Christianisme.

IN this first part here are onely three significations of the word Justification, and Iustifying, rehear­sed. The first is Naturall, or Physi­call; that is, making a man just with habituall inhaerent righte­ousnesse.

The second is a Iudiciary sense, [Page 22] properly so called, when a subor­dinate Iudge doth according to the strict termes, and rules of the Law, acquit, and absolve a man from punishment (which is due by the Law to him being a transgressor) and doth pronounce him just.

The third is a Iudiciary sense, lesse properly so called, when a su­preme Iudge, by soveraignety of power, doth acquit and absolve a man, and remit the penalty of the Law, which he deserves, upon weighty consideration, knowne to himselfe, and doth deliver him, and discharge him, as if he were an innocent, and righteous man.

The first Physicall sense, he re­jects, and playes upon Bellarmine, for reteining, and using the word Iustifie, in that sense: And yet he himselfe immediatly acknowledg­eth, that GOD upon a mans Iustifi­cation, begins to Iustifie him Phy­sically, by infusing into him habi­tuall, and inhaerent righteous­nesse: But this (he saith) is in Scrip­ture called Sanctification.

[Page 23]The second sense he also dis­claimes, and in this dispute em­braceth the third sense, to wit, that Iustification signifies GODS forgiving a man freely all that he hath done against the Law; and his acquiting, and discharging of a man from the guilt, and punish­ment, due by the Law, for such offences; not for any considerati­on which can be pleaded for him, according to the Law, but for som­what done for him in this case, to relieve him out of the course, or­der, and appointment of the Law: His reason why he embraceth this sense, is because he conceives Iu­stification to stand in forgivenesse of sinne, which belongs to the Law in no respect at all.

In all this part, and passage, I find not one particle of solid truth, but many grosse errors, and fals­hoods; for of all the three signifi­cations, of the word Iustifie, by him here named, onely the first may passe in some tollerable con­struction, but not in his sense: for [Page 32] though GOD in the creation made our first Parents after his owne I­mage and similitude, in perfect righteousnesse, indued with a na­turall, and habituall uprightnesse, conformable to his revealed will, and Law; and in this respect may be said to have Iustified, that is, made them upright, as the wise Preacher saith, Eccles. 7.29. GOD made man upright: Yet whether this act of creation was a Physicall act of GOD, or rather a voluntary act of his will & of his wisdome, and counsell, and so may be called Artificial, is something disputable. As for the framing and making of the man Christ, the blessed seed, by the power of the holy Ghost, pure, holy, upright, and iust from his first conception; this was a spirituall and supernaturall act, and the holinesse and righteousnesse was a supernaturall gift given from above, not introduced by naturall generation, nor raised from naturall principles. That making of men righteous in their [Page 25] sanctification, which Bellarmine speaks of, is not iustification in a naturall, but in a spirituall sense▪ For the spirit of GOD worketh those habits, and graces of holi­nesse in men, whom GOD hath be­gotten of his owne will in the word of truth. And therefore when Bellarmine or Goodwin, or any other call this a Physicall iu­stifying, they erre grossely. For if it be any iustification at all, it is spirituall and morall. But for my part, I finde not that by the Spirit of GOD in Scripture, any habituall holinesse of men begun in this life, is called righteousnesse simply in it selfe. But as the Saints regenerate, and faithfull are cal­led righteous in respect of their communion with Christ, and participation of his righteousnes: So their sanctity or habituall holi­nesse, is called righteousnesse, not simply in it selfe, but by coniuncti­on with the righteousnesse of Christ, the head of the body: which as it iustifies them by con­stituting [Page 26] and making them righte­ous: so also it iustifies their re­ctified holy actions, which they performe by the mo [...]ions of the spirit, and by Faith in Christ, (as learned Beza well observed, and truth affirmeth. Lib. contra Ano­nymum,) and their sanctification cannot be called iustification, but by reason of coniunction with iu­stification in the same person. For if it were possible for a sinfull man to be made perfectly holy, and conformable to GODS Law, in his owne person: yet having former­ly transgressed the Law, and failed in many things; [...]his n [...]w confor­mity to the Law, by reason of those sinnes, and failings will prove a lame righteousnesse, not fit to satisfie the Law, and to be accepted for perfect righteousnesse to justification, because if a man keepe the whole Law, and faile in one point, he is guilty of all. Iam. 2, 10. No righteousnesse can justifie, which is not a perfect obedience, and conformity of the [Page 27] whole man, to the whol, law in his whole life, frō the beginning to the end. Secondly, that signification of the word Iustification, which hee calls a judiciary sense, properly so called, is, (as he describes it) a foolish fiction of his owne braine: for never did any but a mad-man dreame of Iustifying sinners by a subordinate Judge, absolving them from punishment, according to the strict termes, and rules of the Law; for that were to give a false sentence, and to pronounce a man free from all transgression of the Law, and a perfect fulfiller of it in his owne person. All our lear­ned, and Iudicious Divines, doe hold that the full satisfaction and obedience of CHRIST being com­municated, and imputed to true believers, they are absolved, and have their sinnes pardoned, and are counted, and iudged righteous by GOD: as men who have satis­fied the Iustice, and iust Law of GOD, by CHRIST their head, and surety, not in their own persons, which the Law in strict termes requires, & this is justification in [Page 28] the Iudiciary sense, which is ap­proved by the learned.

Thirdly, that Iudiciary sense, improperly so called, which he ap­proves, & allows in this dispute, is an Hereticall, and Socinian con­ceipt; for so long as GOD the su­preme Iudge of all the world, is immutable, and infinite in Iustice, he neither can, nor will dispense with his eternall iust Law, in any iot, or tittle, but will have it per­fectly fulfilled either by our selves or some sufficient surety in our be­halfe, and will forgive no sinner, without a full suffering, and satis­faction, made to the Law in the same kind which the law requires, though not in every mans person; and this full satisfaction must be communicated to every one, and made his owne by union, with CHRIST his head; before that GOD will iudge or account him righteous, and pardon al his sinnes. To imagin a somewhat, in conside­ration whereof GOD forgives sin­ners, and accepts them as if they [Page 29] were righteous; besides, the full satisfaction of GODS Justice, and just law, is to conceive GOD to bee mutable, and not the same in his infinite justice at all times; and to affirme it, is Samosatenian, and Socinian Blasphemy.

Fourthly, in arguing against the second sense by him propounded, he wrestles with his owne sha­dow, and fights against a fiction of his owne braine, and discovers his blindnesse, and ignorance of the dictinction, and difference be­tweene Legal, and Evangelicall justification, and righteousnesse: Legal righteousnesse is the condi­tion of the first covenāt of works, and consists in perfect conformity, and obedience to the law, perfor­med by every man in his owne person, and no man can be legally justified but by his owne personall righteousnesse. Evangelicall righ­teousnesse, is CHRISTS perfect righteousnesse, and fulfilling of the Law in the behalfe of all the elect and faithfull: It was not the [Page 30] Law, nor our works of the Law, which moved GOD to give CHRIST to be our surety and re­deemer; but he of his owne free love and bounty gave Christ, and Christ the Sonne of GOD out of his love, humbled himselfe to be­come man, and to fulfill the law for us. Neither doe wee obtaine Communion of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse, by the workes of the Law; but by the Gospell preached & believed as the Apostle teacheth, Gal. 3.2. And therefore though Christ his righteousnes be a perfect fulfilling of all obedience, which the law requires of man; & GOD did exact of him every far­thing, of our debt, both in active, and passive obedience, and in re­spect of the matter and substance, his satisfaction may be called after a sort legall, and is so called by Lu­ther: yet as it was for us, not for himselfe, and performed by him our head, not by every one of us in our owne persons, and is recei­ved and applied by Faith, not by [Page 31] our workes of the Law, and is brought unto us by the Gospell, not by the Law, and is given to us freely by GODS grace, not merited or procured by any thing in our selves; so it is not legall but Evangelicall, and GODS justi­fying of us, and counting us righ­teous by it, is not a proceeding upon legall grounds, nor pronoun­cing us legally just, as this calum­niator doth, either foolishly ima­gine, or falsely slander and misre­port our Doctrine.

Fiftly in arguing for his owne false, and forged sense of the word Justification, he hath three reasons all which are for us, and prove our Doctrine not his opinion. For if this make a sense of the word Justification, good, because it doth intimate the former guilti­nesse of him that is justified, as wel as it doth discharge him from all punishment, (which is his first reason) then is our Doctrine of ju­stification by imputation of Christs satisfaction for all our sinnes, very [Page 32] good and sound, for it intimates a guiltinesse in him who is to bee iustified, as well as a discharge from punishment. Secondly we doe not plead for our iustifica­tion, any consideration according to the Law, that is, wee doe not plead our owne innocency, nor satisfaction and righteousnes per­formed in our own persons; but we plead more then somewhat done for us, even all Christs obedience active and passive, by GODS free grace communicated to us, not obtained, or merited by our works of the law. Thirdly though the law iustifies no sinner, but threa­tens the curse, death▪ and condem­nation as the due reward of the transgressors of it: Yet it iustifies all who are free from all sinnes committed against it, and are made righteous by the perfect fulfilling of it to the utmost. And there­fore when the Gospell hath brought us to the Communion of Christs full satisfaction, by which we are made free from all sinne, [Page 33] and perfect fulfillers of the law in him our head; as GOD doth for­give us our sinnes, and counts us righteous: so the law is no more against us, 1 Tim. 1.9. but is witnesse for us, that in Christ we are worthy of remission and iusti­fication. By this are manifest the grosse errours, and absurdities which he uttereth in this first part of his preparative Chapter.

But that his ignorance in the Doctrine of justification, may more fully appeare, I will lay downe the severall significations of the words, justification, and ju­stifying, wherein the Spirit of God doth use them in the holy Scrip­tures.

First the word iustifie, and iu­stification 1 signifie, making men righteous, or constituting or set­ing them in the state of righteous­nesse. This signification is justifi­ed by several testimonies of Scrip­ture, as Rom. 5.19. Where ma­ny are said to be made, or constitu­ted righteous by the obedience of [Page 34] Christ, even as by Adams disobe­dience many were made sinners, and 1 Cor. 1.30. and 2 Cor. 5.21. Where Christ is said to bee made unto us righteousnesse, and wee are said to be made the righteous­nesse of God in him. And Rom. 3.24. and 4, 5. Where we are said to be iustified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ. And God is said to ju­stifie the ungodly, which cannot be meant of counting judging, and pronouncing, but of making them righteous by the Communion of Christs righteousnesse. For to iu­stifie the wicked by judging and pronouncing them righteous, without making them such, is a­o [...]mination to the LORD, Prov. 17.15. And in this sense Prea­chers of GODS Word are, as in­struments under GOD, said to iu­stifie many by bringing them un­to righteousnesse, and are called [...] iustifiers, Dan. 12.3. This iustifying wee may very fitly call radicall, or fundamentall iu­stification. [Page 35] This Luther and o­ther learned Divines call actionem individuam, because it is GODS action of communicating Christs righteousnesse in a moment, and not by degrees successively, and in it men are mere patients, and do not worke with GOD, no more then Adam did in GODS first crea­ting of him upright, in his Image: Even regenerate Infants may thus be iustified, and are iustified before they actually beleeve.

