CAP.
I.
Wherein
the
state
of
the
question
is
opened
,
and
the
sense
EXPLAINED
:
Wherein
aswell
the
Imputation
of
FAITH
is
affirmed
,
as
the
imputation
of
the
RIGHTEOUSNESSE
of
CHRIST
denyed
,
in
JUSTIFICATION
.
FOR
the
cleare
understanding
of
the
state
and
drift
of
the
question
,
some
things
would
be
premised
,
which
for
their
evidence
sake
might
be
privilledged
and
exempted
from
passing
under
much
dispute
or
contradiction
,
yet
if
any
thing
be
not
sufficiently
prepared
for
assent
in
the
briefe
proposall
of
it
,
the
ensuing
discourse
will
labor
to
reconcile
the
disproportion
,
and
in
the
progresse
make
satisfaction
for
what
it
shall
receive
upon
courtesie
in
the
beginning
.
As
1.
That
the
termes
justifying
,
justification
&c.
are
not
to
be
taken
in
this
question
(
nor
in
any
other
usually
moved
about
the
justification
of
a
sinner
)
either
1
sensu
physico
,
in
a
Physicall
sense
,
as
if
to
justifie
,
signified
to
make
just
,
with
any
habituall
or
actuall
,
any
positive
or
inherent
righteosnesse
.
Nor
yet
,
2.
sensu
forensi
propriè
dicto
,
in
a
juridicall
or
judiciary
sense
(
properly
so
called
)
where
the
Iudge
hath
only
a
subordinate
and
derived
power
of
●udicature
,
and
is
bound
by
Oath
or
otherwise
to
give
sentence
according
to
the
strict
rule
of
the
Law
,
as
if
to
justify
were
to
pronounce
a
man
just
,
or
〈◊〉
absolve
him
from
punishment
according
to
the
strict
terme
of
precise
rule
of
that
Law
whereof
he
was
accused
as
a
transgressor
,
(
though
this
sense
be
admitted
and
received
by
many
)
But
3.
(
and
lastly
)
sensu
forensi
improprié
dicto
,
in
a
judiciary
sense
,
lesse
properly
and
usually
so
called
,
vizr
.
where
he
that
Titteth
Iudge
being
the
supreme
Magistrate
,
hath
an
independancy
or
soveraignty
of
power
,
to
moderate
and
dispence
with
the
Law
,
as
reason
or
equity
shall
require
:
So
that
to
justify
in
this
question
,
import's
the
discharging
or
absolving
of
a
man
from
the
guilt
,
blame
,
and
punishment
of
those
things
,
whereof
he
either
is
,
or
justly
might
be
accused
;
not
because
he
is
cleare
of
such
things
,
or
justifiable
according
to
the
letter
or
strictnesse
of
the
Law
(
for
then
he
could
not
be
justly
accused
)
but
because
the
Judge
having
a
sufficient
&
lawful
soveraignty
of
power
is
willing
upon
sufficient
&
weighty
considerations
known
unto
him
,
to
remit
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
and
to
deliver
and
discharg
him
as
if
he
were
an
innocent
or
righteous
man
.
As
for
the
Physical
sense
of
making
just
by
inherent
righteousnesse
,
though
Bellarmine
and
his
Angells
,
earnestly
contend
for
it
,
yet
till
Scriptures
be
brought
low
,
and
Etymologies
be
exalted
above
them
,
till
use
and
custome
of
speaking
deliver
up
their
Kingdome
into
Cardinalls
bands
,
that
sense
must
no
way
be
acknowledged
or
received
in
this
dispute
:
Yet
(
to
give
reason
and
right
,
even
to
those
that
demand
that
which
is
unreasonable
)
it
is
true
,
that
God
in
or
upon
a
mans
justification
,
begins
to
justifie
him
Physically
,
that
is
,
to
infuse
habituall
or
inherent
righteousnesse
into
him
.
But
here
the
Scriptures
and
the
Cardinall
are
as
far
out
in
termes
,
as
in
a
thousand
other
things
they
are
in
substance
and
matter
:
that
which
he
will
needs
call
justification
,
the
Scriptures
will
as
peremptorily
call
Sanctification
.
Concerning
the
other
sense
of
a
judiciary
justification
usually
and
strictly
so
called
,
SECT.
2
wherein
the
Iudge
or
justifier
proceeds
upon
legall
grounds
to
acquit
and
absolve
the
party
guilty
or
accused
,
neither
can
this
be
taken
in
the
Question
propounded
,
except
the
Scriptures
be
forsaken
,
because
the
Scriptures
constantly
speake
of
this
act
of
God
justifying
a
sinner
,
not
as
of
such
an
act
whereby
he
will
either
make
him
or
pronounce
him
legally
just
,
of
declare
him
not
to
have
offended
the
Law
,
and
hereupon
justifie
him
;
but
of
such
an
act
,
whereby
he
freely
forgives
him
all
that
he
hath
done
against
the
Law
,
and
acquits
him
from
all
blame
and
punishment
due
by
the
Law
unto
such
offences
.
So
that
in
that
very
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifies
a
sinner
,
as
there
is
a
discharge
from
all
punishment
due
unto
him
,
so
there
is
a
profession
withall
,
or
plaine
intimation
of
the
guiltinesse
of
the
person
now
to
be
justified
according
to
the
Law
,
and
that
he
is
not
discharged
or
acquitted
upon
any
consideration
that
can
be
pleaded
for
him
according
to
the
Law
,
but
that
consideration
upon
which
God
proceeds
to
justifie
him
,
is
of
another
order
;
the
consideration
of
somewhat
done
for
him
in
this
case
to
relieve
him
out
of
the
course
and
order
or
appointment
of
the
Law
,
he
whose
justification
stands
(
whether
in
whole
or
in
part
,
it
is
not
materiall
herein
)
in
the
forgivenesse
of
sinne
,
can
in
no
construction
be
said
to
be
justified
according
to
the
Law
,
because
the
Law
knowes
no
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
neither
is
there
any
rule
for
any
such
thing
there
.
The
Law
speakes
of
the
curse
,
death
,
and
condemnation
of
a
sinner
;
but
for
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
it
neither
takes
knowledg
,
nor
gives
any
hope
thereof
.
Secondly
,
That
Iesus
Christ
the
naturall
Sonne
of
God
,
and
supernaturall
Sonne
of
the
Virgin
,
ran
a
race
of
obedience
with
the
Law
(
aswell
Ceremoniall
as
Morall
)
and
held
out
with
every
letter
,
jot
,
and
tittle
of
it
,
as
farre
as
it
any
wayes
concerned
him
,
during
the
whole
continuance
of
his
life
in
the
flesh
,
no
mans
thoughts
ever
rose
up
to
deny
,
but
those
that
denyed
him
the
best
of
his
being
(
I
meane
his
Godhead
)
Which
of
you
convinceth
me
of
sinne
?
was
his
challenge
to
the
Nation
of
the
Jewes
whilst
he
was
yet
on
earth
(
Ioh
8
,
46.
)
and
remaines
through
all
ages
as
a
challenge
to
the
world
.
He
that
can
●ast
the
least
aspersion
or
imputation
of
sinne
upon
Christ
,
shall
shake
the
foundations
of
the
peace
and
safety
of
the
world
.
Thirdly
,
that
this
Christ
offered
up
himselfe
as
a
Lambe
without
spot
in
sacrifice
upon
the
Crosse
to
make
an
attonement
for
the
world
,
and
to
purge
the
sinne
of
it
,
I
know
no
spirit
at
this
day
abroad
in
the
Christian
world
that
denies
,
but
that
which
wrought
in
Secinus
formerly
,
and
still
workes
in
those
that
are
baptized
into
the
same
spirit
of
error
with
him
.
Fourthly
,
I
conceive
it
to
be
a
truth
of
greater
authority
amongst
us
,
then
to
meet
with
contradiction
from
any
man
,
that
Iesus
Christ
is
the
sole
and
entire
meritorious
cause
of
every
mans
justification
,
that
is
justified
by
God
;
or
that
that
righteousnesse
or
absolution
from
sinne
and
condemnation
which
is
given
to
every
man
in
his
justification
,
is
somewhat
,
yea
a
principall
part
or
member
of
that
great
purchase
which
Christ
hath
made
for
the
world
.
Evan
as
God
for
Christs
sake
freely
forgave
you
.
Ephes.
4.32
.
Forgivenesse
of
sinnes
or
justification
is
from
God
for
Christs
sake
;
he
is
worthy
to
be
gratified
and
honored
by
God
,
with
the
justification
of
those
that
believe
in
him
,
whatsoever
he
is
worthy
of
more
.
Fiftly
,
It
is
a
truth
that
hath
every
mans
judgment
concurring
with
it
,
that
Faith
is
the
condition
appointed
by
God
,
and
required
on
mans
part
to
bring
him
into
Communion
and
fellowship
of
that
justification
and
redemption
which
Christ
hath
purchased
for
the
Children
of
men
,
and
that
without
believing
,
no
man
can
have
part
or
fellowship
in
that
great
and
blessed
businesse
.
Sixtly
,
It
is
evident
from
the
Scriptures
,
that
God
in
the
act
of
every
mans
justification
doth
impute
or
account
righteousnesse
unto
him
,
or
rather
somwhat
for
or
instead
of
a
righteousnesse
(
the
Scripture
useth
both
expressions
)
by
meanes
of
which
imputation
the
person
justified
passeth
in
accompt
as
a
righteous
man
(
though
he
be
not
properly
or
perfectly
such
according
to
the
Law
)
and
is
invested
accordingly
with
those
great
priviledges
of
a
man
perfectly
righteous
,
deliverance
from
death
and
condemnation
,
and
acceptation
into
the
favor
of
God
.
The
reason
of
which
imputation
,
or
why
God
is
pleased
to
use
such
an
expression
of
righteousnesse
imputed
in
or
about
the
justification
of
a
sinner
seemes
to
be
this
;
the
better
to
satisfie
the
naturall
scruple
of
the
weake
and
feeble
consciences
of
men
,
who
can
hardly
conceive
or
thinke
of
a
justification
or
of
being
justified
(
especially
by
God
)
without
an
expresse
,
literall
,
and
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
.
Now
the
counsailes
and
purpose
of
God
in
the
Gospell
being
to
justifie
men
without
any
such
righteousnesse
(
being
a
righteousnesse
indeed
whereof
man
in
his
lapsed
condition
,
is
wholly
uncapable
)
the
better
to
salve
the
feares
of
the
consciences
touching
such
a
defect
,
and
to
prevent
and
stay
all
troublesome
thoughts
or
queries
that
might
arise
in
the
minds
of
men
,
who
when
they
heare
of
being
justified
,
are
still
ready
to
aske
within
themselves
,
but
where
is
the
righteousnesse
?
conceiving
a
legall
righteousnesse
to
be
as
necessary
to
a
justification
,
as
Isaak
conceived
of
a
Lamb
for
a
burnt
offering
,
Gen.
22
,
7.
)
He
(
GOD
I
meane
)
is
graciously
pleased
so
far
to
condiscend
to
men
in
Scripture
treatie
with
them
about
the
weighty
businesse
of
justification
,
as
(
in
effect
)
to
grant
and
say
unto
them
,
that
though
he
finds
not
any
proper
or
perfect
righteousnesse
in
them
,
no
such
righteousnesse
as
passeth
under
the
name
of
a
righteousnesse
with
them
,
yet
if
they
truely
believe
in
him
,
as
Abraham
did
,
this
believing
shall
in
the
consequences
of
it
,
be
as
good
,
as
a
perfect
or
compleate
righteousnesse
unto
them
,
or
that
he
will
impute
righteousnesse
unto
them
upon
their
believing
.
So
that
now
the
state
&
drift
of
the
Q.
SECT.
3
is
not
either
1
,
whether
Faith
without
an
Object
,
or
as
separated
from
Christ
,
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
for
such
a
Faith
(
doubtlesse
)
in
the
point
of
justification
was
never
dreamt
of
by
any
man
that
kept
his
wits
company
:
men
may
aswell
fancy
a
living
man
without
a
Soule
;
or
a
wiseman
without
his
wits
,
as
a
Faith
without
an
Object
:
much
lesse
was
ever
such
a
faith
conceived
by
any
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
.
Neither
2
,
is
it
any
part
of
the
intent
of
the
Question
to
enquire
,
whether
Faith
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
a
mans
justification
,
for
both
they
that
affirme
,
and
they
that
deny
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
deny
the
meritoriousnesse
of
faith
every
waies
:
however
it
is
true
,
that
they
that
would
seem
most
to
disclaime
it
,
and
cast
it
furthest
from
them
,
do
yet
in
some
of
their
most
beloved
tenets
draw
very
neare
unto
it
(
as
will
afterward
appeare
)
Neither
3
,
is
it
the
Question
,
whether
Faith
be
the
formall
cause
of
justification
,
that
is
,
whether
God
doth
justifie
a
man
with
his
Faith
,
as
a
Painter
makes
a
wall
white
with
whitenesse
,
or
a
Master
makes
his
Scholar
learned
with
knowledge
,
for
both
parties
make
the
forme
of
justification
to
be
somwhat
else
differing
from
Faith
(
contrary
to
that
which
is
conceived
to
be
the
genuine
tenet
of
Arminius
)
Nor
yet
4
,
doth
the
Question
make
any
quere
at
all
,
whether
Christ
be
the
sole
meritorious
cause
of
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
;
for
both
they
that
goe
on
the
right
hand
of
the
Question
,
and
they
that
goe
on
the
left
,
are
knit
together
in
the
same
mind
and
judgment
concerning
this
.
Neither
5
doth
the
Question
(
as
it
is
here
propounded
)
intend
any
dispute
at
all
,
whether
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
falling
in
with
the
passive
,
and
considered
in
conjunction
with
it
,
hath
any
influence
into
,
or
contributeth
any
thing
towards
the
Iustification
of
sinners
,
for
this
also
is
acknowledged
on
both
sides
,
(
at
least
by
the
greater
party
of
both
)
But
6
,
(
and
lastly
)
the
Question
in
precise
termes
is
this
whether
the
faith
of
him
that
truely
believes
in
Christ
,
or
whether
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
himselfe
,
that
is
,
the
obedience
which
Christ
performed
to
the
Morall
Law
,
consisting
partly
of
the
inward
habit
of
grace
,
and
righteous
dispositions
of
his
soule
,
partly
of
all
those
severall
and
particular
acts
of
righteousnesse
wherein
he
obeyed
,
be
in
the
letter
and
proprietie
of
it
,
that
which
God
imputes
to
a
believer
for
righteousnesse
,
or
unto
righteousnesse
in
his
Iustification
;
So
that
he
that
believes
,
is
not
righteous
onely
by
accompt
,
or
by
Gods
gracious
reputing
and
accepting
of
him
for
such
,
but
as
rigidly
,
literally
,
and
peremptorily
righteous
,
constituted
and
made
as
perfectly
,
as
compleatly
,
as
legally
righteous
,
as
Christ
himselfe
is
,
no
difference
at
all
betweene
them
,
quoad
veritatem
,
but
only
quoad
modum
,
the
justified
every
whit
as
righteous
as
the
justifier
,
both
righteous
with
the
selfe
same
individuall
righteousnesse
,
only
this
difference
betweene
the
one
and
the
other
,
the
justified
weares
it
as
put
upon
him
by
another
,
by
imputation
:
the
Justifier
weares
it
put
upon
him
by
himselfe
,
or
by
inherency
.
That
the
Scriptures
no where
countenanceth
any
such
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
as
this
,
I
trust
(
the
Spirit
of
truth
directing
and
assisting
)
to
make
manifest
in
the
sequell
of
this
discourse
,
and
to
give
good
measure
of
this
truth
unto
the
reader
,
heaped
up
,
and
pressed
downe
,
and
running
over
;
heaped
up
by
testimonies
from
the
Scriptures
themselves
;
pressed
down
by
the
weight
of
many
Arguments
and
demonstrations
;
running
over
,
with
the
cleare
approbation
of
many
Authors
,
learned
and
sound
,
and
every
way
greater
then
exception
.
Only
give
me
leave
here
to
mention
that
by
the
way
,
SECT.
3
which
may
prevent
many
mistakes
,
(
yea
and
offences
too
)
in
reading
the
writings
of
many
latter
Divines
,
(
especially
of
other
Churches
)
touching
this
point
of
imputation
.
If
we
take
the
phrase
of
imputing
Christs
righteousnesse
unproperly
,
out
of
the
usuall
and
formall
signification
of
it
(
as
Luther
and
Caelvin
,
and
other
Divines
of
the
reformed
Churches
sometimes
do
in
their
writings
)
viz.
for
the
giving
out
or
bestowing
(
as
it
were
)
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
including
his
obedience
aswell
passive
as
active
,
under
one
and
the
same
terme
of
righteousnesse
,
in
the
returne
of
it
,
i.
in
the
privileges
,
blessings
,
and
benefits
,
that
are
procured
and
purchased
by
it
for
men
,
so
a
believer
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
.
But
then
the
meaning
can
be
no
more
but
this
.
A
beleever
is
justified
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
God
justifies
a
beleever
for
Christs
righteousnesse
sake
,
and
not
for
any
righteousnesse
of
his
owne
:
Such
an
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
as
this
is
,
is
no
way
denyed
or
once
questioned
.
And
thus
such
passages
as
those
in
Calvin
.
Nos
gratis
justificat
Deus
,
Christi
obedientiam
nobis
imputando
.
i.
God
freely
justifieth
us
by
imputing
the
obedience
of
Christ
unto
us
:
and
againe
,
Homo
non
inse
ipso
justus
est
,
sed
quia
Christi
justitia
imputatione
cum
illo
communicatur
(
Instit.
l.
3
,
c.
17
,
ss.
23.
)
i.
A
man
is
not
righteous
in
himselfe
,
but
because
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
communicated
or
Imputed
unto
him
by
imputation
:
These
and
such
like
expressions
in
this
Author
,
are
to
be
interpreted
by
such
passages
as
these
(
which
are
frequent
also
in
the
same
Author
,
Christus
suaobedientia
gratiam
nobis
apud
Patrem
acquifivit
&
promeritus
est
(
Instit.
l.
2
,
c.
17.
ss.
30.
)
1.
Christ
by
his
obedience
,
procured
and
merited
for
us
grace
or
favor
with
God
the
Father
.
And
againe
,
l.
3
,
c.
14.
ss
17.
Christus
per
suam
obedientiam
nobis
justitiam
acquisivit
.
i.
Christ
by
his
obedience
procured
or
purchased
righteousnesse
for
us
.
And
againe
in
Gal.
3
,
6.
Omnes
istae
locutiones
peraequè
valent
,
justificari
nos
Dei
gratia
,
Christum
esse
justitiam
nostram
justitiam
,
morte
&
resurrectione
Christi
nobis
acquisitā
&c.
i.
All
such
expressions
as
these
import
the
same
thing
,
that
we
are
justified
by
the
grace
of
God
,
that
Christ
is
our
righteousnes
,
that
righteousnes
was
procured
for
us
by
the
death
and
resurrection
of
Christ
&c.
By
al
which
passages
and
many
more
of
like
Importance
,
that
might
be
produced
out
of
the
same
Author
,
it
is
fully
evident
,
that
when
he
mentioneth
any
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
Iustification
,
his
meaning
is
only
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
meaning
chiefly
his
passive
obedience
or
righteousnesse
,
haply
not
excluding
his
active
)
is
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
Iustification
and
hath
procured
and
purchased
this
for
us
at
Gods
hand
,
that
upon
our
believing
wee
should
be
accompted
righteous
by
him
,
or
(
which
is
but
the
same
)
that
our
Faith
should
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
to
us
.
To
which
purpose
hee
speakes
yet
more
significantly
and
expressely
in
the
place
last
mentioned
in
Gal.
3
,
6.
Quum
autom
justitiam
in
se
repositam
non
habeant
homines
,
imputatione
hanc
adipiscuntur
.
i.
Men
not
having
any
righteousnesse
lodged
●n
themselves
they
obtaine
it
by
imputation
,
which
Imputation
he
thus
explicates
and
interprets
,
quia
Deus
fidem
illis
fert
acceptam
pro
justitia
:
because
(
saith
he
)
God
doth
Impute
or
accompt
their
faith
unto
them
for
righteousnesse
.
Divers
like
passages
might
be
drawne
together
out
of
other
Authors
,
which
must
be
seasoned
with
the
same
salt
of
Interpretation
,
to
be
made
savory
and
meete
for
Spirituall
nourishment
.
In
the
Homilies
of
our
owne
Church
,
SECT.
4
there
are
some
passages
that
mention
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
Iustification
,
for
the
genuine
sense
whereof
,
if
we
consult
with
the
eleventh
Article
of
Religion
(
which
is
concerning
Iustification
,
and
is
framed
with
all
possible
exactnesse
this
way
,
that
so
few
words
are
capable
of
)
that
will
directly
lead
us
to
the
same
Interpretation
of
them
:
we
are
accompted
righteous
before
God
(
saith
our
Article
)
only
for
the
merit
of
our
Lord
and
Saviour
Iesus
Christ
by
faith
,
and
not
for
our
owne
works
or
deservings
.
