of Works stood in such source. For before Christ's death, men's Salvation was possible to God, no new power was acquired to him; and possible in its self, Men being subjects naturally capable of Salvation; this possibility then, must be a possibility in Law, as we say, id possumus, quod jure possumus, that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms, whereby it now became possible for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it. This Opinion is a little more plausible, but no more true than the former; which I thus prove,  
1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant, according to the rest of their Notions. The occasion or ground of this Purchase was, That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men, to condemn them without Mercy: Now then, could this Obligation be dissolved without satisfaction to, and fulfilling that Law, which yet they will not allow Christ to have done, unless per accidens, as part of it is comprised in that special Law of Mediator, which was given to him: If it was the Law which hindered God from showing mercy, and made man's Salvation impossible, than that Law doth oblige God to see it fulfilled, or else to grant no life to Sinners; and if Christ did not fulfil it, nor was made properly subject to it, (as they teach) than he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life; if he did fulfil it for sinners, than they must be discharged by his satisfaction, without further conditions imposed on them, (as hath been often said.) They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfil by Christ, but relaxed; I suppose they mean, That God did not insist upon the absolute performance of the Law, but was pleased to admit of an equivalent reparation of his Honour, by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him, wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law. I reply, If God did relax the Law, so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it; then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled: The ordinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law; and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour, he did not proceed in a way of Justice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ; and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it; his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law: by this purchase therefore they can mean no more, but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings, that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation, and would do it: but this is no purchase, which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser, if the Purchase be accepted; but dependeth merely upon Promise or Terms of Honour. It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becoming Divine Majesty, and what will salve his Honour, other than what is according to his Law or Promise: wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity.  
2ly. Nor in this sense is the death of Christ a ransom, satisfaction or propitiation. A ransom respecteth persons to be redeemed; it is a price given for them, not for Laws and Covenants: Whoever paid a ransom without agreeing to whom it should extend, and that it should take certain effect? whereas here is nothing purchased but a Covenant or Promise, that all those that believe and obey the Gospel should be saved, which perhaps might be none nor was it agreed how long the World should stand, and so what number of Men should be made, or should need, or be capable of this Redemption. A satisfaction to God in this case, is a satisfaction to his Law, whereby the Sinner must immediately be discharged. A Propitiation is a Sacrifice appeasing and reconciling God to Man; neither of which it done, if only a Promise be procured to save Men upon their fulfilling the conditions of a New Law.  
3ly. If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life, than his Redemption is much more in-effectual to save, than Adam's Fall was to destroy Man. The Apostle, Rom. 5.17, 18, 20. comparing the Death of Christ with Adam's Fall, saith, As Sin reigned to death, so Grace much more reigneth to life; as Sin abounded to condemnation, Grace much more aboundeth to justification and life: but where is this much more? the Obedience of Christ falls far short of Adam's Disobedience in its effects, if he only purchased conditions of life. Adam in a few moments by one transgression procured a sentence of certain death upon every individual person that should naturally descend from him, as soon as they should have a Being; but Jesus Christ by his transcendent Obedience of thirty four years, by enduring the Wrath of God, the rage of Men and Devils, and a most ignominious death, purchased life for no one certain Man, but only conditions whereupon they that should hear of them (not half Mankind) should be saved, if they did fulfil them; which, for any thing he purchased, or was contained in the Covenant of life, was a mere contingency, viz. whether any should ever believe and be saved or not.  
4ly. If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life, than he purchased no more for the Elect, than for others; no more for the Sheep, than the goats, and they that go to Heaven may hereafter say, Christ redeemed them no more than he did those in Hell; the difference betwixt them proceeded from their applying and performing the Covenant and its conditions, which others neglected: For the Covenant is equal to all that hear it, promising life upon conditions only, which every one is equally concerned in, alike capable of Salvation, and one not more likely to perform the conditions than another. The Arminians grant this, that Christ died for all alike, 
Syn. Dordr. Ibid. Th. 2. Heterodox.  Christi mortem impetrasse omnibus hominibus restitutionem in statum gratiae & salutis.  
5ly. It follows also, That for any efficacy there was in the death of Christ, there must have been no man saved. For the Covenant of Grace which only he purchased, would have been as true and as firm a Covenant, viz. That they should be saved who would believe and obey the Gospel, though no man had fulfilled it; and so been saved by it, as the Covenant of Works was, which (according to them) was never fulfilled, nor ever gave life to any. The Covenant required no more, then that God should be ready faithfully to give eternal life ro all that fulfilled it; and all that Christ purchased, was a Promise that he would so be, which would have been true, though all men had perished by their unbelief, and so Christ might have had the empty Title of a Redeemer, without any person being redeemed by him: And this Arminius, Gravirch, and others are not ashamed to confess. Arnoldus contra Molin. Omnino credo futurum fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret, etiamsi nemo credidisset. Some of ours faith, That God had his Elect whom he purposed to bring to Christ and save by him: But the Scriptures are as express that Christ died for the Elect, as that God elected them; And if Christ purchased no more for them, then for others, they might have perished as well as others, for any thing his Redemption or Purchase could do for them or had done.  
6ly. If Christ intended his death for certain particular persons, than he purchased more than a mere covenant or conditions of Life. The consequence is evident, If he purchased life to be given to certain men certainly & infallibly, than he purchased more than offer of life to them upon conditions, which they might, or might not perform. The Minor, That Christ in his death intended the redemption of certain, particular persons, the Scriptures affirm, He laid down his Life for the Sheep, Joh. 10.15, 16. even for those of the Gentiles, that were not of the Jewish Fold, and so yet knew him not; And the effects of this laying down his life for them was on purpose to call them in due time, v. 16. to teach and make them follow him, v. 27. and to keep them safe to life eternal by his own and the Father's power, v. 28, 29. and from these Sheep are distinguished those who are not of his Sheep, and therefore all means are ineffectual to make them believe, v. 25, 26. He died to gather together in one all the Children of God, Joh. 11.52. that were scattered abroad, i. e. all the Elect of God, dispersed throughout all Nations: And the Apostle Paul saith of himself, He loved me, and gave himself for me, Gal. 2.30. Therefore Christ redeemed particular persons, and did not only purchase Grants and Covenants.  
7ly. Christ purchased the Spirit and Grace to make his Death effectual to those he died for; therefore he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace. A mere Covenant of Grace only promiseth Life upon conditions of Faith and Obedience, leaving it to men whether they will perform them or not; as the Covenant of Works promised life to perfect obedience, and then left it to Adam whether he would obey or not: A mere Covenant makes no provision of grace and strength to enable men to perform it; If then Christ purchased grace, to believe and to obey for the Elect, he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace; and that he did so hath been partly proved, and may be further evidenced by this, That when Christ saith, he laid down his life for the Sheep, Joh. 10.16, etc. he presently adds he must bring home all the Sheep, and make one Fold, under one Shepherd himself, and that he will make them follow him, and will preserve and lead them to Eternal Life, and no Wolves shall pluck them out of his hand, v. 27, 28, 29. Also that he died to gather into one all the Children of God: This must be done by his Spirit and Grace purchased by his Redemption, and that power which is given to him not only to purchase, but also to apply the blessed Fruits of Redemption to them.  
Thus our Divines at Dort. Rationes omnes, 
Act. Syn. Art. 2. Ibid.  à scriptures, fideique analogia petitae, quibus Christi incarnatio, humiliatio, vel exaltatio, probatur, vel confirmatur, eò spectant, ut demonstretur divina expressa intentio de fructuoso hujus tanti mysterii effectu, non conditionaliter producendo (nempe, si homines cùm aeque nolle possint, velint, ut hic fructus in de enascatur) sed infrustrabiliter efficiendo, potentiâ divinâ id operante, i. e. All those Arguments that prove the Incarnation, Humiliation, and Exaltation of Christ, tend to this, to show, that it was God's express intention to produce the certain effects of that great Mystery infallibly, by his own power, and not to leave them to be conditional, depending upon Man's Will, who might as well neglect and refuse as accept of them.  
I conclude, the Sum of this Doctrine comes to this, That God took occasion by the Incarnation, Obedience and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ to grant men terms of Salvation, viz. if they should believe and obey the Gospel, not as any satisfaction to his Justice or Law, which man had broke, but as some kind of salvo to his Honour, at least as he was pleased to interpret it: And what need Christ have been God to do no more than this? How easy is the slip from hence into the dead Sea of Socinianism? To lay that Christ came by his Life and Death to declare and confirm only this Covenant of Life, on condition of Faith and Repentance, and to intercede for the Penitents Indeed the whole platform of this Doctrine was borrowed from Socinus by the Arminians, from whom most of our modern Writers have it, and some immediately from the Socinian; from whom also came that common (but illogical) Evasion of works, being not the meritorious, but the causa sine qua non of our Justification. Opera ea sunt ex quibus justificamur, sunt autem opera ista nostra, 
Soc. de Justif. apud Pelt.  i. e. ut dictum fuit, obedientia quam Christo praestamus, licet nec essiciens nec meritoria, tamen causa, ut vocant sine qua non, justificationis coram Deo, at que aeterne salut is nostrae. I do not desire this should be believed on my credit, much less do I write to reproach any, who do in heart abhor that blasphemous heresy, however their words and notions may agree too much with it. I only beg that Scholars and Divines would take the pains to examine and compare them before they imbibe this new Doctrine.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Nature of Faith, that it justifieth as an Instrument applying the Promises of life in Christ, and not as a Condition or Part of Obedience.  
T The Apostle Paul was sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 26. v. 17, 18. to this end, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance amongst thom which are sanctified by Faith which is in Christ; therefore forgiveness and a right to the heavenly Inheritance comes by Faith: But what this Faith is and how it gives right to Life, is now to be inquired into. In explaining the nature of Faith I shall wave all that is usually drawn from Philosophy to this Argument, from the nature and difference of Man's Soul and his Faculties; and the difference of the Faculties from each other, also from the nature of Habits intellectual or moral, which things are fit Exercises for Scholars, but not fit to build the Doctrine of Justification and Eternal life upon; and if the best Philosophers can give us no certain account how men see and hear, and how the external Senses (which yet are more material in their operations than the understanding) do exercise their functions; there is much less certainty to be had concerning the Faculties, Operations and Habits of the rational part; and the Scripture speaks of believing as a work of the whole Soul, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10.9. The like may be said of every Grace, and of every Sin, that hath the consent of the Heart, that they carry the whole Soul with them: What then is this Faith? The Socinians affirm Faith and Obedience to be really the same thing, 
Peltius, Artic. Parag. 21.  distinct only formally or docendi causâ, Soc. resp. ad Epist. Joan. Opera & Fides nullo modo distinguuntur à Paulo, nec ab ea seperari queant, imò animo seu forma fidei sunt. The Arminians agree with them in this, and our late Authors with them both, and make believing and obeying the Gospel all one; and to be justified by Faith with them is to be justified by obedience to the Gospel: 
Aphor. Th. 70.  Hence it is that they describe Faith to be, so to believe God, as to love him, fear him, trust him, and obey him in every particular command, or more briefly, to be an accepting of Christ for our Lord and Saviour, i. e. to promise obedience to him, 
Ibid. 69, & 67.  and to desire and expect to be saved by him. Now we grant, as the Gospel is sometime taken for the whole Doctrine or Mind of Christ containing both Promises, Precepts and Threaten, though properly it be nothing but a Promise of Life through Christ, in contradistinction to all Law and Precepts; so also the Faith of Christ and of the Gospel doth sometimes comprehend the whole Christian Profession, whereby we promise both a belief of the doctrine and obedience to the Command of Christ: Yet Faith, taken properly, is to be distinguished from all obediential Graces, viz. those that are the immediate cause of obedience, as much as those graces are distinct from each from other; as Love from Fear, both from Patience, etc. That we may wave that Philosophical question also, whether Graces be several distinct habits, or one universal habit, distinguished by several acts and objects, it is sufficient if Faith be distinct by its acts and proper object from all other graces, as much as they are distinguished each from other: And that it is so, is evident, because it is an assent of the mind to divinely revealed truth: Its acts are to believe or assent; its formal object is the revealed truth of God, as such (we speak of Divine Faith only.) The immediate End of it is the satisfaction of the mind in the certainty of a true proposition, and the like. All these are distinct from love, fear, desire, which are the immediate principles of all obedience or practice, in doing good, or avoiding evil. Moreover, Faith is the root of obedience, not as the immediate principle of the elicit acts of obedience, but as a more remote principle, which doth excite and direct all the immediate principles of it. Thus Faith is prerequired to seeking and serving of God, Heb. 11.2. to the End; and yet the immediate principles of them were fear, v. 7. self-denial, v. 25. holy courage, contempt of the World, and the like. Faith worketh by love, Gal. 5.6. purifieth the heart, Acts 15.9. Therefore it is not love itself, or the purity of the heart, but something that inclineth and disposeth to love and purity; and surely before we can love and obey God, there must be an apprehension of his goodness, faithfulness, readiness to accept and reward, which must incline the heart to it: We cannot love and serve him 〈◊〉 we neither know him nor his Mind concerning us, nor have any confidence in his good wil● towards us: And this is Faith, which we may thus describe, Faith is a hearty and practical assent to all divine truth, so as to believe the Histories, fear the Threaten, trust in the I remises and expect the fulfilling of Prediction which proceed from God. All this is easily gathered out of the 11. Heb. where the Apostle having spoken in the end of the 10th Chapter of believing to the saving of the Soul, subjoins this description of Faith, v. 1. viz. That it is the substance (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the subsistence of things hoped for, and the evidence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of things not seen, which subsistence and evidence things yet future have only in God's Word and Man's real belief of it; things hoped for, properly respect the Promises; things not seen, the History of things past; as the belief of the Creation, v. 2. and the Prediction of things to come, as Noah by Faith feared the Deluge, v. 7. and all the Patriarches died in faith or expectation of the coming of Christ, v. 13. Now that Faith hath several acts and causeth several affections, as hope, trust, fear in the soul, is because it hath several objects, things to be desired, things to be feared, and things to be hoped for, which is common to it with other graces, which have their several acts and affections towards several objects, or the same objects severally con●dered: That special act of Faith which respects Promises, or affection immediately ●owing from Faith, without which it is not complete, in Scripture is called by several ●ames; rolling, resting, leaning, relying upon God, flying to him for resuge, hiding our ●●lves under him, putting of ourselves under ●he Shadow of his Wings, which and the like ●re Metaphors from the Body, and when we ●eak properly of the acts of the Soul are best oppressed by believing, or trusting in the Promises; which the Protestants express by fidu●a, affiance or fiducial recumbence, which is ●●so the Scripture term, of putting our hope and confidence in God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pervasion, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a full assurance, of ●is Promise. Now Faith justifieth a Sinner, ●ot in its whole Latitude; for so it believeth ●eer Histories as well as practical things, and ●e Threaten as well as the Promises, and ●●useth fear as well as hope: But a Sinner cannot be reconciled unto God by fearing his Wrath and Judgement, though fearing may ●cite him to look after mercy in the Promise; ●or by believing the History of things past, as ●●e Creation and Flood; or the Prediction of ●●ings to come, as the Resurrection and day 〈◊〉 Judgement, though these things may set forth God's veracity, and confirm the Truth of his promise, and may excite fear and diligence 〈◊〉 seeking after mercy; As trusting in the promises of particular mercies and deliverances, is the means of obtaining those mercies, as the promises are made to such faith or 〈◊〉 Isa. 26.3.4. Thou shalt keep him in pierce peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because trusteth in thee. The promises of deliverant go before, and this is added as the means procure the accomplishment of them, viz. That they should trust in God; so in like m●ner, the general promise of Pardon and Justfication is made to believing or trusting in and faith gives right to it, and is the means having it performed to us: Faith then justi●● as it obtains mercy, Heb. 11.33. Saint● Faith obtained Promises, viz. a performan of them: and in the Gospel frequently, 〈◊〉 Faith hath saved thee, and thy Faith hath m● thee whole, etc. As Faith obtains these mercies, neither as an act of obedience, not the cause or root of obedience; but only trusting in the Power and Faithfulness of G●engaged by the particular promises; so a● Faith justifieth a Sinner by trusting in 〈◊〉 Grace and Mercy of God through Je● Christ expressed in the general Promise of 〈◊〉 Gospel, He that believeth shall be saved, 〈◊〉 the like. We do not contend about the a● ception of faith in this proposition: We a●● justified by saith, whether it be taken objectively only, as some think, i. e. we are justified by Christ believed on; or relatively, 〈◊〉 are justified by faith as apprehending the mercy of God promised through Christ, and 〈◊〉 by any works of our own; it cometh all one at last. The Mercy of God is the c●●sa proegomena, the moving cause of our Justification, the righteonsness of Christ wrought for us, the meritorious cause, procuring our acceptance with God, and also the material or formal cause, being the very thing for which God accepts us to life. The Promise in the Gospel is the external, moral or legal means whereby God conveys Justification and this Righteousness, having promised 〈◊〉 to them that believe: and faith is an internal means on man's part, to apply Christ's Righteousness for his Justification, by trusting him, promising of it, and that partly natural, is faith is an act or habit, or act properly conversant about a promise; and partly mo●al, as God hath appointed our faith in the promise of Justification to be a means of obtaining it; and this is all that Divines mean by saying, Faith justifys as an instrument, or intrumentally, and when they call it the mouth and the hand of the soul, viz. That Man is Justified by the Righteousness of Christ, which Justification is proposed and promised in the Gospel to all that will accept it and trust in it; which is believing; so that Faith itself is ●ot the matter or righteousness which doth Justify us under the Gospel, instead of our Obedience under the Law; but it is the means whereby through the Promise of the Gospel, Christ's Righteousness is imputed or applied to us, by, and for which we are justified.  