Secondly the word iustifie, sig­nifieth GODS iustifying of men by 2 Faith, that is, his counting and re­puting them righteous, upon their actuall beleeving, and his enable­ing them to feele themselves par­takers of the righteousnesse of Christ, and to enioy it by Faith, in this sense the word is used, Rom. 4. Where GOD is said to iustifie us by imputing righteousnesse, and counting Faith for righteous­nesse, that is, counting a true be­leever a righteous person. And thus the word is to bee taken, [Page 36] where we are said to bee iustified by Faith, without the workes of the Law. The Apostle doth much urge, and presse this iustification, Rom▪ 4 and Gal. 3. because though in this taken actively, GOD onely acteth: yet taken passively as it is received of us, and we by Faith feele and discerne in what account we are with GOD, and by beleev­ing enioy Christs satisfaction for remission of sinnes, and for righte­ousnes, wee may be said to worke with GOD, by way of receiving, as a begging hand doth in receiv­ing gifts freely given, and put into it. This iustifying doth necessa­rily presuppose the former, and doth assure us of it. For the iust GOD, whose iudgement is accord­ing to truth, cannot r [...]pute us righteous, till we have communi­on of Christs righteousnesse, and be thereby truly righteous. And this Justification Divines call im­putative. It springs from the for­mer as from the root, and is buil­ded on it as on the foundation.

[Page 37]Thirdly, this word iustifie, sig­nifies a manifesting and declaring of men to be righteous and iustifi­ed, and that three wayes. First in foro conscientiae, in the court, or iudgement of our own conscience, when a man being troubled in his conscience with the sight of his sinnes, and his want of righteous­nesse, after humble prayer, and poenitent seeking, receives either the inward testimony of the Spi­rit, and is enlightned by GOD, to see that he is in the state of righte­ousnesse absolved and iustified; or by inward sense of his sanctifica­tion, Faith, and other graces pro­per to the righteous iustified; is declared and made manifest to his owne conscience, that he is justi­fied and righteous, and hath all his sinnes pardoned, and is accept­ed of GOD for a righteous man. This is that which wee are taught by Christ to pray for in that peti­tion, forgive us our debts or tres­passes, that is, pacify and cleare our consciences, by manifesting to [Page 38] us that we are justified, and have remission of all our sinnes by thy free grace, and by communion of Christs full satisfaction; and thus wee are to understand the word, wheresoever it is opposed to the accusations of Satan, and the horrours and troubles of consci­ence, as a remedie against them, as Rom▪ 8.33.

Secondly it signifies declaring, and proving men righteous in foro humano, in the judgement and sight of men openly, and that by outward fruites of Faith, and externall workes of righteousnes, and holinesse. When GOD enable­ing us, and moving us to doe such workes, and bring forth such fruites as are by his word conti­nually pronounced, and proclaim­ed to be righteous, and holy works and evidences of justification, doth thus declare, and prove us to be faithfull and righteous, hee is said to justifie us before men. In this sense the word is used, Iob 13.18. where Iob saith that if hee [Page 39] may plead before GOD the inte­grity of his life, he knoweth hee shall be justified: as afterward he did cap. 31. and was thereby de­clared to be righteous, and so justi­fied. And Iam. 2.21. where it is [...] that Abraham was justified by workes, that is, declared to be a righteous man.

Thirdly it signifies judging, and declaring men to bee persons ju­stified, and righteous in the uni­versall judgement at the last day, when the LORD Christ shall by the evidence of their workes of love and charity, done to him in his members, declare them to bee his faithfull servants, and children of his Father, justified by the communion of his righteousnes, and in him worthie of eternall life; and also adjudge them unto the inheritance of the kingdome of Glory. In this sense the word is used, Rom. 5.16.18. where it is called [...] Justificati­on of life, and is opposed to the sentence of everlasting condemna­tion. [Page 40] These are all the significa­tions of the word (iustifie) recor­ded in the Scriptures; And this great promiser here sheweth him­selfe ignorant of them all: and therefore how little satisfaction he hath given to any, but such fooles as delight to fill themselves with huskes, let the learned iudge.

Christianisme.

IN this second part he doth pro­mise foure severall propositions, which hee conceives to bee out [Page 43] of question, and undenyable. By the first proposition hee makes a faire shew in words, but his heart is farre removed, and his meaning is wicked, and so will appeare, if we observe how hee in another place afterwards explaines him­selfe. First though hee seemes to acknowledge Christ to bee GOD, yet he takes away the use of his being, GOD as well as man in the worke of our redemption. For if GOD by his supreme sovereigne power can dispense with the law of his iustice, and instead of Christs full satisfaction made for us to the law, and imputed to us, and made ours, can and doth accept our weake Faith for the perfect righ­teousnesse of the Law; what use is there of Christs being GOD in our nature? For all Orthodox Di­vines doe give this reason, why it was necessary that Christ should be GOD in our nature. viz. That his suffering and righteousnesse performed in our nature, might be of value to iustifie all the sonnes of [Page 44] men, who have communion of them, and to whom they are im­puted. This communion and im­putation while he denyeth, hee takes away the use of Christs being GOD in our nature.

Secondly, in affirming that Christ obeyed the whole Law in e­very letter, jot, and title, he doth mock, and delude his hearers, and readers; for he doth not hold, that he fulfilled the Law onely for us, but primarily for himselfe; his words imply so much, for he saith, he obeyed the Law, as far as concerned himselfe, while he con­tinued in the flesh: and he dorh hereafter roundly affirme, that Christ was bound to fulfill the Law for himselfe, which is in ef­fect, a denying of his eternall God-head: for if he be GOD, infi­nite in glory, and excellency, his God-head must needes exempt the Manhood personally united to it from all bondage of the Law, and make it worthy of glory at GODS right hand, from the first [Page 45] assumption of it. He continued in the flesh, and obeyed the Law, onely for us without all doubt, as the Prophet foretold, Esa. 9.6. saying, To us a Child is borne, and to us a Son is given.

Thirdly, as he denies the satis­faction of Christ to be imputed to us, so he denies the imputation of our sinnes to Christ; and that ve­ry closely, and cunningly, under colour of that challenge which Christ made to the Iewes, which of you can convince me of sinne? For our Saviour speakes of sinne committed by himselfe, and such aspersion none can say upon him; But all our iniquities GOD laid upon him, and he bare all our sinnes, Esa. 53. And was made sinne for us, 2 Cor. 5, 21. and to cast this aspersion of all our sinnes on him, is a sure foundation of the peace, and safety of the Church.

In the second proposition, hee doth most notoriously aequivocate, and play the Hypocrite; First in that he seemes to acknowledg the [Page 46] sacrifice of Christ to be an attone­ment, and satisfaction for the world, and a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinne of it. Secondly, in that he denyeth his Lord, and Master Socinus, and calles the Spi­rit which wrought in him a Spirit of error; whereas indeed he him­selfe is lead by the same Spirit, and doth deny Christ to be the propiti­atory sacrifice for our sinnes, as far as Socinus ever did: For in a pro­pitiatory sacrifice, offered to purge sinne, and to make attonement, there were three necessary requi­sits: First, the thing offered, must be of his owne proper goods, for whom it was offered, so the Law required, and therefore David durst not offer for his sinne, that which was not his owne, Purcha­sed with his money, 2. Sam. 24, 24. Secondly, the owner, whose expiatory sacrifice it was, did lay his hand upon the head of the Beast which was to be offered, and thereby in a type imposed all his sinne, and guilt upon it, so that [Page 47] it became [...] his sin, & [...] his guilt, Levit 5, 6. and Exod. 30.10. and did beare upon it all his sins, Lev. 16.22. Thirdly, this sa­crifice offered up by the Priest in that manner which GOD praescri­bed in the Law, GOD accepted as a propitiation for him, it was set on his skore, and covered his sinne, as the Hebrew words signi­fie, Levit. 1.4. He who denies any one of these, overthrowes the sacrifice of attonement. Now this dissembler doth with Socinus de­ny all these things in Christs offe­ring of himselfe a sacrifice of at­tonement to purge sinne. First he denies the true reall Spirituall uni­on betweene Christ, and the per­sons pardoned, and justified; by which Christ, and they are made one body, and hee is their head, and they his members; For if he, and the faithfull be one, then all his goods are theirs, and their debts are his, and his satisfaction, and righteousnesse is theirs, and is set on their skore, which he denyeth, [Page 50] and altogether opposeth, and so denyes their interest, and proprie­ty in Christ, and their union with him, as his Master Wotton did, in expresse word: In his Essayes of Justification. Secondly, he also denieth that the sinnes of the faith­full, were layd on Christ, and im­puted to him; and in this he char­geth GOD, with notorious in­justice, who laid the punishments of all our sinnes on Christ, without the sinnes: For he saith, that Christ bare the punishmēts, though hee had no share in our sinnes by any imputation. Thirdly, he de­nyeth that the sacrifice of Christs suffering, and obedience offered up by him, is imputed to us, set on our skore, and accepted for us. And thus in the doctrine of Christs sanitisfaction, and attonement, he declares himselfe a true disciple of Socinus, lead by the same spirit of error, and of the same opinion, though in words he denyes it. And what he here seemes to grant, is no more but what all Socinians yeeld unto.

[Page 49]In the third proposition, viz. that Christ is the sole, and entire miraculous cause, of every mans justification, &c. Hee doth aequi­vocate, and delude the simple, and while hee deceives them, hee is deceived himselfe, as the Apostle saith of wicked seducers, 2 Tim. 3, 13. For if he doth understand his owne words, that Christ is the sole meritorious cause of every mans justification, that is justified by GOD, he must needs grant that Christs satisfaction, made to GODS justice, and his perfect righteousnesse, as it is meritorious, and of great value in it selfe; so it is appropriated, communicated, & imputed to him; that is, it is made actually meritorious for him, and makes him worthy to be counted righteous, and to be iustified; for his words signify so much, though hee is in his purpose and meaning, as contrary, as darknesse is to light: for he meanes no more, but that Christ meritted for himselfe, that GOD should gratifie, and ho­nour [Page 50] him with the justification of those that believe in him, so hee explaines himselfe in the last words. It is certaine that a thing may be merritorious in it selfe, for the worth of it, but it cannot be meritorious to any particular per­son, till it be appropriated to him▪ and set on his skore. Wotton his Master, (this point being proved to his face with undeniable argu­ments) was driven to disclaime the word (merit) denyed Christs meritting, for the faithfull, and rejected it as a thing not named in Scripture, in his Essayes of Justifi­cation. Besides this deceiving of himself [...], and misconceiving of his owne words, I find here much ab­surdity: First, in that he is wa­vering, and not setled in his Iudg­ment, for in many places he holds faith to be the righteousnesse of a man justified; and here he calles absolvtion from sinne, and con­demnation, the righteousnesse which is given to every man in his justification: I grant that in [Page 51] a man iustified, there is no righte­ousnesse inhaerent, but his cleane­nesse from guilt of all sinnes, both of commission, and omission, and in this sense, Calvin, Luther, and others say that all the righteous­nesse, in a man iustified, is the re­mission of his sinnes, that is, his cleanenesse from the guilt of them, but this is not the righteousnesse which iustifieth him, and which is communicated to him, to make him cleane, and to worke this cleannesse from the guilt of his sin, that is, the righteousnesse inhae­rent in Christ, which makes him cleane, and puts him in a stare of righteousnesse before GOD: but this profound Doctor, with that stamp, and superscription of ratio­nall authority, which hee concei­veth to be set on him, hath not yet searched into the deep things o [...] GOD.