Where
●
,
it
is
to
be
observed
that
we
are
not
said
to
be
constituted
and
made
righteous
before
God
in
Iustification
(
though
such
an
expression
may
in
a
sense
be
admitted
)
but
only
that
we
are
accompted
or
reputed
such
.
2.
It
is
not
said
,
that
we
are
accounted
righteous
with
the
righteousnesse
of
our
Lord
and
Saviour
,
no
nor
yet
with
his
merits
,
but
only
thus
,
we
are
accounted
righteous
before
God
,
only
for
the
merit
of
our
Lord
by
Faith
.
i.
The
merit
of
Christ
or
of
his
righteousnesse
,
hath
so
farre
prevaled
with
God
on
our
behalfe
,
that
by
or
upon
our
Faith
we
shall
be
accounted
righteous
before
him
;
which
(
in
effect
)
is
the
same
truth
we
maintaine
,
viz.
that
God
for
Christs
sake
or
Christs
merits
sake
,
doth
impute
our
faith
for
righteousnesse
unto
us
,
requiring
nothing
more
at
our
hands
for
Iustification
.
And
thus
Musculus
expresseth
himselfe
roundly
,
Fides
reputatur
in
justitiam
propter
Christum
:
Faith
is
accounted
for
righteousnesse
for
Christs
sake
:
And
againe
,
Commendata
debet
esse
haec
fides
&c.
quam
constituit
credentibus
in
Christum
propter
ipsum
,
justitiae
loco
imputare
(
Loc.
Com.
de
Iustif
.
sect
5
)
i.
This
faith
ought
to
be
esteemed
of
us
,
&c.
which
God
purposeth
for
Christs
sake
to
impute
for
righteousnesse
to
those
that
beleeve
in
him
.
So
Luther
also
,
ad
Gal.
3.6
.
Deus
reputat
istam
imperfectam
fidem
ad
justitiam
perfectam
propter
Christum
.
i.
God
for
Christs
sake
accounts
this
imperfect
faith
,
for
perfect
righteousnesse
.
And
Chamier
calls
remission
of
sinnes
that
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
unto
us
.
Remissio
peccatorum
est
justitia
imputatat
.
3
,
l.
21.
c.
19.
ss.
10.
And
Vrsinus
:
Idem
sunt
justificatio
&
remissio
peccatorum
.
Cat.
part
2.
Qu.
60
,
ss.
3.
Therefore
wheresoever
,
whether
in
the
Homilies
of
our
own
Church
,
or
in
other
Authors
,
we
meet
with
any
such
expression
,
as
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
in
Iustification
,
we
must
not
understand
this
righteousnesse
in
the
Letter
,
proprietie
,
or
formalitie
of
it
,
but
in
the
Spirit
,
or
merit
of
it
,
to
be
imputed
,
Iustificamur
per
Iustitiam
Christi
,
non
personae
,
qua
ipse
est
vestitus
,
sed
meriti
,
quae
suos
vestit
,
nobis
imputatam
.
Dr.
Prideaux
Lect.
5
,
ss.
11.
And
this
manner
of
speech
,
to
put
the
name
of
a
thing
in
the
proprietie
of
it
,
instead
of
the
valew
,
worth
,
benefit
or
returne
of
it
,
is
both
usuall
and
familiar
,
in
ordinary
passage
of
discourse
amongst
us
,
and
very
frequent
in
the
Scriptures
.
When
we
say
a
Merchant
grew
rich
by
such
or
such
a
Commoditie
,
our
meaning
is
,
that
he
grew
rich
by
the
game
or
returne
he
made
of
the
commodity
:
He
may
be
enriched
by
the
Commodity
,
and
yet
have
never
a
wh●t
of
it
with
him
,
or
under
his
hand
.
So
when
we
say
such
a
man
grew
rich
by
his
place
or
Office
,
our
meaning
plainly
is
but
this
,
that
he
grew
rich
by
such
gaines
or
matters
of
profit
as
his
place
or
Office
afforded
him
;
we
do
not
meane
,
that
his
place
or
Office
it self
was
his
riches
.
So
may
it
be
said
,
that
we
are
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
and
yet
not
have
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
upon
us
by
imputation
or
otherwise
,
but
only
a
righteousnesse
procured
or
purchased
by
it
,
really
and
essentially
differing
from
it
,
viz.
remission
of
sinnes
(
as
will
appeare
in
due
time
.
)
Thus
in
the
Scriptures
themselves
,
there
is
no
figure
or
forme
of
speech
more
frequent
,
then
to
name
the
thing
it selfe
in
the
propriety
of
it
,
in
stead
of
the
fruite
or
effect
of
it
,
good
or
bad
,
benefit
or
losse
,
vantage
or
disadvantage
,
merit
,
or
demerit
of
it
.
Thus
Job
33
,
26.
God
is
said
to
render
unto
man
his
righteousnesse
,
i.
The
fruite
or
benefit
of
his
righteousnesse
,
in
the
favor
of
GOD
,
and
manifestation
of
it
,
in
his
deliverance
and
restauration
:
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
in
the
propriety
of
it
,
cannot
be
rendred
unto
him
.
So
Ephe.
6
,
8.
Whatsoever
good
thing
any
man
doth
,
the
same
shall
he
receive
of
the
Lord
.
i.
he
shall
receive
benefit
and
consideration
from
God
for
it
.
So
Revel.
15
,
12.
Here
is
the
patience
of
the
Saints
,
and
c.
13
,
10.
Here
is
the
patience
and
faith
of
the
Saints
,
i
,
Here
is
the
benefit
and
unspeakable
reward
of
the
patience
and
faith
of
the
Saints
to
be
seene
,
when
the
Beast
and
all
that
worship
him
,
or
adhere
to
him
shall
be
tormented
in
fire
and
brimstone
for
evermore
,
and
those
that
have
constantly
suffered
for
not
worshiping
of
him
,
shal
be
delivered
from
drinking
of
that
bitter
cup.
So
again
,
So
worke
is
often
put
for
the
wages
due
to
it
.
Levit.
19
,
13.
Iob
7
,
2.
Ior.
22
,
13
Esa.
49.4
.
&c.
Psal.
128
,
2.
Thou
shalt
eate
the
labor
of
thy
hands
,
that
is
,
the
fruite
of
this
labour
.
So
on
the
other
hand
,
Heb.
9
,
28.
it
is
said
of
Christ
,
that
to
those
that
looke
for
him
he
shall
appeare
the
second
time
without
sinne
:
that
is
,
without
the
guilt
or
punishment
of
sinne
charged
upon
him
,
for
otherwise
,
if
we
take
sinne
in
the
formall
and
proper
signification
of
it
,
there
wil
be
no
difference
implied
betweene
his
first
and
second
appearance
,
in
as
much
as
he
was
as
free
from
the
defilement
or
pollution
of
sin
in
his
first
appearing
,
as
he
can
or
shal
be
in
his
second
.
So
Ezech.
16
,
58.
Thou
hast
borne
thy
lewdnesse
and
thine
abhominations
(
saith
the
Lord
)
viz.
in
punishments
or
judgments
answerable
to
them
.
So
1
Kings
8
,
32.
To
bring
his
way
upon
his
head
,
that
is
,
the
punishment
he
hath
deserved
by
his
way
of
sinne
.
So
(
to
let
passe
many
other
instances
of
like
construction
)
Gen.
19
,
15.
Least
you
be
destroyed
in
the
iniquity
of
the
Citty
;
that
is
,
in
that
judgement
or
punishment
that
fell
upon
the
Citty
by
meanes
of
the
iniquity
of
it
.
In
such
a
construction
of
speech
as
the
holy
ghost
himselfe
useth
in
these
and
many
such
like
passages
in
the
Scripture
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
Active
and
Passive
)
may
be
said
to
be
the
righteousnesse
by
which
we
are
justified
,
or
which
is
imputed
unto
us
in
our
justification
,
and
not
in
any
other
.
Wherefore
(
to
draw
towards
a
close
of
this
first
Chapter
,
and
withall
to
give
a
little
more
light
,
SECT.
5
that
it
may
be
seene
cleare
to
the
bottome
,
both
what
we
affirme
,
and
what
we
deny
,
in
the
question
propounded
.
)
i
,
when
we
affirme
the
faith
of
him
that
beleeveth
,
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnes
,
the
meaning
is
not
either
I
,
that
it
should
be
imputed
in
respect
of
any
thing
it
hath
from
a
man
himselfe
,
or
as
it
is
a
mans
owne
act
:
nor
yet
2.
in
respect
of
any
thing
it
hath
from
God
himselfe
,
or
from
the
Spirit
of
God
in
the
production
or
raising
of
it
in
the
soule
,
(
though
it
be
true
it
requires
the
lighting
downe
of
the
Almighty
arme
of
God
upon
the
soule
to
raise
it
)
Neither
3
,
See
this
further
opened
and
proved
in
the
second
part
of
this
Discourse
.
Cap.
2.
ss.
17.
Is
it
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
respect
of
the
Object
,
or
because
it
layeth
hold
upon
Christ
,
or
Christs
righteousness●
,
(
though
it
be
true
also
that
that
faith
that
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
must
of
necessity
lay
hold
upon
Christ
,
and
no
other
faith
is
capable
of
this
Imputation
besides
)
because
if
faith
should
justifie
or
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
as
it
layes
hold
upon
Christ
,
it
should
justifie
out
of
the
Inherent
dignitie
and
worth
of
it
,
and
by
vertue
of
that
which
is
naturall
and
intrinsecall
to
it
,
there
being
nothing
that
can
be
conceived
more
naturall
or
essentiall
unto
faith
,
then
to
lay
hold
upon
Christ
,
this
is
the
very
life
and
soule
of
it
,
and
that
which
gives
it
its
specificall
being
and
subsistence
:
Therefore
to
make
the
Object
of
FAITH
as
such
,
the
precise
and
formall
ground
of
the
Imputation
of
it
,
is
to
make
hast
into
the
middest
of
Samaria
,
whilst
men
are
confident
they
are
travailing
towards
Dothan
:
It
is
the
giving
the
right
hand
of
fellowship
to
the
Romish
Iustification
,
which
makes
faith
the
meritorious
cause
of
it
(
in
part
)
.
But
4
and
lastly
,
when
with
the
Scripture
we
affirme
,
that
faith
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
our
meaning
is
simply
and
plainely
this
,
that
as
God
in
the
first
Covenant
of
workes
,
required
an
absolut
and
through
obedience
to
the
whol
law
with
continuance
in
all
things
,
for
every
mans
Iustification
,
which
perfect
obedience
,
had
it
beene
performed
,
had
beene
a
perfect
righteousnesse
to
the
performer
,
and
so
would
have
justified
him
.
So
now
in
the
New
Covenant
of
grace
,
God
requires
nothing
of
any
man
for
his
justification
,
but
only
faith
in
his
Sonne
;
which
faith
shal
be
as
a
vaileable
and
effectuall
unto
him
for
his
justification
,
as
a
perfect
righteousnesse
should
have
beene
under
the
first
Covenant
:
this
is
that
which
is
meant
when
faith
is
said
to
be
Imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
which
is
nothing
but
that
which
is
generally
taught
by
Divines
both
ancient
and
moderne
:
Sic
decretum
dicit
à
Deo
,
ut
cessante
lege
,
Solam
fidem
gratia
Dei
posceret
ad
salutem
.
Ambrosius
in
Rom.
4.
that
is
,
the
Apostle
saying
that
to
him
that
believeth
,
his
faith
is
Imputed
for
righteousnes
,
affirmeth
,
that
God
hath
so
decreed
,
that
the
Law
ceasing
,
the
grace
of
God
will
require
(
of
men
)
only
faith
to
salvation
.
And
againe
,
upon
Ch.
9
,
of
the
same
Epistle
,
Sola
fides
posita
est
ad
salutem
,
onely
faith
is
appointed
or
ordained
to
salvation
.
Calvin
writing
upon
Rom.
10
,
8.
hath
words
of
the
same
importance
,
and
somewhat
more
cleare
and
full
,
Ex
hac
distinctionis
nota
,
colligimus
,
sicutilex
opera
exigit
,
sic
Evangelium
nihil
aliud
postulare
,
nisi●ut
fidem
afferant
homines
,
ad
recipiendam
Dei
gratiam
.
that
is
,
From
this
distinction
we
gather
,
that
as
the
Law
required
workes
,
so
the
Gospell
requires
nothing
else
,
but
that
men
bring
faith
to
receive
the
grace
of
God
.
If
God
requires
Faith
in
the
Gospel
for
the
same
end
for
which
he
required
wor●●s
or
perfect
righteousnes
in
the
Law
:
it
necessarily
followes
,
that
he
should
impute
this
faith
for
that
righteousnes
,
that
is
,
accept
it
from
men
upon
the
same
termes
(
in
respect
of
justification
)
and
bestow
the
same
favors
,
rewards
,
and
priviledges
upon
the
tender
of
it
,
that
should
have
beene
given
unto
men
,
in
regard
of
that
legall
righteousnes
,
had
it
beene
fulfilled
:
otherwise
he
should
require
it
for
such
an
end
,
or
upon
such
term's
as
he
would
refuse
to
make
good
unto
it
,
when
the
creature
hath
exhibited
it
and
tendred
it
unto
him
;
to
require
it
for
righteousnes
,
or
instead
of
righteousnes
,
and
not
to
accept
it
for
righteousnes
,
when
it
is
brought
unto
him
,
would
be
as
apparant
a
breach
of
Covenant
with
God
,
as
it
would
be
in
a
rich
Creditor
that
should
compound
and
agree
with
his
poore
Debtors
for
twelve
pence
in
the
pound
,
(
or
the
like
)
but
when
they
brought
the
money
to
him
,
should
refuse
to
take
it
upon
any
such
termes
,
or
to
discharge
them
of
their
debt
,
and
give
them
out
their
bands
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
6
when
we
deny
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
in
Justification
,
we
neither
deny
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
in
it selfe
,
we
rather
suppose
and
establish
it
;
Neither
2
do
we
deny
the
absolute
necessity
of
it
,
both
to
the
Justification
and
salvation
of
a
sinner
:
Neither
3
,
do
we
deny
a
meritorious
efficiency
or
causality
in
this
righteousnes
,
in
respect
of
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
:
but
verily
believe
and
conceive
,
that
God
justifieth
all
that
are
justified
,
not
simply
and
barely
for
Christs
sake
,
or
for
his
righteousnes
sake
(
for
a
man
may
do
a
thing
for
his
sake
whom
he
much
loves
and
respects
,
though
he
hath
not
otherwise
deserved
it
at
his
hands
)
but
for
the
merits
sake
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
there
being
a
full
and
reall
consideration
in
this
righteousnes
of
Christ
(
I
meane
his
death
or
passive
righteousnes
chiefly
)
why
God
should
justifie
those
that
believe
in
him
.
But
4
,
(
and
lastly
)
that
which
we
deny
in
denying
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
,
is
this
,
that
God
should
looke
upon
a
believing
sinner
in
his
Iustification
,
and
account
of
him
as
one
that
had
himselfe
don
all
that
Christ
did
in
obedience
to
the
Morall
Law
,
and
hereupon
pronounce
or
account
him
righteous
,
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
that
God
should
Impute
unto
him
those
particular
acts
of
obedience
which
Christ
performed
●
the
nature
and
proprietie
of
them
,
so
that
he
should
stand
as
righteous
before
God
,
as
Christ
himselfe
,
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
righteous
with
the
selfe
same
righteousnesse
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
and
so
God
make
himselfe
countable
unto
him
for
such
obedience
imputed
,
in
as
great
matters
of
reward
as
he
would
have
beene
for
the
like
obedience
personally
performed
by
himselfe
:
In
a
word
,
this
is
that
which
we
deny
,
&
this
is
that
which
we
affirme
concerning
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
in
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
,
that
God
cloaths
no
man
with
the
letter
of
it
,
but
every
man
that
believes
with
the
Spirit
of
it
,
that
is
,
that
this
righteousnes
of
Christ
is
not
that
that
is
imputed
unto
any
man
for
righteousnes
,
but
is
that
for
which
righteousnes
is
imputed
to
every
man
that
believeth
.
A
Justified
person
may
in
such
a
sense
be
said
to
be
cloathed
with
Christs
righteousnes
,
as
Pauls
necessities
were
relieved
&
supplied
by
his
hands
,
Act.
20
,
34.
These
hands
(
saith
he
)
have
ministred
unto
my
necessities
.
PAVL
neither
eate
his
fingers
,
nor
spun
out
the
flesh
of
his
hands
into
cloathing
,
and
yet
was
both
fed
and
cloathed
with
them
;
so
may
a
believer
be
said
to
be
cloathed
with
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
and
yet
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
it selfe
not
be
his
cloathing
,
but
only
that
which
procured
this
cloathing
unto
him
;
and
so
Calvin
calls
that
cloathing
of
righteousnes
wherewith
a
beleever
is
clad
in
his
justification
,
justitiam
morte
&
resurrectione
Christi
acquisitam
,
a
righteousnes
procured
or
purchased
by
the
death
and
refurrection
of
Christ
:
This
righteousnes
of
Christ
may
be
said
to
be
the
righteousnes
of
a
beleever
in
such
a
construction
of
speech
,
as
the
knowledg
of
God
and
of
Christ
is
said
to
be
eternall
life
(
Ioh.
17
,
3.
)
viz
in
way
of
causalitie
not
in
the
formalitie
of
it
:
And
againe
,
the
righteousnesse
of
a
Beleever
in
his
Iustification
,
may
be
termed
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
such
a
sense
,
as
the
favor
of
God
in
deliverance
out
of
trouble
,
is
called
a
mans
righteousnesse
,
Iob
33
,
26.
or
as
a
bond
servant
under
the
Law
is
said
by
God
himselfe
to
be
his
Masters
money
,
Exo.
21
,
21.
because
he
was
bought
with
his
money
:
or
as
the
Nation
and
people
of
the
Jewes
is
often
in
the
Scriptures
called
Iacob
,
they
were
not
Iacob
in
the
proprietie
of
his
person
,
but
in
his
discent
and
propagation
.
So
may
the
righteousnesse
of
a
Beleever
be
called
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
viz.
in
the
fructification
of
it
,
because
it
is
a
righteousnesse
descended
from
it
,
and
issuing
(
as
it
were
)
out
of
the
loynes
of
it
.
What
hath
beene
affirmed
,
and
what
hath
been
denyed
in
the
Question
:
We
come
now
to
prove
and
to
demonstrate
the
truth
of
both
.
1.
from
the
authority
of
the
Scriptures
.
2.
from
the
grounds
of
reason
:
as
for
the
third
kind
of
proofe
or
confirmation
,
consent
of
Authors
,
we
shall
not
assigne
a
peculiar
place
for
that
by
it selfe
,
but
enterlace
our
other
proofes
occasionally
with
such
testimonyes
,
as
we
have
received
from
learned
and
judicious
men
for
confirmation
of
the
point
to
be
discussed
the
greatest
part
whereof
notwithstanding
,
you
shall
meete
with
in
the
second
and
fift
Chapters
.
CAP.
II.
Wherein
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
is
proved
from
the
Scriptures
,
and
the
interpretation
of
those
Scriptures
confirmed
both
by
reason
and
authority
aswell
of
ancient
as
moderne
Divines
.
WHat
it
is
,
that
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
Iustification
,
all
the
wisdome
or
learning
under
Heaven
,
is
not
so
fit
or
able
to
determine
,
as
the
Holy
Ghost
speaking
in
the
Scripture
;
being
the
great
Secretary
of
Heaven
,
and
privie
to
all
the
waies
and
counsells
of
God
;
and
therefore
there
is
none
to
him
to
take
up
any
difference
,
or
to
comprimise
betweene
the
Controverters
about
any
Subject
in
Religion
.
All
the
difficulty
and
question
is
,
because
though
he
speaks
upon
the
house
top
,
yet
many
times
and
many
things
he
interprets
in
the
eare
:
All
the
Christian
world
,
either
know's
,
or
readily
may
know
,
what
he
speakes
in
the
Scriptures
,
but
what
his
meaning
and
intent
is
in
many
things
there
delivered
,
he
leaveth
unto
men
to
debate
and
make
out
amongst
them
:
To
some
indeed
he
reveales
the
secret
of
his
counsaile
,
the
Spirit
of
his
Letter
,
in
some
particulars
,
but
because
these
are
not
marked
in
the
forehead
,
therefore
their
thoughts
and
apprehensions
(
though
the
true
begotten
of
the
spirit
of
truth
)
are
yet
in
common
esteeme
,
but
like
other
mens
,
till
God
himselfe
shall
please
to
make
the
difference
by
causing
a
clearer
light
of
evidence
and
conviction
to
arise
upon
them
;
yea
many
times
the
nearer
the
truth
,
the
further
off
from
the
approbation
of
many
,
and
sometimes
even
of
those
that
are
the
greatest
pretenders
to
the
truth
.