Object.  It is no better than a cavil which is objected: If Faith justifys as an instrument, whose instrument is it, Gods or Man's? if Man's, than he justifys himself; if Gods, than Man doth nothing in the business of Justification, which is Antinomian. For,  

Answ.  The like may be asked of all instruments, Natural or Moral. Our Food, whose instrument is it to nourish us? If Gods, than we need not eat; if ours, than we nourish ourselves. The Word and Sacraments are instruments of grace, if they are our instruments, than we work grace in ourselves; i● Gods, than we need do nothing: all these and the like are instruments of Gods appointing, to be used by us, to the right use of which he hath promised a blessing: he hath commanded us to take food, and promised life by it 〈◊〉 to use the Ordinances, and promised grace by them, and that in believing him, we shall have life everlasting. So Faith, as the rest is God's instrument, as to appointment an● success; ours, as to the use and practice of it 〈◊〉 only it is not proper to call it a passive instrument (as some do) or to say it justifies passively, (whose mistake is rather in the term, tha● in the sense.) For Faith is a Moral, not 〈◊〉 proper Physical instrument, which only can be passive; Again, a passive instrument is tha● which hath no activity at all, but is merely used by the Agent in his action, as a Knife Saw or the like; but Faith justifieth actively, or as a grace whereby the whole Soul understanding the promise of pardon in Christ accepts it, trusteth in it, expecteth Salvation only that way; now this is a moral reception, or acceptation of, and dependence upon Christ in the Promise, not a Physical passiveness, as the term seems to imply. We are now to prove, That we are thus justified by Faith as hath been laid down, because, though the Scripture is full and express for it in many places; yet other senses are now put upon them.  

Argument 1.  
Faith is the means of obtaining all particular merits, both spiritual and temporal, only by trusting in the promise of them: hence blessedness is ascribed to trusting in God, Ps. ●4. 13. and many times God delivered men, because they trusted in him, 2 Chr. 20.20. Obedience qualifies and fits the subject to receive mercies, but still Faith is supposed as that ●hich giveth right to mercies. The Virtue's 〈◊〉 Unbelievers have no promise, the promise to Faith; therefore Justification also com●● by Faith, in the Promise of pardon; for ●ere is the same reason for all the Promises ●aith as faith obtain other Promises, why ●t this also: besides the Promise of Justification is the foundation of all the rest, and ●●udes them virtually; therefore if Faith en●●le to all other Promises and Mercies, much ●●re to this; nay Faith in particular Promi●● obtains mercy, chief upon this account, ●●cause it hath first obtained reconciliation ●●h God, and the promise of his love in Christ: for upon this all promises are founded, and true trusting in them doth suppole our trusting in God first for Justification; yea, is a secondary act of the same Faith. 
2 Cor. 1.24    

Argument 2.  
As Abraham was, so are all men justified, Gal. 3.7, 8, 9 all Believers are his Seed, an● blessed with him, and in the same way; bu● Abraham was justified by Faith, as it is a trusting in the promise of God, viz. a promis●● that he and all the World should be blesse● in Christ, Ergò. That Abraham was thus justified, the Apostle affirms, Gal. 3.6. He believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and this believing is opposed to seeking righteousness by the works of the Law, v. 10. Thsy that are of the Law are not blessed with Abraham, but under the Curse, because th●● keep not the whole Law, which comprehen●● the Moral, as well as Ceremonial, therefore faith as trusting in the promise, justified him● Moreover, Christ redeemed us from the Cu●● of the Law, that we might receive the promi●● of the Spirit by Faith, v. 13, 14. Unto Abraham, and his Seed were the Promises made, v. 1● and the Inheritance is not of the Law, but 〈◊〉 Promise, v. 18. The Faith then that justifi●● Abraham, was a trust in God's Promises, contradistinct to obedience to the Law or Commands. If you ask, what Promise? I answer v. 17. direct us to it, The Law was 400 〈◊〉 30 years after the Covenant or Promise, whi●● points at the time when Abraham was first ●alled, and of the Promise made to him then, ●nd to all Nations in him, Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. by believing that promise Abraham was justified; ●nd his faith in the promise of a Son mentioned above, Chap. 15.6. and Rom. 4. was but a subsequent act of his justifying faith, and its ●eing imputed for righteousness, 
Vid. Prest. On the Cou. Serm. 11.  but an instance or evidence that his faith in the promise of being blessed in Christ did justify him before God.   

Argument 3.  
The Just shall live by Faith, Habak 2.4. The Prophet spoke it immediately, concerning temporal deliverance in public calamities; but these deliverances to the Children of God are tokens and forerunners of deliverance from the Wrath to come, and effects of their reconciliation with God: therefore ●s it is usual in the New Testament to apply such promises to spiritual things, so the Apostle applieth this of the Prophet to Justification; wherefore, as to live, in the Prophet principally signified preservation from the temporal effects of the wrath of God, so with the Apostle, it signifieth to be delivered from eternal wrath and eternal death by the special favour of God, i. e. to be justified: now this he ascribes to Faith only, Rom. 1.17. where he proveth, that the Gospel is the power of God to Salvatian in them that believe, because therein is the righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith; which is further confirmed, because the Just shall live b● Faith: it is believing then that saves me● and faith that makes them partakers of th● Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel therefore by that they live, i. e. are justified and yet more express, Gal. 3.11. The Apostle proves by this Text, That a Man cannot be justified by his Works, and thinketh it a● Argument above exception, but that no ma● is justified by the Law in the sight of God it 〈◊〉 evident, for the Just shall live by Faith.   

Argument 4.  
To be justified by Faith, is directly opposed to Justification by Works, and by ou● own Righteousness: therefore Faith justified only by trusting in God's Mercy through Chris● The Antecedent is the Apostles, Rom. 10.5, 6. The Righteousness of the Law saith, That h● that doth them shall live in them: but the righteousness of Faith saith, If thou believe in thy heart, that God raised Christ from the dead thou shalt be saved, v. 9 likewise Gal. 3.10. having said, the Just shall live by Faith, he adds the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth them shall live by them: therefore Man cannot be justified by the Works of the Law, i● must be by Faith only: will they again say● that these places only exclude the works o● the Ceremonial Law? Surely Moses in the place cited, Leu. 18.5. speaketh of the whole Law given to the Jews, as the context showeth, and as it is interpreted by the Prophet Ezekiel 20.13. Or will they say that only perfect Works, and the Law of innocency are excluded, not imperfect sincere Obedience? Ans. If any works justify, they must be perfect, else there must be a conjunction of God's mercy and Man's own works to justify him, and so a Medium betwixt Justification by Faith and by Works, even to be justified by both together, and so the Apostle argues imperfectly, yea falsely, à malè divisis ad benè conjuncta: we are justified by Faith, Ergò not by works: nay, it may be by both together.   

Argument 5.  
We are justified freely by God's grace, therefore by faith as a trust in the Promise: The Antecedent is the Apostles, Rom. 3.24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ: the Consequence is his also, for he adds, God hath set forth him to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood: likewise Rom. 4.16. It is by Faith, that it may be by Grace. If we are justified by Obedience to any Commands, as Obedience, then may we be justified by grace in part, there may be some mercy in it, but not freely by his grace. Faith only accepteth Salvation as a gift of mere grace, pleading nothing but the free Promise of God, in which it trusts, and Faith only applieth the Righteousness of God by trusting in it: but Obedience, be it what it will, provides a Righteousness of our own; and hereby only is all the glory of our Salvation ascribed to God when we trust to nothing of our own in any sort: But Christ is Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption to us, which is by Faith only, 1 Cor. 1.30, 31. For obedience, as obedience, brings something to God, and doth not receive from him, and some of the Glory is due to it.   

Argument 6.  
The Spirit is given by Faith, as affiance to trust; therefore we are justified by it: The consequence is gathered hence; the Spirit is the Author of all Grace in the Sanctified, and of useful gifts both in them and in the unsanctified, for the edifying of the Church, both these are means of fitting men for Heaven: If then Faith obtain the means, surely it obtaineth a Right and Title to Heaven first. The Antecedent is the Apostles, Gal. 3.2. in a question importing a negation as to Works, and an affirmation as to Faith, Received you the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith? And v. 5. He that ministereth the Spirit and worketh miracles amongst you, doth he it by the Works of the Law, or by the preaching of Faith? The former words I understand of the Graces, the latter of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, but doth come, not by preaching obedience to the Law, but the Promises of the Gospel. Again, v. 14. We receive the Promise of the Spirit by Faith: now here they cannot say, the Apostle opposeth the works of the Law to the works of the Gospel, implied in Faith, as they do sometimes. For those he disputes against were believing Jews, and such as pretended the Authority, at least, the Example of Peter and John for their Doctrine, as appears, Chap. 2. and Acts 15.5. These did not exclude the works of the Gospel, but meant that men should be saved by believing in Christ and fulfilling the Precepts of the Law and Gospel, and differed nothing from our late Authors in this point, but in that they accounted the Ceremonial Law still to oblige. Gal. 1.6, 7. I marvel that you are so soon removed, from him that called you into the Grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, which is not another: but there are some that trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ: If they had contended for the works of the Law distinct from the Gospel, it had been another Gospel they had preached: their Doctrine therefore was a mixture of Faith and Works: Nor is it the Ceremonial Law only whose works are excluded; For these Teachers endeavoured that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, Act. 15.5. the whole Law; which is also opposed to the Promise made to Abraham, by which he and his Seed were justified, Gal. ●. 16, 17. Ceremonies indeed are particularly instanced in; because men put most trust in them, whether appointed by God or devised by themselves, and chief because they were the bond and badge of the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. I testify to every man, if he be circumcised, he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law: It is therefore Justification by obedience to God's Commands, as well as believing in Christ, ushered in by imposing the Jewish Ceremonies, which the Apostle disputes against in this Epistle, and against which he proves, We are justified by Faith in the Promises.   

Argument 7.  
Miraculous Faith, as trusting in the Promise and Power of God, obtaineth miraculous Effects; therefore Faith in the Promise of Pardon obtains Justification. The Antecedent is frequently laid down in the Gospel, Thy Faith hath saved thee; thy Faith hath made thee whole; be it unto thee according to thy Faith: And that general Promise, Mat. 17.20. If you have Faith as a grain of Mustardseed, you shall say to this Mountain, Remove to yonder place and it shall obey you, and nothing shall be impossible for you. The consequence is thus proved; The Faith of Miracles, as in the unsanctified, it was an extraordinary degree of common or notional Faith; so in the Godly it was but an extraordinary degree of that sound Faith which justifies them. We have no reason to make it a distinct gift or grace, no more than that Faith whereby we believe particular promises in spiritual or temporal things, should be distinct from the Faith of the Pardon of Sin. Now then, if a trusting in extraordinary promises will procure these extraordinary effects thereby promised, by the same reason, trusting in the Promise of Justification, should be effectual to justify us.   

Argument 8.  
Ex opposito. If Faith doth not justify, as trust in the Promise, but Obedience with it, and as a part of Obedience; than it may be said truly and properly there is Justifying Repentance, Justifying Love to God and our Neighbour, Justifying Patience, etc. as well as Justifying Faith, in that we are justified by them as well as by Faith; but the Scripture is silent to any such thing. Nor will it serve to say, Faith justifieth principally and primarily, works secondarily and less principally, and therefore it is ascribed only to Faith: For (besides that we must not distinguish where the Scripture doth not) Works in their  value are much more excellent than Faith. To believe the Scriptures, or trust in a Promise, is of itself the meanest, lowest Act, that man can perform to God, and which he doth only for his own good; but in Obedience man denieth himself and seeketh only the Honour of God: And if you say, as a condition, Faith is principal, Works less principal. I answer, It is strange that the less considerable thing should have the greatest weight laid upon it: But let it be showed how Faith doth reconcile us to God more than Love and Obedience; till than we may look upon this distinction but as an old Popish Evasion revived.    

CHAP. VIII. Objections against this Doctrine answered.  
IT is objected by a late Author, 
Object. 1.  If we are justified by trusting in the Mercy of God through the Blood of Christ, than the whole end of justifying Sinners is to glorify the Mercy of God, without providing for the Honour of his Justice or Holiness, both which seem better secured if Justification depend upon man's works, as well as faith, that he cannot be reconciled to God without a holy life as well as believing in Christ. For thus God would appear not only merciful but just and holy also, in that he will not pardon Sinners but in a way of holiness.  

Answ. 1.  The Justice and Holiness of God were abundantly declared in exacting satisfaction to the Law of Jesus Christ; his obedience and death did more declare and vindicate the Justice and Holiness of God, infinitely more than the worthless, imperfect obedience of men can do: Hereby it was declared, That God would not justify Sinners but in a way of Holiness, and perfect obedience to his Law. There was perfect holiness and justice towards Christ, though infinite Mercy towards Sinners.  
Though man be justified by Faith, not by Holiness, yet he is not saved without Holiness; it is that which qualifies him to receive the Kingdom, and Faith also procureth and obtaineth his Holiness: For we believe not in Christ for pardon only, but for grace to bring us to glory. Nor doth Christ purchase, o● God promise pardon only, but grace and power to obey him: He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, Tit. 2.14. So then, Faith trusting in God's mercy and free grace, supposeth for its foundation the Obedience of Christ, whereby God's Justice and Holiness hath been highly glorified, and also obtaineth for men, by and from Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Adoption, by whom they shall in due time be make conformable to the Image of his own Son, and so more excellently holy than they would have been, if they had not sinned: Therefore in justifying a Sinner, in the whole design, Holiness and Justice are as much magnified as Mercy, though Mercy only appear in the Act of justifying him without his own Righteousness.  
This Doctrine seems to lead to Enthusiasm: 
Object. 2.  If there be nothing for man to do that he may be justified, but only to believe in God's Mercy and Christ's Righteousness, then may they fancy themselves justified when they please; and if this Faith must be wrought by God, then must men only expect till God will infuse Faith and so justify them: What use then of the preaching of the Gospel.  

Answ.  For Fancy: May not men as well fancy their obedience to be sincere and their works ●o be such as argue them good Christians and give them hopes to be saved, yea, do not most men thus think and profess? If works must be tried by the scripture, so must faith also, and ●hen this is no more liable to fancy than the ●ther.  

Answ. 2.  For Enthusiasm, which is nothing else but infusion or inspiration of something into the Mind, we grant all the godly do enjoy it in the working and increase of supernatural grace, and so must our Opposites also, unless they will turn down right ●elagians, and say, That all Grace is the mere work of Nature and Reason: Thus Enthusiasm follows from the Doctrine of Supernatural Grace, whether we be justified ●y Faith or Obedience: But Enthusiasm is were taken in the worst sense, and so the meaning must be, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth necessarily lead to ungrounded, unwarranted Enthusiasm: Now this may be reduced to two sorts: for matter and for manner: for matter, when men pretend Inpiration of God for things contrary to scripture, which God hath given as a standing rule to the World's end: for manner, ●hen Inspirations are expected to exclude and supersede the use of reason, Scripture and ●ll Divine Ordinances: these are properly called Enthusiasts who pretend to these. Now our Doctrine of Faith naturally leads to neither of these: Not to the first, in the matter, for faith apprehends & resteth only upon the Promises revealed in the Scripture; out of that it see●eth nothing for its foundation: and that som● Antinomians have leaned to unwarranted Revelations and Fancies, is no more a natural consequence of Justification by Faith, tha● the Papists pretending Revelation for Image worship, and many of their Will-worship do naturally flow from from the Doctrine 〈◊〉 Justification by Works. Not the second, 〈◊〉 the manner. We are so far from teaching● That men must expect Faith to be wrought o● increased, without the use of means appointed; that on the contrary, we say with th● Scripture, That faith cometh by hearing, an● hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10.15. Tha● God requires men to know, understand an● meditate on his Word, to use their Reason Conscience and Affections: and while they thu● do, he inspires faith into his Elect, which enables them to do it effectually and savingly much like as our Saviour, John 9 made Clay anointed the Eyes of the blind man with i● sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam, an● while he thus did, by his divine Power he restored his Sight. The same also may be said if we must be saved by our Obedience, w● may sit still and expect God to work all 〈◊〉 us; unless they will say, we need no supernatural Grace, or at least that it depended on, and followeth the Will of man: Enthusiasms therefore are the abuses, not the just consequences of this Doctrine.  
It is objected, If we be justified by Faith only, 
Object. 3.  then there need be no care of good works.  