Secondly, he is most absurd in imagining that Christ hath pur­chased favour, and honour, wit [...] GOD, that he might iustifie the [...] [Page 52] that believe in him by Procuring, that faith in a proper sense should be accepted for righteousnesse: For Christ as he was GOD, & man, was infinitely of himselfe in fa­vour and honour with GOD, and humbled himselfe onely for us▪ and in our behalfe fulfilled the Law; not to purchace honour, and fa­vour, to himselfe, nor to make himselfe worthy to be gratified, and honored by GOD, as hee affir­meth. Thus wee see his absurdi­ties, and his deceiving of him­selfe.

4 The fourth proposition is, that faith in the judgement of e­very man, is the condition requi­red by GOD, on mans part, to bring him into that communion of justification, and redemption, which Christ hath purchased &c. In which I finde delusion, and fals­hood: First hee doth not meane a gift, grace, or Spirituall qualifica­tion, appointed by GOD, by which as by the hand of the soule stretch­ed out, wee must lay hold on [Page 53] Christs satisfaction, and righteous­nesse▪ for justification, and redemp­tion, (though his words pretend so much) but hee meanes that faith is the condition of the new cove­nant, which man must on his part performe, in stead of all righteous­nesse, which the Law requires; and so it is in the new covenant, the condition of life; as workes of the Law, and of righteousnesse, were the condition of the old co­venant: This is the very haeresie, and damned error of Socinus. Se­condly, he doth here make the co­venant of grace, a covenant of life, not freely, but upon a condition▪ performed on mans part, and so a covenant of workes, contrary to Scripture, Rom. 11.6. Thirdly, hee erres grossly, in imagining faith not to be a free gift of grace, but a worke performed on mans part, as workes were required in the old covenant. Fourthly, hee falsely chargeth all honest, and godly men, to be of his judgment. I know that all Orthodox Divines, [Page 54] abhorre and detest this opinion. Fiftly, hee affirmes a manifest un­truth, in saying, that without be­leeving, none can have part in justi­fication, and redemption; for no regenerate Infants, which die in their Infancy, do actually believe▪ and yet being by the Spirit of re­generation engraffed into Christ, they have communion of his ran­some and righteousnesse, are justifi­ed before GOD, and saved.

Christianisme.

THe first thing in this passage, to wit, GOD imputing righ­teousnesse to every man in his ju­stification, is a thing evident by the Scriptures, and I willingly grant it. But I abhorre and de­test as heresie, that which he adds out of his owne conceit, to wit, that GOD doth rather impute [Page 41] somewhat in stead of righteous­nes, which cannot make a man properly or perfectly righteous. This is a blasphemous imagination, that GOD can iudge falsly, and account a thing for righteousnes which is not, and esteeme a man righteous who is not properly righteous. Secondly that which immediately followes is no lesse blasphemous, to wit, that a man may be invested by GOD, with the great priviledges of a man per­fectly righteous, namely deliv [...] ­rance from sinne and condemnati­on, and acceptation, into favour with GOD, though he be no such man. For hereby GOD is charg­ed either with injustice and ini­quitie, or with errour in his judge­ment. Thirdly his taking upon him to give a reason of GODS purpose, and counsell, is Lucife­rian pride and presumption. For who knoweth the minde of GOD, or hath beene of his counsell, Rom. 11.34. Saint Paul who was taken up into the third hea­ven, [Page 58] could never finde out any such counsell of GOD, neither durst give a reason of GODS pur­pose and counsell, but onely the good pleasure of his owne will. Fourthly in the declaration of his reason I find many errours, and untruths, as first, that a mans con­science can hardly thinke of being justified by GOD, without a per­fect legall righteousnesse. Every regenerate man and true beleever can upon his owne knowledge, and experience give him the lye, and tell him that the weakest con­science of any, who hath true Faith, being taught by the Gospell, can very easily thinke and beleeve, that GOD justifies him by an E­vangelicall righteousnesse, even Christs perfect fulfilling of the Law, which is farre more perfect then that legall righteousnesse, which the Law requires of every man in his owne person. This Abraham beleeved, and was fully perswaded of it, this David pro­fesses, and Saint Paul preached, and [Page 55] I know no true Christian, who doth not both thinke and beleeve it. If any man be found doubting of this, it is because the spirit of Antichrist and Socinus doth worke strongly in him. Secondly the thing which he imagineth, being so notoriously false there can be no reason given of it, but a reason as false as the thing it self. And indeed so it is here. For first hee assure, most falsely that GODS purpose in the Gospell, is to justifie men without any such righteousnesse, as the Law requires in every man, that is the perfect fulfilling of the Law. For though GOD doth not purpose to iustifie men by their owne fulfilling of the Law, every one in his owne person: yet by Christs righteousnesse and his ful­filling of the Law in their stead, and by communicating and impu­ting that righteousnesse to them, he purposeth in the Gospell, and professeth that men shall bee and are by him iustified, and this is in Christ such a righteousnes as the [Page 60] Law requires, for proofe of this see Rom. 8.4. and 10.4. Second­ly the fathers upon GOD his own false and wicked conceits, to wit First, that GOD goeth about to cure an infirmity in his people, which is not to be found in any of them, after they are called to be­leeve in Christ, and to be his peo­ple; for then they bid their owne workes of the Law adiew, and do no more dreame of iustification by them. Secondly, that GOD for the cure of their weak consci­ences tells them in the Gospell, that if they beleeve in Christ, this beleeving shall bee as good as a perfect compleat righteousnesse: by this hee would make GOD a pure Socinian, one who takes the Crowne from Christ, and the righ­teousnes from GOD and man, and sets it on the head of mans Faith, which in the best beleevers, and even in Abraham himselfe was mingled with much doubting, and many infirmities. In a word, though all Orthodox Divines doe [Page 61] according to the Scriptures, ac­knowledge that upon a mans be­leeving truly in Christ, GOD doth impute to him the perfect, and compleat righteousnes of Christ, which is made his before he can truly apply it by Faith. Yet it can never enter into the heart of a true Christian, but his soule will abhorre to thinke, that any mans beleeving should bee to him as good, as perfect compleat righte­ousnes, or that GOD should ac­cept it in stead of perfect righte­ousnesse, and rather then the righ­teousnes of Christ GOD and man, who is made unto us of GOD righteousnes, 1 Cor. 1.30. and in whom we are found to have the righteousnes of GOD by faith, Philip. 3.9. To conclude this passage, let me adde this as a foule absurdity. For if hee speake by experience, that conscience leads men naturally to thinke that there can be no iustification without righteousnesse, which is a perfect fulfilling of the Law. Which I [Page 62] confesse my conscience and my rea­son tell mee, and GODS word teacheth▪ mee plainely: Then what is become of his consci­ence, who contrary to all truth and reason, and the common con­science of all men, will teach iusti­fication, without any true righ­teousnesse at all either of Christ, or our owne, and will crowne mans weak Faith with the Crown of righteousnesse, which onely belongs to Christ and his perfect obedience.

Christianisme.

IN the fourth part, or passage, he first propounds five foolish quae­res, which he denieth to concerne the state of the question. Second­ly, he propounds a sixt quaere, and that in plaine, and precise termes hee affirmes. I will first particu­larly answere the 5. quaeres: and after lay downe the [...]i [...]t at large, and addresse my selfe to the confu­tation of his discourse upon it.

And first, whereas he pronoun­ceth him a mad man, who dreames of faith without Christ the object, or thinks that faith which be­lieves not in Christ, should be im­puted for righteousnesse: Here I must be bold to put him in mind; that thus he dreames in the next Chapter, where he boldly affirmes and by divers arguments labour­eth, [Page 64] to prove that the Faith of A­braham which was imputed to him for righteousnes, was not a beleeving in Christ, neither was Christ and his righteousnes the object of it. And therefore by his owne confession and his owne wordes; hee doth there play the mad man, and keepes not his wits company, but his fancy runs wild, while he strives to prove that A­brahams Faith imputed to him for righteousnesse was not a beleeving in Christ.

Christianisme.

THis fifth part, or passage, is no­thing else, but first the pro­pounding of a new, and strange imputation of Christs righteous­nesse contrary to sense and reasō, & to the common signification of the phrase of imputing righteousnesse, or counting a thing for righteous­nesse. Secondly, a wresting, and abusing, of some speeches of Scripture, and learned writers, that hee may father on them, an opini­on, which they abhorred, and in expresse words, disclaimed, and confuted.

First, hee saith, that the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse, is by Luther, Calvin, and other Divines, taken unproperly, and out of the usuall, and formall sig­nification, [Page 89] for the giving, and be­stowing of the returne, that is, the priviledges, blessings, and be­nefits, which are purchased by Christs righteousnesse, for men; and the meaning can be no more but this; that GOD justifies a be­liever, for Christs righteousnesse sake, and not for any righteousnes of his owne. To this I answere, First, that this signification of the phrase, is so unproper, unusual, & deformed, that it is never found in all the Scriptures, nor any appro­ved Author (as hereafter I shall make manifest) onely Socinus, & they of his faction are coiners, and forgers, of such strange barba­rismes. Secondly, it is so contrary to common sense, and reason, that if any man should say, the Sun, the ayre, or other Elements are impu­ted to us by GOD, because GOD hath given us the benefit of them; every man would laugh at such a barbarisme, even the most simple would discerne it to be ridiculous. If Master Goodwin, or any of his [Page 90] disciples, comeing into some coun­try house for shelter from some cruel tempest, which overtooke him as hee travelled on his journy, should for the benefit which hee received under the mans roofe, presently chaleng, that the house is imputed to him, and is to be coun­ted his, and set on his skore, it is a thousand to one, that the owner of the house, would take him for a mad man, and put a fooles feather in his cap, or cast him out of the doores, by the head and shoulders, for a sawcy companion: hee had not best therefore use such speech­es, nor write such phrases with his pen, for if they once proceed out of his mouth, and come to other mens eares, hee will thereby purchase to himselfe much scorne and derision. But let us proceed to examine the instances, by which hee goeth a­bout to proue this strange signifi­cation, of the word imputing righ­teousnesse, wherein righteousnesse is put for the fruit of it by a meto­nymie of the cause for the effect; [Page 91] imputing is put for bestowing by a new Socinian trope, and GODS bestowing, for mans receiving, by a monstrous metonymie, of one opposit for another: I wonder here by the way, how this man (who disclaimes in the next Chapter, the Apostles using of tropes and figures in the waighty Doctrine of justi­fication, and calles it a monster of speech to use two tropes in one phrase) dares here make in this one phrase, so many tropes, and mon­strous figures.