Foure
things
there
are
especially
,
SECT.
2
that
much
commend
an
interpretation
,
when
they
are
found
in
conjunction
,
and
establish
it
like
that
King
upon
his
Throne
,
Prov.
30
31.
against
whom
there
is
no
riseing
up
.
First
if
the
Letter
or
Grammar
of
the
Scripture
will
fairely
and
strongly
beare
it
.
Secondly
,
If
the
scope
of
the
place
will
close
directly
and
entirely
with
it
.
Thirdly
,
If
the
interpretation
that
is
set
up
against
it
,
cannot
stand
before
the
circumstance
of
the
context
about
it
.
Fourthly
,
and
lastly
,
when
the
judgment
of
able
,
learned
,
and
unpartiall
men
,
is
found
in
perfect
concurrence
with
it
.
If
these
considerations
be
sufficient
to
furnish
out
an
interpretation
with
authority
and
power
,
then
shall
we
need
no
more
Scriptures
to
vindicate
the
innocencie
of
our
affirmative
,
viz.
that
Faith
is
that
which
is
imputed
by
God
for
righteousnesse
in
Iustification
(
the
truth
of
our
negative
inseparably
accompanying
it
,
viz.
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
imputed
)
but
only
that
one
Chapter
,
Rom.
4.
For
the
first
,
SECT.
3
the
Letter
of
this
Scripture
speakes
what
we
affirme
plainly
,
and
speakes
no
parable
about
it
,
yea
,
it
speakes
it
once
and
twice
,
yea
,
it
speakes
it
the
third
and
fourth
time
,
and
repenteth
not
.
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnes
,
v.
3.
Againe
,
but
to
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
beleeveth
in
him
,
that
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
his
Faith
is
counted
unto
him
for
righteousnes
.
ver.
5.
So
againe
,
We
say
that
Faith
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnesse
ver.
9.
And
yet
againe
,
And
therefore
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
v.
22.
The
same
phrase
and
expression
is
used
also
ver.
23
,
24.
Certainly
there
is
not
any
truth
in
Religion
,
not
any
Article
of
the
Christian
beliefe
,
that
can
boast
of
the
Letter
of
the
Scripture
,
more
full
,
expresse
,
and
pregnant
for
it
.
What
is
maintained
in
this
discourse
concerning
the
imputation
of
Faith
,
hath
all
the
authority
and
countenance
from
the
Scriptures
,
that
word
can
lightly
give
:
whereas
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
that
sense
which
is
magnified
by
many
)
hath
not
the
least
reliefe
,
either
from
any
expresse
sound
of
words
or
sight
of
Letter
in
the
Scriptures
.
Secondly
,
for
the
scope
of
the
place
,
this
also
rejoyceth
in
the
interpretation
given
,
viz.
SECT.
4
that
the
word
FAITH
,
should
be
taken
properly
and
in
the
Letter
,
in
all
those
passages
cited
,
and
from
tropes
and
metonymies
,
it
turneth
away
.
Apparent
it
is
to
a
circumspect
Reader
,
that
the
Apostle's
maine
intent
and
drift
in
this
whole
discourse
of
justification
(
extending
from
the
first
Chapter
of
the
Epistle
to
some
Chapters
following
)
was
to
hedg
up
with
thornes
(
as
it
were
)
that
false
way
of
Iustification
,
which
lay
through
works
and
legall
performances
,
and
so
to
put
men
by
from
so
much
as
attempting
to
goe
or
seek
that
way
:
and
withall
to
open
and
discover
the
true
way
of
justification
,
wherein
men
might
not
faile
to
atteyne
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
(
as
he
speaks
elsewhere
)
before
God
:
that
is
(
in
plaine
speech
(
to
make
known
unto
them
what
they
must
doe
,
and
what
God
requireth
of
them
,
to
their
justification
,
and
what
he
will
accept
at
their
hands
this
way
,
and
what
not
.
As
our
Saviours
answer
was
to
the
Jews
,
asking
him
what
they
should
do
to
worke
the
works
of
GOD
,
meaning
for
their
justification
:
This
(
saith
he
)
is
the
worke
of
God
(
i.
All
the
workes
of
God
requireth
of
you
for
such
a
purpose
)
that
you
beleeve
in
him
,
whom
he
hath
sent
,
Iohn
6
,
28
,
29.
So
that
that
which
God
precisely
requires
of
men
to
their
justification
,
instead
of
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
is
FAITH
,
or
to
beleeve
(
in
the
proper
and
formall
signification
)
He
doth
not
require
of
us
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
for
our
Iustification
,
this
he
required
of
Christ
himselfe
for
it
,
that
which
he
requires
of
us
for
this
purpose
,
is
our
Faith
in
Christ
,
himselfe
,
not
in
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
in
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
(
as
hereafter
is
shewed
)
.
Therefore
for
Paul
to
have
certified
or
said
unto
men
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
should
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
them
,
had
been
quite
beside
his
scope
and
purpose
in
this
place
,
which
was
plainly
and
directly
this
(
as
hath
been
said
)
to
make
known
unto
men
,
the
counsel
and
good
pleasure
of
God
concerning
that
which
was
to
be
performed
by
themselves
(
though
not
by
their
owne
strength
)
to
their
justification
,
which
he
affirmeth
from
place
to
place
,
to
be
nothing
else
,
but
their
Faith
,
or
beleeving
.
To
have
said
thus
unto
them
,
that
they
must
be
justified
by
Christ
,
or
by
Christ's
righteousnesse
,
and
withall
not
to
have
plainly
signified
,
what
it
is
that
God
requires
of
them
,
to
give
them
part
and
fellowship
in
that
righteousnesse
,
or
justification
which
is
by
Christ
,
and
without
which
they
could
not
be
justified
,
had
bin
rather
to
cast
a
snare
upon
them
,
then
to
have
opened
a
dore
of
life
and
peace
unto
them
.
And
therefore
he
is
carefull
,
when
he
speakes
of
Iustification
,
or
redemption
by
Christ
often
to
mention
Faith
,
as
the
meanes
whereby
this
redemption
is
communicated
unto
men
.
See
Rom.
3
,
25.
Rom.
5
,
1
,
2.
By
the
light
of
which
,
and
such
like
expressions
,
the
sense
and
meaning
of
those
Scriptures
are
to
be
ruled
wherein
justification
or
Redemption
by
Christ
are
taught
,
without
any
expresse
mention
of
Faith
,
as
Rom.
3
,
24.
Rom.
5.9
,
&c.
as
likewise
of
those
wherein
justification
by
Faith
is
affirmed
,
without
expresse
mention
of
Christ
,
or
any
thing
done
or
suffered
by
him
.
As
Rom.
3
,
28.30
.
And
here
by
the
way
,
I
cannot
but
reflect
a
little
upon
the
unsavorinesse
and
inconsideratnesse
of
their
conceipt
,
who
to
avoyd
the
strength
of
the
interpretation
given
of
these
Scriptures
,
will
needs
force
themselves
(
contrary
to
all
Interpreters
both
ancient
and
moderne
,
that
I
have
yet
met
with
,
and
most
apparantly
contrary
to
the
most
apparant
scope
of
the
Apostle
,
throughout
this
whole
disputation
,
)
to
suppose
that
the
Apostle
doth
not
here
speake
of
that
Faith
of
Abraham
,
whereby
he
was
justified
or
made
personally
righteous
before
God
,
but
of
such
a
Faith
only
,
as
God
did
approve
of
and
commend
in
him
,
and
impute
unto
him
as
a
particular
act
of
righteousnesse
,
in
such
a
sense
as
that
act
of
Phineas
mentioned
Num
,
25
,
8.
is
sayd
to
have
beene
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnesse
,
Psal
.
106
,
31.
Alas
Paul
was
now
in
the
heat
of
his
Dispute
,
concerning
the
great
and
weighty
businesse
of
Iustification
,
travailing
as
it
were
in
birth
with
his
Romans
,
t●ll
he
had
convincingly
satisfied
them
from
the
Scriptures
,
that
the
way
of
Iustification
was
not
by
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
but
by
Faith
in
Iesus
Christ
.
Now
how
importune
,
and
impertinent
to
this
designe
had
it
beene
for
him
to
interpose
a
whole
Chapter
only
to
prove
that
,
which
was
never
doubted
of
nor
questioned
by
any
?
To
wit
,
that
Abraham
did
well
in
believing
God
,
and
was
approved
by
him
for
it
.
His
businesse
here
was
not
to
argue
what
was
lawfull
,
and
what
was
unlawfull
,
or
whether
Abraham
was
justifiable
in
his
act
of
believing
God
.
But
to
demonstrate
and
shew
,
how
and
by
what
meanes
a
poore
miserable
sinner
,
might
come
to
be
justified
,
and
accounted
righteous
before
God
,
which
he
clearly
and
fully
demonstrates
to
be
by
way
of
Faith
or
beleeving
,
from
the
example
of
Abraham
,
whose
faith
was
by
God
himselfe
,
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
him
,
that
is
,
upon
and
by
the
meanes
of
his
Faith
he
was
looked
upon
by
God
as
a
righteous
man
.
But
the
conceit
against
which
we
now
argue
,
is
too
weake
to
beare
any
great
waight
of
confutation
.
If
that
yet
stickes
with
any
man
,
that
Abraham
having
believed
formerly
(
as
appeares
from
his
History
)
and
thereby
justifyed
,
should
be
said
to
be
justified
by
a
second
,
or
after
act
or
believing
.
I
answere
1.
Be
it
granted
that
Abraham
believed
,
and
was
thereby
justified
before
that
act
of
beleeving
,
whereunto
this
Testimony
is
subjoyn'd
,
that
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
Gen.
15
,
6
)
yet
doth
it
not
follow
,
that
this
testimony
should
be
precisely
limited
to
,
or
only
understood
of
that
particular
act
of
his
believing
,
whereunto
it
is
subjoyned
,
but
it
may
indifferently
relate
as
well
to
the
first
as
the
last
act
of
his
believing
,
(
yea
happily
rather
to
the
first
then
to
the
last
)
for
it
is
not
said
(
in
the
place
cited
)
that
Abraham
believed
the
Lord
in
this
particular
promise
now
made
or
renewed
unto
him
,
but
indefinitely
,
and
in
the
generall
,
that
Abraham
believed
or
had
believed
the
Lord
,
and
it
was
imputed
,
or
accounted
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
So
that
howsoever
Abraham
was
precisely
justified
by
the
first
act
of
a
sound
Faith
,
which
ever
he
put
forth
,
yet
the
testimony
or
record
of
his
justification
by
beleeving
might
be
suspended
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
till
his
Faith
became
more
conspicuous
,
and
was
further
manifested
.
Thus
Heb.
11
,
4.
the
testimony
of
Abels
righteousnesse
by
Faith
,
was
(
as
it
seemes
)
deferred
,
till
the
manifestation
of
his
Faith
,
by
offering
such
a
sacrifice
unto
God
as
he
did
:
whereas
it
cannot
be
thought
,
but
that
he
was
a
righteous
or
justified
person
,
and
that
by
meanes
of
his
Faith
,
before
the
offering
of
that
sacrifice
.
So
that
this
Objection
,
is
easily
answered
.
Besides
further
answere
might
be
,
that
the
intent
of
the
Holy
Ghost
in
this
testimony
and
passage
concerning
Abraham
,
was
not
to
shew
the
time
when
,
but
the
manner
or
meanes
how
and
whereby
he
was
justified
.
Now
all
succeeding
acts
of
justifying
Faith
as
justifying
(
for
there
are
many
acts
of
a
justifying
Faith
,
which
are
not
of
that
kind
of
act
,
wherby
such
a
Faith
justifieth
)
being
of
the
same
kind
and
nature
with
that
primary
and
first
act
of
beleeving
,
whereby
he
was
justified
,
may
in
sufficient
propriety
of
speech
have
the
effect
of
Iustification
ascribed
as
well
to
them
,
as
it
is
to
the
first
act
it selfe
.
As
suppose
a
man
hath
beene
a
true
beleever
in
God
through
Jesus
Christ
for
seven
yeares
together
,
during
which
space
he
hath
constantly
every
day
renewed
or
repeated
the
very
same
act
of
believing
,
wherby
he
was
at
the
first
of
a
sinner
made
righteous
,
this
mans
Iustification
or
making
righteous
,
may
according
to
the
frequent
tenor
of
Scripture
language
,
be
aswel
ascribed
to
any
of
these
after
acts
of
believing
,
as
to
the
first
of
all
,
it
being
usuall
with
Scripture
to
ascribe
effects
,
though
not
really
and
actually
effected
and
done
,
to
such
meanes
or
actions
of
men
,
which
are
apt
to
produce
and
effect
them
.
Thus
he
is
said
to
destroy
the
Temple
of
God
.
1
Cor.
3
,
16.
who
shall
do
any
thing
that
endanger
's
it
,
or
is
apt
to
destroy
it
.
The
like
expression
we
have
Romans
14
,
15
,
and
verse
20.
See
also
and
consider
Mat.
16
,
6.
Esther
8
,
7.
Rom.
24.
Mat
5
,
32.
with
other
like
places
without
number
.
Thirdly
,
SECT.
5
that
interpretation
which
is
set
up
against
it
,
and
which
contendeth
,
that
by
the
word
FAITH
,
or
BELEEVING
,
in
al
those
passages
cited
,
is
meant
,
not
Faith
properly
and
formally
understood
,
but
Faith
tropically
or
metonymically
,
that
is
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
clearely
overthrowne
by
many
considerations
and
passages
in
the
context
.
First
,
it
colour
's
not
with
any
appearance
or
likelyhood
of
truth
,
that
the
Apostle
in
the
great
and
weighty
point
of
justification
,
wherein
(
doubtlesse
)
he
desired
(
if
in
any
Subject
beside
)
to
speake
with
his
understanding
(
as
his
owne
phrase
is
)
that
is
,
that
what
he
himselfe
conceiveth
and
understand's
,
may
be
clearely
understood
by
others
,
should
time
after
time
,
in
one
place
after
another
,
without
ever
explaining
himselfe
throughout
the
whole
disputation
,
use
so
strange
and
harsh
,
and
uncouth
an
expression
or
figure
of
Speech
,
as
is
not
to
be
found
in
all
his
writings
,
nor
in
all
the
Scriptures
besides
.
To
say
that
Faith
,
or
beleeving
,
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
but
to
meane
,
that
indeed
it
is
not
Faith
,
but
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
that
is
imputed
,
must
needs
argue
the
speakers
designe
to
be
this
;
the
making
sure
that
his
meaning
should
not
get
out
at
his
mouth
.
If
Paul
should
manage
the
great
point
and
mystery
of
justification
,
in
such
language
and
phrase
of
speech
as
this
,
he
might
truely
say
of
what
he
had
said
herein
,
EDIDI
,
ET
NON
EDIDI
,
that
he
had
said
,
and
not
said
.
Secondly
,
it
is
evident
,
that
that
Faith
or
beleeveing
,
which
ver.
3.
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
is
opposed
to
works
or
working
ver.
5.
Now
betweene
Faith
properly
taken
,
and
workes
,
and
so
betweene
beleeving
and
working
,
there
is
a
constant
opposition
in
the
writings
of
this
Apostle
,
yea
and
reason
it selfe
demonstrates
an
opposition
betweene
them
(
as
occasion
will
be
to
shew
more
at
large
in
the
second
part
of
this
discourse
)
but
betweene
the
active
obedience
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
and
works
,
neither
doth
Paul
ever
make
opposition
,
neither
would
reason
have
suffered
him
to
have
done
it
.
Thirdly
,
it
is
said
,
ver.
5.
that
to
him
that
believeth
,
HIS
faith
is
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnesse
.
From
which
clause
it
is
evident
,
that
that
Faith
(
whatsoever
we
understand
by
it
)
which
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
is
HIS
,
that
is
,
somewhat
that
may
truely
and
properly
be
called
his
,
before
such
imputation
of
it
be
made
unto
him
.
Now
it
cannot
be
said
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
that
that
is
any
mans
,
before
the
imputation
of
it
be
made
unto
him
,
but
Faith
properly
taken
is
the
beleevers
,
before
it
be
imputed
(
at
least
in
order
of
nature
,
if
not
of
time
)
Therefore
by
Faith
,
which
is
here
said
to
be
imputed
,
cannot
be
meant
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Fourthly
,
SECT.
6
if
we
should
grant
a
trope
or
metonymie
in
this
place
,
so
that
by
FAITH
,
should
be
meant
the
Object
of
it
,
or
the
thing
that
is
to
be
beleeved
:
yet
wil
it
not
follow
from
hence
,
that
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
should
be
here
said
to
be
imputed
,
but
either
God
himselfe
,
or
the
promise
of
God
made
unto
Abraham
.
For
it
is
sayd
,
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
ver.
3.
not
that
he
beleeved
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
except
we
set
up
another
trope
to
maintaine
the
former
,
and
by
God
,
will
say
is
meant
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
would
be
,
not
a
trope
or
figure
,
but
rather
(
indeed
)
a
monster
of
speech
.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
here
said
or
meant
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
Yea
whereas
the
Object
of
Faith
,
as
justifying
,
is
expressed
with
great
varietie
of
words
and
termes
in
the
Scriptures
:
in
all
this
varietie
there
is
not
to
be
found
the
least
mention
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
As
if
the
holy
Ghost
foreseeing
the
kindling
of
this
false
fire
,
had
purposely
with-drawne
or
with-held
all
fuell
that
might
feed
it
.
Sometimes
Christ
in
person
is
made
the
Object
of
this
Faith
.
Ioh.
3
,
16.
—
that
whosoever
beleeveth
in
him
&c.
Sometimes
Christ
in
his
Doctrine
,
or
the
Doctrine
and
word
of
Christ
,
Ioh.
5
,
46.
Had
yee
beleeved
Moses
,
yee
would
have
beleeved
me
.
Sometimes
Christ
in
the
relation
of
his
person
:
and
that
either
as
he
stands
related
unto
God
,
as
his
Father
.
Ioh
20
31.
These
things
are
written
,
that
yee
might
beleeve
that
Iesus
is
the
Christ
the
Son
of
GOD.
Or
else
as
he
stands
related
to
those
ancient
promises
of
God
made
unto
the
Nation
of
the
Jewes
from
time
to
time
before
his
coming
in
the
flesh
,
concerning
a
Messia
to
be
given
or
sent
unto
them
.
Ioh.
8
24.
Except
yee
beleeve
that
I
am
he
,
you
shal
die
in
your
sins
.
Sometimes
th●r
aising
up
of
Christ
from
the
dead
,
is
made
the
Object
of
this
Faith
.
Rom.
10
,
9.
For
if
thou
shalt
confesse
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Iesus
,
and
shalt
beleeve
in
thy
heart
,
that
God
raised
him
up
from
the
dead
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
Sometimes
againe
.
God
himselfe
is
mentioned
as
the
Object
of
this
Faith
.
1
Pet.
1
,
21.
—
that
your
Faith
and
hope
might
be
in
God
.
and
Iohn
12
,
44.
He
that
beleeveth
on
me
,
beleeveth
not
on
me
,
but
on
him
that
sent
me
:
Besides
many
like
places
.
Lastly
,
(
to
forbeare
further
enumeration
of
particulars
in
this
kind
,
which
are
of
ready
observation
in
the
Scriptures
)
Sometimes
the
record
or
testimony
of
God
concerning
his
Son
,
is
made
the
Object
of
this
Faith
.
1
Iohn
5
,
10.
He
that
beleeveth
not
God
,
hath
made
him
a
liar
,
because
he
beleeved
not
the
record
God
witnessed
of
his
Son
,
&c.
In
all
this
varietie
or
diversitie
of
expressing
the
Object
of
Faith
as
justifying
,
there
is
no
sound
or
intimation
of
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
.
Not
but
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
and
ought
to
be
believed
,
as
well
as
other
things
that
are
revealed
and
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
yea
I
conceive
it
to
be
of
nearer
concernment
to
the
maine
,
to
beleeve
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
then
the
beleeving
of
many
other
things
besides
comprehended
in
the
Scriptures
aswell
as
it
.
But
one
principall
reason
,
why
it
should
not
be
numbred
or
reckoned
up
amongst
the
objects
of
Faith
as
justifying
,
may
(
with
great
probability
)
be
conceived
to
be
this
:
because
,
though
it
ought
to
be
,
and
cannot
but
be
beleeved
by
that
Faith
,
which
justifieth
,
yet
it
may
be
beleeved
also
by
such
a
Faith
,
which
is
so
far
from
justifying
,
that
it
denyeth
this
Christ
(
whose
righteousnesse
notwithstanding
it
beleeveth
and
acknowledgeth
)
to
be
the
Son
of
God
.
Thus
some
of
his
owne
Nation
the
Jewes
,
have
given
testimony
to
his
righteousnesse
and
innocency
,
who
yet
received
him
not
for
their
Messiah
,
nor
believed
him
to
be
God
.