Answ.  This follows as much as that objected to the Apostle, Rom. 3.8. We are slanderously reported to say, let us do evil that good may come of it, and Rom. 6.1. Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound. Surely there is more show of reason to say, if we are justified by free grace only, than no matter though we sin, grace will be but the more magnified in our forgiveness, than to say, Because God justifies freely through Faith, therefore we need need not care to please him. The Apostle was not moved to mitigate this Doctrine for the said slanders. Ungodly men will speak and act according to their own lusts, whatever their Opinions be; and Calvin observes among the Papists, as we may the same among Protestants, that none are more zealous maintainers of Justification by good Works, than they who have fewest good works to show; it seems therefore, that the Doctrine of Justification by Works, is not such a real incentive to holiness, as some men think, but rather, that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, crosseth corrupt nature more, and stirs up to more deep and inward holiness; else why should profane Wits, and unsanctified hearts so generally oppose it? But that this Doctrine doth not naturally lead to unholiness; but to most strict and spiritual holiness, may thus appear,  
1. As Faith trusteth in the promise of eternal life, it doth naturally stir up men to use all means to attain that, and encourage men in the use of these means against all difficulties. If we fly to God for Salvation, and depend upon his Promise for it, doth not this in its own nature oblige us to follow him in the way he hath appointed for the performance of that promise? and doth it not undo and revoke what faith hath done in accepting and trusting in Christ for life, to be negligent of the means whereby it should be brought about? yea, it shows Man regards not life, and so doth not really trust in Christ for it: trust and confidence in any friend to bring any business to pass for us, makes no man more regardless of his friend, or negligent of doing his part.  
2ly. Faith trusts in God for his Grace and Spirit, as well as for Pardon; though faith as justifying directly and formally, respects only the ptomise of pardon and life; yet secondarily it considers and trusts in the promises of a new heart, assistance and perseverance to the end; and here we are said to be kept by the power of God through faith to Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.8. and to be saved by hope, Rom. 8. because the power and grace of God to bring us to Heaven is given to us believing and trusting in it: If then Faith taketh in the promises of grace also, how should it open a way to sin and sloth?  
3ly. Faith doth virtually include an acceptance of grace, or of Christ to sanctify, as well as to pardon; it implies some repentance and aversion from sin, and therefore must naturally engage to mortification and holiness, ●ot hinder it. I say not that accepting of Christ is a proper act of Faith (as is usually ●●firmed in popular discourses.) Acceptance ●●mally is rather an act of love, liking of, and ●●senting to such a person and his motions; 〈◊〉 as before faith is wrought, the heart is ordinarily prepared to believe, by knowledge, repentance, love, acceptance and de●●e of pardon, and grace by the common ●ork of the Spirit, so Faith really trusting in 〈◊〉 promise of eternal life, resting upon it ●●h the whole heart doth include and imply ●●ind of acceptance of it, and afterwards it 〈◊〉 up more express acts of desire and acceptance from love, which follows faith; like●●e the heart being prepared by Convictions 〈◊〉 Sorrow to welcome Pardon, than it doth 〈◊〉 all sincerity trust in the Promise of Par●●●; this doth include an aversion from sin, willingness to be holy, why else should we 〈◊〉 strongly in the Promise of Forgiveness 〈◊〉 Life, coming from a holy God through 〈◊〉 holy Mediator? and this necessarily ex●●● express acts of Repentance and Morti●●tion; he that truly understands what it is 〈◊〉 pardoned and justified, and trust in the promise of it with all his heart, doth in so doing show an implicit resolution against sin, and must manifest an explicit one afterwards.  
4ly. Trusting in the grace of God, when true, brings the favour of the love of God and Christ, Rom. 5.1, 5. and this naturally inclineth to love, thankfulness and obedience. The groundless boast of God's love, are made an occasion of sloth by unsanctified hearts, bu● a true apprehension of it is a great motive t● love and obedience, a greater and more effectual than an expectation of being justified b● Obedience. For such Men will take a libert● to sin sometimes; but the sense of the love 〈◊〉 God while strong in the heart, will suffer n● such thing; it is not only a rational, but 〈◊〉 natural principle too, and therefore it wor●● more forcibly, 2 Cor. 5.14. The Love 〈◊〉 Christ constraineth us, because we thus judg●● If one died for all, then were all dead; a●● that he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto h●● which died for them, and rose again. If t●● true sense of God's love, without danger 〈◊〉 Hell, were not enough to engage men to 〈◊〉 bedience, what engageth Saints and Ang●● in Heaven? now this sense of the love of G●● cometh by Faith in his Mercy, therefore Fa●● engageth to Obedience.  
If we are justified by trusting in God's M●●cy, 
Object. 4.  and through the Righteousness of Chr●● without fulfilling any Terms or Conditions, 
Vide Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 89.  then is there no proper Pardon of Sin: For Christ's Righteousness being the perfect fulfilling of the Law; and we being justified only by applying that Righteousness to us, it seems we shall be accounted to have fulfilled the Law by our Surety, and so not to be chargeable with Sin, nor to need forgiveness.  

Answ. 1.  They do wisely to begin to complain first; for their own Opinion is not only liable to the same exception, but seemeth inexcusable from it. There are but two kinds of sins, as they distribute them; some against the Law of Works, others against the Law of Grace and the Gospel, and neither of these are properly pardoned: Not the sins against the Law, for saith our Author, (and his friends must say the same) Christ did not properly fulfil the Law, nor was the Curse of it properly executed upon him; but he endeavoured that the legal threat might not be executed, and gave to God a valuable consideration, for which he might with Justice not execute that Law, and be free to prescribe new con●itions of life to Sinners.  
Hence I argue, The Law was waved, not fulfilled by the sinner, or any for him, neither was the sinner thereupon reconciled; therefore the sins against the Law, when men come under the Gospel, are waved, superseded, but not pardoned. Proper pardon is not only a forbearing to punish, but a remission of the punishment, with a reconciliation to th●● offendor: but in this case God is not reconciled, but only gives them new terms of Savation, nor doth he remit the punishment though he forbear it for the present: for if after trial they fulfil not the Terms of the Gospel, their sins against the Law also shall b● charged upon them: and if at last they d●● fulfil the conditions of the Gospel, they a●● saved thereby, fulfilling the new terms tha●● are given them; then their old sins against the Law are forgotten and passed over; but the● is no proper pardon of them, or reconcilin● the breakers of the Law, as such. Nor 〈◊〉 there pardon of their sins against the Gospel for if men fulfil not the conditions of it, the● are condemned, and so not pardoned: If the● do fulfil them, this is their righteousness, b● this they are justified and saved, because the● have performed those terms whereupon li●● is promised: where then is there place f●● pardon, when the Law is fulfilled? If they say their Obedience is imperfect and sinful, I answer, it is so, compared with the Law 〈◊〉 Works, but not, compared with the Law 〈◊〉 Grace: Sincere Obedience to the Gospel, 〈◊〉 as much as is required to bring a man to Heaven; therefore by the Gospel, it is reckonest a fulfilling of what was required, and so 〈◊〉 need no pardon: Nor can it be conceive●● how the sinful infirmities of the Saints should be pardoned by this Opinion. For as the Author tells us, Christ did not properly fulfil th●● Old Law, so they also say, (and with mo●● truth) he fulfilled not the conditions of the Gospel for us; nor give he any satisfaction to God for them: how then should they be forgiven?  
Thus this Opinion excludes all use of Pardon, and teacheth that man is justifind by fulfilling what is required in the Gospel, the demands of the Law being waved, i. e. he is justified by a Gospel-innocency of his own; though not by the Innocency of Adam, or the Law of Works.  
Answ. 2 We grant, (as is well used by the Author forenamed) if the Covenant of Works had run thus; that Man should obey and live, and die if he disobeyed, either he or his Surety; we grant in this case there had been no proper pardon; but God in Justice would have been bound to discharge the sinner, when the Surety had satisfied the Law for him; because it was his own agreement, that either the principle or the Surety should satisfy disjunctively; and when there is such an agreement, it is all one to the Creditor, would have been all one to God, which pays the debt or fulfils the Law: But this is to state the question for us, and then to dispute against it. We say not, that the first Covenant did allow of a Surety; much less, joined him in the Covenant with Man: Man himself was to obey, or die: but God, as the infinite Sovereign and Law-Mater, was pleased to substitute a Surety to fulfil thee Law for him; who as he was not induded in the Law; so was not there any particular Covenant in the Law against a Surety; and this supposed, we further answer.  
Answ. 3 Though Christ fulfilled the Law in Man's stead, and so life for man was a debt to him; yet to man it is conveyed by true and proper pardon of sin: for the Surety was not provided by Man, but by God who was offended; yea, he was the Son of God, and God himself, and that when no such thing was conditioned and promised. God himself revealed this Surety to Man, and gives him that Faith whereby we should have interest in him, and benefit by him: now in all this, here is a voluntary remission of the punishment due to sin: a voluntary providing a mean of reconciliation, and at last an actual reconciliation, discharging Man from guilt, and taking him into favour by Faith in Christ; and to believe he there daily is a pardon of sinful infirmities, upon the account of the fame Righteousness of Christ believed in, 1 John ult. & 2.1. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them: and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is a Propitiation for our sins 〈◊〉 The blood and his being a Propitiation are her● joined with forgiveness of Sin.  
Yet we grant further, That the Justification of a Sinner, is an act of Justice as wel● as of Mercy. Mercy and Forgiveness as to him; but Justice as to Christ, who by God's appointment and consent had satisfied the Law in Man's stead, and therefore it was just and due, that they who should be interested in it, viz. Believers, should be discharged and justified by his Obedience: They also must grant, if Man be justified by his Obedience, his Justification is an act of Justice, according to the New Covenant.  
Object. 5 It is objected that Afflictions both temporal and spiritual, fall on Believers in this life, as Chastisements for, and therefore punishments of sin, therefore they are not fully justified by believing.  

Answ.  Afflictions may be distributed into three ranks,  
1. Such as arise from the common condition of Mankind since the Fall: as crosses in Children, in Worldly Affairs, etc. in these the Saints must have their share while they live here, though they were perfect in grace, and perfectly justified; because these calamities are annexed to this present State, and therefore these cannot be reckoned punishments, or do argue a defect in their Justification, who live here below, seeing they befall them upon the account of others, more than themselves, and they would come were they never so perfect.  
2ly. A Second sort are such as though they were occasioned by sin; yet they come not upon the godly for any particular sin, but are means of quickening and increasing grace; such were David's in his younger days, and Job's, and many others daily, who are afflicted from their youth upward: That these are not punishments, or argue any defects in their Justification, is manifest from hence, because they usually fall in the greatest measure, upon the best Christians, where there is most grace to bare them well to the Honour of God. If afflictions be properly the punishment of sin, then in equity, they that are most sinful, and least sanctified, should have most afflictions; but it is often otherwise.  
3ly. A Third kind, are those which are sent upon occasion of particular sins; as the calamities that befell David for his great sin, 2 Sam. 12. and these are most properly chastisements, the other are means of improving and sometimes, of working grace, being joined with the Word, suited to Man's sinful and dull temper in this life; which the godly are not to take as signs of hatred, nor to faint under them; but these chastisements for special sins, are effects of Gods Fatherly displeasure, and may be called Paternal punishments; yet are they not judicial or legal punishments, or any parts of the curse, Isa. 27.9. By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin: If that be all the fruit then, that is all that God intendeth by affliction, and not to execute the Curse of the Law, or to satisfy his Justice, Heb. 12.5, 6, 7. Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every Son whom he receiveth. If you endure chastening God dealeth with you as with Sons, but if you be without chastening whereof all are Partakers, their are you Bastards and not Sons, etc. If chastisements be signs that we are Sons of God, how are they signs that we are not perfectly justified? If they are certain effects of God's Love, how are they proper punishments and fruits of the Curse? It is rather a fruit of the Curse to want them when we need them, a sign we are Bastards and not Sons; therefore to have them cannot be a part of the Curse: But to make this more clear, I shall add these two Reasons.  
The Curse was the Sentence of death pronounced against man, 
1st.  of death at last and all miseries tending to that issue, Gen. 3.17, 18, 19 If then the afflictions of this life are parts of the Curse to the godly, then are they intended for their death and ruin, but if they are intended only for their good, than they are natural evils but not curses, and natural evils may be inflicted without sin: Even Arminius, Episcopius and others of their chief Friends grant, That God may without injustice lay temporal evils upon men without respect to sin, of his own mere pleasure.  
If Afflictions be part of the Curse to the godly, it must be by some Law: 
2ly.  It cannot be by the Law of Grace; for that is a remediating Law, threatening no curse to them that obey it: If by the Law of Works, than Believers are in part still under the Law; whereas the Apostle makes these inconsistent, to be under the Law and under Grace, Rom. 6.14. Moreover, Afflictions (if they be punishments) must be satisfactory to Divine Justice. For the Law requires nothing but in order to satisfy Divine Justice by obedience, or punishment for failure, and then Christ hath not redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, part of it remaining for us to bare; and so Christ's Redemption must be diminished, he having only purchased that the Law should not have its full force, viz. to condemn us for ever, but that we should have terms of grace or life eternal; nevertheless that we should be left in the hands of the Law for this life, that God may lay what curses upon us he pleaseth, so that he save our Souls. The same is to be said concerning sin and spiritual evils; some sins are proper chastisements, when men are suffered to run into some sins to correct them for former sins: As David's Murder was a correction for his Adultery; but these chastisements proceed really from the love of God though mixed with fatherly displeasure: but for the general, that God hath left sin in the hearts and lives of the Godly is not to satisfy his Law or the Curse, but to magnify his Grace and Wisdom in overruling sin and death to his own Glory, and to further man's Salvation by those things which the Devil designed to undermine and overthrow both.  
Object. 6 If Faith only justify and give right to life, then is there no use of the Law to Believers nor any thing for them to do in way of obedience, but only to expect that God should bring them to Heaven by his Grace, to which Faith gives right as well as to life itself.  

Answ.  As Faith itself is commanded, though it be the work of God, so is the use of all means whereby Grace is to be improved and exercised, and in the use of them in dependence on God's Grace lies a Christian's Obedience: The Promises of Grace and Perseverance do encourage to obedience, but altar not the nature of obedience, Phil. 2.12, 13. As you have always obeyed, etc. work out your Salvation with fear and trembling: For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Our Saviour came not to dissolve the Moral Law, nor gave he commission to any man to do it, but requireth better obedience to it than that of the Pharisees, though they expected to be justified by it, Mat. 5.18, 19, 20. and upon all occasions he directs men to the Law as the rule of Life, Mat. 19.17. Chap. 22. v. 37. etc. Though Faith encourage and Love incline to good works, yet these works are properly obedience, because done upon the Command of God. It is true, the Law is not a Covenant of Works, or a Law of Life to Believers, promising Life to Obedience perfect or imperfect, and threatening death to the want of it: Nor is this essential to a Law that life and death must depend thereon, though they do so upon some Laws; nor is it essential to obedience that it must proceed from hope of life and fear of death. For there is no such thing with Saints in Heaven, where yet is perfect obedience; yet is it a Rule of Obedience, a Declaration of God's Will, how his Children ought to walk and to please him, which is the very nature of a Law.  
But it is not necessary to the Sanction of every Law, 
Quest.  that there should be Promises to obedience, and Threaten to disobedience?  

Answ.  Not from the nature of a Law, but because of man's infirmities it is needful, Gal. 3.19. So the Gospel hath promises of Blessings in this Life, peace of Conscience, increase of Grace, and the Fatherly Love and Presence of God, to obedience and diligence, and the threatening of the contrary to negligence and disobedience; yea the knowledge of the Covenant of Works, as it restrains the ungodly, so it is of use to the godly in this life, to curb the flesh, and to make them more afraid of sin, and to quicken them to diligence: But life and death eternal are not the Sanctions of the Law as properly given to Believers.  
But do not the sins of Believers deserve Hell and put them into a damned state? 
Quest.   