The first instance, which hee brings to prove that Calvin did use the phrase in this signification is this; GOD freely justifies us, by imputing Christs obedience to us: and againe, a man is not righteous in himselfe; but because the righ­teousnesse of Christ is communica­ted, and imparted to him by impu­tation. I might here blame his false quotations, to wit, Instit. 1. c 3.1.11. and 1.2.17. and 1.3.14.17. In which places no such wordes are to be found; but I [Page 92] willingly embrace these words as Calvins, for they are most cleare, and manifest to prove that GOD not onely give us the returne or be­nefits of Christs righteousnesse, but also doth by imputation commu­nicate, and impart to us the righ­teousnesse it selfe: so that if this man had studied all his dayes, to contradict his owne opinion, and to confute his forged signification, hee could not have found more ful, plaine, and p [...]rspicuous words then these of Calvin; for if a man bee not righteous in himselfe, then is hee not righteous by faith in a proper sense, for his faith in a pro­per sense, is in himselfe. But let us not bee too hastie to insult over his folly; it may bee his impuden­cy will catch at some other words of Calvin, which do not so ex­pressely contradict him, but are more obscure, and them hee will wrest, and abuse to expound Cal­vins plaine words in a contradicto­ry sense. It is even so indeed, for hee cites in the next place, some [Page 93] more generall and obscure speech­es of Calvin, to expound his plaine words, and to make them contra­dictory to themselves. I have heard absurd fellowes derided for going about to shew obscurum per­obscurius, that is, to make men see dark things through greater dark­nesse, and for running (as the pro­verb is) out of GODS blessing, in­to the warme sun: But that any should goe about, to make others see the sun, when it shineth in full strength, by the dimme light of a candle, and to perswade them that the sun is the moone; this is mad­nes, & deserves that the Lunatike, & Melancholike person so doing should be sent to the Iland of Hel­lebore, there to inhabit till hee re­cover his wits. And doth not he so who seekes to make Calvins plaine words, to contradict them­selves by citing words, where­in he speakes neither so plainely, nor so fully as in them. But let us see those other speeches of Calvin, which hee brings for this [Page 94] purpose: one is, that Christ by his obedience hath merited, and procured for us favour with GOD his Father. These words doe not prove that the imputing of Christs obedience, and righteous­nesse signifies the bestowing of the benefit of it on us, that is GODS favour: but shew clearely the contrary to that which he intends, namely that Christs obedience is made ours, and imputed to us, be­cause it procures to us the favour of GOD, which we cannot enjoy, nor appeare gracious in his sight, unlesse wee bee cloathed, with Christs rich robe of righteousnes, and washed cleane from the guilt of sinne, by his satisfaction impu­ted to us. Another is, Christ by his obedience hath purchased righteousnes for us; the true and plaine sense of which wordes, is no more but this, that Christ by his obedience hath fulfilled the Law of GOD for us, and we by that obedience are constituted & made righteous, as the Apostle expresse­ly [Page 95] affirmes, Rom. 5.19. Another is that, when we are said to be justi­fied by the grace of GOD, and that righteousnes was procured by the death, and resurrection of Christ: these expressions import the same thing with those, that Christ is our righteousnes, that is by union with him and commu­nion of his righteousnes, which he purchased by his death and re­surrection, and which GOD gra­ciously gives to us, wee are justi­fied. Another is, men having not any righteousnes in themselves, they obtaine it by imputation, that is, neither a mans owne workes, nor faith taken in a proper sense, for a gift grace or worke in him, can be his righteousnes, but onely that which is obtained by impu­tation, to wit, Christs righteous­nes apprehended by faith, which when true beleevers have laid hold on, then GOD doth account them righteous, and in this im­proper sense GOD is said to im­pute faith for righteousnes. Thus [Page 96] every speech of Calvin which he brings against Calvin himselfe, is like a stone cast against a brasen wall, and rebounds against the caster, and dasheth out the braines of his hereticall opinion. And therefore it was his safest course, onely to tell us of more such pas­sages, but not to recite any more out of Calvin, or other Authors. For being seasoned with the salt of their owne interpretation, they will prove gravell in his mouth, choake him, (and if it be possible) put him to shame and silence.

From Calvin hee comes home to the Homilies allowed in our Church, and they by his owne confession teach, that we are justi­fied by the imputation of Christs righteousnes. But to prove that by the righteousnes of Christ, they meane faith taken in a proper sense, that is, as it is the gift of faith in us, and the operation of it in us, even our beleeving: hee brings the words of the 11. Arti­cle of Religion allowed in our [Page 97] Church by Law. viz. we are ac, counted righteous before GOD onely for the merit of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, not for our owne workes or de­serts; where note, that whereas the Articles send us to the Homilies, as being very profitable, & plaine expositions of them; hee on the contrary sets the cart before the horses to draw them after it. Hee brings the text to expound the commentary or plaine exposition of it. But hee gets no advantage by doing so, for the words of the Article are very exact indeed, and make much for us against his opi­nion, they shew that the merit of Christ apprehended by faith, is that for which wee are accounted righteous before GOD, and that faith is not our righteousnes, for then wee should bee accounted righteous for a grace in our selves, and for a worke of our owne, per­formed by us, even our owne be­leeving. Oh but the Article doth not say that wee are constituted, [Page 98] and made, but onely accounted righteous: True indeed, the Ar­ticle doth not speak of fundamen­tall justification mentioned, Rom. 5.19. but of imputative justification, of which the Apostle speakes, Rom. 4, 3. which necessarily presup­poseth the other: For GOD whose judgement is according to truth, cannot judge, and count us righ­teous, till hee hath communicated Christs righteousnesse to us, and by it, constituted, and made us righte­ous; which when we by faith, re­ceive, and apply by the assistance of his Spirit, which dwells in us, and makes us one Spirituall, and mysticall body, with Christ; then GOD accounts us righteous, and by our faith, and believing, we ob­tene, as Abraham did, this testi­mony from GOD, that we are righ­teous, as Iustine Martyr saith in the words cited in the next Chapter.

From the Article, and Homi­lies, hee proceedes to Musculus, Luther, and Chamier, who, though [Page 99] in their Doctrine they are opposit to his opinion, as heaven is to earth, yet hee snatcheth here, and there, some improper speeches out of their writings, which hee wresteth to his purpose; though they doe most plainely expound their owne meaneing to bee con­trary to his mind. The words of Musculus are these, Faith is ac­counted, for righteousnesse for Christs sake: That is, faith is ac­counted for righteousnesse, and the true believer is counted a righte­ous man: not sensu proprio, nec per se, sed propter Christum. That is, by reason of Christ, and his righte­ousnesse, whom the believer ap­prehendeth, and by faith posses­seth his righteousnesse; and againe, this faith ought to be esteemed of us, as that which GOD purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righ­teousnesse, to those that believe in him, in which words Musculus folowing the phrase of the Apostle, intends no more but this, that wee are not to seeke righteousnes [Page 100] by our owne workes, but by faith in Christ for if wee can obtaine grace to believe in him, and to lay hold on his righteousnesse; wee are for Christ and his righteous­nesse sake, upon our believing counted righteous before GOD, be­cause by our communion which wee have with Christ by the Spirit dwelling in us, and enabling us to believe, The righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in us imputatively, by the righteousnesse of another, e­ven of Christ, which is also ours, for we are flesh of his flesh, that is▪ one with him; these are Mus­culus his owne words, in which, hee roundly expresseth himselfe in Rom. 8.4. and 10.3.4▪ Lu­thers words, at which hee catcheth in vaine, are to the same purpose, in Gal. 3.6. GOD for Christs sake, accounts this imperfect faith, for perfect righteousnesse. Here Luther doth not charge GOD with error, or iniquity in judgement, by judgeing, and accounting, that for perfect righteousnesse, which is [Page 101] imperfect; for his speech is tro­picall imitating the phrase of the Apostle; by imperfect faith hee meanes a true believer, by a weak faith, laying, hold on Christs righ­teousnesse, and by perfect righte­ousnesse a man set in a state of per­fect righteousnesse by communi­on with Christ; and this is the sense of the words, that if a true believer doth lay hold on Christ by faith, which in the best of us, is but weake, and imperfect; yet GOD accounts him perfectly righ­teous, with the righteousnesse of Christ, which is most perfect, and compleat. Thus Luther expounds himselfe, 1 Tom. pag 32. Editionis Ienensis: Christ (saith hee) is in us by faith, yea, one with us, but Christ is righteousnesse, and a ful­filler of all GODS commaunde­ments, therefore wee also doe by him fulfill all GODS commande­ments, when hee is by faith made ours: And 2 Tom. pag. 515. Faith puts us upon Christs workes of righteousnesse, without our [Page 102] owne workes, and translates us out of the exile of our sinnes into the Kingdome of his righteousnes▪ And Tom. 1. pag 106. By faith, our sinnes are made no more our owne, but Christs, upon whom GOD hath laid the iniquities of us all? and againe, all Christs righteous­nesse is made ours, for he layeth his hand on us: If a man had the tongue of men and Angels, hee could not speake more fully for the communion, and imputation of Christs righteousnes to believers, for justification, and of their sinnes to Christ for remission: then Luther doth in these, and divers other places, as I shall more fully shew in the second Chapter. As for Chamiers words, who calles remis­sion of sinnes, the righteousnesse which is imputed to us; they shew that faith is not that imputed righ­teousnesse, for faith, or believing, is our act; remission is GODS act▪ who can forgive sinnes but▪ GOD ▪ But indeed▪ the meaning of Cha­mier is the same with Calvin, to [Page 103] wit▪ that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne, which is Passive, re­mission, or justification, is that which GOD lookes upon in us, when hee counts us righteous in Christ, as I have before shewed: wherefore I conclude with the contradictory of his conclusion (which hee inferres upon the speeches of our Homilies, and of other learned Authors) to weet thus; That wheresoever we find in the Scriptures, or any Authors of sound learning; this phrase of faith, or believing, imputed for righteousnesse, we must not un­derstand faith in a proper sense, but the righteousnesse of Christ, e­ven his fulfilling of the Law for us, which together with the power, and merit of it, so far as every be­liever hath need, is communicated to him, and imputed to him for justification: For as a Merchant cannot be, said to be enriched by the gaine of a commodity, which never was his owne, and in which hee never had any interest, or [Page 104] propriety, nor any man by an of­fice which was never his owne, nor by him executed: So none can have the merit, and benefit of Christs righteousnesse, nor be said to bee thereby justified, neither can any such thing be imputed to them, except they have a proprie­ty in it, and communion of it. Thus his instances, and similitudes, are turned against himselfe, to the confusion of his haereticall opini­on. But that his sinne may ap­peare out of measure sinfull, hee doth not content himselfe, with his abusing, wresting, and pervert­ing of the godly sayings of other Authors, and using similitudes which are most contrary to his purpose; but hee also layeth pro­fane hands, on the holy Scriptures. That excellent saying, Iob 33, 26. which Master Perkins learnedly ex­pounds to be meant of Christs righteousnesse, which when men humbly seeke to GOD, by repen­tance, and faithfull prayers, GOD renders unto them by renuing [Page 105] their sense and assurance of their communion with Christ in his whole satisfaction. This Doctor novice most Popishly applyes to a mans owne righteousnesse, and saith, that GODS rendring to a man his righteousnesse is giving him the benefit of it, not the righ­teousnesse it selfe: And yet if wee should grant what hee perversely seekes, it will availe him no­thing; for as the fruite, and bene­fit, which GOD renders to a man, is not the fruit of a righteousnesse, in which he hath no propriety, or interest, but is his righteousnesse, so the fruite, and benefit, which we receive of Christs righteous­nesse, GOD renders to us when that righteousnesse is become ours in the propriety of it: That place Ephes. 6.8. whatsoever good a man doth the same hee shall receive of the LORD: it is for us, and against himselfe, for as the good which a man receives from GOD for well doing, is the good fruite of his owne well doing, [Page 106] so is the fruite, and benefit which wee receive in our justification▪ the fruite of Christs righteousnes made ours, and imputed to us: Those speeches Revel. 13.10. and 15.10. here is the faith and pati­ence of the Saints, &c. are not to be understood of the fruite, and reward of their patience (as the circumstances shew, which are kil­ling, and slaying, and leading into captivitie) but of the patience, and faith themselves, that in such times they are seene, tride, and proved, and GOD at such times gives them patience, and faith, by threat­ning, and foretelling the finall de­struction of their enemies; as learned Brightman truely ex­pounds the wordes. Besides if patience and faith were here used to signifie the fruit, and benefit of patience and faith: yet he cannot say it is the fruit of any patience, or faith, but of the Saints them­selves who receive the benefit. Likewise if wee grant, that in the other places Psal. 128.2. La­bour [Page 107] signifies the fruit of labour, and Heb. 9.28. Sin signifies the punishment of sinne, and Gen. 19.15. iniquitie signifies the judge­ment of GOD on Sodom for iniqui­tie, by a trope or Metonymie of the cause for the effect. This proves that faith which is the hand, or instrument of the soule, receiving Christ with his righteousnes, may by the same trope be used to signifie that state of righteousnes, which we receive by it as by an hand or instrument. Thus while he runs against the in­vincible rocke of the holy Scrip­tures, and seekes to turne them like a rowling stone against a barke, they rowle and rebound back, and tumbling upon him grind him to powder· For if hee had ten thousand instances of Scripture, wherein the fruite and benefit which men receive, are signified by the names of the things which are the causes, and meanes of them▪ yet still it will appeare that the fruite is not re­ceived [Page 108] except men have first an interest, and propriety in the cau­ses and meanes of it. And thus you see his fift part, or passage proved to bee a rotten heap of stinking lyes, absurdities and grosse errors.