And
this
is
the
frame
and
constitution
of
the
Turkish
Faith
(
for
the
most
part
)
concerning
him
at
this
day
.
Fiftly
,
SECT.
6
that
Faith
which
is
here
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
ver.
3.
is
that
Faith
by
which
he
beleeved
in
God
,
that
quickeneth
the
dead
,
and
calleth
the
things
that
are
not
as
if
they
were
,
ver.
17.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
can
in
no
tolerable
construction
,
or
congruitie
;
of
speech
,
be
called
that
Faith
,
by
which
Abraham
beleeved
in
God
that
quickeneth
the
dead
&c.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
that
Faith
,
that
is
here
said
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
.
Sixtly
,
that
Faith
which
was
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
ver.
3.
is
that
Faith
,
wherein
it
is
said
ver.
19.
that
Abraham
was
not
weak
,
and
is
opposed
,
to
doubting
of
the
promise
of
God
through
unbeliefe
,
ver.
20.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
conceived
to
be
that
,
wherein
Abraham
was
not
weake
,
neither
doth
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
carrie
any
opposition
with
it
,
to
a
doubting
of
the
promise
of
God
through
unbeliefe
,
being
a
thing
of
a
differing
kind
and
nature
from
it
.
But
betweene
Faith
properly
taken
or
a
firme
believing
,
and
a
doubting
through
unbeliefe
,
there
is
a
direct
&
perfect
opposition
.
Therefore
it
is
Faith
in
this
sense
,
and
not
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
that
is
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
.
Sevently
,
that
Faith
which
was
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
was
that
Faith
,
by
which
he
was
fully
assured
,
that
he
which
had
promised
,
was
able
also
to
doe
it
(
for
thus
it
is
described
,
ver.
21.
)
and
the
imputation
of
faith
so
described
,
is
plainly
affirmed
ver.
22.
and
therefore
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
not
capable
of
any
such
definition
or
description
,
as
this
,
that
by
it
Abraham
was
fully
assured
,
that
he
that
had
promised
,
was
also
able
to
performe
it
.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
not
that
,
that
was
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
Abraham
.
Eightly
,
that
which
shall
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
,
is
said
to
be
our
beleeving
on
him
,
that
raised
up
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
from
the
dead
.
v.
24.
But
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
is
not
our
believing
on
him
that
raised
up
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
from
the
dead
.
Therefore
it
cannot
be
that
,
that
is
either
said
or
meant
to
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnes
.
Ninthly
,
(
and
lastly
)
whereas
the
question
or
point
of
imputation
in
Iustification
,
is
handled
only
in
this
passage
of
Scripture
,
Rom.
4.
(
for
those
other
places
Gal.
3
,
and
Iam.
2
,
only
mention
it
,
but
insist
not
at
all
upon
any
declaration
or
explication
thereof
)
it
is
no
waies
probable
,
but
that
the
Apostle
should
speake
somewhat
distinctly
and
plainely
of
the
nature
of
it
here
.
Otherwise
he
might
seeme
rather
desirous
to
have
layd
a
stumbling
block
in
the
way
of
men
;
then
written
any
thing
for
their
learning
and
comfort
.
If
we
take
the
word
FAITH
or
BELEEVING
,
so
often
used
in
this
Chapter
,
in
the
proper
and
plaine
signification
of
it
,
for
that
Faith
whereby
a
man
beleeves
in
Christ
,
or
the
promise
of
God
concerning
Christ
,
then
the
tenor
of
the
discourse
is
as
cleare
as
the
day
,
and
full
of
light
:
the
streame
of
the
whole
Chapter
run's
limpid
and
untroubled
.
But
if
we
bring
in
a
tropicall
and
metonymicall
interpretation
,
and
by
Faith
,
will
needs
compell
Saint
Paul
to
meane
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
we
cloath
the
Sun
with
a
Sackcloath
,
and
turne
Pauls
perspicuitie
into
a
greater
obscuritie
,
then
any
light
in
the
Scripture
knoweth
well
how
to
comfort
or
relieve
.
The
word
FAITH
,
being
a
terme
frequently
used
in
the
Scripture
,
is
yet
never
found
to
signifie
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
the
Holy
Ghost
never
putting
this
word
into
that
sheath
:
neither
is
there
any
,
either
rule
in
Grammar
,
or
figure
in
Rhetorique
,
that
know's
how
to
salve
up
the
inconsistencie
of
such
an
interpretation
.
SECT.
8
If
it
be
objected
and
said
,
that
faith
in
the
Scripture
is
sometimes
put
for
the
object
of
faith
,
as
Gal.
3
,
23.
But
before
Faith
came
(
that
is
,
the
Doctrine
of
Faith
,
or
Christ
himselfe
the
object
of
Faith
)
we
were
kept
under
the
Law
.
So
Gal.
1
,
22.
He
preacheth
the
faith
,
which
sometimes
he
destroyed
.
&c.
and
may
be
so
used
with
as
good
proprietie
of
speech
,
as
hope
is
put
for
the
thing
or
things
hoped
for
(
which
is
an
expression
not
unusuall
in
the
Scriptures
.
)
To
this
I
answere
,
first
,
by
concession
,
that
true
it
is
,
the
name
of
the
faculty
is
sometimes
put
for
the
object
appropriated
to
it
:
neither
is
there
any
hardnes
or
cause
of
offence
or
mistake
in
such
an
expression
.
It
rather
add's
grace
&
comlinesse
to
the
sentence
wherein
it
is
used
,
if
it
be
used
seasonably
,
as
might
be
exemplified
by
severall
Scripture
instances
,
(
if
it
were
pertinent
)
.
But
secondly
,
by
way
of
opposition
I
answere
,
First
,
though
the
faculty
be
sometimes
put
for
the
Object
,
yet
the
act
seldome
(
or
never
)
to
my
remembrance
.
The
actor
exercise
of
the
grace
of
hope
,
is
never
put
for
the
things
hoped
for
,
but
hope
it selfe
is
sometimes
found
in
that
signification
.
As
Colos.
1
,
5.
for
the
hope
which
is
layed
up
for
you
in
the
Heaven
.
So
Tit.
2
,
13.
Looking
for
that
blessed
hope
,
&c.
Now
that
which
is
here
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
was
not
the
habit
or
grace
of
his
Faith
,
but
Abraham
beleeved
God
(
that
is
,
exercised
or
put
forth
an
act
of
Faith
,
&
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnes
.
So
that
though
faith
may
be
sometimes
put
for
the
object
of
Faith
,
yet
the
exercise
of
this
Faith
,
or
to
believe
,
is
never
put
for
it
.
Secondly
,
though
it
should
be
granted
,
that
aswell
the
act
it selfe
,
as
the
faculty
or
habit
,
may
be
sometimes
put
for
the
Object
,
yet
when
the
act
and
Object
have
been
named
together
,
and
the
act
expressed
and
specified
by
an
Object
proper
to
it
,
and
further
,
somewhat
immediatly
ascribed
to
this
act
under
that
consideration
(
all
which
is
plainly
seene
in
this
clause
,
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
)
in
this
case
to
conceive
or
affirme
,
that
what
is
so
ascribed
,
is
neither
ascribed
unto
the
act
it selfe
there
mentioned
(
which
is
here
,
Abrahams
beleeving
)
nor
unto
the
Object
mentioned
likewise
with
it
(
which
is
here
,
GOD
:
Abraham
beleeved
God
)
but
to
some
third
thing
really
differing
from
them
both
,
and
not
so
much
as
once
mentioned
or
named
in
all
the
discourse
(
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
once
named
throughout
this
whole
Chapter
,
no
nor
in
any
other
Chapter
neere
at
hand
,
either
antecedent
,
or
subsequent
)
what
is
this
but
to
turne
a
mans
back
upon
the
text
,
to
looke
out
an
interpretation
?
and
to
exchange
that
which
is
plainly
affirmed
,
with
what
is
not
so
much
as
obscurely
intimated
or
implied
?
and
to
make
the
Apostle
speake
as
man
never
spake
besides
,
not
for
wisdome
or
excellencie
of
speech
,
but
for
the
uncouth
abstrusenesse
of
his
meaning
?
Doubtles
no
instance
is
to
be
found
of
any
Author
whatsoever
,
sacred
or
prophane
,
who
so
far
abhorred
to
be
understood
in
what
he
spake
,
as
to
put
his
minde
into
words
of
such
a
construction
.
Thirdly
,
and
lastly
,
to
the
Objection
I
Answere
:
that
neither
is
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
the
object
of
Faith
,
as
justifying
(
as
hath
been
said
,
and
sufficiently
made
good
)
nor
doth
the
Scripture
,
where
it
speakes
of
Faith
as
justifying
(
which
places
are
not
a
few
)
make
the
least
mention
,
or
give
the
least
intimation
of
such
a
thing
.
It
is
true
,
the
Scriptures
sometimes
propound
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
or
his
obedience
to
the
Law
,
as
that
which
is
to
be
beleeved
,
&
so
it
may
be
termed
a
partiall
object
of
Faith
,
that
is
,
somewhat
that
is
&
ought
to
be
believed
:
but
so
the
creation
of
the
world
is
propounded
to
be
beleeved
,
and
that
Cain
was
Adams
Son
,
is
somewhat
to
be
beleeved
.
And
generally
whatsoever
the
Scriptures
do
affirme
,
may
be
called
a
partiall
object
of
Faith
.
But
the
object
of
faith
properly
,
as
it
justifieth
,
is
either
Christ
himselfe
,
or
the
promise
of
GOD
concerning
the
Redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
by
him
.
The
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
no
more
the
object
of
Faith
as
justifying
,
then
either
his
being
borne
of
a
Virgin
,
or
his
ascending
up
into
Heaven
,
or
the
like
,
and
either
the
one
or
the
other
,
may
(
in
that
respect
)
be
aswell
here
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Thus
you
see
at
large
how
many
passages
and
circumstances
in
the
context
,
stand
up
in
contestation
against
that
exposition
,
which
by
Abrahams
Faith
in
this
Chapter
,
will
needs
understand
Christs
righteousnesse
.
Fourthly
,
SECT.
9
(
and
lastly
)
this
interpretation
we
contend
for
:
according
to
which
,
the
word
Faith
or
beleeving
,
is
to
be
taken
properly
in
all
the
passages
mentioned
,
and
not
tropically
or
metonymically
)
was
the
common
interpretation
anciently
received
and
followed
by
the
principall
lights
,
(
I
meane
the
Fathers
)
of
the
Church
of
God
from
the
primitive
times
,
and
for
1500
yeares
together
(
as
far
as
my
reading
and
memorie
together
will
assist
me
,
)
was
never
questioned
or
contradicted
.
Neither
did
the
contrary
opinion
ever
looke
out
into
the
world
(
at
least
was
never
contended
for
)
till
the
yesterday
of
the
last
age
.
So
that
it
is
but
a
calumnie
or
evill
report
,
brought
upon
the
opinion
,
and
interpretation
of
this
Scripture
which
we
maintaine
(
unworthy
the
tongue
or
pen
of
any
learned
and
sober
man
)
to
make
either
Arminius
or
Socinus
,
the
Authors
or
founders
of
either
.
And
for
this
last
hundreth
yeeres
and
upwards
,
from
about
Luthers
and
Calvins
times
,
the
fairest
streame
of
Interpreters
so
runs
,
as
to
water
and
refresh
the
same
interpretation
.
You
will
be
easily
inclin'd
(
I
presume
)
to
beleeve
both
the
one
and
the
other
,
that
both
former
and
latter
times
have
been
friends
and
favourers
of
the
interpretation
given
,
if
you
will
please
,
with
diligence
and
without
partiality
,
to
ponder
and
examine
these
few
testimonies
and
passages
following
,
as
they
stand
in
their
severall
Authors
respectively
.
TERTULLIAN
,
Caeterum
quomodo
fil●●●let
●●t
●●tus
fide●
,
si
non
A●●a●●
S●●enim
A●●cham
Deo
credidit
,
et
d●●●tatum
est
Iustitiae
,
atque
extud●
Pate
multatum
natiorum
m●ruit
nuncupart
:
no●●atem
credendo
Deo
,
magis
protrd●
justificamur
sicut
Abraham
.
Tertull.
contra
Marc.
l.
5.
c.
3.
Denique
Abraham
Deo
credidit
,
et
justitiae
deputatus
ab
isto
est
:
sed
fidem
ejus
patientia
probavit
,
quum
filium
immolaere
jussus
est
&c.
Idem
.
de
Patient
.
c.
6.
Videtur
ergo
eciam
in
prasenti
●oco
quam
multae
fides
Abrahae
praecesserint
,
in
hoc
nunc
universa
fides
ejus
esse
collecta
:
et
ita
ad
justitiam
ei
reputata
.
Origen
.
l.
4.
ad
Ro.
in
c.
4.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Iust.
Mar.
Dial.
cum
Tryph.
post
medium
.
who
lived
and
wrote
about
the
yeare
194
,
in
his
fift
Booke
against
Marcion
,
writeth
thus
,
But
how
the
Children
of
Faith
?
or
of
whose
Faith
,
if
not
of
Abrahams
?
For
if
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
that
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
and
he
thereby
deserved
the
name
of
a
Father
of
many
Nations
,
we
by
beleeving
GOD
more
,
are
therefore
justifyed
as
Abraham
was
.
The
same
Father
in
his
tract
of
Patience
,
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
was
accounted
righteous
by
him
,
but
he
tried
his
Faith
by
patience
,
when
he
was
commanded
to
offer
his
Son
.
Therefor
Tertullians
opinion
directly
is
,
that
that
Faith
which
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
is
Faith
properly
taken
,
and
not
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
apprehended
by
Faith
,
because
he
saith
that
God
tried
his
Faith
by
patience
,
which
cannot
be
applied
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
ORIGEN
,
Who
lived
about
the
yeare
203
in
his
fourth
Booke
upon
the
Romans
,
writing
on
cap.
4.
ver.
3.
speaketh
thus
.
It
seemes
therefore
,
that
in
this
place
also
,
that
whereas
many
faiths
,
(
that
is
,
many
acts
of
believing
)
of
Abraham
had
gone
before
,
now
all
his
faith
was
recollected
and
united
together
,
and
so
was
accounted
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
And
in
the
same
place
not
long
after
,
he
hath
more
words
to
like
purpose
.
Therefore
he
joyned
with
Tertullian
in
the
interpretation
of
this
Scripture
.
JUSTIN
MARTYR
,
Who
liv'd
before
them
both
,
and
not
long
after
the
Apostle
Iohn's
time
,
about
the
yeare
130
,
in
his
Dialogue
or
disputation
had
at
Ephesus
with
Trypho
the
Jew
,
it
seemes
led
them
both
the
way
to
that
Interpretation
.
Abraham
caried
not
away
the
testimony
(
or
commendation
)
of
righteousnesse
,
because
of
his
circumcision
,
but
because
of
his
Faith
.
For
before
he
was
circumcised
,
this
was
pronounced
of
him
,
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
CHRYSOSTOM
,
who
lived
somewhat
after
the
yeare
380
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Chrysost.
ad
Rom.
cap.
4.
v.
23.
circa
initium
Serm.
9.
et
paulo
post
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Idem
ad
Gal.
3.
c.
in
the
beginning
of
his
ninth
Sermon
upon
the
Romans
.
Having
spoken
(
saith
he
,
meaning
Paul
in
the
former
part
of
that
Chapter
)
many
and
great
things
concerning
Abraham
and
his
Faith
,
&c.
And
a
little
after
,
Wherefore
(
saith
he
)
was
it
written
,
but
that
we
might
learne
that
we
also
are
justified
,
as
he
was
,
because
we
have
beleeved
the
same
God
?
The
same
Father
againe
upon
Gal.
3.
For
what
was
he
the
worse
for
not
being
under
the
Law
?
nothing
at
all
,
for
his
Faith
was
sufficient
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
If
Abrahams
Faith
was
sufficient
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
it
must
needs
be
imputed
by
God
for
righteousnesse
unto
him
,
for
it
is
this
imputation
from
God
,
that
must
make
that
sufficiency
of
it
unto
Abraham
.
That
which
will
not
passe
in
accompt
with
God
for
righteousnesse
,
will
never
be
sufficient
for
righteousnesse
unto
the
creature
.
Saint
AUGUSTINE
,
who
lived
about
the
yeare
390
,
SECT.
11
Credendo
quipp●
invenimus
,
quod
illi
(
Iudai
)
non
credendo
amiserunt
.
Quia
credidit
Abraham
Deo
,
et
reputatum
est
illi
ad
justitiam
,
Aug.
in
Psal.
148.
versus
finem
.
gives
frequent
testimony
in
his
works
,
both
to
the
opinion
and
interpretation
contested
for
.
Vpon
Psal.
148.
For
we
by
beleeving
have
found
that
which
they
(
the
Iewes
)
lost
by
not
beleeving
.
For
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnes
.
Therefore
his
opinion
cleerely
is
,
that
it
was
Abrahams
Faith
or
Beleeving
properly
taken
,
that
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
and
not
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
For
that
Faith
of
his
,
which
was
so
imputed
,
he
opposeth
to
the
unbeliefe
of
the
Jewes
,
whereby
they
lost
the
grace
and
favor
of
God
.
Now
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
opposed
to
unbeliefe
,
but
Faith
properly
taken
.
Againe
,
writing
upon
Psal.
70
,
In
eum
credo
,
qui
justificat
impium
,
ut
deputetur
fides
mea
in
justitiam
.
Idem
in
Psal.
70.
For
I
beleeve
in
him
that
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
that
my
faith
may
be
imputed
unto
me
for
righteousnes
.
Where
by
Faith
he
cannot
meane
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
because
he
calleth
it
his
owne
before
the
imputation
:
whereas
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
can
no
waies
be
imagined
to
be
any
mans
,
till
it
be
made
his
by
imputation
:
The
same
Father
yet
againe
,
in
his
tract
of
nature
and
Grace
:
But
if
Christ
died
not
in
vaine
,
Si
autem
non
gratu
mortuus
est
Christus
,
in
illo
solo
justificatur
impius
:
cui
credenti
in
eum
qui
justificat
impium
,
deputatur
fides
injustitiam
.
Aug.
De
Nat.
et
Grat.
non
lorge
ab
initio
.
Credidit
Abraham
Deo
,
et
deputatum
est
illi
ad
justitiam
.
Ecce
sine
opere
,
justificatur
ex
fide●
et
quicquid
illi
,
legali
observatione
potest
conferri
,
totum
crdulitas
sola
donavit
.
Idem
de
Temp.
Serm.
68.
the
ungodly
is
justified
in
him
alone
:
to
whom
,
beleeving
in
him
that
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
his
Faith
is
accounted
for
righteousnesse
.
And
yet
once
more
,
in
his
68
Sermon
of
Time
(
●f
that
piece
be
his
)
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
See
,
without
any
worke
,
he
is
justified
by
Faith
,
and
whatsoever
was
possible
to
have
bin
conferred
upon
him
by
the
observation
of
the
Law
his
beleeving
alone
gave
it
all
unto
him
.
Certainly
this
Author
(
whoever
he
was
)
by
the
word
CREDULITIE
(
for
so
the
Latine
word
signifieth
)
whereby
he
expresseth
that
Faith
which
was
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
,
could
not
meane
or
understand
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
PRIMASIUS
about
the
yeare
500
,
upon
Rom.
4
,
ver.
3.
Tam
magna
fuit
dono
.
Dei
fides
Abrahae
,
ut
et
pristina
ei
peccata
donarentur
,
et
sola
prae
omni
justitia
doceretur
accepta
.
that
is
,
Abrahams
faith
by
the
guift
of
God
was
so
great
,
that
both
his
former
sins
were
forgiven
him
,
and
this
FAITH
of
his
alone
preferred
in
acceptation
before
all
righteousnesse
.
By
Abrahams
alone
Faith
,
he
cannot
meane
Christs
righteousnesse
.
BEDA
,
who
lived
somewhat
before
the
yeare
700
upon
Rom.
4.
ver.
5.
hath
these
words
,
What
Faith
,
Que
fides
,
nisi
quam
alio
loco
plenissime
definit
Apostolus
:
Neque
circuncisio
neque
praeputium
aliquid
valet
,
sed
fides
que
per
dilectionem
operatur
.
Non
qualis●●nque
fides
,
sed
sid●s
que
per
dile●ta
mem
operatur
.
Beda
ad
Ro.
4
5.
Quia
credidit
D●o
,
reputatū
est
et
ad
justitiam
●
.
ad
remissionem
peccatorum
,
quia
per
ipsā
sidem
,
qua
credidit
,
justus
effectus
est
.
Haymo
in
Rom.
4
,
3.
Quod
ita
firmiter
credidit
,
reputatum
est
illi
divinitus
ad
justitiam
,
i.
non
solum
liberatus
est
ab
omni
originali
et
actuali
peccato
per
hanc
credulitatem
,
sed
justus
est
a
Deo
reputatus
.
Anselm
.
Cant.
in
Rom.