Answ.  No. They interrupt their peace with God and the Work of Grace, but make them not Children of wrath; their sins in their own nature tend to death, as they are an aversion from God, but he will recover them out of them by repentance, at death, if not before; and they deserve death according to the Law of Works by which they must judge of the ●inousness of them, and be humbled accordingly: But as the Law is tempered by the Gospel, they shall not bring death. And de●●rt of sin being obligatio ad poenam ex lege, the Laws binding a man over to punishment, 〈◊〉 may be truly said they do not deserve death according to the Gospel; because that doth not threaten death eternal to them, yet they 〈◊〉 deserve other corrections threatened thereby, which are more effectual to restrain the godly, than the threatening of Hell is to the ●icked.  
But doth not this open a way to Sin and Sloth, 
Quest.  ●hen men that think they are Believers shall ●hen conclude their sins shall not damn them?  

Answ.  No. For it is not the promise of great Retards, nor threatening of great Punishment that 〈◊〉 keep men from sin, else the Angels and Adam would never have sinned; but it is the certain assistance of effectual grace which can 〈◊〉 will make men obedient, without such functions by other Reasons and Motives. If Christians were left to their free will as much is Adam was, then would there be a necessity 〈◊〉 the like Promises and Threats to keep them 〈◊〉 their Duty; but because God hath undertaken to work all our Works in us, it is enough ●●at God declare his Will to them, and will make them obedient; Promises and Threa● of another nature are added because of the infirmity of the Flesh, but they could not kee● them in obedience if there were not a certainty of prevailing grace, and when these infirmities shall be taken away, than the Declaration of God's Will without any Promise 〈◊〉 Threat will be a sufficient Obligation to Obedience for ever, by the perfect and full concurrence of the Grace of God. For it is the Spirit of Grace that holdeth men to obedience, whether there be Promises or Threa● or none, or whatever they be, which he do● in this life with many infirmities, and in Heaven without any.   

CHAP. IX. That Faith doth not justify as a Condition, and that it doth not justify as believing in Christ, as King and Prophet as well as Priest.  
THat Faith justifieth a Sinner as it is a trust in the Promise of Life through the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, hath been proved and vindicated in the preceding Chapters: We are now to consider what the opposite Opinion is concerning Faith and its Influence upon Justification.  
The Scriptures teach that Abraham the Father and great Exemplar of all Believers was justified by Faith, his Faith was counted to him for Righteousness, Rom. 4.3. And that this Faith was a Trust in the Promise of God is evident, both from the occasion and immediate Object of it, the Promise of a Son against all natural hope and probability, and that his Seed should be numerous, be the people of God, the Blessed of the World, Gen. 15.4, 5, 6, 18. etc. and also from the Apostles Explication, or Amplification of this Faith, in this Chapter, v. 19, 20, 21, 22. viz. That it was a believing in hope against hope and a not considering the natural impossibility of the thing promised, and not staggering at the Promise through unbelief, but being strong in Faith and fully persuaded that God was able to perform what he promised; and that this Faith justified him, as such a trust in the Promises, and not as an Act of Obedience, is evident from the Apostles own Reason in the close of that Discourse, v. 22. Therefore i● was imputed to him for Righteousness; Wherefore? Because it was a firm trust in the Promise of God: It is also added, v. 23. That this Example was written, not for Abraham's sake only, but for ours that succeed, because Faith also shall be imputed to us for Righteousness, if we believe in him that raised Christ from the dead, who died for our sins and risen again for our justification, v. 24, 25. If this was written for our sakes, than the Faith that justifieth us must be a trust in the Promise as Abraham's was, even in the Promise of Life through the death of Christ, and must justify us as a trust in that Promise as his did him, and not upon any other account. It is the Righteousness of Christ for which God justifies believing Sinners; but because they are rational Creatures, God doth not justify them without their knowledge, consent, or acceptance, but with and by means of it; and this is Faith, sc. Man's trusting in or acceptance of Life promised in Christ, which doth render the subject, as a rational Creature, capable of pardon and mercy by a Promise, though that natural capacity of the subject would not obtain pardon, if it were not promised to it, and this is all we mean, when we say, Faith is the Instrument of our Justification, viz. That God having promised Justification through Christ to all that believe or trust in it; this Faith doth trust in it, or is that disposition of the soul, whereby it doth trust in that promise, and so obtain a grant of Jnstification: We acknowledge, to believe God's Promises is commanded by him, and an act of our Obedience to him always indispensibly due; but we say, That Faith obtaineth any thing promised, and Justification in particular; not as, or because it obeyeth the general command of believing Gods Promises; but as it trusteth in, dependeth upon the Promises, and consequently, that God fulfilleth the Promise of Pardon, Justification, and the immediate fruits of it to a Believer, out of his mere goodness and faithfulness, not out of remunerative Justice and Debt, as he must, if he justifieth for Faith, as an act of Obedience to any Command.  
But our Opposites will have Faith to justify us as the condition of the New Covenant 〈◊〉 Gospel, not as a mere trust in the Promise. A condition saith Amyrald, 
Amyrald. dissert. de great. unic. p. 52.  is a certain ●aw added to a matter or business, which is required to be performed by a man: Conditio 〈◊〉 Lex addita negotio quae ab homine exigitur: ●o that believing in Christ is annexed to the promise of Justification, as a Law requiring that faith; and then saith must justify as obedience to, or fulfilling of that Command; is Perfect Obedience was the condition of the ●aw: So (they tell us) Faith is the condition of the Gospel, and one justifyeth now, as the other did then, sc. as Man should then have been justified for his Perfect Obedience, as the fulfilling of the Law to which life was promised; so now Faith justifieth as, or because it obeyeth the Gospel Chmmand of believing in Christ to which life is promised to Sinners. To strengthen this, they further say, (which indeed is but a just consequence of it) that as the Covenant of Works, upon the condition of Perfect Obedience, was made with all Mankind in Adam; so also the Covenant of Grace, was made with all Mankind in him also, after the Fall, and renewed to Noah upon the condition of Faith in Christ, i. e. as before they were all commanded to obey perfectly, and they should live for so doing; so now, they are all commanded to believe in Christ, and they shall live for so doing: Foedus gratiae salutaris & in Adamo cum omnibus & singulis hominibus initum, 
Ibid. p. 87.  et in Noa, cum omnibus & singulis hominibus sancitum fuit, sub fidei conditione, adeo ut si omnes & singuli crederent, salutis à Christo partae compotes fierent. This we are now to examine, and there are two Opinions about it: One acknowledgeth Faith to be fiducia, a trust in the promise, and this only to be the condition of Justification; the other makes Faith to include Obedience to the Gospel Command; so that when they say● Faith justifys, they mean Faith and Obedience flowing from it.  
To begin with the First, 'Tis usual with Divines to call Faith the Condition of the Gospel and Justification, but they take the ter● condition improperly, and largely for any thing required of us, and that must be in us, in order to being justified; they mean no more, but that men are not justified by the Death of Christ, as a Ransom paid for them, without any thing in them to apply it to themselves in particular; but that his death doth justify them, being offered in the Promises, & trusted in them for themselves in particular, 
Ibid.  in this sense we grant Faith to be a condition of Justification: But some, Amyraldus and others, take a condition strictly for something required, not only as a disposition of the subject, or as an internal rational means of obtaining a thing; but also as acquiring a right to it, as the performance of that Command which required it; and thus they say, Faith is the Condition of Justification, i. e. we are justified, because we fulfil or obey the Command of believing in Christ: Against this, I thus argue,  
1. If Faith justify as a fulfilling the command of believing, than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, Faith itself is our Righteousness, and Christ's Righteousness hath only procured a Covenant of Faith, by fulfilling whereof we should be justified, as we should have been by fulfilling the Law of Works. For in this Opinion, Faith justifyeth as Obedience to the Command of believing, and Obedience cannot be the Medium of applying Christ's Obedience for our Righteousness; but is itself a righteousness according to the Law that requires it: So then, Faith must be our Righteousness now, as perfect Obedience was under the Law; and must justify as the Work of the Gospel.  
2ly. Faith is the unfittest of all Graces to be the condition of life, because it is only a trust in Free-Mercy, and carries with it, an acknowledgement of our unworthiness, and nothingness, and so bringeth nothing to God, but a bare object of Mercy and Compassion. All other graces bring some positive Honour to God, together with a denial of ourselves, and our inordinate desires to the Creatures; but Faith bringeth nothing but a confession of Misery with a desire and hope of Mercy; therefore is unfit to be our Righteousness, and to come into the room of Perfect Obedience.  
3ly. If Faith justify as a condition, than Man hath a natural power to believe in Christ, how else can Faith be required of him, as a new condition of life, after he had failed of life by the first condition of Obedience? The Gospel by this Doctrine, is a Law of Faith, but a proper Law doth suppose power to obey in the subjects of it; 
Quest. Obj. Quest. 9 Vid. Pelt. Art. 13. Paragr. 2.  This Arminius confesseth, Deum non posse ullo modo fidem in Jesum Christum postulare ab homine lapso, quam ex se habere non potest, nisi aut dederit aut dare paratus sit gratiam sufficientem, quâ credere possit si velit, i. e. God cannot by any means, require Fallen Man to believe, which of himself he cannot do, unless he hath given him, or will be ready to give grace sufficient to believe, if he will.  
4ly. If Faith be the gift of special grace (as is acknowledged by these I now deal with) how can it be required of all that hear the Gospel? seeing they have neither power of their own to believe, nor a promise that Faith shall be given them. If it be said, that Faith is promised, I ask, is it promised on some other condition, or absolutely? If upon condition, than we shall have conditions in infinitum; unless we stop in something that is in Man's Power to do, 
Ibid. p. 55.  as Amyraldus well observeth, Fides impetrata fuit non ut offeretur sub acceptandi conditione, sed ut ipsa illa conditio esset, per quam salus recipitur, alioqui res abiret in infinitum, nec ullus unquam esset terminus conditionum impetrandarum. If absolutely, either to all that hear the Gospel, and so all should believe, or to some only, but no such promise can be produced, that when the Gospel is preached to a people, such and such shall have Faith given them. But if it be said, the Promise of Life in Christ is declared to all, and God persuadeth whom he pleaseth to trust in it; Is it not then better to say, that Faith is only an instrument whereby God enableth Men to lay hold of the Promise ●o Justification, than to offer violence to the nature of all proper Laws and the conditions of them, by making Faith the condition required by a proper Law, which Man hath not ●ower to perform, nor is sure to have it given when he needeth it: and I suppose no instance can be given of any such Law, either Human or Divine, that requireth a condition out of the power, or beyond the ability of the subject, before the Law was made, and doth not certainly provide that ability for him any other way.  
The Second Opinion is of those that affirm, Obedience to be included in Faith, and so Faith and Obedience to be the condition of life, i. e. that we are required sincerely to believe and obey the Gospel Commands, Histories and Promises to our lives end, and for so doing, we shall be justified and saved. Faith in this Opinion, is not an immediate trust in the Promise of life through Christ, but a general belief of the truth of the Histories and Promises of the Gospel, encouraging to obey the Precepts of it; yea, though there be 〈◊〉 particular persuasion, that this man in particular shall be saved if he obey the Gospel 〈◊〉 yet this is not proper trust or affiance, but a more practical assent to the general Promises and Doctrine of the Gospel; a trust upon an uncertain condition, is no more a tru● and proper trust, than a proposition depending on a future contingency, is a proper o● certain proposition, or hath determinate truth or falsehood: This is the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Remonstrants (as hath been showed Chap● 5.) We may also observe, That though th● Opinion be commonly expressed by believing in, or receiving Christ as our King and Prophet, as well as Priest; yet in truth, it maketh Faith, or the condition of the Gospel, t● respect Christ only as a King immediately, and as a Prophet and Priest accidentally and remotely. For to prescribe Laws and Conditions of Life, whereby men must be judged, saved, or condemned, and then to judge them by those Laws, and either justify or condemn them for their obedience or disobedience to them, are all Kingly Acts or Exercises of Kingly Power, and these only are immediately respected by this Faith, which is nothing else but obeying what Christ hath commanded upon belief of the truth of what he hath declared, and promised to that Obedience, and so is that for which men shall be judicially justified. It is true, Christ as a Prophet doth explain and teach his own Law, but this is accidental to a Legislator, and men must obey the teaching of Christ, but obedience as such is not because he teacheth, but because he that teacheth is also the Law maker, and hath authority to command obedience: Therefore Faith, as obedience, and so justifying, doth not properly respect Christ as a Prophet, nor doth it eye him as a Priest, being not a trust in his satisfaction and Righteousness to be saved by it, which was the main Exercise of his Priestly Office, but an obedience to the New Law which Christ had made as a King, and only had purchased as a Priest leave of the Father to make such a Law, and that those that obeyed it should be saved: The Priesthood therefore of Christ is but remotely respected in believing, as the foundation of his Law and Promises annexed to it: This Mr. Baxter confesseth in effect, 
1 Disput. of Just. P. 25.  when he saith, Christ's Merit is the remote, moral cause of our Justification, but his granting of this Promise or Act of Grace, is the true, natural, efficient, instrumental cause of our Justification, even the immediate cause. If Christ's Merit was but the remote Cause of Justification, then justifying Faith doth respect it but remotely, as the procuring cause of the New Covenant; and if the grant of an Act of Grace be the only, proper and immediate Cause of Justification, than Faith only respects that immediately when it justifies, and so Christ only as a King, or as the Enacter of a New Law. 
Ibid. p. 27.  Again, he saith, It is most evident in Scripture that Merit & Satisfaction are but the moral, remote, preparatory causes of our Justification (though exceeding eminent, etc.) and that the perfecting, nearer, efficient causes were by other Acts of Christ, and that all concurred to accomplish the work. By this it appears that Justification is an Act of Christ as a King only, though his Merit made way for his Kingly Power; and his Prophetical teaching promoteth man's obedience, & that his justifying us is his acquitting us from guilt and condemnation, because we have obeyed his Law or New Covenant; and that obedience to that Law, as obedience to a Royal Law, is the condition of our Justification, or the thing for which we must be justified; and that Faith with these men is nothing but obedience to the Gospel-Precepts grounded upon a belief that they came from Christ, and shall be rewarded according to his Promise, and therefore when they contend, That Faith justifieth not by one act of affiance, but by all its acts, they do but confound themselves and the question: For even according to themselves, Faith justifieth properly and immediately by one act only, or under one only notion, viz. of obedience to the Gospel; and that directed to Christ only as King, and that the other acts of it respecting his Merit and Teaching, are but accidental to it, and without its notion as justifying: We are then to prove that obedience to the Gospel is not the condition of our Justification, though joined with, or builded upon Faith in the truth of it, and thus I argue:  