Christianisme.

IN this last part or passage which is a meere confusion, and distra­ction of wordes, hee gives more then a little light, that his Socinian heresie in this point of justification maintained with much non sense, may bee seene to the bottome cleerely. First, hee takes upon him to shew that faith is impu­ted, and how it is imputed. Se­condly hee strives to shew that Christs righteousnes is not impu­ted. The first is in the wordes before recited. The second fol­lowes hereafter. First I will sift his wordes already rehearsed, And after proceed to the second. [Page 114] The summe of his speech last reci­ted, may be reduced into a Syllo­gisme of non sense, without forme mood or figure. The proposition and assumption whereof are con­tradictory. And the conclusion damned Socinian heresie, so that here I may say with the Poet. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici?

His proposition runnes thus. Faith is neither imputed for righ­teousnes, in respect of any thing which it receives from man, the proper subject of it, nor as it is mans act who useth it, and per­formes the acts of beleeving, nor in respect of any thing which it hath from GOD, or his spirit in the production of it, nor in respect of the object Christ and his righte­ousnes, nor in respect of the life and soule of it, which gives to it the specificall being, and subsi­stence, to wit, the application of Christ, and laying hold on him.

Christianisme.

THe second thing in this last part or passage is a profession of his meaning in denying Christs righteousnes to be imputed in ju­stification.

First because he would have an adversarie for him to triumph o­ver, [Page 125] and least his admired sophi­stry should be idle, for want of an opposite against which it might magnifie it selfe in the eyes of senselesse sectaries; hee suffers Christs righteousnes to have a be­ing, and doth not deny it in it self, but doth approve and establish it, and so by good hap hee esca­pes one base absurdity in his dis­puting, to wit, denying of the subject of the question.

Secondly, because he would have his competitor, or corrivall to be of some great note, the more to glorifie his victory over him, hee doth not deny an absolute necessi­ty of Christs righteousnes, both to the justification and salvation of sinners; we thanke him, that for saving of himselfe from the ha­tred and skorne of the world, he would grant so much of truth o­penly testified in Scripture. Third­ly he doth not deny a meritorious efficiency, or causality of Christs righteousnesse in respect of the ju­stification of a sinner. In this hee [Page 126] comes somewhat neere to us, but I doubt it is not in sincerity and truth, but rather in show, to make the ignorant to conceive better, or at least, not to judge so hardly of his opinion, for marke his slub­bering, and dawbing, with untem­pered morter, I verily believe (saith hee) that GOD justifieth them that are justified, not simply, or barely, for Christs sake, or for his righte­ousnesse sake, but for the righteous­nesse of Christ, his death being ta­ken into consideration with it: here you see a plaine contradiction, for Christs righteousnesse, his death, being taken into considera­tion with it, is no more but his perfect righteousnesse, because his active obedience, without his pas­sive obediēce to death, is no perfect fulfilling of the Law; so that here is a contradiction, even an affirmati­on, and negation of one, and the same thing, in one continued sen­tence. The parenthesis also, which hee inserts to trouble the reader, is false, and frivolous, to [Page 127] wit, (for a man may doe a thing for his sake, whom hee much loves, and respects, though hee hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands.) First let mee aske him what is his drift in these words? It seemes to mee, either to be wholly superfluous, or to intimate that Christs righteousnes did not deserve our justification at GODS hands, but that GOD out of love and respect to Christs per­son, without the merit of his righ­teousnesse, doth accept us, and count us righteous. Secondly, let mee tell him, that when a man doth any thing for another out of love, without desert, hee doth it for his owne loves sake, and for the magnifying of his kindnes, and free bounty▪ and thus GOD did in giving his Sonne for us, unde­serving sinners: But when justice doth stand up in strength and pleades for right, as in the justification of sinners, then a full satisfaction must come between, & [Page 128] love can no otherwise be rightly, and lawfully shewed, but by mak­ing a satisfaction, or by apposing one who is sufficient to make satis­faction, that no evill but good may be done to the party loved, and respected: and thus the case stands in justification of sinners. Third­ly, though a man out of his cor­rupt, and carnall love, may doe a thing for his favorite, without de­sert, or just consideration, yea con­trary to justice, yet it is not so with GOD, who is no respecter of persons, in matter of justice, and justification: Hee doth never out of his free love decree to doe any thing, but withall, hee decrees, and ordeines a just consideration, why hee should doe it; so that this is a frivolous parenthesis, both false and from the matter.

In the fourth place hee sheweth what hee denies in denying the im­putation of Christs righteousnesse, viz. That GOD lookes upon a believing sinner, and accounts him as one that hath done in his owne [Page 129] person, all that Christ did in obe­dience to the morall Law, and hereupon pronounceth him righ­teous, so that he doth stand as righ­teous before GOD, as Christ him­selfe, because righteous with the same righteousnesse; and so GOD makes himselfe countable to him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward, as hee would have beene for the like obe­dience, particularly performed by himselfe. In this expression of himselfe, here is much calumny, error, and untruth. First he doth calumniate, and slander the true Doctrine of Christ professed by us concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse; for no man in his right wits did ever hold that imputation of Christs righte­ousnesse to believers, is GODS ac­counting them to have performed in their owne persons, every act of obedience, which Christ perfor­med to the Law▪ This is a mani­fest contradiction, fitter for a gid­dy fancy to imagine, then for any [Page 130] true Christian to professe. The truth which wee professe is this, that true believers being by that one spirit which workes faith in them, united to Christ, and made partakers of his righteousnesse, and believing, and applying by faith to themselves, his satisfacti­on particularly are accounted tru­ly righteous before GOD by com­munion, and imputation, not by legall performance in their owne persons: And though the righte­ousnesse by which they are justifi­ed, is the very same which is in Christ, and which hee performed, yet it doth not follow, that they thereby are as fully righteous as Christ himselfe, for he is originally righteous, by his owne personall righteousnes, as the justifier; they are righteous by communion, and imputation, as justified: And as the hands and feet, and other infe­rior members, live by the same life, and are sensitive by the same sense which is originally in the heart, and head of the same body; [Page 131] yet they are not so lively, and sen­sitive, as the heart and head, but in a competent measure, and propor­tion, fit for every one of them. So it is in the mysticall body of Christ, betweene him the head, and them his believing, and justified members, as I have before touch­ed. So that here we have an in­tollerable calumny, and slander, laid upon GODS sacred truth, and the true professors of the same. Secondly, he utters a notorious un­truth when he saith, that to bee righteous by the same righteousnes which Christ performed, is no­thing else, but to be performers of every act of his obedience in our persons. Thirdly, it is a wicked error to thinke (as hee doth) that obedience and righteousnes, ether performed by ourselves or com­municated to us, should make GOD countable to us▪ that is, bound to give us the greatest re­wards. For the righteousnes of justification and the holynes, and obedience of sanctification, are [Page 132] onely free gifts which GOD gives to make us capable of eternall life, and fit to stand in his presence, and to see and enjoy his glory; not bands to tye himselfe, and to make him countable to us; for if we be righteous what give we to him, or what receiveth he at our hands? Iob 35.7. eternall life, though by Christ purchased for us; yet is the free gift of GOD in Christ. Rom. 6.23. Here therefore this sublimate Doc­tor doth bewray his owne igno­rance in the maine mysteries of salvation, and is as David saith, Psal. 14. become filthy, stinking, and abominable in his thoughts, and imaginations, concerning GOD himselfe, while hee doateth after Socinian subtilties, and sets himselfe to be singular, by preach­ing his fond errors, and heresies. Lastly, after all this, in conclusion, hee takes upon him to elude, and evacuate those most plaine testi­monies of holy Scripture, wherein Christ is sayd to cloath, and cover us with the garments of salvation, [Page 133] and the robe of his righteousnesse Isa 61.10. that our sinnes and staines, being thereby covered, Psal. 32.1. sinne might no more be imputed to us; but we in the robes of his righteousnesse may stand cloathed as with long white linnen robes, Revel. 19.8. And like Iacob in the garments of the first borne, yeelding a sweet smel­ling savour, may be accepted of GOD our heavenly father. First hee saith, that GOD in the justifi­cation of sinners, cloathes none with the letter of Christs righte­ousnesse, but every man that be­lieves with the Spirit of it: that is, not with the righteousnesse it self, but with the fruite and benefit of it: that is, with faith counted for righteousnesse, where note, that (in his conceipt,) the righteous­nesse of a justified man, is a thing inhaerent in himselfe, and a worke performed in his owne person, not communicated to him from ano­ther, ab extra, as garments are, and so no cloathing: here is one grosse [Page 134] absurdity, like as if one should say, a mans cloathes are not on him, but in him. That speech of Paul, these hands have ministred to my necessitie, Act 20.34. are nothing to the purpose, for he doth not say his hands were his necessary meat, and cloathes, but by working did get him necessaries; and so Christ by his obedience procured righte­ousnesse for us, which he doth communicate to us, and cloathes us with, and by GOD it is imputed to us: and this Calvin calles righte­ousnesse gotten by Christs death and resurrection: and all this is for us, and against himselfe.