4.3
.
but
that
which
the
Apostle
in
another
place
fully
defineth
:
neither
circumcision
,
nor
uncircumcision
availeth
any
thing
but
faith
which
worketh
by
love
,
not
any
faith
,
but
that
faith
which
worketh
by
love
.
Certainty
that
Faith
,
which
Paul
defineth
or
describeth
to
be
a
Faith
working
by
love
,
cannot
be
conceived
to
be
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
and
yet
this
Faith
it
was
,
in
the
judgment
of
this
Author
,
that
was
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
.
HAYMO
,
about
the
yeare
840
,
in
Rom.
4
,
3.
Because
he
beleeved
God
,
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
unto
remission
of
sinnes
,
because
by
that
Faith
,
wherewith
he
beleeved
,
he
was
made
righteous
.
ANSELME
,
Arch-Bishop
of
Canterbury
,
about
the
yeare
,
1090
,
upon
Rom.
4
,
3.
That
he
meaning
(
Abraham
)
beleeved
so
strongly
,
was
by
God
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
him
:
that
is
,
&c.
by
this
beleeving
he
was
imputed
righteous
before
God
.
From
all
these
testimonies
it
is
apparant
,
that
that
interpretation
of
this
Scripture
which
we
contend
for
,
hath
anciently
ruled
in
the
Church
of
God
,
and
no
man
found
to
open
his
mouth
,
or
lift
up
his
pen
against
it
,
till
it
had
bin
established
upon
the
Throne
for
above
a
thousand
yeares
.
Come
we
to
the
times
of
Reformation
,
here
we
shall
finde
the
right
and
title
of
it
still
maintained
by
men
of
greatest
authority
and
learning
.
Sec.
12
Christiana
justitia
est
fiducia
in
filium
Dei
:
quae
fiducia
imputatur
ad
iustitiam
propter
Christum
.
Luther
.
ad
Gal.
3
,
6.
Deus
reputat
istam
imperfectam
fidem
ad
justitiam
perfectam
propter
Christum
,
in
quem
coepi
credere
.
ibid.
LUTHER
in
Gal.
3
,
6.
Christian
righteousnesse
is
an
affiance
or
faith
in
the
Son
of
God
,
which
affiance
is
imputed
unto
righteousnes
for
Christs
sake
.
And
in
the
same
place
not
long
after
:
God
for
Christs
sake
,
in
whom
J
have
begun
to
beleeve
,
accompts
this
(
my
)
imperfect
faith
,
for
perfect
righteousnes
.
Doubtlesse
this
Author
was
for
the
interpretation
given
,
or
else
his
words
and
he
,
were
not
of
the
same
mind
.
BUCER
,
upon
Rom.
4.3
.
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnes
,
that
is
,
he
accounted
this
FAITH
or
beleeving
,
Abraham
fidem
habuit
Iehovae
,
et
reputavit
id
ei
justitiam●
hoc
est
,
habuit
ei
pro
justitia
hanc
fidem
.
Credendo
igitur
id
accepit
,
ut
Deus
cum
pro
justo
haberet
.
Buce●
.
Ad
Ro.
4
,
3.
Imputari
ad
justitiam
,
alio
modo
significat
●d
,
per
quod
nos
ipsi
habemur
in
censu
justorum
.
Atque
id
Paulus
tantummodo
fidei
tribuit
&c.
(
P.
Mart.
Ad
Rom.
4
,
3.
Quare
Abraham
credendo
nihil
aliud
,
quam
obla
,
tam
sibi
gratiam
amplectitur
,
ne
●rrita
sit
.
Si
hoc
illi
imputatur
in
justitiam
,
sequitur
non
aliter
esse
justum
,
nisi
quia
Dei
bonitate
consisus
,
omnia
ab
ipso
sperare
audet
,
Calvin
.
ad
Rom.
4
,
3.
Fides
reputatur
in
justitiam
,
non
qu●d
ullum
a
nobis
meritum
afferat
,
sed
quia
Dei
bonitatem
apprehendit
.
ibid.
in
v.
4.
for
righteousnesse
unto
him
.
So
that
by
beleeving
he
obtained
this
,
that
God
esteemed
him
a
righteous
man
.
PETER
MARTYR
declares
himselfe
of
the
same
judgment
,
upon
Rom.
4
,
3.
To
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
another
sense
,
signifieth
,
that
by
which
we
our selves
are
reckoned
in
the
number
of
the
righteous
.
And
this
PAUL
attributes
to
FAITH
only
.
CALVIN
abetteth
the
same
interpretation
with
as
high
a
hand
as
any
of
his
fellowes
,
upon
Rom.
4
,
3
,
Wherefore
Abraham
by
beleeving
doth
only
imbrace
the
grace
tendred
unto
him
,
that
it
might
not
be
in
vaine
.
If
this
be
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
it
followes
,
that
he
is
no
otherwise
righteous
,
but
as
trusting
or
relying
upon
the
goodnesse
of
God
,
he
hath
boldnesse
to
hope
for
all
things
from
him
.
Againe
,
upon
verse
5.
Faith
is
reputed
for
righteousnesse
,
not
because
it
carieth
any
merit
from
us
,
but
because
it
apprehends
the
goodnesse
of
God
.
If
all
this
be
not
home
to
the
point
in
Question
,
I
desire
the
Reader
that
desires
further
satisfaction
concerning
the
judgment
of
this
Author
therein
,
to
peruse
and
ponder
what
he
hath
commented
at
large
upon
the
sixt
verse
of
Gal.
3.
Whosoever
thinks
it
prejudiciall
to
Calvin
,
that
he
should
be
thought
to
hold
Imputation
of
Faith
(
in
a
proper
sense
)
for
righteousnesse
,
may
if
he
will
,
pittie
him
,
and
lament
over
him
,
but
without
an
Index
expurgatorius
(
and
that
in
folio
)
can
never
relieve
him
.
In
the
place
last
mentioned
(
to
omit
many
other
passages
and
expressions
:
here
extant
,
as
pregnant
for
that
imputation
of
Faith
which
is
pleaded
for
,
as
eyes
can
looke
upon
)
he
describes
at
large
that
Faith
of
Abraham
(
which
is
there
said
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
)
by
the
nature
and
property
of
it
,
and
differenceth
it
from
other
perswasions
that
men
may
have
of
the
truth
of
God
.
By
which
cariage
of
the
businesse
,
it
is
as
manifest
as
manifestation
it selfe
knowes
how
to
make
any
thing
manifest
,
that
his
thoughts
were
never
tempted
with
any
insinuation
either
of
a
tropicall
or
metonymicall
sense
in
the
word
Faith
:
but
that
the
plaine
,
ready
,
and
Grammaticall
signification
,
was
that
which
he
wrought
upon
,
Sec.
13
and
fram'd
his
interpretation
unto
.
MUSCULUS
,
Commendata
debebat
esse
haec
sides
,
non
propr●e
qualitatu
,
sed
propositi
Dei
respectu
,
quo
constituit
,
illa
,
credentibus
in
Christum
,
propter
ipsum
,
justitiae
loco
imputare
.
Musc.
Loc.
de
.
Iustif
.
sect.
5
Quid
enim
fecit
(
Abraham
)
quod
imputaretur
illi
ad
justitiam
,
nisi
quod
credidit
Deo
?
Idem
Ad
Gal.
3
,
6.
Sic
de
hac
Abrah●
fide
loquitur
,
ut
manifestum
sit
disputare
ipsum
de
fide
,
qua
non
simpliciter
Deo
,
sed
in
Deum
creditur
.
Idem
in
Gen.
15
,
6.
Verum
vbi
promittenti
Deo
firmiter
credidit
,
est
illi
ejusmodi
fides
justitiae
loco
imputata
:
hoc
est
,
obeam
fidem
,
justus
est
a
Deo
reputatis
,
et
ab
omnibus
dei●ctis
absolutus
.
ibid.
as
far
as
his
judgment
and
learning
will
reach
,
engageth
himselfe
for
this
Imputation
also
.
In
his
common
place
of
Iustification
.
Sect.
5.
This
Faith
should
be
in
high
respect
and
esteeme
with
us
;
not
in
regard
of
the
proper
quality
of
it
,
but
in
regard
of
the
purpose
or
decree
of
God
,
whereby
he
hath
decreed
,
for
Christs
sake
,
to
impute
it
(
this
faith
)
for
righteousnesse
unto
those
that
beleeve
in
him
.
The
same
Author
upon
Gal.
3
,
6.
What
did
(
Abraham
)
that
should
be
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
but
only
this
,
that
he
beleeved
God
?
Words
plaine
enough
to
our
purpose
,
yet
behold
from
the
same
pen
,
more
plaine
then
they
in
another
place
.
Vpon
Gen.
15
,
6.
you
shall
finde
words
of
this
importance
.
He
so
speakes
of
Abrahams
Faith
,
that
manifest
it
is
,
that
he
disputes
of
that
Faith
,
wherewith
a
man
beleeveth
,
not
God
simply
,
but
in
or
on
God
.
Where
though
he
makes
a
difference
betweene
beleeving
God
simply
,
and
beleeving
in
God
:
yet
evident
it
is
,
that
if
there
be
either
trope
or
metonymie
in
the
word
BELEEVING
,
he
was
not
aware
of
it
,
because
be
interprets
it
of
such
a
Faith
,
as
properly
notes
the
act
,
not
the
object
of
beleeving
.
Againe
,
afterwards
,
in
the
same
place
:
But
when
he
firmly
beleeved
God
promising
,
that
very
Faith
was
imputed
to
him
,
in
the
place
,
or
stead
of
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
he
was
of
God
reputed
righteous
for
that
Faith
,
and
absolved
from
all
his
sins
.
BULLINGER
likewise
gives
the
same
right
hand
of
fellowship
to
the
same
interpretation
,
upon
Rom.
Concredidit
se
Abraham
Deo
,
et
illud
ipsum
illi
pro
justitia
imputatum
est
.
Bulling.
ad
Ro.
4.
Imputatum
est
illi
adjustitiam
&c.
hoc
est
,
illa
ipsa
Abrahae
fides
ipsi
adjustiam
imputata
est
,
cum
ad
huc
ageret
in
praputio
.
Idem
.
ad
Gal.
3
,
6.
Credidit
Abraham
Deo
,
et
impuravit
ei
,
scilicet
Deus
,
hanc
fidem
,
pro
justitia
.
Gualt
.
Ad
Rom.
4.4
.
Imputavit
ei
justitiam
,
quod
est
,
fidem
giatam
habuit
,
adeo
ut
justum
ex
eo
haberet
justitia
imputativa
.
Aret.
ad
Rom.
4.
Fides
tam
firma
et
pia
,
pro
justitia
Abrahamo
imputata
est
.
Aret.
ad
Rom.
4
,
22.
4
Abraham
committed
himselfe
unto
God
by
beleeving
and
this
very
thing
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
And
the
second
time
upon
Gal.
3
,
6.
It
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
that
is
,
that
very
Faith
of
Abraham
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnesse
,
whilst
he
was
yet
uncircumcised
.
GUALTER
comes
behind
none
of
the
former
in
avouching
the
Grammaticall
against
the
Rhetoricall
interpretation
,
upon
Rom.
4.4
.
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
he
,
viz.
God
,
imputed
unto
him
THIS
FAITH
for
righteousnesse
.
ARETIUS
no
whit
digresseth
from
the
former
expositions
upon
Rom.
4.
He
imputed
righteousnesse
unto
him
,
which
is
as
much
as
to
say
,
he
so
far
accepted
or
thought
well
of
his
faith
,
as
thereupon
to
accompt
him
righteous
with
an
imputative
righteousnesse
.
Where
note
by
the
way
,
he
doth
not
call
an
imputative
or
imputed
righteousnesse
,
any
thing
that
is
a
righteousnesse
properly
so
called
,
any
righteousnesse
that
should
be
in
one
person
inherently
,
and
become
anothers
by
imputation
(
neither
do
I
remember
the
phrase
of
an
imputed
righteousnesse
in
that
sense
,
in
any
classique
Author
)
but
by
an
imputative
righteousnesse
,
he
meanes
somewhat
imputed
or
accounted
by
God
for
righteousnesse
,
which
literally
and
in
strictnesse
of
consideration
is
not
such
.
Againe
,
the
same
Author
more
plainly
and
succinctly
upon
ver.
22.
of
the
same
Chapter
,
A
faith
so
firme
and
pious
,
was
imputed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
.
Illud
credere
,
ei
imputatum
est
ad
justitiam
,
vel
pro
vera
justitia
.
Illyr.
ad
Ro.
4.3
.
Et
paulo
post
:
Mendica
illa
fites
apprehendeus
Christi
justiciam
,
imputata
ipsi
est
loco
propriae
justitiae
.
ILLYRICUS
forsakes
not
his
fellow-interpreters
in
this
point
.
Vpon
Rom.
4
,
3.
That
same
beleeving
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
And
afterwards
,
That
same
poore
begging
faith
,
apprehending
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
was
imputed
unto
him
instead
of
a
proper
righteousnesse
.
PELLICAN
●s
breakes
not
this
ranke
,
Credidit
simpliciter
verbo
Dei
,
et
non
postulavit
signum
a
D●mino
:
et
imputabat
cam
sidem
ipsi
Abrahae
Deus
pro
justitia
qua
creditur
propersus
Deus
in
nostrum
bonum
.
Pelican
to
Gen.
15.6
.
Fides
qua
promittent●
Deo
credidit
Ab●aham
,
et
fuit
ad
justitiam
imputata
.
Hunnius
ad
●om
.
4
3.
Hic
agitur
de
eo
.
quod
ipsi
imputatum
est
,
nempe
de
ipsius
side
●re
.
ad
Rom.
4.3
.
Eum
quan
vis
justitia
carentē
numeravitque
pro
justo
habuit
,
in
justit●
loco
,
quod
promissiones
firma
fide
ample
●us
est
.
I
c●mel
.
et
Iun.
Not.
in
Gen.
15.6
.
Intelligimus
fide●
nomine
acqutes●●ntiam
Abrah●e
non
in
se
sunv●
m●titu
,
sed
in
Dei
promissione
et
benevolentia
.
Par.
ad
Ro.
4.3
.
Vpon
Gen.
15
6.
Abraham
simply
beleeved
the
word
of
God
,
and
required
not
a
signe
of
the
Lord
and
God
imputed
THAT
VERY
Faith
unto
Abraham
himselfe
for
righteousnes
,
whereby
GOD
is
inclineable
or
propense
to
doe
us
good
.
HUNNIUS
another
Reformed
Divine
sets
to
his
seale
that
the
avouched
interpretation
is
true
,
On
Rom.
4.3
.
The
faith
whereby
Abraham
beleeved
GOD
promising
,
was
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
BE●A
himselfe
,
upon
the
same
Scripture
is
as
deep
in
the
same
way
as
any
.
Here
(
●a●th
he
)
the
businesse
is
,
concerning
that
,
that
was
imputed
unto
him
,
viz
his
faith
.
JUNIUS
and
TREMEILIUS
,
are
likewise
of
the
former
conspiracie
aginst
the
tropicall
interpretation
.
On
Gen.
15
,
6.
God
esteemed
(
or
accounted
)
him
for
righteous
though
wanting
righteousnesse
wherewith
to
stand
before
God
,
and
reckoned
this
in
the
stead
or
place
of
righteousnesse
,
that
he
imbraced
the
promise
with
a
firme
beliefe
.
PARAEUS
(
the
last
we
shall
name
of
forreigne
Divines
)
dealeth
out
this
interpretation
as
freely
as
his
fellowes
.
On
Rom.
4.3
.
We
understand
by
the
name
or
word
FAITH
(
which
is
said
to
be
impu●ed
unto
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
)
Abraham's
acquietation
or
resting
,
●ot
in
himselfe
,
or
in
his
owne
merits
,
but
in
the
promise
and
graciousnesse
of
God
.
Neither
are
there
wanong
from
amongst
our selves
,
men
of
soundest
learning
and
j●dgment
,
holding
forth
the
light
o●
the
same
interpretation
a
so
.
Doctor
ROBERT
ABBOT
(
●●●●wards
Bishop
of
Sa●um
)
in
his
Apologie
against
Bishop
,
SECT.
15
Part
1
c
p.
9.
not
far
from
the
beginning
:
H●ving●e
downe
those
passages
of
the
Apost●e
,
Rom.
4
,
5
,
and
6.
he
addeth
as
followeth
.
In
which
words
we
see
,
how
the
Apostle
affi●meth
(
accordingly
as
I
said
)
an
Imputation
of
righteousnesse
without
works
:
which
he
expresseth
to
be
,
The
repu●ing
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
;
for
that
thereby
we
obtaine
remission
and
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
.
Againe
not
long
after
;
for
in
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
without
works
,
what
is
it
that
is
reputed
for
righteousnesse
?
Faith
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
is
reputed
for
righteousnesse
.
Tell
us
then
Mr.
Bishop
,
is
faith
with
you
reputed
for
righteousnesse
without
works
?
Spit
out
man
and
tell
us
,
whether
in
your
first
or
second
justification
,
you
hold
that
a
man
for
his
faith
is
reputed
righteous
,
&c.
(
with
more
of
like
importance
,
in
the
page
following
)
He
that
will
undertake
to
divide
b●●weene
this
Author
,
and
the
opinion
we
contend
for
,
must
be
more
severe
then
to
give
a
man
leave
to
be
of
his
owne
minde
.
Dr.
PRESTON
also
,
maketh
himselfe
a
stranger
to
the
tropicall
interpretation
of
this
Scripture
,
and
imbraceth
that
which
is
litterall
and
proper
without
scruple
or
question
.
In
his
Treatise
of
Gods
Allsufficiency
,
pag
12
13.
In
this
sense
faith
is
said
to
be
accounted
(
or
imputed
)
for
righteousnesse
.
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
Gen.
15.
God
indeed
made
the
same
proposition
,
that
he
doth
here
for
substance
,
he
tells
him
what
be
would
do
for
him
:
and
(
saith
the
text
)
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
counted
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
Now
it
was
accounted
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
chiefly
in
this
sense
,
as
it
is
interpreted
Rom
4
that
his
very
taking
of
the
promise
,
and
his
accepting
of
the
Covenant
in
that
he
did
receive
that
which
God
gave
that
put
him
within
the
Covenant
,
and
therefore
the
Lord
reckoned
him
a
righteous
man
,
even
for
that
very
acceptation
and
beleeving
But
that
is
not
all
:
but
likewise
be
accounteth
faith
to
him
for
righteousnes
,
because
faith
doth
Sanctifie
,
and
make
a
man
righteous
,
&c.
So
that
evident
it
is
(
if
there
be
any
such
thing
as
evidence
in
the
writings
and
opinions
of
men
)
that
this
mans
thoughts
were
never
so
much
as
tempted
,
to
conceit
that
the
Apostle
should
tropologize
or
metonymize
in
the
word
Faith
,
or
beleeving
,
in
this
Scripture
.
Mr.
JOHN
FORBS
,
late
Pastor
of
the
English
Church
at
Middleburgh
,
a
man
of
knowne
gravity
,
pietie
,
and
learning
,
in
his
Treatise
of
Iustification
,
cap.
28
,
p.
135.
hath
these
words
,
For
faith
in
this
sentence
(
meaning
,
where
it
is
said
that
faith
is
imputed
unto
righteousnesse
)
is
in
my
opinion
,
to
be
taken
properly
,
in
that
sense
whereby
in
it selfe
it
is
distinguished
,
both
from
the
word
,
whereby
it
is
begotten
,
and
from
the
object
of
it
in
the
word
,
which
is
Christ
.
Thus
I
have
cited
the
authority
of
many
Authors
,
by
way
of
collaterall
assurance
,
for
the
securing
the
literall
and
proper
interpretation
of
this
Scripture
.
Not
that
the
interpretation
it selfe
needeth
tali
auxilio
,
aut
defensoribus
istis
:
but
only
to
remove
that
great
stumbling
stone
of
the
world
(
which
lieth
in
many
mens
way
towards
many
truths
)
called
PREIUDICE
.
CAP.
III.
Other
proofes
from
Scripture
to
to
establish
the
former
conclusion
,
vindicated
likewise
from
such
exceptions
,
as
may
be
layd
in
against
them
.
SEcondly
,
that
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
SECT.
1
or
his
fulfilling
the
Morall
Law
,
was
never
intended
by
God
,
to
be
that
righteousnesse
wherewith
we
should
be
justified
(
in
any
such
way
of
imputation
as
is
pretended
)
may
be
(
I
conceive
)
further
demonstrated
,
from
all
such
passages
in
Scripture
,
where
the
works
of
the
Law
are
absolutely
excluded
from
justification
.
As
Rom.
3
,
28.
Therefore
we
conclude
that
a
man
is
justified
by
Faith
,
without
the
works
of
the
Law
.
So
Gal.
2.16
.
Knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
but
by
the
Faith
of
Iesus
Christ
,
even
we
have
beleeved
in
Iesus
Christ
,
that
we
might
be
justified
by
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
and
not
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
Againe
,
Rom.