The First Argument.  
From Rom. 4.16, 17. Therefore it is of faith that it might be of grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all, etc. The Faith here spoken of is that whereby Abraham was justified, and by which the Promise should be made sure to all his Seed, both Jews and Gentiles, which is the Promise of being blessed with him, in his Seed Christ: Now the Apostle saith. That Justification or Blessedness comes by Faith, that it might be by Grace, i.e. altogether free, but Justification upon the condition of obedience is not altogether free; therefore justifying Faith includeth not obedience, as the condition of Justification. I prove the Minor thus: Grace and Works are utterly inconsistent in God's dealing with Man for his Salvation. For Work bring some worthiness though not strict Merit, but Grace supposeth nothing but dese●● of Punishment, Rom. 11.6. If by grace, the not of works, otherways grace is no more grace Election of grace, v. 5. excludeth all works why doth not Justification also, if it be b● Grace? If obedience to the Gospel be the condition of our Justification, as perfect obedience to the Law of Works was formerly how is it Grace more now than it was then Did God graciously grant the New Covenant to lost Sinners? True, here was Grace; but when he had granted it he justifieth them only for the performance of it, or their obedience to it; therefore the giving of the New Covenant is of Grace; but Justification by obedience to it, is not of Grace but of Works Doth a New Covenant accept of imperfect obedience, and carry pardon with it? It do●● indeed not insist upon perfect obedience to the Law of Innocency, as the only way of life but it doth not dispense with, or allow the breach of any of those Commands that were perpetual: What then? It requireth perfect and exact obedience to the Gospel, and f●● want of that obedience men shall be condemned; there is no pardon for want of sincere obedience under the Gospel, no more that there was for want of perfect obedience to Adam, therefore all the mercy, grace and pardon of the New Covenant lieth in relaxing the Covenant of perfect works, in giving a New and somewhat Milder Covenant to men, when they might have been condemned for the breach of the former; but still their Justification or right to Life dependeth wholly upon their obedience to this New Covenant, and so ●● no more of Grace properly than Adam should have been. But they say our obedience is performed by the efficacy of Divine Grace, and therefore we may be said to be justified by Grace, though by our Obedience. As if the Elect Angels that stand were not justified or accepted in and by their own integrity, because preserved by the Grace of God; or as if Adam could not have been justified by keeping the Law, unless he had done it merely by his own connate strength, without additions or assistance of Divine Grace throughout his Life: What the Grace is which these men allow to our obedience is yet uncertain; but this altereth not the nature of Justification; if it be by obedience it is not of grace but of works, i. e. a man is pronounced Just or Righteous for his own obedience by what principle soever it be wrought; therefore the saith here spoken of neither is nor doth include obedience. Again, It is a Faith that the Promise may be sure or firm to all the Seed, but if obedience be the condition of life, the Promise cannot be sure to all or any Believers, Ergò, this Faith doth not include Obedience. Professed Arminians grant there can be no assurance ordinarily of any particular man's Salvation, yea that there is no absolute certainty thet any Man should be saved, though Christ died for them all: Others speak more dubiously; but if Justification be suspended upon our Obedience to the Gospel to our lives end; it cannot be certain to any Man, that he shall be justified and saved, till he be out of the World: there may be indeed an objective certainty of the Promise in general, viz. He that obeyeth to the End shall be saved; but thus the promise to Adam was as certain, viz, if he had obeyed perfectly to the End, he should thereby be justified; but here was a Promise to Abraham, That he and his Seed should be blessed; and this Promise was not made to the Works of the Law, but to the Faith of Abraham and his Seed, that the promise might be certain, i. e. that they should certainly attain the promised blessedness, and by no means fall short of it; but this certainty comes not from persevering Obedience, which is itself uncertain, Ergò. If any say, Believers may be sure they shall persevere, and so the Promise shall be certain. I answer, None of the Authors we deal with, will say so; and if they should, this would overthrow Obedience, being the condition of our Justification; for than we should have an absolute Promise of perseverance: and so of Justification, before we are perfectly justified, which no sober man will affirm: Besides, to what is this Promise of perseverance made? to Faith? then Faith alone hath the Promise of Obedience and Perseverance, whereby we must be justified, though they will not allow it to justify us, and then they contend to little purpose. Moreover, this Faith of Abraham was such, as whereby both Jews under Moses' Law, and Gentiles exempt from that Law, should be justified; but the Jews under the Law, were not justified by Obedience to the Gospel dispensation, which then was not given, nor was Abraham himself justified by it, which was not then in force; nor yet are the Gentiles since the abolition of the Law obliged to the same Obedience that Abraham was, he being under the Law of Circumcision and Sacrifices, and other Institutions afterward incorporated with the Law of Moses; therefore this Faith which justifieth Abraham and all Believers alike, is not Obedience to the Gospel, or any edition of the Law of God, and the Apostle himself explains it in the next words, v. 17. Abraham was made the Father of many Nations before him whom he believed, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it may be rendered, forasmuch as he believed in God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not, as if they were, who against hope believed in hope, etc. all this plainly respects Abraham's trust, and Gods Promise, not his Obedience; and by this he was justified and made the Father, and Pattern of all believers; therefore Belie●evers are not justified by Obedience.   

Argument 2.  
If Gospel Obedience, or Faith as including Obedience, justifies, than the Gospel justifys as a Law; not as a Promise of Mercy and Grace in Christ; but Fallen Man cannot be justified by any Law, Ergò. The Consequence is evident; Obedience respects the Law as such, and to be justified by a Law, or the observance of it; and to be justified by a promise of mere Mercy, are directly opposite. The Gospel according to them, may have a Promise of Life annexed to Obedience; but it justifieth for that Obedience to which life was promised, after the manner of all other Laws, that have Promises of reward annexed; and not as a Promise of Mercy and Life to be given gratis.  
I prove the Minor, Fallen Man cannot be justified by any Law of God, because he is not able to perform any, he is no more able o● himself to obey the Evangelical Law, tha● the Perfect Law of Works; for having n● principle of spiritual life in him, he hath n● more power to yield imperfect than perfect Obedience (in nothing, there are no degrees not more and less.) The Apostle saith, Ga●. 3.21. If there had been a Law given, or could be given, which could give life, Righteousness should be by the Law. God as a Creator and Lord first expecteth Obedience from his Creatures, and would reward them for it. 〈◊〉 Men were able to fulfil any Law of Obedience fit for God to require of him, in order to h●● own honour, and Man's happiness, God would certainly enjoin him that Law; but by 〈◊〉 Law is the knowledge of Sin, Rom. 4.15. b● every divine Law, as well as the Law 〈◊〉 Works. Man doth but discover his own sinfulness, because not able to obey it; and therefore he can be justified by no Law: If they say, God can enable them to fulfil the Precepts of the Gospel; so he could also have enabled them to have performed the Law of Innocency. If it be said, God hath promised he will enable men to it; then this Promise must be as universal as the Law; else the Law would require an impossibity of some Men, and if it be, than all that are commanded to obey the Gospel, are promised to be made able to perform it: which is the Jesuits Universal-sufficient-grace in the highest degree; but if the Gospel do not carry with it a certain promise or power to fulfil it (as it doth not) before Faith; than it propoundeth to Men a way of Salvation, which to them at present, is as impossible, as to be saved by the Law of Works; and for what they know, ever shall be; therefore the Gospel cannot justify as a Law. But the natural consequence of this Doctrine is, That Man hath Natural Ability to obey the Gospel, and that his Nature is not corrupted; or not so far, as to extinguish all spiritual life, and therefore that men by diligence may overcome their own indisposition, and obey the Gospel sincerely, which God will mercifully accept to their Salvation; and hence Mr. Trueman and others, tell us, That the Gospel is fitted to Man's weak and broken condition, requiring no more than is a agreeable to it; it is indeed fitted to Man's miserable state, if it be taken for a free promise of life, but not, if it be a Law promising life only to Obedience, unless he hath power to obey. If a Creditor to whom is due 1000 pounds, would be content to take 1000 Pence from a poor Debtor, and yet will stand upon it, that he should perish in Prison, unless he pay the 100 Pence, when he knoweth he can neither pay nor procure one Penny of good and currant Money; surely he cannot be said, to have tempered and suited his terms and demands to the broken and shattered condition of the Poor Debtor.   

Argument 3.  
If Obedience to the Gospel justify Christians, than Obedience to the Law of Moses did justify the Jews that were under that dispensation: For that was then the way of life and obedience to the Jews, as the Gospel is now to Christians; nor was it given them as a Covenant of perfect Obedience; but was indeed a more imperfect and obscure edition of the Gospel; and the Jews were but as Heirs in their minority under Tutors and Governors, till they were fit for the greater liberty of Sons, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Nor can there be any reason, why the Jews should not be justified by sincere obedience to the Law, unless it be affirmed to be a Covenant of Perfect Obedience, and then their case was worse than Adam's, more being required of them, than of him, and they without strength to obey it; Minor: But the Jews were not justified by sincere obedience to the Law of Moses, Ergò. Acts 13.38, 39 St. Paul preached to the Jews, That in Christ's Name was preached to them the forgiveness of sins; and that by him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses; Their Justification must come by forgiveness of sins, through believing in Christ's Name, and not by their obedience to the Law, which he saith ●●as impossible, Rom. 4.14. If they that are of the Law be Heirs, faith is made void, and be Promise of none effect: The Apostle here proveth, from v. 9 That Justification was ●ot restrained to the Jews, because the Promise was made to Abraham's Faith, which justified him, and made him the Father of all Believers, while he was yet uncircumcised; therefore the Law here spoken of, was the Law of Moses, which was given after Abraham, and the Promise is of his being Heir of the World, or Head of the Faithful, viz. That God would raise up a Church in, and from him, which should be saved by Faith as he was; and Faith here, is Abraham's Faith in that Promise, by which he was justified before he was circumcised, and by which all ●is Seed shall be justified, directing their saith more expressly to Christ, v. 14. Now, saith the Apostle, if they that are of the Law, the Jews, are Heirs of the Promise, i. e. by the Law, (for by Faith they were Heirs as well as the Gentiles) than the Promise and Faith were made void, i. e. Abraham and his Seed by Faith without that Law could not be justified, because men at that time were to be justified only by that Law, and further he saith, ver. 11, 12, 13. That Abraham was justified by Faith before he was circumcised, and received circumcision as the Seal of the righteousness which he had being uncircumcised, to show that the Gentiles shall be justified by Faith, though they were not circumcised, nor obliged to the Law of Moses: and that the Jews though circumcised, and observing the Law (of which circumcision was a Badge) should be justified by Faith as he was, and not by that circumcision, v. 11, 12. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had ye● being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them to believe, though they be no● circumcised, that righteousness may be imputed unto them also: and the Father of circumcision to them that are not of the circumcision only: bu● also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised: The Father of circumcision to them that are not of the circumcision only, i. e. not because they were circumcised, and had th●● Law of Moses; but because they walked in the steps of his Faith, of the acceptance where of Circumcision was a Seal: He adds another reason, v. 15. why the Law could not make them heirs of the Promise, for by the Law is the knowledge of Sin, and where there is no Law, there is no transgression, i. e. th● Law as given to the Jews did but show the● their duty, and so convince them of sin, because they could not keep it; and therefore that could not make them heirs of the promise, but on the contrary, if they must stand and be tried by that Law, than the Promise was to no purpose, and Faith in it had no force, ergò, the Jews were not justified by the Law of Moses; they were brought into Canaan for the Promise, Deut. 9.5. not for their keeping the Law; and that was a Type of their attaining eternal life.   

Argument 4.  
Rom. 5.1, etc. the Apostle having proved that we are justified by Faith, lays down the Effects of this Justification, where first he speaketh of Justification as a thing done and transacted already to Believers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being therefore justified by Faith, or when we are justified by Faith; and then he descendeth to the Effects, 1st. Peace or reconciliation with God, v. 1. which he amplifyeth, v. 10, 11. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, and being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life, i. e. brought to glory, and through him we have received the atonement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and glory in God on that account, which is proved by the comparison of our fall in Adam, v. 12. ad sinem, viz. as by being born of Adam we are enemies to God, under his wrath and condemnation, so by believing in Christ we are reconciled to God and have peace with him. A second Effect of Justification here mentioned, is access into that grace or favour wherein we now stand, v. 2. i. e. present favour with God, and freedom of access to him. A third rejoicing in hope of glory, v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we boast, the highest kind of rejoicing. A fourth, rejoicing in tribulation, v. 3, 4. in confidence of spiritual benefit by them and deliverance out of them. A fifth, a pouring of the Love of God into the heart, v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All these flow from Justification in this Life, as natural fruits in Believers; but if we are justified by obedience none of these can stand.  
1st. There is no justification in this life, it is no past or present certain thing, but a future and uncertain: If obedience to the Gospel be that whereby we must be justified, than we are not justified till our obedience be fulfilled, and that is not till the Soul be out of the Body. We are told that there is a sentential Justification, when the Judge shall pronounce us acquitted, which is not till Judgement; but there is a constitutive Justification by the Judgement of the Law in this Life, when the Law pronounceth us Righteous according to it, and to be such as the Judge will justify; but neither will this hold, the Gospel cannot judge a man to have fulfilled it before he hath fulfilled it, which it must do if it judge or pronounce us righteous for the obeying the Gospel to our lives end, before we be dead. The complete condition of Justification they acknowledge is obedience to the end of our lives, and Justification is an acquitting us and accepting us to life for that obedience; therefore till that obedience be performed, the Gospel doth not acquit us, nor pronounce us Heirs of Life; therefore there is no constitutive Justification in this life by obedience. Imperfect or inchoate Justification, which they sometimes speak of, when a man gins to obey the Gospel, is nothing but a probability of being justified: For if a man fall from his Integrity he shall never be justified, though he obeyed for a time, no not in part, nor his condemnation lessened. All that can be said is, That such a man is in that way wherein if he continue to the end he shall be justified, but if he continue not to the end, he shall no more be justified than he that never entered into that way: Nor can these Effects of Justification stand upon the foundation of obedience; 1st. Not peace and reconciliation with God; For if we are to be justified by obeying the Gospel to our lives end, than God is not at peace with us, nor reconciled to us till then: There is a suspension of the execution of the Curse of the Law, and there is a Law of Life given, by which (when we have fulfilled it) we shall be saved, and former sins forgiven, but if we fail (as we may) both the Curse of the Law and the Condemnation of the Gospel will fall upon us; all this while we are but Probationers for life, and all God's kindnesses to us spiritual and temporal, are merciful encouragements to us, but not the Effects of reconciliation. 2ly. Not the present favour of God, God indeed out of his infinite goodness bestoweth many blessings for our present comfort to own and to encourage obedience, but they proceed not from the Love of a Father to Children; the greatest inward comfort and joys of the Godly, cannot be tokens of fatherly love or certain special favour: For Adoption doth certainly presuppose Justification. God must 1st. justify us before he be our Father, and so accept our persons before he accept our obedience as the service of Children; but obedience to the end being the condition of our Justification, neither Justification, nor Adoption, nor the special Fruits of it can take place in this life, and I think none will say we have inchoate adoption for God to be our Father and we to be his Children in this life imperfectly, and when our obedience is complete, that Relation will be consummate also. 3ly. Nor joy in the hope of Glory, for upon the uncertain condition of obedience (which no man can be sure by this Doctrine that he shall persevere in) a man can have at the most but a good probability of his Salvation mixed with fear and danger, and this fear will be the greater, the more serious men be, and apprehensive how hard it is to enter in at the straight Gate; what room then is there for great Joy and even boasting in the hope of Glory? 4ly. Nor joy in Tribulations. Afflictions by this Doctrine are accounted some part of the curse, fruits of vindicative Justice; we must bear them, 
Num. 196, 197.  but what great comfort can there be in them? How can we be sure that they shall not sift out our Grace rather than our Chaff, and that we shall have a blessed Issue of them, seeing we have no Promise of any such thing, but what depends only upon the condition of our own obedience? 5ly. Nor can the heart be filled with the sense of God's Love: The largest apprehensions of the general offers of mercy and love, though they may calm the Soul, yet cannot make it joyful under afflictions, nor fill it with joy and peace in believing; and if there be a sense of God's particular, eternal love to us, sealing to redemption, and swallowing up all fears, and the sense of other troubles, as cannot be denied to have been in many Martyrs and some other Godly persons; this must suppose their Salvation to be out of danger and not to depend upon conditions not yet fulfilled: If Christians do here receive, in some sort, the end of their Faith, the Salvation of their Souls, and rejoice even with joy unspeakable and full of glory, and can be thankful for it, than the finishing of their obedience is not the condition of it, but it comes by believing, 1 Pet. 1.8, 9   

Argument 5.  
If we are justified by obedience to the Gospel, or obedience be the condition of our Justification, which is all one, than it may be truly said we are justified by love, patience, by self-denial, and every other grace as well and as much as by faith; For these in habit and exercise are the parts of Gospel-obedience, and Faith itself is but a part of the same, and in itself not so noble and excellent a part, as Love and some other Graces; but the Scripture is wholly silent of any such matter: We are never said to be justified by Love, Patience, etc. but always by Faith, and when it is once said, Jam. 2. A man is justified by works and not by faith only: Justification is taken improperly, viz. That a man cannot be a true Christian and saved by Faith which brings not forth obedience: If they say that it must be taken properly, and that works in general include every particular Grace, and so we may be said to be justified by them severally in part, I demand how faith is opposed to works in justifying, in the Apostles Dispute about it, in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians? Doth Faith signify obedience to the Gospel flowing from Faith or a belief of it, and Works perfect obedience to the Law? Thus they say, but I would fain know why obedience to the Gospel should be called Faith rather than obedience to the Law; for Faith had as great a● part in it, and as great influence upon that obedience as upon Gospel-obedience: Adam, that he might have kept the Law of God perfectly, must have perfectly believed the Existence and Nature of God, his Authority over him, that this Law was from him, that it was just and good for him to obey, that the Promises and Threaten annexed would be certainly fulfilled as there was occasion, and then in the course of his Obedience he must have trusted in God for the fulfilling of every Promise which concerned each part of his Obedience, and moreover that he should be happy ●● he did persevere to the end. Now Gospel-Faith (according to this Doctrine) doth no more; it believeth that Jesus Christ is King and Saviour, that he gave the Gospel as his Will and Law, that if we keep it to the end we shall be saved, that all the Promises and Threaten of it in the general, shall be performed, and in particular, as there is occasion for them in our lives, only this Faith is imperfect as well as our obedience, mixed with unbelief and subject to wavering; why then may not Faith comprehend perfect as well as imperfect obedience, or why should the latter be called Faith in opposition to the former, if it be said Gospel-Faith doth also include a belief of the Pardon of Sin, which Adam's Faith did not?  
I Answer, The addition of one new partial object altars not the nature of the habit. Faith is Faith still, though it believe some particulars under the Gospel, which it did not extend to under the Law: as it did then extend to some particular (v. 9 perfect freedom from all trouble in the continuance of innocency) which it doth not believe under the Gospel; but perhaps, belief of pardon may be the reason why it may be opposed to perfect works; it may be the reason why imperfect works, and the Faith joined with them, may be opposed to perfect works and their faith; but it can be no reason, why imperfect works should be called faith simply without any limitation; and perfect works be called works simply, as if they included not Faith. Moreover, the belief of pardon in the Gospel, is but accidental by this Doctrine ●● for eternal life is promised to sincere Obedience to the Precepts of the Law; the direct and principle object of Gospel Faith here, i● the promise of life to Obedience, i. e. if they obey the Gospel sincerely they shall be saved; and this was the nature of Adam's Faith, to believe if he obeyed perfectly, he should be saved; now it is accidental to this that men be sinners and need pardon, and so must believe that they shall be pardoned: and yet with these men, Pardon is nothing but nolle punire, that God will not condemn fo● sin; and thus, when we believe God will save us, if we obey sincerely, we do consequently and implicitly believe he will not condemn us, i e. will pardon us all our sins, but thi● is implicit and indirect; therefore the belief of Pardon cannot be a reason why Gospel Obedience should be called Faith, and opposed to the Works of the Law.   