The other instances which hee brings from Scripture to prove that Christs righteousnesse is by a me­tonymie of the cause for the effect, used to signifie the fruite and effect of it in us, prove no such thing at all. The first of them Iohn 17.3. (this is eternall life, to know thee the onely true GOD, &c. It is mis­taken, for to know GOD, and Christ (that is, to have experimentall [Page 135] knowledge of GOD, and Christ, and to enjoy GOD in Christ, as the word (know) by an Hebraisme signifies) is not there mentioned, as the efficient cause of eternall life, but as the thing wherein it doth formally consist: So also that speech, Iob 33, 26. (as Master Perkins truely expounds it) doth not speake of the fruite of a mans righteousnesse, which GOD ren­ders to him; but of the righteous­nesse of Christ, which GOD ren­ders to a man a fresh, and after temptation, doubting, and distresse, makes him feele and enioy it in himselfe, when by repentance, and humble and faithfull prayer hee seekes it.

And although the nation of the Israelites are often (as hee alledg­eth) called by the name of Jacob in Scripture, because he was their Father, and they his naturall pro­geny: yet this proves onely, that the Scripture useth tropes of speech many times, which we acknow­ledge willingly, and in the next [Page 136] Chapter will prove fully. Where hee forgetting, and contradicting himselfe, utterly disclaimes tropes and figures, and exclaimes against all the learned, who hold that Saint Paul useth a trope in saying that faith is imputed for righteous­nesse: Well, for the present wee will grant him, that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne, and the state of righteous, and justified persons, wherein we stand before GOD, being the issue and fruite of Christs satisfaction communicated to us, may very well be called by a trope the righteousnesse of Christ; but this doth not overthrow, but rather strongly prove the commu­nion, and imputation of Christs righteousnes to us. Thus we see how hee labours in the fire, and in vaine beats his braines, and out of the confusion, and distemper of them, doth say, and gainsay, af­firme and deny the same things of­tentimes; being like a clowd without water, carried about with winds, sometimes one way, [Page 137] and againe the contrary way, and never settling upon solid truth, nor building upon a sure foundation. Now what he promiseth in the conclusion of this Chapter▪ you shall see how hee performeth by my answer, to his second Chapter, wherein as he begins here, so he goeth on entangling and beating himselfe, forging and falsifying, and in every passage discovering his ignorance and folly, mingled with much impudency & hereticall perversenesse and pravity, which that it may better appeare, and that we may see his Socinian here­sie to the bottome clearely, I will lay downe the chiefe heads of the Doctrine of Justification, as it is taught in the Scriptures, and main­tained by all Orthodox Divines, both ancient and moderne.

Justification taken in a full sense is that act of GOD, by which he justifies his elect, and faithfull in his son Iesus Christ by the com­munion of his spirit; that is, doth make them righteous by Christs [Page 138] perfect righteousnes, and full sa­tisfaction spiritually made theirs, and doth count them righteous by imputing the same unto them, and doth declare them to be righ­teous inwardly to their owne consciences by the inward testi­mony of his spirit, and the inward sense and experience of inward grace; and outwardly in this life before men, and publiquely in the last judgements by their good workes, which are evidences of their faith, and of their union and communion with Iesus Christ, and of their regeneration by his spirit, and adoption unto GOD in him.

First GOD the father is the pri­mary efficient cause of our justifi­cation. Rom. 3.26.30. and 4.5. and 8.33. Secondly the inward moving cause is GODS owne free grace favour and love Rom. 3.24. Tit. 3.7. The outward moving or impulsive cause is Christs medi­ation Isa 53.11. Iohn 1 [...].21. 1 John 2.2.

The instrumentall cause is Christ [Page 139] the mediatour communicating his whole obedience to us, when by the spirit which GOD sheds on us through him, wee are made one body with him, 1 Cor. 12.13. Tit. 3.6. The meanes by which wee come to bee justified are, either principall; viz. the lively opera­tion of the spirit, spirituall union with Christ, the pure and holy humanity of Christ, or lesse princi­pall▪ the word and ministery there­of, the Sacraments, faith and the like, as appeares, Rom. 3.25.28. and 10.14. Gal. 3.8. Heb. 9.14. 1 Iohn 1. [...]. Dan. 12.3.

The materiall cause, that is, the righteousnesse it selfe by which they are justified, that is, made, counted, and declared to be righ­teous, is Christs perfect righteous­nes obedience and satisfaction, which he, GOD and man perform­ed in our nature, in the state of hu­miliation, Rom. 3.24.25. Rom. 5.19. and 8.4. The formall cause of justification is that com­munion between Christ and us, [Page 140] and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ, and of his righteousnes, and full satisfaction to us, which communion ariseth, and floweth from the spirit which GOD sheds on us through Christ, which spirit dwelling in us (in some measure, so as he dwelleth in the man Christ, from whom hee is derived to us) doth make us one spirituall body with Christ, and works in us faith and all holy gra­ces, & affections by which we ad­here and cleave to Christ, and ap­ply and inioy his righteousnes, so that it is our formall righteousnes not inherently, but imputatively, and by spirituall communion, for it is that which doth constitute, and make us righteous, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19. and 8.4. and [...]0.4. and 2 Cor. 5.21.

The immediate fruit and bene­fit of our iustification, is the state of righteousnes and of cleanenesse from the guilt of sinne, and accep­tation with GOD, Rom. 3.25. and 4.2. also peace with GOD, Rom. 5.1.

[Page 141]The end and use of our iusti­fication is the satisfaction and de­claration 1 of GODS iustice, in that he iustifieth us by the full satisfa­ction of Christ, and not otherwise, neither by it till he communicates it to us and makes it ours; Also the manifestation of his mercy, free grace and bounty, in that he would give his sonne to become man, and to make satisfaction to the full, when no other could bee found able to satisfie for us, neither could his iustice by any other meanes be satisfied, also in that hee would give us his spirit to unite us to his sonne, and to bring us to a true communion of his righteousnes, and to worke faith in us by which we receive and enioy Christ with all his benefits, Rom. 3.24.26. Tit. 3.4. Ephes. 1.6.12.

Christianisme.

IN these wordes hee makes his enterance, into the disputing of the point before propounded, to wit, faith in a proper sense is im­puted [Page 157] for righteousnes in justifica­tion; which speech excludes the righteousnes of Christ from being the onely righteousnes by, which being communicated, and impu­ted to true beleevers, they are ju­stified and stand righteous before GOD.

First he propounds foure things, which when they are found in coniunction, with an interpreta­tion of any Scripture, they com­mend and establish it (as he saith) like that King upon his Throne a­gainst whom there is no rising up, Prov. 30.31. These foure things. First the literal sense strongly bear­ing it. Secondly the scope of the place concurring. Thirdly the in­consistence of the circumstances of the place, with the interpretati­on which is contrary. Fourthly the Judgement of able learned men agreeing with it, these I say may passe for current. But whether that one place of Scripture, in the interpretation whereof these con­curre, bee alone without more [Page 158] Scriptures, sufficient to prove the innocency of an assertion which is agreeable to that interpretati­on, is a question, many interpre­tations seeme to have all these, and yet are contradicted by other Scriptures, as that place Hosea 11.1. When Israel was a child, out of Egypt have I called my Sonne, being interpreted of the Nation of the Israelites, was borne up by the letter, concurred with the scope, and circumstances more then ma­ny contrary expositors, and all the learned and able Jewes so un­derstood it: and yet the Gospell ex­pounds it another way, Mat. 2.15. The place of Scripture upon the interpretation whereof establish­ed by these foure things, hee in­tends to build his whole dispute in this Chapter, is the fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ro­mans; so that his proofes by which hee goeth about to set the royall Crowne, which is due to Christ and his righteousnes, on the head of mans imperfect faith, are ac­cording [Page 159] to these foure things, di­vided into foure rankes. First he undertakes to prove, that the Letter of that Scripture, Rom. 4. doth beare up his interpretation, to wit, that faith in it selfe, and in a proper sense is said to bee impu­ted for righteousnes in justificati­on. Secondly by the scope of the place. Thirdly by shewing that the circumstances of that Scripture, cannot beare the Doctrine of Christs righteousnes imputed. Fourthly by the judgement, and testimonies of able learned and un­partiall men. But how poorely he performes his undertakings, and how pitifully hee faileth in them, wee shall in the progresse shew. That his disputation is like to be very Illogicall, we may ga­ther from the foule flaw which ap­peares in his Logicke, in this his first enterance, where hee saith wee need no more Scriptures, to prove the innocency of our affir­mative, viz. the imputation of faith for righteousnes (the truth [Page 160] of the negative inseparably ac­companying it) but that Chapter onely, Rom. 4.

First it is against all true reason and Logicke, that the affirmative should be innocent from untruth, and that the negative which is opposed to it, should have truth accompanying it. If his affirma­tive (faith is imputed for righte­ousnesse, in a proper sense) be true, then the negative must needs be false, to wit, faith in a proper sense is not imputed: But perhaps by the negative, he doth not meane the negative of his affirmative, but some other negative proposi­tion, the subject whereof, is diffe­rent from the subject of his affir­mative. His hatred and envy, a­gainst Christs righteousnesse, least it should get the Crowne from faith, is so great, that wee may well conceive, that by the nega­tive hee in heart meanes, this ( Christs righteousnes is not impu­ted in justification) which if hee doth, wee cannot but blame him [Page 161] for speaking ambiguously, which Logick in a disputation abhorreth. But I leave his trifling, and come to the ground and foundation of his discourse, even that fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ro­mans, on which he labours to build his hereticall opinion. The words of that Chapter which seeme most to favour him are these. Verse 3. Abraham beleeved GOD, and it was counted to him for righte­ousnes, and verse 5. To him that beleeveth, his faith is counted for righteousnes, and verse 9. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righte­ousnes.