3.20
.
Therefore
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
shall
no
flesh
be
justified
in
his
sight
:
Besides
other
Scriptures
of
like
importance
.
Now
if
a
man
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
unto
him
,
he
shall
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
because
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
we
now
speake
of
,
consists
of
these
works
,
as
every
mans
personall
righteousnesse
should
have
done
had
there
been
a
continuance
in
the
first
Covenant
?
Therefore
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
imputed
to
any
man
,
for
that
righteousnesse
,
whereby
he
is
to
be
justified
.
Neither
will
these
and
the
like
Scriptures
be
charmed
by
words
of
any
such
glosse
or
interpretation
as
this
:
No
man
shall
be
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
viz.
as
personally
wrought
by
themselves
,
because
no
mans
works
will
hold
out
weight
and
measure
with
the
strictnesse
and
perfection
of
the
Law
.
But
this
hinders
not
,
but
that
a
man
may
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
wrought
by
another
,
supposing
this
other
to
be
as
great
in
working
or
obeying
as
the
Law
it selfe
is
in
commanding
,
and
withall
,
that
God
is
willing
to
derive
these
works
of
his
upon
us
by
imputation
.
For
to
this
I
answere
4
things
.
First
,
SECT.
2
where
the
holy
Ghost
delivers
a
truth
simply
and
indefinitly
,
and
in
way
of
a
generall
or
universall
conclusion
(
for
in
materiâ
necessariâ
,
as
this
is
,
propositio
indefinita
vim
obtines
universalis
,
as
Logicians
,
the
best
oversees
of
reason
,
generally
resolve
us
:
not
to
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
is
as
much
as
not
to
be
justified
by
any
works
of
the
Law
whatsoever
)
imposing
any
necessity
upon
men
,
either
in
the
same
place
,
or
else
where
in
the
Scriptures
,
to
limit
or
distinguish
upon
it
,
then
for
men
to
interpose
with
their
owne
wisdomes
and
apprehensions
,
by
distinctions
and
limitations
,
and
reservations
of
what
they
please
,
to
over-rule
the
plaine
and
expresse
meaning
and
signification
of
the
words
,
is
not
to
teach
men
obedience
and
submission
unto
,
but
to
usurp
a
power
,
and
exercise
authority
over
the
Scriptures
:
Neither
is
there
any
practise
so
sinfull
,
or
opinion
so
erronous
,
but
may
find
a
way
to
escape
the
word
of
the
Spirit
,
and
to
come
fairely
off
from
all
Scripture
censure
,
if
they
be
but
permitted
to
speake
for
themselves
by
the
mouth
of
such
a
distinction
.
Give
but
the
loose
Patrons
of
an
implicit
Faith
,
liberty
to
distinguish
upon
like
terms
;
where
the
Scriptures
in
the
most
explicit
manner
falls
foulest
upon
their
implicit
Faith
,
they
will
be
able
by
the
attonement
of
such
a
distinction
to
make
their
peace
with
the
Scriptures
.
He
that
beleeves
not
(
saith
our
Saviour
Mar.
16
,
16.
)
shall
be
damned
.
He
that
beleeves
not
shall
be
damned
.
True
(
may
these
men
say
)
He
that
beleeves
not
,
either
by
himselfe
or
by
another
,
shall
be
damned
,
but
this
hinders
not
,
but
that
he
that
beleeveth
as
the
Church
beleeveth
,
may
be
saved
,
though
he
knoweth
nothing
explicitely
of
what
the
Church
beleeveth
:
the
explicit
Faith
of
the
Church
is
sufficient
to
save
him
.
So
likewise
by
the
Law
of
such
a
distinction
,
the
Antinomian
Sect
amongst
us
,
will
be
able
to
justify
their
non-necessitie
of
personall
sanctification
or
inherent
holynesse
,
against
those
Scriptures
that
are
most
pregnant
and
peremptory
for
it
.
Without
holinesse
saith
the
Apostle
.
Heb.
12
,
14.
)
no
man
shall
see
the
Lord
:
True
(
saith
the
Antinomian
)
without
holinesse
either
in
himselfe
,
or
in
some
other
,
no
man
shall
see
the
Lord
:
but
he
that
is
in
Christ
by
Faith
,
hath
holinesse
in
Christ
,
and
therefore
hath
no
necessity
of
it
in
his
owne
person
.
Who
seeth
not
,
that
in
these
and
many
like
cases
,
that
might
be
mentioned
,
that
liberty
of
distinguishing
which
we
implead
,
would
plainly
beguile
the
Holy
Ghost
of
his
direct
intentions
and
meanings
in
those
and
such
like
Scriptures
?
Therefore
when
the
Scriptures
expressely
and
indefinitly
deliver
,
that
by
the
works
of
the
Law
no
man
shall
be
justified
,
if
men
will
presume
to
distinguish
(
as
hath
been
said
)
and
exclude
such
works
from
justification
only
as
performed
by
our selves
,
but
make
them
every
mans
justification
,
as
performed
by
another
,
who
tasts
not
the
same
spirit
of
an
unwarrātable
wisdome
in
this
distinction
,
which
ruled
in
the
former
?
Secondly
I
answere
,
that
if
the
Apostles
charge
and
commission
had
bin
,
SECT.
3
in
the
delivering
the
doctrine
of
justification
,
either
to
have
made
,
or
to
have
given
allowance
for
any
such
distinction
as
is
contended
about
,
betweene
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
men
themselves
,
and
the
same
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
Christ
,
that
those
indeed
should
have
no
hand
in
justification
,
but
these
should
be
all
in
all
,
these
should
be
justification
it selfe
:
certeinly
he
should
have
bin
unfaithfull
in
this
trust
,
and
very
injurious
to
these
works
of
Christ
,
in
giveing
away
that
place
of
honour
in
the
opposition
,
which
was
due
unto
them
,
to
another
thing
of
a
far
inferior
nature
to
them
,
viz.
Faith
,
as
it
is
evident
he
doth
,
in
the
Scripture
cited
.
Gal.
2.
Knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
but
by
the
Faith
of
Iesus
Christ
.
He
doth
not
say
,
but
by
the
works
of
Iesus
Christ
,
as
if
the
opposition
stood
betweene
the
works
of
the
Law
as
performed
by
men
,
and
the
same
works
as
performed
by
Christ
,
which
in
all
congruity
of
reason
he
should
have
done
,
had
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
done
by
Christ
,
any
such
preheminence
this
way
above
the
other
;
and
not
have
ascribed
that
unto
Faith
(
which
is
somewhat
wherein
the
poore
and
weake
creature
hath
to
do
)
which
was
the
right
and
prerogative
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
Doubtlesse
Paul
was
no
such
enemy
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
as
to
set
up
an
usurper
upon
the
Throne
,
which
belonged
to
it
.
Thirdly
,
if
Pauls
intent
had
bin
to
have
reserved
a
place
in
justification
for
the
active
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
or
for
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
Christ
,
by
way
of
opposition
to
the
same
works
,
as
performed
by
men
themselves
,
his
indefinite
expression
excluding
the
works
of
the
Law
simply
,
without
the
least
in
imation
given
of
any
difference
of
those
works
,
either
as
from
the
one
hand
or
from
the
other
,
would
have
beene
of
dangerous
consequence
,
and
as
a
snare
upon
men
,
to
cause
them
to
passe
over
the
great
things
of
their
justification
.
Certainly
if
Paul
had
ever
digged
such
a
pit
as
this
,
he
would
have
bin
carefull
first
or
last
to
have
fil'd
it
up
againe
.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
if
by
excluding
the
works
of
the
Law
from
justification
,
Pauls
meaning
had
been
,
SECT.
4
only
to
exclude
these
works
as
done
by
men
themselves
,
but
had
no
intent
to
exclude
them
as
don
by
Christ
,
it
can
at
no
hand
be
thought
,
or
once
imagined
,
but
that
he
would
have
made
use
,
yea
made
much
of
such
a
distinction
or
reservation
himselfe
,
and
would
have
been
a
glad
man
,
if
salva
veritate
Evangelij
,
without
trenching
upon
some
Gospel
truth
,
he
could
have
come
over
so
neere
to
his
Country-men
the
Jewes
,
and
have
closed
with
them
in
the
great
point
of
justification
upon
such
terms
.
Such
a
distinction
might
have
been
a
happy
mediator
betweene
them
.
For
what
was
it
that
chiefly
incensed
the
Jewes
against
Paul
and
the
Preaching
of
the
Gospell
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
but
that
the
Law
and
the
observation
of
it
,
should
be
passed
over
and
not
taken
into
the
great
businesse
of
justification
.
Now
if
Paul
keeping
a
streight
course
in
the
Gospel
,
could
have
said
unto
them
,
or
treated
with
them
after
any
such
manner
as
this
:
you
have
no
reason
to
take
offence
or
to
be
troubled
,
that
I
preach
justification
by
Faith
in
Christ
,
because
I
do
not
exclude
the
righteousnesse
or
works
of
your
Law
,
no
not
from
having
the
maine
stroke
in
your
justification
:
nay
that
which
I
preach
concerning
Faith
,
is
purposely
to
advance
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
and
to
shew
you
how
you
may
be
justified
by
it
.
I
only
Preach
,
you
cannot
be
justified
by
your
owne
observation
of
it
,
because
the
holinesse
,
excellency
and
perfection
of
it
is
such
,
that
you
cannot
attaine
or
reach
it
by
your
owne
strength
:
but
God
hath
sent
me
to
keep
it
for
you
,
by
whose
observation
imputed
to
you
,
you
shall
be
justified
.
Therefore
I
am
no
enemy
to
your
justification
by
the
works
of
the
Law
:
but
only
teach
you
,
that
these
works
are
done
by
another
for
your
justification
.
Who
seeth
not
,
but
by
such
an
interpretation
or
mitigation
of
matters
as
this
,
Paul
might
have
taken
off
,
(
at
least
)
a
great
part
of
the
violent
and
furious
oppositions
of
the
Iewes
against
him
?
A
little
of
this
oyle
poured
into
the
wound
,
would
have
much
mollified
it
,
and
(
in
all
likelyhood
)
in
time
have
healed
it
.
But
Paul
(
it
seemes
)
did
not
like
the
composition
or
make
of
it
,
neither
durst
he
administer
any
receite
of
it
.
He
cannot
be
thought
to
have
bin
ignorant
of
this
distinction
or
meanes
of
mitigation
,
and
with
as
little
probabilitie
can
it
be
thought
,
that
he
,
that
could
be
content
,
not
only
to
be
made
all
things
unto
all
men
for
their
good
,
but
even
to
have
been
an
anathema
from
Christ
to
win
them
to
the
Gospel
,
would
have
withheld
any
such
word
of
reconciliation
from
them
,
whereby
there
had
been
the
least
hope
of
gaining
them
.
But
we
do
not
meet
with
so
much
as
any
one
word
of
this
qualification
in
all
his
writings
:
which
shewes
that
the
difference
and
distance
betweene
them
,
was
deeper
and
greater
then
so
.
The
paroxysme
or
sharpe
contention
betweene
him
and
them
,
was
not
,
whether
they
were
to
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
either
as
performed
and
wrought
by
themselves
,
or
as
wrought
by
another
,
but
simply
and
indefinitly
this
,
whether
justification
were
by
the
works
of
the
Law
(
by
whomsoever
performed
)
or
by
Faith
(
as
is
more
then
manifest
in
all
the
passages
in
his
Epistles
,
wherein
this
question
and
dispute
is
brought
upon
the
stage
)
There
is
not
the
least
intimation
of
any
difference
betweene
them
this
way
,
whether
justification
should
be
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
either
as
performed
by
our selves
,
or
as
performed
by
Christ
:
Paul
never
puts
them
upon
the
works
of
the
Law
as
done
by
Christ
,
for
the
matter
of
their
justification
:
which
shewes
,
that
both
he
and
they
,
though
otherwise
at
as
great
a
distance
as
can
readily
be
conceived
in
the
point
of
justification
,
yet
in
this
were
both
of
one
mind
and
one
judgment
.
Paul
as
far
from
holding
Iustification
by
the
works
of
the
Law
as
performed
by
Christ
,
as
the
stubbornest
Jewes
themselves
were
.
But
there
are
two
things
that
(
haply
,
)
SECT.
5
may
be
objected
against
the
Answers
given
,
and
that
will
seeme
to
make
for
the
confirmation
of
that
distinction
or
interpretation
,
which
we
have
so
much
opposed
.
First
,
that
there
is
a
sufficient
ground
laied
even
by
Paul
himselfe
,
upon
which
to
found
the
forenamed
distinction
,
viz.
that
by
excluding
the
works
of
the
Law
from
Justification
,
he
only
excludes
them
,
as
done
by
men
themselves
,
but
not
at
all
as
done
by
Christ
.
Secondly
,
that
there
is
mention
also
of
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
done
by
Christ
,
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
of
Christs
being
made
under
the
Law
,
in
one
of
the
chiefest
disputes
Paul
hath
concerning
Justification
.
The
former
objection
is
built
upon
Tit.
3
,
5.
The
latter
,
upon
Gal.
4.4
.
The
words
of
the
former
Scripture
,
are
theise
:
Not
by
the
workes
of
righteousnesse
,
which
we
had
done
,
but
according
to
his
mercy
he
saved
us
.
Vpon
which
words
the
objection
getteth
up
thus
:
Paul
by
so
precise
a
rejection
of
works
of
righteousnesse
done
by
us
,
that
is
,
by
our selves
,
plainly
implies
an
admission
of
these
works
as
done
by
another
for
us
.
Where
one
part
or
member
of
a
distinction
is
given
,
the
opposite
member
being
implied
,
is
still
to
be
framed
to
it
(
as
readily
it
may
)
.
Therefore
Paul
had
no
intent
to
shut
out
,
but
to
bring
in
the
works
of
the
Law
(
as
wrought
by
Christ
)
into
the
businesse
of
Iustification
.
To
this
I
answere
sundry
things
:
First
,
that
the
active
obedience
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
should
be
wholly
excluded
,
and
be
made
a
stander-by
,
so
as
to
have
nothing
at
all
to
do
in
the
great
businesse
of
Iustification
,
this
discourse
hath
no
where
affirmed
hitherto
,
neither
doth
it
savor
any where
of
the
spirit
of
that
affirmation
.
It
hath
been
expressely
acknowledged
from
the
beginning
,
to
have
a
gracious
and
blessed
influence
thereinto
as
it
issueth
and
falleth
into
his
passive
obedience
,
which
together
may
be
called
a
righteousnesse
for
which
,
but
at
no
hand
,
with
which
,
we
are
justified
.
Therefore
this
objection
,
contending
and
pleading
for
an
admission
of
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
as
done
by
Christ
,
into
Iustification
,
doth
no
waies
contradict
the
answere
given
in
any
part
of
it
,
except
it
can
prove
the
necessity
of
this
admission
of
the
active
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
either
for
the
materiall
,
or
formall
,
or
instrumentall
cause
of
Iustification
:
which
it
no
waies
doth
,
nor
pretendeth
to
do
.
And
the
truth
is
,
whosoever
shall
doe
it
,
that
is
,
goe
about
to
make
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
either
the
formall
,
o●
materiall
,
or
instrumentall
cause
of
Iustification
,
will
be
found
upon
a
due
examination
,
wholly
to
dissolve
and
overthrow
the
merit
of
it
:
the
establishment
whereof
is
yet
pretended
as
the
great
and
pious
designe
of
that
opinion
.
Secondly
I
answore
,
that
the
inference
insisted
upon
in
the
objection
from
the
Scripture
mentioned
,
comes
heavily
and
with
much
unwillingnesse
and
reluctation
out
of
the
premisses
:
there
is
no
necessitie
,
nor
indeed
so
much
as
a
face
of
probabilitie
in
it
.
The
Holy
Ghost
may
reject
the
works
of
men
from
being
the
cause
of
such
or
such
a
thing
,
and
yet
no
waies
suppose
or
intimate
that
the
works
of
another
should
be
the
cause
thereof
.
As
when
we
deny
either
the
Faith
or
works
of
any
man
foreseene
to
be
the
cause
of
his
election
,
we
do
not
imply
that
the
Faith
or
works
of
Christ
foreseene
are
the
cause
of
such
election
.
No
more
doth
it
follow
,
that
because
Paul
rejects
the
works
of
righteousnesse
which
men
do
,
from
their
justification
,
that
therefore
he
must
needs
imply
a
substitution
of
the
workes
of
Christ
in
their
stead
.
If
the
words
had
gone
thus
,
Not
by
the
workes
of
righteousnesse
which
we
OUR SELVES
had
done
,
this
had
beene
somewhat
a
higher
ground
,
and
a
more
rationall
advantage
to
have
infer'd
the
opposite
member
of
the
distinction
,
viz.
but
by
the
works
of
another
,
or
of
Christ
.
As
Act.
20
,
24.
where
Paul
expresseth
himselfe
thus
,
Neither
is
my
life
deare
unto
my selfe
,
&c.
here
the
opposite
member
of
the
division
may
with
good
probability
be
conceived
to
be
implied
,
after
this
manner
:
my
life
is
not
deare
unto
my selfe
,
THOUGH
IT
MAY
BE
DEERE
UNTO
OTHERS
.
And
yet
even
such
an
intimation
here
,
is
not
of
absolute
necessitie
neither
.
But
if
the
tenor
of
the
words
had
only
run
thus
,
Neither
is
my
life
deere
unto
me
,
so
that
I
may
fulfill
my
course
with
joy
:
No
man
would
ever
have
dream't
or
thought
of
any
further
thing
to
be
implied
,
then
what
was
expressed
.
So
when
the
Holy
Ghost
in
a
direct
and
plaine
tenor
of
Speech
speaketh
only
thus
:
Not
by
the
workes
of
righteousnesse
which
we
had
wrought
(
not
which
we
our selves
had
wrought
)
for
men
to
conclude
or
inferre
,
an
implying
of
workes
wrought
by
another
,
is
(
in
plaine
and
necessary
interpretation
)
to
make
themselves
wise
above
that
which
is
written
:
But
thirdly
,
(
to
put
the
matter
out
of
all
question
)
that
excluding
the
works
of
the
Law
which
we
had
done
,
he
had
no
intent
,
by
way
of
opposition
to
imply
the
works
which
another
might
doe
,
he
expresseth
plainly
the
opposition
himselfe
,
and
tells
us
that
it
was
according
to
his
mercy
that
he
saved
us
,
not
by
the
works
of
righteousnesse
which
we
had
done
,
but
according
to
his
mercy
he
saved
us
:
Therefore
here
can
be
nothing
implied
by
way
of
opposition
,
because
the
opposition
is
fully
and
distinctly
set
downe
.
And
Fourthly
,
least
any
might
yet
say
,
that
it
may
be
according
to
Gods
mercy
,
and
yet
by
the
works
of
righteousnesse
wrought
by
Christ
too
,
these
two
may
easily
be
reconciled
and
stand
together
:
the
Apostle
delivers
himselfe
distinctly
of
that
wherein
this
mercy
of
God
he
speaks
of
,
consisteth
,
not
in
saveing
of
us
,
by
the
works
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
but
in
regenerating
of
us
,
and
washing
us
in
the
new
birth
.
Fiftly
(
and
lastly
)
as
such
an
inference
is
no
waies
necessarie
,
SECT.
6
nor
so
much
as
probable
,
so
is
it
no
waies
pertinent
to
the
purpose
for
which
it
is
so
earnestly
contended
for
,
though
it
should
be
granted
.
Because
it
is
evident
that
the
Apostle
here
rejects
the
workes
of
righteousnesse
which
he
names
,
from
being
any
causes
antecedaneously
moving
God
to
save
us
,
and
not
from
being
the
formall
cause
of
justification
.
So
then
let
us
give
the
objection
it
s
owne
hearts
desire
,
even
that
it
murmur's
so
much
after
,
viz.
that
the
works
of
Christ
must
of
necessity
be
here
implied
,
yet
will
it
perish
and
come
to
nothing
,
even
whilst
this
meat
is
in
the
mouth
of
it
.
For
all
that
will
follow
,
or
can
be
concluded
by
the
imaginary
advantage
of
such
a
supposition
is
only
that
whereof
themselves
will
be
ashamed
when
it
is
brought
forth
unto
them
,
viz.
this
,
that
it
is
not
the
works
of
the
Law
which
we
have
done
our selves
,
but
those
which
Christ
hath
done
,
that
have
moved
God
to
save
us
by
the
washing
of
the
new
birth
,
and
by
the
renewing
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Which
if
it
be
understood
and
meant
of
the
decree
and
purpose
of
God
so
to
save
us
,
is
against
the
truth
:
if
it
be
understood
of
the
execution
of
this
decree
,
is
against
themselves
.
For
that
which
moved
God
to
decree
or
intend
this
salvation
unto
us
,
was
nothing
out
of
himselfe
,
but
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
good
and
gracious
pleasure
of
his
will
.
Eph.