Argument 6.  
If Faith and Obedience be the Condition of Justification, than the great falls of the godly (such especially as waste Conscience, and make a breach upon their sincerity) must interrupt their Justification, and bring them into a state of damnation; so that their only remedy must be to begin their Repentance and Obedience a new; and if they have not time to do that, but should die in their sin, or senselesness after it, they must perish for ever: but we do not find in Scripture any word of this. We read of the fall of some, as Noah, Lot, Samson, and read nothing of their recovery, and yet no question made of their Salvation: We read also of David's and Peter's Repentance, and their great Sorrow, yet not that they reckoned themselves under condemnation: We find David and others, in the Psalms and Prophets much complaining of their Sins and Afflictions, the fruit of them, of the want of God's Favour and Presence; yet they call him their God, and beg the restoring of his Favour, that he would not take his Spirit utterly from them, Psal. 51.11, 12. All their Complaints and Prayers argue want of present fence of God's Favour, and the quickenings of his Spirit: not that they were utterly out of favour, or a reconciled state. It is true, it is not safe for young or unexperienced Christians, when guilty of foul sins, or great decays of Zeal, to retain mueh confidence of their good state: but rather, to remember from whence they are fallen, and to repent and do their first works, because they may be easily mistaken about the truth of grace, when there hath been but little proof of it: but well-rooted and experienced Christians upon their miscarriages are not bound to question their Justification, but to humble themselves greatly for abusing the grace and kindness of God, and submit to his fatherly correction, and should they doubt as some do, yet is not that the best and most proper motive to humble and recover them, but rather a discouragement and hindrance. Fear of Hell, and such like Motives work best upon the unexperienced and ignorant; but the want of God's Presence, and other effects of his Fatherly displeasure are more suitable, and more effectual to grown Christians: Nor doth the Scripture speak any thing of the condemnation of those that die in actual sin; and either have not actual repentance, or not time to make proof of the sincerity of it. The young Prophet, 1 King 14, and the excellent Josiah, 2 Chron. 35.21, 22. were both slain presently upon an act of disobedience to the express Commands of God; and yet nothing is said to render their Salvation doubtful: and in this case I would ask whether the habit of Faith and Obedience be utterly extinguished? If not, it is strange that Men should go to Hell with a real disposition to love and serve God, only wanting time to recover themselves from some fall. If it be extinct, it is also strange, that one, or a few acts of sin, it may be for a few moments, should utterly root out grace, which hath been long in planting and confirming.   

Argument 7.  
Lastly, If Faith and Obedience be the Condition of Justification, than there is no way to comfort Consciences troubled for sin; but from the evidence of their sincerity past, or by telling them they must be obedient for the time to come; but for the present there is no peace nor hope, no, though they were going out of the World. This Argument is much used by our first Reformers, Luther, Melancthon, Chemnitius, etc. and they thought it unanswerable, viz. That however men insensible of sin might dispute for the influence of their works on Justification; yet when men have sore terrors of Conscience, wounded for sin; neither their works past, nor their promises and purposes of what they will be for the future, will comfort them; but only the Doctrine of Freegrace and Pardon, by hoping in the Mercy of God. Our Martyr Mr. Bilney, hearing a Rhetorical Preacher laying great stress upon Repentance and Obedience as the only ground of hope, was offended and said, How uncomfortable would this Poctrine have been to me, when I was in my great terrors for my fall! The Consequence is undeniable, If we must be justified by Obedience, and that persevering to the end; there is no comfort to a distressed sinner, unless you can show him, that he hath sincerely obeyed sometime past, and therefore is fulfilling the Condition of Justification; or by telling him, he must now resolve to be obedient for the future; and if he do so resolve, there is some probability he may be saved; but there can be no good hope till after some process of time he hath evidenced the sincerity of his Obedience, which should he quickly die, there would be no time for, therefore no to lerable ground of hope or comfort for him, but a bare perhaps that his purpose of obedience may be true and sincere, and so accepted for his Justification. But the Scriptures teach otherways, our Saviour's, who knew best how to speak to the Soul, saith to the Paralytic Mat. 9.22. Be of good cheer, thy sins are for given thee; and to the Woman, Luke 7.48 Thy sins are forgiven thee; and Peter, Act 2.37, 38, etc. when the Jews were pricked at their hearts, biddeth them repent, and b● baptised in the name of Christ for the remission of sins, and that they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, because the Promises did be long to them and their Children. We see forgiveness is immediately promised to trembling souls, and they are directed to hope for that and look to the Promises of it for present peace and comfort, and certainly when God enlighteneth the Conscience and setteth sin in order before it, 
vid. Job 9 v. 19, to 23. and v. 13, to the end.  no man's sincerity will be a sufficient stay to him, his obedience will appea● very small, not fit to be presented to God the best will cry out, If thou Lord should● mark iniquity who shall stand? Psal. 130. v. 2● and enter not into Judgement with thy Servant for in thy sight shall no flesh be justified, Ps. 143 3. And though they that be but lightly touched with sin are ready to promise great matter for the future and to quiet themselves with that, yet they that be throughly wounde● and humbled can never build their peace upon purposes or promises of obedience, but upon the free Mercy of God in Christ, from whence also they must have their power to obey, or their purposes are in vain, and also the acceptance and forgiveness of their poor, imperfect obedience. Whatever are the disputes of curious Wits, or of rational Parts, who would said bring the Methods of Sovereign Grace to the Rules of Humane Reason, yet I never met with any serious man, nor I believe never shall, who would soberly say, That he expected to be saved or justified for and by his Obedience to the Gospel.    

CHAP. X. An Answer to the Arguments for Obedience being the Condition of Justification.  
WE come now for a close of this Work to consider the Principle Arguments that are brought to prove, That Obedience to the Gospel or Faith, as comprehending all Obedience, is the Condition, by fulfilling whereof we must be justified; and it is alleged,  
1st. That this way of Justification seemeth most rational, obvious and agreeable to the whole Tenor of Scripture, which maketh the Promises both of this Life and that which is to come, to Obedience, 1 Tim. 4.8. And that the way of Justification by trusting in the Promise of Mercy putteth some force both upon Reason and many Texts of Scripture: Thus Mr. Trueman often.  
1st. It was Melancthon's Observation, 
Answ. Lex come. de isustif. judic. in Rom.  That man's Reason, which he called humana Philosophia, doth always cherish a notion of being justified by Works, and therefore Justification by Faith ever hath been, and ever shall be opposed both by curious Wits and by grave Moral Men, not only among Heathens, but in the Church also; which cometh partly from the Pride of Man, who would fain be something, but chief from the impression of the Law of Nature or Works, which taught and allowed no other way of Justification, and therefore men's Consciences, though they hear the Letter of the Gospel, do not, cannot believe that they can be justified by Free Grace, without any respect to their Works, till they are inwardly persuaded by the Spirit of Christ. Christ crucified was a stumbling Block to the Jews, who trusted to the Works of the Law, and Foolishness to the Greeks, who thought themselves wise and rational men, 1 Cor. 1.23. It is therefore no inconvenience, that Justification by obedience is most agreeable to carnal and unsanctified reason, and Justification by Faith not suitable to it: But I suppose this Author by rational, meant, That the several parts and consequences of the Dostrine of Justification by Obedience did better cohere and agree together, than if it were affirmed to be by Faith only. Of this let the ●ious Reader, that hath been sensible of sin ●●d guilt, and feelingly understands the grounds of a Christian's Hope and Peace, ●●dge. They say, That man being under ●rath for breaking the Law of Works, desti●te of the Image or Grace of God, did yet receive a New Law purchased by the Death ●f Christ, to repent, believe, and obey the precepts of it, and for so doing he should be ●●aved, his former sins forgiven; yet all this ●hile he is not able to repent, believe, or o●●y, nor is there any promise that he shall be ●ade able; and if he receive Grace to do this ●any measure, yet it is not insured to him; he may and many do lose it, yea he may recover and and lose it again, and if death should seize him in any of these sad intervals, all his obedience profiteth nothing, but he perisheth for ever; if this will comfort or settle an afflicted, unsettled conscience, or be agreeable to the tastes any have had of the Grace o● God, let such judge. On the other side, we teach, That man being utterly lost by guil● and inability to obedience, God sent his So● fully and absolutely to satisfy his Justice and to purchase eternal life for as many as he had chosen. This purchase he declared in the Gospel, promising pardon and eternal life to al● that humbly fly to and trust in him for it, that when his promise is published God sends forth his Spirit, and persuadeth the heart's o● his Elect to trust in it, that hereupon he giveth them pardon of all their sins, and a right to eternal life, for the sake of his Son's satisfaction and purchase, that being thus reconciled to them; he doth further make them h●● Children, and heirs of Glory for his Son sake, and because they are his Children, h● giveth them the Spirit of his Son to rene● them after his Image, to continue and perse● grace in them, and forgiveth all their infirmity, and blesseth them with all temporal an● spiritual blessings in Christ, and ordereth a● his providences for their good, to purge o●● sin and to perfect grace, till at last of his Fatherly Goodness he crowns them with eterne life, after their hard service on Earth; to e●● courage them in which Heaven was proposed as a Reward to them; wherein is this irrational or inconsistent with itself?  
The Scripture for the most part speaketh to the Conscience and Affections, 
2dly.  more than the Judgement, and therefore handleth not things distinctly and didactically, but putteth many things together, saith and obedience in general or in particular duties, as is most suited to practice; and therefore it is no good Argument, Faith and Obedience are joined together often times as the means of Salvation without distinguishing the several Offices of each, and what influence each have upon the several parts of our Salvation, ergò, both together and alike do justify us before God. Yet it is evident from the whole Tenor of the Scripture, That forgiveness of sin, reconciliation, peace; with God, hope of Heaven, all come by our flying to and hope in Mercy and Grace alone. This was renewed to Adam by promise of the Seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.17. And by Sacrifices; in like manner renewed to Abraham by promise, with the Seal of Circumcision, and a more particular promise of Christ. The Psalms practically exemplify, That our only refuge is Free Mercy: The Prophets are full of promises of Pardon, of healing Backslidings, Jer. 3.12. of loving freely, Hos. 14.4. of forgiving beyond man's thoughts, Isa. 54.6, 7, 8. and the like. Our Saviour and the Apostles preached this Doctrine to convinced and humbled Sinners, though they insist much upon Obedience to convince and reclaim the hypocritical backsliding Jews: To the Heathens, who had no excuse for sin, they preached nothing but pardon at first, and besides this, when the Doctrine of Justification is distinctly propounded and proved, it is wholly ascribed to Faith in the Promise, in two most argumentative Epistles to the Romans and Galatians; upon which they that would bring in obedience are fain to make a manifest force, whereas we force no Scripture, but explain those that speak generally, by showing the several Acts of Faith, and ascribing to it and to Obedience their distinct Offices.  

Argument 2.  
They argue, That God is not to be considered as a Creditor in the business of Justification, but as a Rector or Governor, dealing with Sinners, 
Gr. Prop. p. 86.  not as with Debtors, but as with rebellious Subjects, who are to be forgiven and reclaimed by Laws, and by granting them Terms and Conditions of Pardon and reconciliation. (Mr. Trueman.)  

Answ.  The Scripture setteth out God under the notion of a Creditor, and pardon by forgiving of debts, Mat. 18.23, 27. etc. and such a one as doth not release part only, and requiring a third or fourth of the Debt, but as one that forgives all, even to ten thousand Talents; and we are taught daily to pray, Forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors; and yet we acknowledge, That God in justifying dealeth with men as a Rector or Governor. To Pardon is an act of Government, yea of Sovereignity, none but a Sovereign can forgive the breach of his own Laws, and restore offenders to favour. God as as a Supreme Legislator and Rector thought of a way to save sinners, appointed his Son to die for them; accepted his satisfaction when it was made, promiseth pardon to them that fly to his mercy, and mercifully forgiveth them that trust in it, and justly acquitteth and dischargeth them for the Righteousness of his Son; and when they are justified and made his Children, he doth eternally govern them by his Laws of Obedience: all these are the acts of a Rector; therefore on this account, there is no need that they should be justified by Conditions of New Obedience.   

Argument 3.  
They argue, From the comparison of men's forgiveness, which is always upon conditions of amendment, either expressed or implied. When a Prince Proclaims Pardon to Rebels, it is either expressed or implied, that they lay down their Arms, and return to their obedience and continue in it: In like manner (they think) God cannot pardon men, but upon Conditions of Repentance and obedience for the remainder of their lives.  

Answ.  If a man should receive and accept satisfaction from another in the behalf of an offendor, and then impose conditions upon him, for his Pardon or Reconciliation, he would certainly be unjust: and this is our case towards God: he hath accepted a Ransom and Atonement in the Blood of his Son, and forgiveth men for, and in respect to that; and therefore requireth no conditions of them for their reconciliation; but that they accept of a trust in the mercy promised in his Son.  
There is another great difference betwixt God and Man in the matter of forgiveness. 
2dly.  Man cannot make the Offender obedient for the future; nor can be sure he will be obedient; and therefore he makes conditions with him, and obligeth him by hope of impunity and fear of punishment, if he offend again: but God can, and doth intent when he pardoneth man to give him a heart to love and obey him to the end; and therefore needs not make this a condition of their pardon: Besides the greatest Princes have not such absolve Power of pardon in the breach of their own Laws, as God hath of his; nor can they repair the dishonour done to themselves and their Law, as God can; partly in magnisying his grace, and partly in the inestimable value of his Son's blood, by which all the dishonour done to him by Man is abundantly repaired: But Mr. Baxter hath handled this question in a set Disputation to which he refers us; 
4 Disp. of Justedisp. 1  where he give us 10 Arguments to prove this Thesis p. 13. We are justified by God, by our believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord, and not only by believing in his Blood or Righteousness, which I shall briefly consider so far as they tend to prove Obedience to be the condition of our Justification, which is the main drift of them, though not as they mediately respect the terms of his Thesis, which I have before proved out of this same disputation to be oequivocal and improper: For by this Doctrine, we are justified only by obeying the Gospel of Christ, which consisteth of his Precepts, Promises and Threaten, which all proceed from him as a King, not as a Priest or Prophet; i. e. therefore we are justified by believing in him as King only, not as a Priest or Prophet, unless accidentally and remotely, as he confesseth, p. 25. The Argument follows.   

Argument 1.  
From the confession of those that we dispute with. 
p. 13.  If it be granted that believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Teacher is a real part of the condition of our Justification, than it is granted, that by this believing in him we are justified as by a condition; but the former is true, therefore the latter.  

Answ.  If he had quoted any Authors, we might the better have judged of the truth of the Antecedent: all that looks like a proof is, p. 14. 3dly. They expressly make it antecedent to our Justification, as of Moral necessity, ex constitutione promittentis, and say it is the Fides quae justificat: All the meaning whereof is, that as the Gospel revealeth Christ who died for us to be a King and Teacher of his People; so in order to our coming to him to be saved by him, we must acknowledge or believe this Doctrine, that he died for our sins, and is to teach us and rule us, that he may save us. But,  
1. It is not necessary to Justification, that persons should have a distinct knowledge of the Offices of Christ, but 'tis sufficient that they seek Pardon and Salvation only through him. This Faith saved them before Christ's coming, though without any distinct knowledge of his Person; and under the Gospel, many ignorant persons, and weak capacities, yet true Christians, scarce ever have a more distinct knowledge of their Saviour in whom they trust, (much less have they it before Justification.)  
2ly. If believing in Christ as Lord and Teacher mean (as it ought in this Argument) a purpose or promise of Obedience to Christ; it is no part or act of justifying Faith; not of the faith quae justificat, but an effect wrought by it; and if any of our Divines say it is, they speak popularly not logically, and are popularly to be understood, viz. that justifying Faith is always conjoined with a purpose of obedience.  
3ly. If believing in Christ as Lord and Teacher, as well as in his blood, be taken for trusting in Christ to be taught, sanctified and ruled by him to eternal life, as well as to have our sins forgiven; this we grant to be justifying Faith, Faith quae justificat; but these are several acts of Faith, and they have their several particular objects and their order, and do not all go before Justification; but a sinner first looks to Christ to satisfy the Law, to reconcile him to God, to deliver him from wrath, and when the Promise of this is revealed to him, he trusteth in it, and hereby is accepted and reconciled; his next care is, how he shall hold out to serve God, and to be brought to his Kingdom, and then upon knowledge of the Promises of the Spirit and Grace of Christ flowing from him as Prophet and King, he trusteth in them to be preserved to the Heavenly Kingdom; but this follows his Justification, and is the immediate root of his Obedience; for having hope in Christ for grace and perseverance, he is thereby stirred up to make a Covenant or Promise of all Obedience; but all this is nothing to prove that our Obedience is the condition whereby we must be justified, but the quite contrary.   