That the truth may more plain­ly appeare, and the contrary fals­hoode, and errour be made more fully manifest, I will first lay down the true orthodoxe exposition of the words, which is according to the common judgement of the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines, of the best reformed Churches.

[Page 162]Secondly I will truely rehearse the corrupt exposition of the Apo­stles wordes, made by the here­ticke Socinus, and his followers the Arminians, and other fanati­call Sectaries, unto which this adversary adheres, and grounds his whole disputation upon it. The orthodox exposition I will illu­strate and confirme by the scope, and circumstances of the rext, and by arguments drawne from other Scriptures. The corrupt expositi­on also I will prove to be false, and hereticall. And afterwards I will proceed to answer this adversa­ries discourse in every particular.

Christianisme.

HIs first argument reduced in­to the forme of a syllogisme, runs thus. That opinion which hath the Letter of the Scripture, more full expresse and pregnant for it, then any truth in religion, or article of our beliefe, and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture, that wordes can lightly give, is certainely true.

This opinion concerning the imputation of faith in a proper sense is such. Therefore it is a true and sound opinion.

That this imputation of faith, may boast of the letter of Scripture, and of all the authority and coun­tenance that wordes can give, hee proves, because the letter of the Scripture speakes it once, twice, yea thrice and foure times, to wit, in this Chapter, Rom. verse 3.5. 22, 23, 24. to which I will adde a fift time verse. 9. Ans.

The more true that the propo­sition [Page 230] is, the more false is the as­sumption, wherein hee assumes most falsely to his opinion, that which in no wise belongs to it, and thereupon inferres a most false con­clusion. I answere therefore that his assumption is an heap of impu­dent lyes. First the killing letter of the Scripture may give some countenance to it, that is, speeches of Scripture understood, and ur­ged literally, which are spoken by GODS spirit tropically and in a fi­gure. This Saint Austin calls the killing letter, because they who take the words properly, and so urge them obstinately, they slay their owne soules. But the true literall sense of the wordes, which are improperly literall, will never give any countenance to this here­ticall opinion, as I have shewed before most fully.

2 I cannot but accuse him here of most intollerable impudency in that he affirmes, that this most He­reticall opinion hath more full ex­presse, and pregnant testimony [Page 231] from the letter of the Scripture, then any truth in Religion, or any article of Religion, and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture, that words can give, when as in all the Scripture, faith is not once said to be imputed for righteousnes, in a proper sense, in all the word of GOD, and is onely seven times said to be counted, or imputed for righteousnes, and that tropically; while the Apostle useth the phrase borrowed from that improper speech which is spoken of Abraham, Gen. 15.6. That when Abraham believed GOD, he counted it to him for righteousnes. For it is manifest that in this. Chap­ter, he altogether insists upon that speech, and doth but repeat it six times: and so likewise Gal. 3.6, Saint Iames also once useth it, speaking of declarative justifi­cation, to prove that Abraham was justified by workes, Iam. 2.23. that is, declared before men to be righteous, because the Scripture saith, Abraham believed GOD, and [Page 232] it was imputed to him for righteous­nes. So that of Saint Iames may be believed, faith is not the righ­teousnesse for which man is accep­ted with GOD, (as the Socinians teach) but that by which man ob­teines the testimony of righteous­nes, as Iustine Martyr under­stands this phrase. Now that Christ, and his fulfilling of the law is truely, and properly, the righte­ousnes by which all believers are justified, constituted, and made righteous before GOD: the Scrip­tures do in proper literall speech, as well as improperly more often affirme, as Isa. 61.10. Rom. 3.24. Rom. 4▪6. Rom. 5.17, 18, 19· Rom. 8.4. and 10.3.4. and Phil. 3.9. and 1 Cor. 1.30. and 2 Cor. 5.24. these twelve places do plainely teach and affirme, that the righteousnes by which men are made and constituted righteous in iustification, is Christs obedience and satisfaction, made to the Law, for our redemption, and nine of them are proper speeches; so that [Page 233] here wee see the communion of Christs righteousnesse which hee opposeth, hath more authority, and countenance from the Scripture, and more full expresse, and preg­nant testimony from the letter of it. If I should instance in other truths of Religion, as that there is one true GOD, even Jehovah, and none beside him; or that hee created all things, or concerning the deity of Christ, and of the holy Ghost, or concerning redemption by Christ, or the last Iudgment, resurrection and life eternall: ten expresse, and pregnant testimonies of Scripture might be brought to prove any one of them; for every one where­in imputation of faith is named. So that here we see what he cannot proue by argument, he goeth a­bout by impudent outfaceing to impose upon his hearers, and readers.

But let us examine the proofe of this bold assertion even his as­sumption, which certainely is as poore weake, and begerly, as his [Page 234] forehead is strong, like brasse, in impudent affirming it. The letter of the Scripture, (saith hee) af­firmes it plainely once and twice, yea a third and fourth time. There­fore it is most certainely true. To this I answere, that the letter of the Scripture affirmes that faith and believing was counted to A­braham, and is to other believers, but not in a proper sense, but tro­pically; and so many things are often affirmed by the letter of the Scripture, which if we understand them in a proper sense, are most false, as for example. GOD is said to repent Gen▪ 6. two severall times, to wit▪ ver. 6.7. and Ier. 26. three severall times, viz. ver. 3, 13.19. and Amos▪ 7.3, 6. and Iud 2.18. and 1 Sam. 15.11. Psal. 135.14. Ier. 18.10. with many more. So likewise an hand, and armes, and eyes, and mouth, are often attribu­ted by the letter, of the Scripture to GOD, which speeches if wee should understand in a proper sense they would prove a killing letter [Page 235] to us; therefore this is a most ab­surd and ridiculous proofe well be­seeming the thing which it is brought to prove. And as he fal­ters in his Logick and his reasons, so he shewes ignorance of rhetho­rik, for he takes it for a certaine truth, that one phrase foure times used must needs be taken in a proper literall sense. But rhetorik would have taught him that to use divers tropicall speeches together, is an Allegory, and elegancy of speech often used in Scripture, as the places last cited shew. To which let me add one most preg­nant instance, Gal. 3. where the word faith in a discourse of justifi­cation is used ten times in an im­proper sense, for the Gospel which is the word of faith, and teacheth iustification by Christ, and by be­lieving in him, and not by our owne workes, which the Law re­quires, to wit, verses 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 25.

Now it may be he perceived little strength in his argument [Page 236] brought for his imputation of faith, notwithstanding, his great braggs, and therefore he shootes one fooles bolt against the imputa­tion of Christs righteousnes, which is an argument or syllogisme, con­sisting of an assumption without a proposition, or a conclusion ex­pressed: but I can coniecture what he meant to conclude, namely, that the imputation of Christs righte­ousnes in iustification, is a mere faction, and ought not to be be­lieved.

The imputation of Christs righ­teousnesse, (in that sense which many magnifie) hath not the least reliefe, either from sound of words, or light of letter in the Scripture.

To which I answer, first that if this were granted (which is most false) yet it doth not follow that faith alone in a proper sense is imputed. Ridiculum caput (saith he in the Comedie) quasi necesse sit, si justitia Christi non dicitur im­putari, fidem reputari pro justitia. It [Page 237] is a ridiculous conceipt, to thinke that if Christs righteousnes be not imputed, therefore faith alone in a proper sense must be said to bee imputed. David tells us that Phi­nees his executing of iudgement, was imputed to him for righte­ousnes, and Saint Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by works, & not by faith alone: why then are not works as well as faith imputed?

But secondly I answer that his assertion is most false, and I prove it from the very wordes of the A­postle in the 4. Chapter, verse 6. where he saith that to the blessed man righteousnes is imputed with­out workes, and verse 11. where he gathereth that to the beleeving Gentiles, though uncircumcised, righteousnes shal be imputed. Now faith is not righteousnes (as hee himselfe confesseth) for righteous­nes is perfect conformity to GODS law; & this is not to bee found in all the world, but only in Christ, he alone hath in mans nature fulfilled the law. As for faith, evē in Abrahā [Page 238] himselfe it was stained with many doubtings, and feares at some times as when he called his wife his si­ster for better safety: and so it is in the best beleevers. Beleeving also is but a dutie and a worke of obedience to the Law; but this which is here said to bee imputed, is a righteousnes without workes, or any thing performed in our owne persons; therefore faith is not the righteousnes which is here said to be imputed; but the righ­teousnes of Christ apprehended by faith, and couched under the name of faith and beleeving.

Christianisme.

His second way of arguing to proue his opinions from the scope of the place, and the intent of the Apostle in this discourse of justification. His maine argu­ment reduced into forme runs thus.

The scope of the place, and in­tent of the Apostle is to hedg up with thornes, the false way of justification which lay through works, and to turne men from it; as also to discover the true way to them, to wit, what they must do, and what GOD requireth of them, to their justification, and what hee will accept at their hands, instead of the workes of the Law: and that is it which he here saith is impu­ted for righteousnesse.

But faith, and believing (in a proper and formall signification) is that which they must do, and performe to their justification, which also GOD requires of them, [Page 242] instead of workes of the Law, and will accept at their hands instead of them. Therefore faith in a proper sense, is here said to be im­puted

To this argument I answere, First, that in the first proposition there is some truth affirmed, but immediately contradicted, and ma­ny falsehoodes intermingled. That the Apostles scope and intent is to hedge up the false way of, justification, which lay through workes, and to discover the ture way, we grant for truth. But like a mad, or drunken man, he immedi­ately contradicts the truth which he had affirmed, and tels us that the right way is doing, and per­forming, something which GOD requires at our hands to our iusti­fication. And what is this, but the way which lyes through workes? For to doe and per­form somthing required of us, that it may be accepted of GOD at our hands to our justification, is to seek justification by the way of working [Page 243] in the judgement of men, that are sober and in their wits.