1.5
.
or
as
that
clause
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
of
his
will
,
is
somewhat
more
emphatically
with
more
of
the
Spirit
and
life
of
the
originall
in
it
rendred
by
our
Translators
ver.
11.
of
his
owne
will
,
implying
(
as
I
conceiv●
)
that
that
will
,
wherewith
God
willeth
and
purposeth
to
save
his
people
,
is
intirely
his
owne
,
borne
and
begotten
(
as
it
were
)
only
out
of
himselfe
,
without
the
seed
of
any
consideration
of
any
thing
whatsoever
,
out
of
himselfe
.
As
for
the
execution
of
this
decree
in
the
actuall
justification
or
regeneration
of
those
whom
he
hath
purposed
to
save
,
if
this
be
ascribed
to
the
works
of
righteousnesse
done
by
Christ
,
as
the
cause
moving
God
thereunto
,
this
cleerely
establisheth
the
merit
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
justification
,
but
overthroweth
the
formality
of
it
(
which
is
that
very
truth
,
which
this
discourse
seeketh
and
ensueth
)
for
if
God
justifieth
or
regenerates
for
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
which
imports
the
merit
thereof
)
he
cannot
either
justify
or
regenerate
with
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
as
the
formall
cause
of
either
:
the
Reason
is
,
because
it
is
unpossible
,
that
one
and
the
selfe
same
thing
in
respect
of
one
and
the
selfe
same
effect
,
should
put
on
the
different
habitude
or
consideration
both
of
the
formall
and
efficient
cause
.
Wherefore
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
any
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
(
as
all
must
grant
that
will
acknowledg
it
for
a
meritorious
cause
thereof
,
no
man
gainsaying
but
that
the
meriting
cause
is
a
species
or
kind
of
efficient
)
unpossible
it
is
that
it
should
be
brought
in
to
any
part
or
fellowship
in
the
formall
cause
thereof
,
as
will
further
be
demonstrated
,
when
we
come
to
lay
downe
our
grounds
and
reasons
for
what
we
hold
.
This
for
Answere
to
the
former
exception
.
Concerning
the
latter
objection
,
SECT.
7
from
Gal.
4.4
.
Where
Christ
is
said
,
to
have
been
made
under
the
Law
,
From
hence
it
is
inferred
against
the
answere
given
,
that
Paul
doth
mention
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
done
by
Christ
,
in
this
discourse
of
Iustification
,
and
hereupon
concluded
further
,
that
therefore
he
had
no
intent
to
exclude
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
done
by
CHRIST
,
from
having
their
part
in
Iustification
.
For
Answere
hereunto
(
not
to
insist
againe
upon
that
which
was
delivered
in
the
first
branch
of
my
Answere
to
the
former
objection
,
which
yet
is
sufficient
to
ease
the
point
in
Question
of
the
burden
of
this
objection
)
I
ad
this
in
the
first
place
:
that
the
phrase
of
Christs
being
made
under
the
Law
,
doth
not
signify
Christs
obedience
or
subjection
to
the
Morall
Law
,
or
that
part
of
the
Law
which
we
call
Morall
,
but
rather
his
subjection
to
the
Law
Ceremoniall
,
as
is
evident
from
the
scope
of
the
place
:
and
particularly
,
from
that
which
is
delivered
immediatly
(
ver.
5.
)
as
the
end
or
intent
of
that
his
being
made
under
the
Law
,
viz.
that
he
might
redeeme
them
that
were
under
the
Law
.
There
is
no
reason
to
conceive
that
Christ
should
be
said
to
be
made
under
any
other
Law
,
then
that
,
from
under
which
he
was
to
redeeme
others
.
Wherefore
we
being
not
redeemed
from
the
Morall
Law
,
or
from
that
obedience
due
to
that
(
that
being
lex
aeterna
,
&
aeternae
obligationis
,
an
eternall
Law
,
and
of
an
eternall
obligation
)
but
from
the
Law
of
Ceremonies
,
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
it
was
this
Law
,
under
which
Christ
is
here
said
to
have
been
made
.
So
that
if
men
will
gather
anything
from
hence
,
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
obedience
in
just
sication
,
it
must
be
of
that
obedience
which
he
performed
to
the
Jewish
or
Ceremoniall
Law
,
and
so
not
only
the
Jewes
,
but
we
of
the
Gentiles
also
,
must
be
cloathed
with
the
robes
of
a
Ceremoniall
righteousnesse
imputed
unto
us
for
our
Iustification
.
B●
secondly
,
if
we
follow
that
interpretation
of
t●is
clause
,
Christ
was
made
under
the
Law
,
which
Luther
●clines
unto
(
and
is
an
exposi●●n
of
no
hard
aspect
neither
upon
the
place
,
perhaps
of
a
more
favourable
then
the
former
)
then
by
Christs
being
made
under
the
Law
,
we
shall
neither
understand
his
subject
on
to
the
Morall
Law
,
nor
yet
to
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
in
the
preceptive
part
of
either
,
but
his
subjection
unto
the
Curse
of
the
Law
.
And
thus
it
expresseth
both
the
gracious
designation
of
God
,
and
likewise
●he
voluntary
submission
of
Christ
himselfe
unto
dea●●
for
the
deliverance
of
men
,
not
only
from
death
it selfe
(
in
the
future
)
but
even
from
the
feare
of
death
(
in
the
p●●s●n●
)
as
is
plainly
expressed
Luke
1.74
.
and
Heb.
2.15
.
In
which
respect
,
the
fruit
or
effect
and
benefit
of
this
his
being
made
under
the
Law
,
is
here
(
v.
1.5
.
)
said
to
be
,
the
receiving
the
adoption
of
Sons
.
If
this
exposition
will
stand
(
as
I
see
not
how
it
will
easily
be
overthrowne
,
there
being
much
more
to
be
said
for
the
justifying
of
it
)
then
is
it
a
plaine
case
,
that
here
is
nothing
spoken
,
nor
intended
,
of
any
such
works
of
Christ
,
as
are
pretended
for
imputation
,
in
the
Iustification
of
a
beleever
.
No
adversary
I
have
yet
met
with
in
this
controversie
,
ever
affirmed
,
that
either
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
the
imputation
of
his
death
,
should
be
either
the
formall
or
materiall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Much
more
might
be
added
,
for
the
taking
of
this
clause
of
Scripture
from
intermedling
at
all
to
the
prejudice
or
disturbance
of
that
conclusion
,
for
which
we
have
undertaken
:
but
having
sufficiently
cleared
(
as
I
conceive
)
our
second
order
or
sort
of
proofes
from
the
Scriptures
,
we
proceed
to
others
yet
remayning
.
CAP.
IV.
A
third
Demonstration
from
the
Scriptures
of
the
non-imputation
of
CHRISTS
righteousnesse
for
justification
,
in
the
sense
ruling
in
this
Controversie
.
THirdly
,
SECT.
1
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
imputed
unto
men
for
their
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
I
demonstrate
(
with
more
brevitie
)
from
that
Scripture
,
Rom.
3.21
.
But
now
is
the
righteousnesse
of
God
made
manifest
without
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
,
having
witnes
of
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
,
even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
the
Faith
of
Iesus
Christ
,
unto
all
and
upon
all
that
beleeve
.
From
whence
I
thus
reason
:
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
which
is
here
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
(
as
else
where
it
is
in
the
writings
of
this
Apostle
)
either
because
he
is
the
founder
and
contriver
of
it
(
as
Divines
for
the
most
part
agree
)
or
because
God
bestowes
it
and
gives
unto
men
(
as
Calvin
conceives
upon
this
place
)
or
because
it
is
this
righteousnesse
only
that
will
stand
,
and
hold
out
before
God
(
as
the
same
Author
varieth
his
conjecture
here
)
or
whether
it
be
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
by
way
of
opposition
to
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
which
is
(
and
may
well
be
)
called
the
righteousnesse
of
men
Rom:
10.3
.
because
they
can
hardly
rellish
or
savor
any
other
righteousnesse
but
it
,
or
whether
for
som
other
reason
(
not
so
necessary
or
pertinent
to
our
present
inquiry
)
I
say
if
this
righteousnesse
of
Faith
consists
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
then
is
it
not
,
nor
can
it
be
made
manifest
without
the
Law
,
that
is
,
without
the
works
of
the
Law
(
as
Calvin
rightly
interpreteth
the
meaning
of
the
word
)
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
is
sufficiently
manifested
without
the
Law
,
that
is
without
the
works
or
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
:
Therefore
it
doth
not
consist
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
:
The
reason
of
the
conn●xion
in
the
major
prop●sition
(
against
which
exception
must
be
made
,
●f
the
conclusion
be
denied
,
because
the
minor
is
plaine
Scripture
in
terminis
)
is
evident
.
If
the
righteousnesse
o●
God
consists
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
,
then
is
it
not
made
manifest
without
the
Law
,
that
is
,
without
the
works
and
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
because
to
such
a
righteousnesse
,
the
Law
and
the
works
thereof
,
are
every
whit
as
necessary
,
and
more
necessary
then
Faith
it selfe
,
for
Faith
is
made
only
a
meanes
of
the
derivation
of
it
upon
men
:
but
the
body
and
substance
of
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
is
nothing
else
but
the
pure
Law
and
the
workes
of
it
.
And
how
a
righteousnesse
should
be
said
to
be
made
manifest
without
the
Law
,
whose
essence
,
strength
and
substance
is
nothing
but
the
Law
,
I
conceive
to
be
out
of
the
reach
of
better
apprehensions
then
mi●●
to
comprehend
.
If
it
be
here
objected
and
said
,
SECT.
2
that
this
righteousnesse
of
God
or
of
Faith
,
may
be
said
to
be
made
manifest
without
the
Law
or
the
works
of
it
,
because
there
are
no
works
required
of
us
towards
the
raising
of
it
:
but
this
hinders
not
but
that
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
Christ
,
may
be
the
matter
and
substance
of
it
.
To
this
I
answere
.
First
,
this
Sanctuary
hath
been
already
polluted
,
and
the
horns
of
this
Altar
broken
downe
,
in
the
demonstration
of
the
former
proofe
.
Secondly
,
there
is
not
the
least
intimation
given
,
that
the
Apostle
should
have
any
such
by
or
back
meaning
as
this
:
but
that
this
righteousnesse
of
Faith
should
be
fully
taught
and
apprehended
without
any
consideration
of
the
Law
,
or
the
works
thereof
,
as
an
ingredient
into
it
.
Thirdly
,
the
works
of
the
Law
,
are
neverthelesse
the
works
of
the
Law
,
because
performed
by
Christ
.
The
greatnesse
or
holinesse
of
the
person
working
according
to
the
Law
,
doth
not
alter
or
change
the
nature
or
property
of
the
works
,
but
they
are
the
works
of
the
Law
,
whosoever
doeth
them
,
Christs
being
Christ
,
doth
not
make
the
Law
,
not
to
be
the
Law
.
Fourthly
,
this
righteousnesse
is
said
to
receive
testimony
or
witnesse
from
the
Law
,
that
is
,
from
that
part
of
Scripture
,
which
is
often
called
the
Law
,
viz.
the
Books
of
Moses
,
Mat
5
,
17.
and
c.
7
,
12.
(
as
Calvin
here
well
interprets
)
and
from
the
Prophets
:
therefore
it
cannot
be
a
righteousnesse
consisting
in
the
imputation
of
a
legal
righteousnesse
,
because
there
will
be
found
no
testimony
given
either
by
the
Law
,
or
by
the
Prophets
,
to
such
a
righteousnesse
,
except
it
be
in
aenigmate
,
a
testimony
in
a
riddle
,
which
no
man
can
finde
out
but
by
divination
,
instead
of
an
interpretation
(
whereas
it
is
repugnant
to
the
nature
of
a
testimony
,
not
to
be
somewhat
plaine
and
expresse
;
that
it
may
be
well
understood
)
But
if
we
interpret
this
righteousnesse
of
God
,
to
be
a
righteousnesse
procured
or
derived
upon
a
man
by
Faith
o●
beleeving
,
there
is
expresse
testimony
to
be
found
given
unto
it
,
both
by
the
Law
,
and
also
by
the
Prophets
(
as
the
holy
Ghost
expressely
here
affirmeth
)
by
the
Law
:
Gen.
15
,
6
,
And
he
(
Abraham
beleeved
in
the
Lord
,
and
he
counted
it
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
.
By
the
Prophets
:
Hab.
2.4
.
But
the
just
shall
live
by
his
Faith
.
Fiftly
(
and
lastly
)
this
righteousnesse
of
God
is
said
to
be
unto
all
,
&
upon
all
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
by
or
through
Faith
,
by
way
of
opposition
to
the
works
of
the
Law
,
ver.
20.
Now
betweene
Faith
and
the
Law
,
or
works
of
the
Law
,
there
is
a
constant
oposition
in
the
writings
of
this
Apostle
,
Rom.
3.27.28
.
and
ag
.
c.
4.13
,
14.
and
c.
9.32
.
and
c.
10.5
,
6.
Gal.
2
,
16.
and
c.
3.5
.
and
ver.
11.12
.
&c.
But
betweene
the
Law
,
and
the
works
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
there
is
no
opposition
,
but
a
perfect
agreement
.
Therefore
that
righteousnesse
which
is
by
Faith
,
cannot
stand
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
.
CAP.
V.
A
Fourth
Demonstration
from
Scripture
of
the
avouched
Conclusion
.
FOurthly
,
SECT.
1
against
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
the
sense
already
disclaimed
)
for
that
righteousnesse
by
which
we
are
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
,
I
argue
from
Rom.
5.
ver.
16.
and
17.
compared
together
.
The
guift
of
righteousnesse
(
as
it
is
called
ver.
17.
)
which
is
by
Christ
in
the
Gospel
,
is
said
(
ver.
16.
)
to
be
a
free
guift
of
many
offences
unto
justification
.
From
whence
I
thus
reason
.
That
righteousnesse
which
is
the
guift
of
many
offences
,
that
is
,
the
forgivenesse
of
many
offences
or
sins
unto
justification
,
cannot
be
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
imputed
unto
us
,
or
made
ours
by
imputation
.
But
the
righteousnesse
which
is
by
Christ
in
the
Gospel
,
by
which
we
are
justified
,
is
the
guift
of
many
offences
unto
justification
:
Therefore
it
cannot
be
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
made
ours
by
imputation
.
The
minor
is
the
proposition
of
the
Holy
Ghost
(
in
terminis
)
The
major
I
demonstrate
thus
:
That
righteousnesse
which
extends
unto
a
mans
justification
by
the
forgivenes
of
sins
,
can
be
no
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
imputed
:
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
the
Gospel
by
which
we
are
justified
,
extendeth
unto
a
mans
justification
by
the
forgivenesse
of
sins
.
Therefore
it
can
be
no
legall
righteousnesse
imputed
.
The
Reason
of
the
former
proposition
(
the
weaknesse
of
which
only
it
must
be
,
that
ministers
strength
to
an
adversary
for
further
dispute
in
this
question
,
the
authority
of
heaven
being
too
pregnant
in
the
other
)
is
this
,
because
a
legall
or
perfect
righteousnesse
,
doth
not
preceed
to
j●st●●y
a
mans
person
by
way
of
forgivenesse
of
sins
:
but
is
of
it selfe
intrinsecally
and
essentially
a
mans
Iustification
:
yea
such
a
Iustification
with
which
forgivenes
of
sinnes
is
not
competible
.
For
what
need
hath
he
that
is
legally
righteous
,
or
hath
a
legall
righteousnesse
imputed
unto
him
,
of
forgivenesse
of
sins
,
when
as
such
a
righteousnesse
excluds
all
sinne
,
and
all
guilt
of
sinne
from
his
person
?
If
it
be
here
objected
and
said
,
SECT.
2
that
a
mans
sinnes
are
first
forgiven
him
,
and
then
this
perfect
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
imputed
unto
him
and
so
he
is
justified
.
To
this
I
answere
.
First
,
if
we
will
needs
distinguish
the
effects
of
the
active
and
passive
obedience
of
Christ
after
this
manner
,
so
as
from
the
active
part
of
this
obedience
,
to
fetch
a
perfect
righteousnesse
for
imputation
,
and
from
the
passive
remission
of
sinnes
:
yet
whether
it
be
any
waies
reasonable
,
to
invert
the
order
of
these
effects
,
and
dispose
of
them
(
a●
pleasure
)
in
a
crosse
method
,
to
their
causes
producing
them
,
I
leave
it
to
sober
consideration
.
Christ
●●d
not
first
die
,
and
after
death
keep
the
Law
for
us
,
but
he
first
kept
the
Law
and
then
suffered
death
for
us
.
Therefore
i●
we
will
needs
make
the
imputation
of
the
one
a
dist●nct
b●n
sit
from
the
imputation
of
the
other
,
reason
require●●
,
that
that
which
was
first
purchased
,
should
be
first
received
or
applied
,
and
consequently
hat
imputation
of
righteousnesse
should
have
a
precedency
in
order
,
of
r●mission
of
sinnes
.
Secondly
,
if
a
man
hath
once
sinned
(
which
must
needs
be
acknowledged
of
every
man
that
hath
sins
forgiven
)
it
is
not
any
l●gall
righteousnesse
whatsoever
imputed
,
that
can
justifie
him
:
no
,
if
it
were
possible
for
him
to
keep
the
Law
perfectly
in
his
own
person
ever
after
to
the
daies
of
eternity
,
this
would
not
justify
him
,
because
such
a
Iustification
is
repugnant
to
the
expresse
tenor
of
the
Law
.
Cursed
is
the
man
(
faith
the
Law
)
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
,
&c.
Therefore
a
man
that
hath
not
been
alwa●es
righteous
,
can
never
be
made
righteous
by
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
imputed
,
or
not
imputed
,
or
howsoever
it
may
be
conceived
to
come
upon
him
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
I
answere
,
if
a
mans
sins
be
once
forgiven
him
,
he
hath
no
need
of
any
imputation
of
any
further
righteousnesse
,
for
his
Iustification
,
because
forgivenesse
of
sins
reacheth
home
and
amounteth
unto
a
full
Iustification
with
GOD.
This
is
plaine
from
the
words
mentioned
.
Rom.
5
,
16.
The
guift
(
saith
Paul
)
that
is
,
the
guift
of
righteousnesse
(
as
it
is
explained
in
the
next
verse
)
is
of
many
offences
unto
Iustification
,
that
is
,
when
God
hath
given
men
their
offences
or
debts
,
or
forgiven
them
(
for
to
give
a
debt
,
or
forgive
it
is
all
one
)
he
hath
fully
justified
them
.
For
that
righteousnesse
which
God
is
said
to
impute
unto
men
through
Faith
,
is
nothing
else
(
being
interpreted
)
but
the
forgivenesse
of
sins
or
the
acquiting
of
them
from
that
death
and
condemnation
which
are
due
unto
them
.
And
this
is
all
the
Iustification
the
Scripture
knowes
or
speaks
of
,
the
forgivenesse
of
our
sins
,
or
acquitting
from
condemnation
:
the
genuine
and
proper
signification
of
which
word
misapprehended
,
hath
been
a
maine
occasion
of
leading
many
out
of
the
way
of
Truth
in
this
point
.
A
man
may
(
in
a
manner
)
as
plainely
discerne
where
mens
feet
have
faild
them
here
,
as
sometimes
where
a
Horse
foot
hath
slip'd
upon
an
ice
.
For
reading
in
Scriptures
of
the
justification
of
sinners
,
or
of
men
being
made
just
or
righteous
by
Christ
,
they
have
conceived
that
such
a
thing
cannot
be
,
but
by
a
positive
and
formall
Law
:
righteousnesse
somewaies
put
upon
them
,
and
there
being
no
such
righteousnesse
indeed
any where
to
be
found
,
but
only
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
hence
they
have
apprehended
,
that
this
justification
must
needs
be
by
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
unto
them
,
whereas
that
righteousnesse
which
we
have
by
Christ
,
and
wherewith
we
are
said
to
be
justified
before
God
by
beleeving
,
is
only
a
negative
righteousnesse
,
not
a
positive
,
it
is
nothing
else
but
a
non-imputation
of
sin
:
which
I
therefore
call
a
righteousnesse
,
by
accompt
or
interpretation
,
as
having
the
privileges
,
but
not
the
nature
and
substance
of
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
.
The
Scripture
shines
with
as
much
cleernesse
and
evidence
of
this
truth
,
SECT.
3
as
the
Sun
doth
with
light
when
he
riseth
in
his
might
.
Rom.
4
,
6.
compared
with
ver
,
7
,
8.
Even
as
David
declareth
the
blessednesse
of
the
man
,
unto
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
righteousnesse
without
works
.
A
righteousnesse
without
works
must
needs
be
a
negative
or
privative
righteousnesse
,
as
is
fully
expressed
in
the
following
verses
.
Blessed
are
they
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
:
blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
imputes
not
sinne
.
You
see
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
ver.
6.
is
here
interpreted
to
be
nothing
else
,
but
a
not
imputing
of
sin
.
And
so
Calvin
upon
Rom.