Argument 2.  
The usual language of the Scripture is, 
p. 14.  that we are justified by Faith in Christ, or by believing in him, without any exclusion of any essential part of that Faith: But Faith in Christ doth essentially contain our believing in him as Teacher, Priest and King or Lord, Ergò.  

Answ.  To the Major, Faith as including habits and acts of all grace is an aggregatum, and hath no essential parts, and as a single habit is a quality or something like it, and hath not essential parts.  
To the Minor I answer, That justifying Faith doth contain an assent to the Doctrine of Christ's Person and his Offices, at least implicitly, and a trust in the promise of the benefits of them all, and this is essential to it; but from hence it follows not, that Obedience justifies as well as Faith: But if by believing in Christ as Prophet, Priest and King be meant (as it seemeth to be) a belief of, and subjection to the whole Gospel of Christ, than the Minor is false. Justifying Faith doth not include this as the essential parts of it; Obedience to the Gospel, and to Christ as King and Prophet is the effect, not a part of Faith, or any elicit act of it; and though Faith do essentially (rather integrally) include a belief of the whole Doctrine of the Gospel; yet the sum of that Doctrine is comprised in the Promise of Justification by Christ, all other truths being some way subservient, and to be referred to it; and so Faith hath nothing else essential to it, but an assent to, and trust in the promise, and those things th' t belong to it. When it is added, That we are to prove that to justify is restrained to any one Act of Faith, exclusive of the rest; that is sufficiently done when we prove that Works are excluded, and that Faith justifies only instrumentally or as a trust in the Promise.  
The Scriptures alleged do some of them prove that Faith taken complexly for all Gospel-obedience is required to Salvation, Mar. 16.16. Joh. 3.16, 17, 18. and v. 36. but then Salvation also is taken complexly for the whole deliverance from sin and misery, till we are brought to Heaven, whereof Justification is but one part; and others spoke of Faith properly which is opposed to Works, & said to justify us without them, as Rom. 1.16.17, 18. and Rom. 3.22, 25, 28, 31. Rom. 5.1, etc. And this we deny to include the promise or purpose of Obedience.  
Here it is not unseasonable to show the concurrence of Dr. Preston with us in his explaining justifying Faith to extend to all the Offices of Christ; because he is confidently alleged by those we dispute against for their Opinion, though as injuriously as the two former: They that will satisfy themselves may please to peruse his 11th Sermon on the Covenant; out of which I observe these few things.  
He saith, That the way to obtain the Spirit, 
1st. Use 3. Ibid.  to mortify Sin, is to believe, to apply to a man's self the Covenat of Grace, the promise of the Pardon of his Sins; These are his own words: That is the way to get the Spirit, that is the way to mortify the deeds of the flesh, and to get the heart changed, and to be made a new Creature: For he adds; Hope of pardon and mercy melteth the heart, and maketh a man go about the Commands of God as now possible, yea to be delighted in. It is plain the Dr. maketh the Covenant of Grace, and the promise of Pardon to be believed and applied to ourselves, before we can make any Covenant of Obedience with God, and that believing is trusting in the Covenant as a Promise, and that the Promise of Pardon is the first thing a Sinner is to apply to himself, as the meansto humble, change, and to bring him to God.  
He saith, 
Use 4.  God's Covenant with Abraham and with all believers, is to give them all blessings in Christ, and distinctly from all his Offices; pardon from his Priesthood, teaching from his Prophetical, the Spirit and Victory over all their corruptions, together with all other Privileges from his Kingly Office.  
He saith, The Condition of this Covenant, that God requireth to make a man Partaker of these Blessings, is Faith alone: The Condition, saith he, is, Thou shalt believe this, thou shalt believe that such a Messiah shall be sent into the World; Art thou able to believe this, Abraham? etc. Again, Abraham did believe, and God accounted that Faith of his for Righteousness, i. e. he accepted him for it; for that Faith he reckoned him a man sit to make a Covenant withal, he accounted him a Righteous person, i. e. he was willing to enter into a Covenant with him, because he believed him.  
Moreover, That his believing for a Son, and for the Inheritance of Canaan were trials whether he could believe the Promise of the Messiah, that they were not the Faith that did immediately entitle him to the Covenant, but acts of the same Grace of Faith, of the same habit or gracious disposition, whereby he believed the Promise of the Messiah; and that his Faith was tried again when he was commanded to offer his Son, whereupon God renewed his Covenant with an Oath, Sure, saith he, I will perform my Covenant, since I see that thou believest me, and fearest me, and preferrest me before thine only Son; 
N. B.  These are but the Concomitants of Faith.  
Again, The Condition that God requires of every man to be made Partaker of his Covenant is nothing but to believe in God, i.e. God saith, I will give my Son to you— and I will make him a King, a Priest, and a Prophet to bless you; he shall give you remission of sins, he shall teach you to mortify your lusts, and shall make you Partakers of his Kingdom; he shall make you Heirs and Sons: This is a very great Promise, can you believe this? If a man will but believe God now, I say, it makes him Partaker of the Covenant: Hence it is manifest that Faith only intitleth to the Covenant of Grace, that this Faith is nothing else but a trust in the Promise of the Benefits of Christ in all his Offices; and that by a Condition is meant only a qualification of the Subject, whereby he is made fit to be covenanted with.  
This is further proved by the Reasons he giveth why Faith only is the condition. 1st. Because it works sanctification, not that it is a part of it. 2ly. Because nothing else can answer the Covenant but Faith. The Covenant is not a Commandment, Do this and live, but a Promise; it runs all upon Promises; I will give thee a Seed, in that thou shalt be blessed, etc. The Covenant on God's part stands all in Promises: Now you know, it is faith that answers the Promise, for the Promise is to be believed. If the Covenant had stood in Commandments and Rules of the Law, than it must have been answered by Works and Obedience, and therefore it could not be by Obedience; for that holds not proportion, there is not agreement between them; but since the Covenant consists of Promises, that must needs be by Believing, and not by Works. 4ly. It is of Faith that it might be of grace, and not of Debt; for if God should give a Law and Rules to men, and promise them life upon it; then when they had performed the work, they would challenge it of debt: No, saith the Lord, it is an inheritanee; I do not use to deal with my Children as Men do with their Servants, that I should give them work to do, and when they have done, I should give them Wages. Lastly he saith, 
Sermon 12. at the beg.  That Christ giveth first Remission of sins as a Priest, wherein consists Justification; next as a Prophet he gives Knowledge, and then as a King he gives Guidance, Peace and Victory over Spiritual Enemies. Thus we see he opposeth Faith to Obedience, to Commands, and saith, The Covenant is nothing but a Promise on God's part, and that Faith must first look for Remission of sins from the Priesthood or Satisfaction of Christ, and for other Benefits from his other Offices afterwards, which is the Doctrine we defend; and yet this must be meant only implicitly as to a great part of Believers, few having the knowledge and skill to make this distinct use of Christ's Offices.   

Argument 3.  
The Scripture doth not only by the specific denomination, 
p. 19  but also by description and mentioning those very Acts, include the believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher, etc. in that Faith by which as a condition we are justified, Ergò, we are justified by believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher.  

Answ.  We deny the Antecedent: Faith doth neither justify as a condition, nor doth the Scripture ascribe Justification to any other acts of Faith than trusting in the Promise of Life through Christ. Let us consider the Proof, Rom. 10.4, to 10. We are said to be justified, 1st. by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, v. 9 Therefore his Lordship is included in the object of Faith as justifying.  

Answ.  Here is nothing but a designation of the person, not a distinct intimation of his Kingly Office, and yet Faith which justifyeth, trusteth in Christ as Lord and King (as was said before.)  
We must also believe that God raised him from the dead which was no part of his Priestly Office. 
2ly.   

Answ.  Christ's Resurrection doth belong to his Priestly Office, though it cannot be properly called a part of it: For it was the compliment or consummation of his Satisfaction, and immediately necessary to his appearing in Heaven, there to present his Satisfaction and to intercede for us, as the Highpriest after the Sacrifice of the Goat, went into the Holy of Holies, to sprinkle the Blood before the Mercy-Seat, and to pray for the People. Besides, to believe in Christ as rising from the dead, is nothing else but believing in him as having made a complete satisfaction, which was evidenced by his Resurrection. The same Answer will serve to what is pleaded from Rom. 4.24, 25. only it is added here, that we must believe in him that raised Christ from the dead, 
Answ.  Ergò, Faith respects not Christ only.  
Faith immediately respects the Promise of Life by Christ as the formal object of or reason why it expecteth Salvation by Christ; than it trusteth in God to justify for Christ's sake, and then in Christ as him that hath purchased Justification for us, and will see it applied. To believe in him that raised Christ from the dead, is to trust in God to justify us, who hath testified his acceptance of Christ's Satisfaction for us, by raising him from the dead. What is this to Obedience?  
1 John 1.9, 11, 12. The Faith whereby we are adopted (wherein Justification is included or presupposed) respecteth Christ, as the Light that enlighteneth every Man.  

Answ.  It believeth the promise of salvation preached by Christ, and so trusteth in it; what is this to a Promise of subjection to Christ's constant teaching as a Prophet?  
2ly. It respecteth his Person [it receiveth him] and not one single benefit.  

Answ.  Nor do we say that Justification giveth, or justifying faith obtaineth, but one single benefit; it obtaineth reconciliation with God, and right to life, which either include or draw after them all saving benefits.  
3ly. It is believing in his name that signifieth his Person and Offices, and is all one with taking him for the Messiah, and becoming his Disciples.  

Answ.  To believe in God's name is the same that trusting in him. They that know thy Name will trust in thee; so to believe in Christ's Name, was to trust in him as the Messiah or Saviour, and this gives right to Adoption.  
4ly. Faith doth not physically receive Christ by way of apprehension, as I receive Gold in my hand (whoever said it did?) but dispositively, it qualifieth the subject in the sight of God, and he giveth power thereupon to become his Sons.  

Answ.  But how is this proved from the Text? If it had been said power was given, etc. to them that receive him without any explication, there might have been some colour for this plea; but it is explained by believing on his Name, i. e. trusting in him, but trust is no proper legal qualification, though it putteth the subject into an immediate natural capacity or disposition to receive the benefit; and Moral also, when the object is Moral.  
Many other places are added, where we are said to believe in the Son of God, to hear his voice, and believe that he was the promised Messiah, etc. which denote the whole Person of Christ, Ergo. Justifying Faith respects immediately and directly all his Offices.  
Did ever any Man contend, that we are justified by believing in one part of Christ's Person? or cannot we trust in the whole Person of Christ, without respecting all his Offices, distinctly, primarily and immediately? Do we divide the Essence of God, or exclude his other Attributes absolutely, when we do immediately respect his Wisdom alone, or his Power, or Goodness, according to our present occasion, at that time not distinctly making use of others? and yet justifying Faith doth trust in Christ for the benefit of all his Offices, 
Answ.  (as before) This proveth not that Obedience is joined with it in justifying.   

Argument 4.  
We are justified by Christ as Priest, 
p. 24.  Prophet and King conjunctly, and not by any of these alone, much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone; then according to the Opponents own Principles (who argue from the distinct interest of the several parts of the Objects, to the distinct interest of the several acts of Faith) we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest, Prophet and King.  

Answ.  Faith as a distinct habit, hath no acts, but practical assent to a revealed truth; which in respect of the promise is called trust or affiance. One habit hath but one sort of elicit acts, though it may cause divers effects upon the will and affections according to the nature of divers objects; therefore we do not argue from the distinct interest of several acts of Faith; but from Faith, as trusting in the Promise of Justification, as the special object of the act that justifieth. Again the Object of justifying Faith according to this Opinion, must be the whole declared Will of Christ, or the whole Gospel; for that is it which we believe and obey, and Obedience to it is the form or righteousness by and for which we are justified; therefore those Terms of Christ's justifying in his whole Person, and all his Offices, or Faith justifying with respect to them, are added in vain, they being no more included in the nature of Justification, or respected by Faith as justifying in this way, than in ours. The promise of life by Christ to believing only, is as much founded upon his whole Person and all his Offices, as if the promise were made to our Obedience to the whole Gospel: But we deny the Antecedent, let us hear the proof.  
The Word Justification signifieth these 3 acts, 
p. 24.  1st. Condonation, or constitutive Justification by the Law of grace, or promise of the Gospel. 2ly. Absolution by sentence in judgement. 3ly. The execution of the former, by actual liberation from penalty: The two former are more properly called Justification. As for the first, I argue, Christ doth as King and Benefactor (on supposition of his antecedent Merits) enact the Law of grace or promise, by which we are justified, Ergò. As King and Benefactor he doth justify us by condonation or constitution. As the Father by a right of Creation was Rector of the new created World, and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made; so the Son (and the Father) by right of Redemption is Rector of the new redeemed World, and so made the Law of grace, that gives Christ and life to all that will believe, etc.  

Answ.  Christ as God, the same in substance with the Father, did together with him enact both the Covenants of Works and of Grace; but as Mediator (which only is to our purpose) he did not enact the Covenant or Law of Grace, and it is only said, that he did, and not proved. It was God as God, and in special the Father, according to the order of the Three Persons that gave the Law of Works, that was offended by sin, that condemned sinners, and therefore he only that could appoint a way whereby they should be saved, and he only coul justify him; Christ as Mediator, though God in Nature, yet in Office was God's Servant, Isa. 53.11. Mat. 12, 18. and his business was not to enact Laws, or constitute a way for Man's Redemption; but to work out, and bring to pass that way which God purchased, and to fulfil his Will in it, Heb. 10.7. which he did, first by satisfying the Law and purchasing Reconciliation as a Priest; then by declaring as a Prophet, that Pardon was to be had by believing in his Blood; and Lastly, as a King, yet ministerial under the Father, by overpouring the hearts of Gods Elect to believe, that God might justify them, and then by sanctifying and ruling them by his Word and Spirit, to bring them to life. It belongeth to the Father to justify constitutively, i. e. to propose the way wherein Men should be justified, and through believing to justify them; to the Mediator, almost, but ministerially to declare it to Men by authority from the Father, but most properly to bring it to pass by the execution of all his Offices, Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that justifies, it is Christ that died, rose and intercedeth.  

p. 25.  2ly. It is said, Justification by sentence of judgement is undeniably by Christ as King: for God hath appointed to judge the World by him, Acts 17.31, etc.  

Answ.  Christ in judging the World is but a ministerial King: For God is the Supreme Judge, Heb. 12.23. however we deny what is here took for granted, That the sentence of the General Judgement is a declaration of a sinner's Justification from the guilt of sin: It is only the adjudging of justified Believers to Glory in Heaven for their Obedience, according to God's Fatherly promise.  

p. 25.  3ly. It is said, For the execution of the sentence by actual liberation, there can be little doubt being after both the former.  

Answ.  Christ is ministerial in this also: for he calleth Believers to inherit the Kingdom, as being the blessed of the Father, and it being prepared for them from the beginning of the World, Mat. 25.34. Besides, Glory in Heaven is a fruit of Adoption, not of Justification immediately; and Adoption is the act of the Father, not of the Mediator.  
And let it be observed, That here all Justification is referred to Christ as King properly and immediately, as was before said; and he as Priest and Prophet did but make way for his justifying of us as King; and therefore these offices are mentioned in the Question only for a show, that they acknowledge we are justified by his Blood: This is in effect confessed in the following words, As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justify, but yet mediately he doth, 
Ibid.  and it is but mediately that he justifyeth by his Merits.  
It is also said, That Christ's granting the Promise or Act of Grace, is the true, natural, 
p. 25.  efficient, instrumental Cause of Justification, even the immediate Cause.  
So then the whole Gospel as to be obeyed by us, is the proper and immediate Instrument of our Justification; and our obedience to the Gospel, together with God's acceptance of it, is the only, internal Cause of Justification, or the Righteousness for which we are justified; and Christ's Merit and Righteousness and his Promulgation of the Gospel, are but , remote, and preparatory Causes of it, and these not absolutely necessary, seeing these Authors do not deny but that God might have saved man without satisfaction; and than it will follow, if a man obey the Precepts of the Gospel, and acknowledge Christ as Lord and King, he may be saved, although he believe only in a Glorified Saviour, as the Jesuits preached to the people of China; yea I understand not but a Socinian may be saved by obeying the Gospel, though he deny the Merit of Christ, having all the immediate, proper causes of Justification, both internal and external, and wanting only the remote preparatory causes. If obedience to the Gospel as the Law of Christ, be that alone to which Justification is promised, than unbelief of his Merit, when a man is not convinced of the truth of it, can no more damn him than the unbelief of any other History concerning Christ, suppose his being born at Bethlem, or living at Nazareth, etc. when a man is not sufficiently persuaded of them: For these were necessary ex Hypothesi, because God would have it so; and Christ's Merit was no more by their confession, nor was it impossible (according to their Principles) but Christ might have been a King and enacted this Law of Grace, though he had not been a Priest and satisfied for Sin: And thus we have the bottom of this Mystery.  
Next it is proved that Christ justifyeth as a Prophet; 
p. 25.  because the Gospel is a Law that must be promulgated and expounded, and a Doctrine that must be taught and pressed on Sinners, till they receive it, and believe that they may be justified; and this Christ doth as a Teacher, and Faith must accordingly respect him.  