Besides this manifest contradi­ction, I find also much falshood and evill meaning. 1. In saying the truth, that the false way lyeth through works, that is, works performed in obedience to the Law by every man in his own person (which is the true intent and meaning of the Apostle) he hath a further wicked meaning, namely, that our seeking after the righteousnesse of Christ, which consists in his works of obedience to the Law, is the way which lyeth through works to ju­stification, and therefore the false way. And this he declares to be his meaning in that he immediatly after labours to beat men off from Christs righteousnesse. Wherfore, I justly tax him here, not onely of blasphemy, in calling the righteous­nesse Christ (who is the way, the truth, and the life) and seeking justification through it, a false way: but also of stupidity and blindnesse, in that he cannot see the difference [Page 244] between our seeking justification by the righteousnesse offered to us in the Gospel to be apprehended by faith, even Christs righteous­nesse; and our doing works of the Law for our justification; or Christs performing works of the Law in his own person. For Christs righte­ousnesse as it was performed by himselfe, was legall and according to the strict termes of the Law: but as it comes to us by commu­nion, and is applyed by faith, it is Euangelicall. 2. In that he saith God requires somthing to be done of men for their Justification, which God imputes to them, and accepts at their hands instead of the works or righteousnesse of the Law. Here­by he sets up justification by some thing which a man doth, and per­formeth, which the Apostle alto­gether opposeth in this discourse and his whole scope is bent against it; and his whole intent and drift is to shew, that we are justified, not by giving or doing, but by receiv­ing that which is freely given of [Page 245] GOD, and reputed for righteousnes, even the righteousnesse of him, who is GOD, and is called therfore the righteousnesse of God, Chap. 3.21. and 10.3. Hereby also he brings in a doing and performing of som­thing by men, which is accepted of God, over and above that which the Law requireth, which is a meere Popish fiction, tending to dishonour the Law, and to make it an imperfect rule of mans wel do­ing. And withall he makes the new Covenant a condicionall Co­venant, and not of free Grace, pro­mising justification and salvation upon condition of mens doing.

In the second place, his assump­tion, wherein he affirms that faith and beleeving in the proper and for­mall signification, is that which men must doe and performe, and which God requires and will ac­cept at their hands instead of works of the Law for justification: it con­tains in it most grosse Socinian errour, and much absurdity and untruth. First, in that he calls faith [Page 246] and beleeving a thing done and per­formed by men, this is directly contrary to the Apostle, who teach­eth, that faith is not of our selves, but is the gift of God, Ephes. 2.8. and that we of our selves are not sufficient to think much lesse to do that which God can accept: but our sufficiencies of God, 2 Cor. 3.5. and it is God which worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure, Phil. 2.13. so that faith and beleeving are not a condition per­formed by us to oblige God; but a part of the Grace freely promised in the Covenant, and given to us, even the worke and motion of his Spirit in us.

Secondly, in that he sets up faith instead of all righteousnesse and per­fect fullfilling of the Law: hereby he doth professe himselfe a Soci­nian Hereticke in plain terms, and conspires with those Heretickes to overthrow the justice of God in our justification, and to make Christs satisfaction vaine and need­lesse, as I have before shewed.

[Page 247]After his arguing for the impu­tation of faith, he proceeds here in his second way of arguing, as he did in the former, to dispute against Gods imputing of Christs righte­ousnes in iustification. His reasons are 3. First, because God required Christs righteousnes of Christ him­selfe, and therefore it is not requi­red of GOD for our righteousnesse, to iustification. Secondly, because the scope of the Apostle is to shew what must be done, and performed by us, and what GOD requires at our hands, to iustification, and Christs righteousnesse is not any thing performed by us, and there­fore is not here said to be imputed. Thirdly, if the Apostle had said that we must be iustified by Christ and his righteousnesse, without a­ny other thing performed by us, this had beene to cast a snare upon us, rather then to open to us a dore of life, and salvation.

To which I answere, that as his denying of Christs righteousnes to be imputed, is Hereticall, so also [Page 248] are his reasons brought to confirme his opinion. First in that he saith GOD doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ, for our iusti­fication; this phrase is not onely harsh, and unsavory, but also full of calumny, and close slander. It is harsh and absurd, like as if one should say, that GOD requires the same particular, and individuall act, done by another, to be not done by him, but by us, which im­plies a grosse contradiction. It is also full of close calumny, for here­by he goeth about to make men beleeve, that the orthodox do­ctrine of iustification by the com­munion, and imputation of Christs righteousnes, is a teaching, and supposing, that GOD requires of us for iustification, that we be per­formers of the same individuall works of the law, in the proprie­ty, and formality of them, which Christ performed, and so he openly expresseth his mind in another place, which is a base slander, as I have before shewed.

[Page 249]Secondly, in that he saith, God required Christs righteousnesse of Christ himselfe, and not for our iustification; This implies, that Christ had need of iustification, and was bound to fulfill the righteous­nesse of the Law, as a thing requisit for himselfe, and it savours very rank of the Samosatenian, and So­cinian heresie, which denyeth Christs eternall deity, for if Christ his humane nature, being from the first conception most pure, upright, and holy, was personally united to the eternall Son God, equall with the father, and so was the Son of God, and heir of all things: who can doubt but that he in himselfe was worthy of glory at Gods right hand from his birth; as his tak­ing of our nature upon him was al­together for us, so his infirmities, sufferings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousnes and obedience to the Law was for us, and for all the elect, both them who of old before his comming beleeved in him promi­sed [Page 250] and to come; and also for them who now doe beleeve in him al­ready come exhibited and exalted to glory in his humanity. To say or thinke that he had need to iusti­fie, and make righteous himselfe by his workes, and to merit glory in heaven by his righteousnes; is in effect to deny that hee is GOD infinitely worthy of all glo­ry, as he was the onely begotten sonne of GOD, and heire of all things.

His second reason is a manifest falshod, to wit, that the scope of the Apostle is to shew what is to be done, and performed by us, which GOD may accept at our hands to our justification. For the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are justified freely by GODS grace, by the things which Christ did for our redemption, cap. 3.24▪ and that obedience, righteousnes, and satisfaction of Christ, we must not obtaine by any workes of our owne according to the Law, it is freely given us of GOD, and faith [Page 251] is the hand by which wee receive it, and our evidence, that we are ju­stified by it.

His third reason is blasphemy, and contradiction of Christs owne words. For our Saviour profes­seth and affirmeth that he alone is the dore, John 10.7. & the way, Iohn 14.6. and hee who makes him the way and dore, and seeks justification life and salvation by the way of his righteousnes, hee is a true disciple of Christ, and his Apostles. But to call the teaching of men in this way, the casting of a snare upon them is blasphemy. Far be it from me, and from all true Christians not to detest and▪ ab­horre such impiety, and not to thinke him worthie of the curse of Anathema Maranatha, who with his mouth proclaimeth, and with an obstinate heart maintaineth, that teaching of iustification by Christ and his righteousnes is ca­sting of a snare on men, and not of the dore of life and salvation to them.

Christianisme.

IN this third way of arguing he layeth downe his arguments a­gainst the true Orthodox interpre­tation of Saint Pauls speeches, con­cerning imputation of faith for righteousnes; which interpretati­on he goeth about to overthrow by severall circumstances, or pas­sages in the context. I will first sift his first argument here laid downe, and then propound and answer the rest.

Christianisme.

HEre he enters into his fourth & last way of confirmation, that is, to confirme his opinion, and interpretation, by testimo­ny of learned Divines, both anci­ent and moderne writers, even from the Primitive times, to the yeare 150. after Christ. His be­ginning [Page 302] is with great swelling words, and with wonderfull con­fidence, though builded not upon any reading, or knowledg, of his owne, but upon the testimony of another, doubtles of some Socinian braggadogo, or impudent Armi­nian, whom hee is ashamed to name, who are all of this spirit, that when they build upon weak­est ground, and are most strongly convinced by testimonies of Scrip­ture, and unanswerable arguments, then they affirme and outface most impudently, and brag and ly, as if they contended to winne the whetstone: Nay, we think that this confession of his small read­ing, is out of modesty, or out of Satanicall subtilty? that as the Divel in the person of the Serpent vented his lies to our first Parents, so he may belch out desperate lies and forgeries under the per­son of another concealed Author, verily I feare the latter. because on anothers word, hee doth so bold­ly, and impudently, charge all the [Page 303] learned of the best note in this age with calumny, and false report, raised upon his opinion, (unwor­thy the tongue and pen, of sober and learned men) in that they make Arminius or Socinus, chiefe and first Authors of it, and with out blushing affirmes that the fairest streame of interpreters from the time of Luther, and Cal­vin runnes as water to refresh his interpretation. In both which I find such manifest falsehood, that no man of any reading can so speake and affirme, without a brasen face, maintaining wilfull and manifest lies against his owne conscience. First to the bold charge of our learned Divines with calumny, for taxing Socinus, and Arminius, as chiefe and first Authors of his opinion, I an­swere, That although that infa­mous heretick, Petrus Abailardus, who was gelded for his inconti­nence, by a man whose daughter hee had abused) laid the first ground of this opinion, that [Page 304] Christs satisfaction is not imputed to iustification: (as Saint Bernard shewes, Epist. 190.) Yet the first Authors who expressely affirmed that fides per se, that is, faith by it selfe in a proper sense, without a trope, is by the Apostle said to be imputed, for righteousnes, were Servetus, as Calvin shewes, in o­pusculis, Socinus, part 4. cap. 4 and 11. de Christo Servatore. And Ar­minius in Epist. ad Hippolitum de collibus. thes. 5. Secondly to his false pretence of the maine streame of writers, since Luther, and Cal­vin: so running as water to refresh his interpretation, I do answere and confidently affirme, that there is not one Orthodox writer to be found since that time, which ever held, that faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnes, and denyed the imputation of Christs righteousnes. Servetus, Socinus, Arminius and the rest of their sect, branded for hereticks, are the one­ly maintainers of that opinion.

To his testimonies and his im­pudent [Page 305] boasting of the generall consent of interpreters, I answere, First joyntly and in generall, That of all the testimonies which hee hath cited, there is not one which either affirmes that faith taken in a proper sense is imputed for righ­teousnesse, or denies the imputa­tion of Christs righteousnes. More­over, that all Divines who are the most zealous opposers of his in­terpretation, may say the same words which he cites out of Au­thors: and yet hold justification by Christs righteousnes imputed, yea and in proving that truth may with good reason presse and urge the same words rightly understood. Soe that a more odi­ous example of folly and impuden­cy cannot be shewed then hee here shewes himselfe by, making his folly strive for Mastery with his impudency.

Secondly, for the particular testimonies which he brings both out of ancient and moderne wri­ters. They say no more but what [Page 306] Saint Paul saith, and wee all ac­knowledg and embrace for truth, viz. That Abraham beleeving that in Christ, and through his sa­tisfaction, GOD was become his reward, was thereupon counted righteous, and GOD counted faith to him for righteousnes, and so are we all iustified, not by our owne righteousnes of workes performed to the Law in our own persons, but by faith laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ, which is counted for righteous­nes, not in a proper sense, but re­latively, as it comprehends Christ and his righteousnes, which Cal­vin calls apprehending the good­nes of GOD, and trusting in it. First for Tertullians words, I take them, as he doth render and re­hearse them, and so the rest in or­der, and will take a light view of them, that wee may see his vani­ty, in citing testimonies which make nothing for him, but some directly against his opinion.