Answ.  Faith must believe and trust in the Promise of Life made in Christ, and preached by Christ, and revealed to the heart by his Spirit: But what is this to prove that a professed subjection to the teaching of Christ must justify us as well as Faith; and yet methinks he that teacheth, That the Covenant of Grace is written in all men's hearts, and is a Secondary Law of Nature, teaching men that God will forgive them that serve him sincerely, though they know not that it was to be brought about by the Mediator, should not make it necessary to Justification to believe, That Christ in Person preached the Gospel.  
We have here Scriptures multiplied to prove that Christ hath power to forgive sins, which is an Act of a King, Mat. 9.6. ch. 11. v. 27, 28. ch. 28. v. 19, 20, etc. which we grant he hath Ministerially, viz. To declare the Promise of Forgiveness and to pronounce Pardon: For he received this Power of the Father; It followeth therefore that we must trust in him to declare and pronounce us forgiven, but it is for his own Righteousness, not for our Obedience.   

Argument 5.  
It is a necessary condition of our being baptised for the Remission of Sins, 
p. 27.  that we profess a Belief in more than Christ's Humiliation and Merits, Ergò, [More] is a necessary condition of our actual Remission, Mat. 28.19, 20. 1 Pet. 3.21. Act. 8.37.  
1st. 
Answ.  Here is continually ignoratio Elenchi: We do not say that Christ's Humiliation and Merits are the only object of justifying Faith, excluding his Person or any of his Offices; but that Faith as justifying doth trust only in the promise of Reconciliation through the Merit of Christ, but that it doth also in subsequent distinct Acts trust in the Promises of Illumination and Sanctification, and in Christ himself to work these in us as a Prophet and King, and to obtain them for us by his Priestly Intercession; but all by virtue of his Merit and satisfaction, which as it is the foundation of the other Offices of Christ, so Faith always respects it as the foundation of all other Blessings to be hoped for.  
2ly. 
2ly.  I deny that any thing is necessary to Baptism for remission of sins, more than a trust in Christ, or the promise of Reconciliaon through his Blood. Baptism is (as Circumcision was) a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11. i e. that we shall be forgiven through believing. It is God's Seal to his Covenant or Promise, which men are supposed to have a right to, before they are baptised, and so before they can promise obedience. Believing in the whole Trinity, and then believing Christ to be the Son of God, proveth nothing but that the remission which Baptism sealeth, is to be expected from the true God, in opposition to the Heathen, and Jewish false Gods, or false Notions of God, viz. That we are to trust in the Father, to justify us through the Blood of his Son, who will bring us to eternal life by the Operation of his Spirit; and that Jesus of Nazareth is this Son of God, so to be trusted in, Mat. 28.20. Men are first to be baptised being instructed in the Doctrine of Christ, afterwards taught all his Commandments; and thus the Apostles practised, preaching through Christ the remission of sins, and then baptising them that believe, Acts 10. Acts 13. If a Promise of Obedience be the condition of Baptism, than Infants are not to be baptised. 1 Pet. 3.21. only showeth that Baptism as an outward Sign will not profit without reality in the heart, in believing or trusting in Christ, which will produce obedience. The Covenants of Obedience which the Church annexed to Baptism, are not annexed to it as conditions of obtaining Remission of Sins, but as conditions of men's Admission into the Fellowship of the Church, and those as evidences of the reality of their Faith in Christ.   

Argument 6.  
The Apostles of Christ themselves before his death, 
p. 28.  were justified by believing in him as the Son of God and the Teacher and King of the Church, (yea perhaps without believing at all in his Death and Ransom thereby,) Ergò.  

Answ.  If believing here mean, as it ought, the Apostles acknowledging Christ to be the Son of God, King and Teacher of his Church, and their giving themselves to obey him, than I deny the Antecedent; they were not hereby justified, but by their trust in the Promises of Pardon and Reconciliation through the Messiah, whom they now knew to be Jesus Christ, though they knew not the particular way how he was to reconcile them to God: They were justified as Abraham and David and all the former Saints were; and their Love and Obedience to Christ so far as they understood him was an effect of their Faith: All the Proof is, The Apostles were justified, and they acknowledged, loved, obeyed Christ as King and Prophet, and understood not that he was to die for them, therefore this justified them; Which is no Consequent.   

Argument 7.  
The Satisfaction and Merits of Christ are not the only objects of the Sanctifying and Saving Acts of Faith, 
p. 30.  therefore not of Justifying.  
1st. 
Answ.  Faith looketh only to the Satisfaction of Christ, or rather to the Promise founded on that merit (as the procuring cause) for Sanctification and Perseverance, viz. That as perfect Justification, so perfect Sanctification is purchased for us by Christ.  
But the Sanctifying Act must respect Christ's following applicatory Acts, 
p. 31.  and not the purchase of Sanctification only; so the justifying act must respect Christ's following collation or application, and not only his purchase of Justification.  
Answ. 1 This still changeth the Question, which is, Whether Faith in Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, i. e. Obedience as well as trust in his death do justify; and here Faith both as justifying and sanctifying, is taken for a trust in Christ, in all his Offices, to bestow Justification and Sanctification upon us; and we never denied that justifying Faith doth extend itself to all the Offices of Christ.  
As Faith trusteth in Christ as King and Prophet, 
2dly.  and Interceder with his Father for the progress and perfecting of Sanctification; so we never denied that justifying Faith looketh to Christ, as King, Interceeder and Prophet, for the comfort and effects of Justification; But  
As trusting in Christ's Merits only, 
3dly.  obtaineth the grant and habit of Sanctification; so trusting in the same Merits obtaineth the grant and actual Justification; and looketh no further for it. Faith indeed looketh to Christ in his several Offices for daily Sanctification, for new degrees of it, because that is a divisible and successive work; not only to be purchased by Christ; but also wrought by him gradually in prosecution of his own purchase; but Justification is one indivisible act of the Father, whereby a sinner is accepted to life eternal; there is no place for subsequent acts; and this Justification absolutely considered is only purchased by Christ; there needs no other acts to apply it, except in the comfort and effects of it. Therefore we deny the consequence of the main Argument: Faith trusteth in all the Offices of Christ for Sanctification, Ergò. It doth for Justification.   

Argument 8.  
It is the same Faith in habit and act by which we are justified, 
p. 31.  and by which we have right to the Spirit of Sanctification (for further degree) and Adoption, Glorification, etc. But it is believing in Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, by which we have right to the Spirit of Sanctification, Adoption, Glorification.  

Answ.  I deny the Minor, Believing in Christ as Priest, or in his satisfaction and the promise o● life thereupon, gives a right to Reconciliation and life immediately, and to the Spirit of Adoption and Sanctification consequently; the promise of this being annexed to the promise of life, and the having it being necessary to fit us for glory; but believing or trusting in Christ as Prophet and King distinctly, is a means of actual obtaining the Spirit of Sanctification, and further degrees of it, to which we had right before; as Dr. Preston hath expressed it (as above) and yet many true Believers have little or no skill to make this distinct use of Christ's Offices; but trust in the general, That as God for Christ's sake doth forgive and take them into favour; so that he will for Christ's sake also give them his Spirit, and whatsoever is needful to fit them for his Kingdom. Our Author takes the Minor for granted by us, and offers no proof.   

Argument 9  
There is in the very nature of a Covenant, 
p. 25.  condition in general, and of God's imposed condition in special, enough to persuade, that the benefit dependeth usually as much, or more on some other act, as on that which accepteth the benefit itself, Ergò. We have reason to judge that our Justification depends on some other act, as on the acceptance of Justification.  
Answ. 1 The consequence if weak, If usually, Ergò always; Therefore in this case, this follows not.  
To the Antecedent, I deny the supposition, 
2dly.  viz. That we are justified by a proper strict Covenant condition. The Promise of Life through believing is, a Testament, a Promise, and but improperly a Covenant, because it cannot be bestowed, but upon a capable subject, i. e. one that trusteth in it, and accepteth of it; So Dr. Preston expressly (as before) Assurance and sense of Pardon, usually cometh upon our entering into, or renewing a Covenant of Obedience; but the right to Pardon and Justification, which putteth us into a pardoned State, is our humble accepting and trusting in thee Promise of life through Christ.  
And in this, God's Covenant or Promise of pardon in Christ, differs from men's Covenants, 
3dly.  in that they do usually depend upon conditious to be fulfilled; because Men have no other way to prevent the abuse of their kindness, or to oblige to duty and gratitude for the future; but God that can and will sanctify the heart, as well as give right to life, and thereby prevent the abuse of his favour, needeth not to suspend his mercy upon such engagements, and conditions from the creature.  
It is not unusual (we have seen many public instances of it in our days) for men to pardon offenders by an absolute act of grace without imposing any conditions, 
4ly.  only leaving men to their own ingenuity for the future, and to the Law, if they offend again.  
It is said, 
p. 36.  God is the principle end of his own Covenant, and therefore his honour must be principally respected in it; and therefore a promise of Obedience, and subjection to him, and to Christ as the procurer of life, which men are most unwilling to, must be the principal parts of the condition of the Covenant; and the acceptance of Pardon which all men are willing to have, can be but a part of the condition, and the less principal part.  

Answ.  Here it is plain, That by the foregoing ambiguous discourse of believing in Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, was meant a promise of subjection to him in all his Offices, not a trusting in him for the benefits of them; and that Faith here is nothing but Universal Obedience to Christ, and a trust in the promise of Pardon, or in Christ as a Priest, is no part of it, nor can go before, but must follow after it, i. e. when we have promised and in part performed obedience to Christ, then may we hope for pardon and not before. To the Argument I say, the consequence is weak many ways.  
1st. Because God's own Honour is the principle End, doth it follow that in order of execution he requireth the Creature immediately, and in his first acting toward him, distinctly and principally to aim at his Honour? Surely he alloweth, and his Word tends to this, That self-preservation from the wrath to come, should first move the Creature to fly to his Mercy, and then as hope of pardon dawneth, love to God and his Honour springeth; and as hope of pardon increaseth, so love to God prevails above the consideration of self-preservation. Again, God hath had his greatest Honour from the obedience and satisfaction of Christ already, before he granteth pardon to the Sinner; and is it no honour to God to trust in his free Sovereign Grace for the pardon of Sin and Gift of eternal Life? 
Rom. 4.21.  Is it no honour to Christ to trust in him, as able to save to the uttermost all that come unto him? Surely this is the greatest Honour that can be done to the Grace of God. Nor is it so easy a thing rightly to trust in free pardoning Mercy. They that know themselves know it is the hardest thing in the world, and it seemeth God accounteth it so too, by so often repeating his Promises with all manner of confirmations, protestations, seals, oaths & examples of the greatest Sinner being forgiven, 1 Tim. 1.16, 17.  
Lastly, There is no reason why God may not pardon a Sinner and promise him eternal life without interposing the conditions of his obedience, so long as he immediately reveals to him, That this eternal life consisteth in the love and enjoyment of himself, and that holiness of heart and life shall and must be the way to it, and doth immediately make the heart of the humbled sinner 〈◊〉 agree to it; doth not God sufficiently provide for the Honour of his Holiness in this, as in the very act of justifying he did chief respect the Honour of his Free Grace.   

Argument 10.  
The condemning unbelief, 
p. 38.  which is the privation of the Faith by which we are justified, is the non-believing in Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet, Ergò. The Faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King, Priest, and Prophet.  

Answ.  If the word only be put in as it ought, viz. That the only condemning unbelief is the non-believing in Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet; I deny the Antecedent: But if only be not added, the consequence is apparently false, viz. This unbelief is one cause of condemnation, therefore the contrary, Faith, is the sole cause of Salvation: I suppose this will be admitted, for the Scope of what follows is to show that such a Faith is the only condition of Justification; and then the opposite unbelief must be the only sin that damns without remedy, that bars all Justification; I say therefore directly to the Argument: Non-believing in Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet, (as it is here taken for subjection to the whole Law of Christ or obedience to him) is not the only damning sin; final despair of the Mercy of God in Christ will as certainly damn as final disobedience to Christ and contempt of him, yea though there be a willingness to obey, if they could have any hope of Mercy; but despair is not the oppo●●●● of obedience or of faith in Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet, therefore that is not the only unbelief that damns.  
Again, If disobedience to Christ be the only damning sin, than obedience is the only saving condition, than a Socinian that obeys the Gospel Precepts, and acknowledgeth Christ to be the Messiah, King, and Prophet of his Church, may and must be saved though he deny his Priesthood and trust not at all in his Blood: For obedience respects not Christ's Priesthood at all, though that be here mentioned for a show; Christ as a Priest reconciles us to God, and intercedes for us; the only Grace that respects this is Faith, or a trust in it for reconciliation and acceptance. If therefore obedience be the only saving condition, then that will save without a trust in the Blood of Christ: If it be said they make Faith and Obedience both to be the entire condition,  
I answer, Their Faith is nothing but Obedience (as hath been abundantly proved) and is largely insisted on under this Argument; particularly from, Joh. 3.36. where he that believeth not is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is sometimes rendered Disobedient; hence it is inferred, That the only unbelief is disobedience, and the only Faith is Obedience to the Gospel: Nor is it possible to join Faith and Obedience in the justifying a Sinner in the usual acception of Faith; for to trust in mere Mercy for reconciliation and life, and to obey precepts that we may have life, are things toto genere opposite, utterly inconsistent: nor can there be a trust in the Promise of Life in their Opinion, till a man hath obeyed in some measure; because the Promise is made to Obedience: So trust in the Promise must follow the condition, not be a part of it: And thus much for these Arguments, to all which I oppose this one:  
Justification is the acquitting of a sinner from sin and guilt, and the entitling him to life eternal; But this is purchased fully and only by the Obedience and Blood of Christ, the shedding and offering whereof is his Priestly Office only; therefore Christ justifyeth only as a Priest: And Faith apprehending Justification must respect only the Priesthood of Christ. I prove the Minor;  
The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. He loved and washed us from our sins in his own Blood, Rev. 1.5. When he had by himself purged our sins (i. e. by the offering of himself) he set down at the Right Hand of the Majesty in the Heaven, Heb. 1.3. And the Apostle proves largely, That Christ as a Highpriest offering his own Blood in the Tabernacle of his own Body, hath obtained eternal redemption for us, that by this one offering he hath brought in remission of sins, and for ever perfected them that are sanctified, sprinkled with his Blood, as all things under the Law were cleansed by the sprinkling of blood, from Heb. 9.11. to ch. 10. v. 18. And in this Christ was a more excellent Sacrifice than those under the Law; that they did but typifye pardon and cleansing, but his Sacrifice doth really cleanse the Conscience; they cleansed from ceremonial pollutions, as touching dead bodies, etc. and restored men to the Congregation, but his Blood cleanseth from dead works, our own sins, and maketh us really accepted that we may serve the living God, Heb. 19.13, 14. Now the Levitical Priests were Teachers and Rulers of the People, some were Prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, some were Kings also, as the Macchabees, but they took away the sins of the People, and reconciled them to God, only as Priests, by offering up Sacrifices for them; so also Christ though he be a Prophet and King, yet he maketh reconciliation for Sinners only as a Priest, by offering himself in sacrifice to God for them. Now the reason of the consequence is, Faith, that it obtain Justification, must look to Christ under that notion, or in that way only by which he hath purchased Justification, therefore it must look to him only as a Priest, or which is all one, trust in the Promise of Reconciliation through the satisfaction and death of Christ; and thus the Apostle concludes from the same Premises, Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22. Having therefore boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; and having a Highpriest over the House of God: let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. It is Faith in this Highpriest, by which we draw nigh to God with boldness, confidence of acceptance, and then that makes us devote ourselves sincerely to his Service.    
FINIS.