3
,
21.
calls
this
a
definition
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
Beati
quorum
remissa
sunt
iniquitates
,
that
is
,
Blessed
are
they
whose
sinnes
are
forgiven
.
And
not
long
after
,
Paulus
tradit
,
Deum
homines
iustificare
,
peccata
non
imputando
.
that
is
,
Paul
teacheth
,
that
God
justifieth
men
,
by
not
imputing
their
sins
.
The
like
description
of
this
righteousnesse
you
have
2
Cor.
5.
that
which
ver.
19.
he
calls
in
God
,
the
not-imputing
of
our
sins
unto
us
,
he
calls
in
us
ver.
21.
a
being
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
.
But
most
plainely
Act.
13.38
,
39.
Be
it
knowne
unto
you
(
saith
Paul
to
the
Jewes
)
that
through
this
man
(
CHRIST
)
is
preached
unto
you
forgivenesse
of
sins
:
which
forgivenesse
of
sins
he
immediatly
calls
their
Iustification
.
And
by
him
all
that
beleeve
are
iustified
from
all
things
,
from
which
yee
could
not
be
iustified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
You
see
how
he
expresseth
the
nature
of
this
Iustification
we
have
by
Christ
,
viz.
by
the
way
of
negative
or
privative
righteousnesse
(
as
was
said
)
not
a
positive
.
All
that
beleeve
are
iustified
from
all
things
,
that
is
,
all
sins
from
which
you
could
not
be
justified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
So
that
that
Iustification
which
we
have
by
Christ
in
the
Gospel
,
is
not
a
Iustification
with
righteousnesse
(
properly
so
called
)
but
a
Iustification
from
sinne
,
and
from
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
and
condemnation
due
to
it
,
when
Christ
said
to
men
and
women
in
the
Gospel
,
Thy
sins
are
forgiven
thee
,
then
he
justified
them
:
the
forgivenesse
of
their
sins
,
was
their
Iustification
.
This
is
the
most
usuall
and
proper
signification
of
the
word
,
Iustifie
,
both
in
Scriptures
,
SECT.
4
and
other
Authors
(
but
in
the
Scriptures
especially
)
not
to
signifie
the
giving
or
bestowing
of
a
complete
positive
righteousnesse
,
but
only
an
acquitting
or
discharging
and
setting
a
man
free
from
the
guilt
and
penaltie
due
unto
such
things
as
were
laied
to
his
charge
.
In
the
Scripture
it
is
usually
opposed
to
condemning
,
or
condemnation
.
He
that
justifieth
the
wicked
,
and
he
that
condemneth
the
just
,
both
these
are
abhomination
unto
the
Lord
.
Prov.
17
,
15.
What
is
here
m●ant
by
justifying
the
wicked
?
not
making
them
righ
eous
and
just
men
,
by
putting
a
morall
righteousnesse
upon
them
:
he
that
can
make
a
wicked
man
righteous
or
just
so
,
shall
be
so
far
from
being
an
abhomination
to
the
Lord
,
that
hee
shall
shine
as
the
starres
in
the
Firmament
for
ever
and
ever
,
(
Dan.
12.3
.
)
Therefore
by
justifying
the
wicked
in
this
place
can
be
nothing
else
meant
,
but
the
making
of
them
just
in
the
rights
and
privileges
of
just
men
,
which
are
freedome
from
censure
,
punishment
,
and
condemnation
,
as
appeares
by
the
opposition
in
the
other
member
of
the
clause
,
and
condemneth
the
righteous
.
So
that
by
justifying
the
wicked
,
is
nothing
else
meant
,
but
the
not-condemning
him
.
So
Rom.
8
,
33
,
34.
Who
shall
lay
any
thing
to
the
charge
of
Gods
chosen
?
it
is
God
that
justifyeth
:
who
shall
condemne
&c.
Where
you
see
againe
the
opposition
betweene
being
justified
and
condemned
.
See
likewise
Rom.
5.9
.
Therefore
by
justifying
is
nothing
else
meant
but
acquiting
from
condemnation
:
and
so
to
be
justified
and
to
live
:
that
is
,
to
be
freed
from
death
and
condemnation
,
are
made
equivalent
or
equipollent
the
one
to
the
other
.
Gal.
3.11
.
And
that
no
man
is
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
it
is
evident
:
for
the
iust
shal
live
by
Faith
,
that
is
,
shal
be
justified
by
Faith
(
for
otherwise
there
is
no
strength
in
the
argument
)
So
againe
,
ver.
21.
If
there
had
bin
a
Law
,
which
could
have
given
life
(
that
is
,
could
have
justified
men
)
surely
righteousnesse
(
or
Iustification
should
have
been
by
the
Law
.
By
his
knowledge
(
faith
Esay
c.
53.11
.
)
shall
my
righteous
servant
iustify
many
,
for
he
shall
beare
their
iniquities
,
that
●s
,
by
bearing
the
punishment
or
condemnation
due
unto
their
sinnes
,
he
shall
deliver
them
from
punishment
.
This
opposition
we
speake
of
betweene
justification
,
and
condemnation
,
is
cleere
in
other
Scriptures
,
as
Mat
12.37
.
Rom.
5.16
.
and
else
where
.
And
that
this
was
Calvins
opinion
,
SECT.
5
Justification
is
compleate
in
forgivenesse
of
sins
,
is
most
evident
from
many
and
frequent
passages
in
his
writings
:
by
which
it
is
apparent
(
against
all
confidence
of
contradiction
)
that
he
held
no
such
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
for
justification
,
as
some
charge
him
withall
,
except
they
will
conceive
of
him
,
that
(
like
unto
Rebecca
)
he
had
two
nations
in
his
womb
,
two
contrary
opinions
in
his
judgment
at
once
.
His
words
are
expresse
againe
and
againe
,
on
Rom.
4.6
.
Huc
accedit
oppositum
membrum
,
quod
Deus
homines
justificet
peccatum
non
imputando
,
&c.
that
is
,
Adde
hereunto
the
opposite
member
,
viz.
that
God
justifieth
men
by
not
imputing
sinne
.
And
immediatly
after
,
Quibus
etiam
verbis
docemur
,
justitiam
Paulo
nihilaliud
esse
,
quam
remissionem
peccatorum
.
that
is
,
by
with
words
we
are
taught
,
that
righteousnesse
with
Paul
is
nothing
else
but
remission
of
sins
.
So
some
Popish
Authors
charge
this
very
opinion
upon
Calvin
,
as
his
error
.
Alioqui
error
Calvinianus
est
dicere
,
ril
aliud
esse
justificationem
,
quam
remissionem
peccatorum
.
Lorin
.
in
Act.
5.
v.
31.
Whether
this
Author
was
of
that
judgment
or
no
,
which
we
now
ascribe
to
him
,
certaine
it
is
,
that
if
he
had
been
of
this
judgement
,
he
could
never
have
delivered
himself
in
more
significant
and
pregnant
words
this
way
,
then
these
are
.
And
yet
againe
not
long
after
the
former
words
:
Manet
ergosalva
nobis
pulcherrima
sententia
,
justificari
hominem
side
,
quia
gratuita
peccatorum
remissione
coram
Deo
purgatus
sit
.
that
is
,
This
most
lovely
saying
remaines
unshaken
and
safe
,
that
a
man
is
justified
by
Faith
,
because
he
is
purged
by
a
free
forgivenesse
of
his
sins
before
God
.
But
we
shall
meet
with
a
second
opportunity
hereafter
,
for
the
further
insuring
this
Author
unto
us
,
in
the
Question
now
under
disputation
.
Musculus
is
as
far
engag'd
for
the
point
in
hand
,
SECT.
6
as
he
,
on
Rom.
4.6
.
Notandum
primò
,
remissionem
peccatorum
,
esse
justitiam
nostram
i.
This
is
first
to
be
noted
,
that
forgivenesse
of
sins
is
our
righteousnesse
.
And
a
little
after
:
ergo
justitia
Dei
est
,
quae
gratis
imputatur
,
non
imputari
peccatum
.
i.
therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
God
which
is
freely
imputed
,
is
,
that
sinne
is
not
imputed
.
And
immediatly
after
:
Quid
autem
iustum
esse
aliud
est
quam
peccatis
esse
liberum
?
i.
what
is
it
else
to
be
righteous
,
but
to
be
freed
from
sins
,
i.
from
the
guilt
of
them
.
And
yet
once
more
,
not
far
off
ergo
qui
credit
,
iustus
est
et
beatus
,
propter
remissioneus
peccatorum
.
i.
He
therefore
that
beleeveth
,
is
RIGHTEOUS
and
blessed
,
because
of
the
remission
of
his
sins
.
The
same
Author
,
upon
Psal.
32.
towards
the
beginning
.
Iucunducu
est
,
quòd
institia
et
beatitudo
nostra
est
remissio
peccatorum
per
fidem
in
Christum
.
i.
It
is
a
sweet
thing
,
that
our
righteousnesse
&
blessednesse
stands
in
the
remission
of
our
sins
by
Faith
in
Christ
.
See
more
of
like
importance
in
the
same
place
.
So
Luther
in
his
Summarie
of
that
Psalme
:
Iustitia
nostra
proprie
est
remissio
peccatorum
seu
(
ut
loquitur
Psalmus
)
peccata
non
imputare
,
peccata
tegere
.
i.
Our
righteousnesse
properly
is
the
forgivenesse
of
our
sins
,
or
(
as
the
Psalme
speaketh
)
the
non-imputation
,
or
covering
of
our
sinnes
.
So
Malancthon
,
in
his
common
place
of
JUSTIFICATION
:
Justificatio
significat
remissionem
peccatorum
,
seu
acceptationem
personae
ad
vitam
aeternam
.
i.
Justification
signifieth
remission
of
sins
,
or
acceptation
of
a
mans
person
to
eternall
life
.
Againe
upon
the
twentieth
Article
of
the
Augustan
Confession
.
Significat
iustificatio
in
his
Pauli
sententiis
,
remissionem
peccatorum
,
seu
reconciliationem
,
seu
imputationem
iustitiae
,
hoc
est
,
acceptationem
personae
.
i.
sustification
in
Pauls
saying
,
signifieth
REMISSION
OF
SINS
,
or
reconciliation
,
or
imputation
of
righteousnesse
i.
the
acceptation
of
a
mans
person
.
And
in
his
Prolegomena
upon
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
Justi
reputamur
,
Deo
remittente
peccata
.
i.
we
are
accounted
righteous
,
when
God
forgives
our
sins
.
Hyperius
upon
Rom
4.6
.
Declarat
Apostolus
,
imputare
ad
justitiam
,
idem
esse
,
quod
non
imputare
peccata
:
sponte
&
graiis
ea
remittere
.
i.
The
Apostle
declares
,
that
to
impute
for
righteousnesse
,
is
but
the
same
,
as
not
to
impute
sinnes
:
or
freely
and
willingly
to
forgive
them
.
Beza
himselfe
holds
the
truth
as
fast
as
any
man
in
this
point
(
though
sometimes
againe
he
seemes
to
let
it
goe
in
some
expressions
about
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
)
In
his
Treatise
of
the
Supper
of
the
Lord
:
Cuinam
iustificationem
tribuemus
?
uni
certè
Deo
,
vnus
siquidem
Deus
peccata
remittit
.
Pofita
est
autem
omnis
iustificatio
in
remissione
peccatorum
:
et
ìdeò
justitia
hac
in
imputatione
pofita
,
justitia
Dei
vocatur
.
i.
To
whom
shall
we
attribute
or
ascribe
Justification
?
doubtlesse
to
God
alone
,
because
it
is
God
alone
that
forgiveth
sins
.
And
all
justification
standeth
in
remission
of
sins
:
and
therefore
this
righteousnesse
which
standeth
in
imputation
is
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
.
Ro.
1.17
.
&
3
,
21.
&c.
Zanchius
in
his
Common
places
of
Divinity
,
in
the
head
,
concerning
Iustification
,
hath
this
title
:
Quòd
justitia
fidei
nihil
aliud
sit
,
quàm
reconciliatio
cum
Deo
,
quae
solà
remissione
peccatorum
constat
.
i.
That
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
is
nothing
else
,
but
reconciliation
with
God
,
which
stands
in
nothing
else
but
forgivenesse
of
sins
.
Mr.
Fox
our
Countryman
gives
place
to
none
in
holding
forth
the
light
of
this
truth
.
In
his
tract
of
Christ
Iustifying
,
and
first
Booke
:
Iustos
eos
accipio
quos
quotidiana
remissio
per
fidem
accepta
,
divino
conspectui
tanquam
justos
representat
.
i.
I
take
them
for
just
or
righteous
,
who
by
a
daily
remission
of
sinnes
received
by
faith
,
are
represented
as
righteous
before
the
presence
of
God
.
Againe
,
in
the
second
B
ok
of
the
same
Argument
,
Ideò
justicoram
Deo
consistimus
,
quod
remissa
sunt
nobis
peccata
.
i.
We
therfore
stand
rignteous
before
God
,
because
our
sins
are
forgiven
us
.
Chamier
,
SECT.
7
in
the
third
Tome
of
his
Panstratiae
,
pag.
907.
challengeth
the
Paternity
of
Trent
for
denying
remission
of
sins
to
be
the
form
,
or
formall
cause
of
justisication
,
affirming
and
●vincing
this
to
have
bin
Augustins
opinion
.
And
speaking
of
himselfe
and
his
Protestant
party
,
saith
thus
,
Sed
ijdem
justitiae
proram
et
puppim
constituimus
inremissione
peccatorum
,
nimirum
quia
haec
nos
apud
Deum
constituit
justos
.
i.
We
(
Protestants
)
place
the
first
and
last
,
the
beginning
and
end
of
our
righteousnesse
in
the
forgivenesse
of
ou
sinnes
,
because
this
makes
us
righteous
before
God
.
And
a
little
after
,
Itaque
justitiam
nostram
,
quatenus
constat
remissione
peccatorum
,
cum
Paulo
justificationem
:
eam
autem
,
quae
perfectione
virtutum
,
sanctificationem
appellamus
,
i.
We
therfore
call
our
righteou●●esse
,
as
it
consists
in
remission
of
sins
,
with
Paul
we
call
,
Justification
:
but
that
which
stands
in
any
perfection
of
vertues
,
sanctification
.
Somwhat
before
the
former
words
alledged
:
Nos
verò
quod
dat
,
admittimus
,
reciprocart
inter
se
justificationem
,
et
remissionem
peccatorum
.
i.
We
admit
of
what
he
(
Bellarmine
)
grants
,
that
justification
and
remission
of
sins
are
one
and
the
else
same
thing
.
And
againe
,
pag.
908.
Remissio
peccatorum
,
est
justitia
imputata
i.
Forgivenesse
of
sins
is
that
righteousnesse
that
is
imputed
to
us
.
Stephanus
Fabritius
to
like
purpose
,
co●menting
upon
Psal
32.1
.
desines
justification
thus
:
Justificatio
est
actio
Dei
.
quà
eum
qui
in
Christum
mediatorem
credit
,
ex
solà
gratià
et
misericordi
propter
satisfactionem
et
meritum
Christi
,
à
peccat
is
absolvit
,
et
justum
ac
innocentem
pronunciat
.
i.
Justification
is
an
act
of
God
,
whereby
of
his
meere
grace
and
mercy
,
for
the
satisfaction
and
merit
of
Christ
,
he
absolves
him
from
his
sins
that
beleeveth
in
Christ
the
Mediator
,
and
pronounceth
him
just
and
innocent
.
Lastly
Amesius
upon
the
same
Psalme
and
verse
,
makes
remission
of
sins
and
justification
terms
equipollent
and
reciprocall
.
Descriptio
beatitudinis
petiturà
causa
efficiente
et
continente
,
quae
est
remissio
peecatorum
,
vel
justificatio
cum
ejus
effectis
&c.
i.
The
description
of
blessednesse
is
drawn
from
the
efficient
and
holding
cause
thereof
,
which
is
Forgivenesse
of
sins
,
or
Iustification
,
with
its
effects
.
It
were
easie
(
I
presume
)
for
him
that
hath
leisure
,
SECT.
8
to
traverse
the
writings
of
these
and
other
Reformed
Divines
,
to
make
the
pile
farre
greater
of
such
passages
as
these
:
Therfore
certainly
they
are
very
injurious
,
not
onely
to
the
names
and
reputations
of
these
worthy
lights
in
the
Church
of
God
,
who
deny
them
fellowship
and
communion
in
so
glorious
a
truth
,
and
would
force
upon
them
,
in
the
very
face
of
their
own
solemne
declarations
of
themselves
to
the
contrary
,
an
opinion
so
inconsistent
with
the
streame
of
the
Scripture
,
and
all
sound
reason
;
but
to
the
truth
it selfe
also
,
by
seeking
to
represent
it
to
the
eyes
and
consciences
of
men
,
as
a
Beacon
upon
a
hill
,
or
as
a
Sparrow
upon
the
house
top
alone
by
it selfe
,
destitute
of
Friends
and
helpers
,
when
as
it
dwells
in
the
midst
of
its
own
people
,
and
hath
many
of
the
very
choyce
of
those
holy
and
faithfull
and
chosen
ones
,
that
are
with
the
Lamb
against
the
Beast
,
to
stand
for
it
.
So
that
those
odious
aspersions
of
Popery
and
Arminianisme
,
are
Vipers
that
wil
easily
shake
into
the
fire
,
when
the
time
of
shaking
comes
.
This
for
a
4th
Demonstration
of
our
Conclusion
from
the
Scriptures
.
CAP.
VI.
Conteining
a
Fift
Argument
or
proofe
from
Scripture
,
for
clearing
the
Assertion
.
FIftly
,
SECT.
1
I
conceive
,
that
a
cleare
opening
of
that
Scripture
,
Philip.
39.
will
yield
us
plenty
of
further
light
,
for
the
discovery
of
that
truth
we
seek
after
in
the
obscurity
of
our
present
Controversie
.
The
words
are
:
And
be
found
in
him
,
not
having
mine
own
righteousnesse
,
which
is
of
the
Law
,
but
that
which
is
through
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
God
through
Faith
.
In
the
former
verse
the
Apostle
professeth
what
strange
effects
the
excellency
of
the
knowledge
of
Christ
had
wrought
in
him
,
it
had
caused
him
to
count
all
things
losse
,
which
somtimes
he
had
esteemed
the
greatest
gaine
,
and
the
best
treasure
:
yea
to
despoyle
himselfe
,
as
it
were
with
a
spirit
of
deep
indignation
,
of
all
those
formerly
beloved
and
rich-esteemed
ornaments
,
which
were
unto
him
as
chaines
of
gold
about
his
neck
;
and
(
as
he
then
thought
)
highly
commended
him
,
and
made
him
glorious
in
the
sight
of
God
and
men
(
he
means
his
Pharisaicall
righteousnesse
and
legall
observations
;
his
Jewish
prerogatives
,
&c.
he
was
now
so
farre
transformed
by
the
renewing
of
his
mind
,
by
the
light
of
the
knowledge
of
Christ
shining
in
unto
him
,
that
he
looked
upon
all
his
,
former
glory
,
as
upon
dung
,
and
smelt
a
favour
of
death
in
those
things
,
which
had
bin
his
only
confidence
and
hope
before
of
life
and
peace
.
Now
the
reason
why
he
favoured
himselfe
all
that
might
be
in
these
under-thoughts
,
and
avileing
apprehensions
of
his
former
things
,
and
layed
on
load
in
this
kind
all
he
could
,
he
declares
to
be
this
,
that
he
might
win
Christ
,
or
make
gain
and
advantage
of
him
.
How
this
his
desire
or
intent
of
gaining
Christ
might
be
accomplished
,
he
expresseth
thus
,
And
may
be
found
in
him
.
Observe
:
he
doth
not
say
,
that
he
may
be
found
in
his
righteousnesse
,
much
lesse
in
his
righteousnesse
imputed
to
him
,
but
simply
in
himselfe
,
That
he
might
be
found
in
him
:
which
is
an
usuall
expression
in
Scripture
,
of
the
spirituall
estate
and
condition
of
a
beleever
,
viz.
to
be
in
Christ
.
Rom.
8.1
.
There
is
no
condemnation
to
those
that
are
in
Christ
Iesus
.
So
cap.
16.7
.
Who
also
were
in
Christ
before
me
,
i.
were
beleevers
,
&c.
What
it
is
to
be
found
in
Christ
,
or
how
it
must
be
with
him
,
if
he
be
found
in
him
,
(
viz.
when
his
time
is
come
,
for
he
speaks
here
of
the
future
,
of
the
time
of
his
breaking
up
(
as
it
were
)
by
death
)
he
expresseth
,
1.
negatively
thus
:
not
having
mine
own
righteousnesse
:
yet
not
simply
and
alltogether
no
righteousnesse
,
that
may
in
no
sence
be
called
his
own
,
but
precisely
and
determinately
,
no
such
righteousnesse
of
his
own
,
which
stands
in
works
of
the
Law
.
Such
a
righteousnesse
of
his
own
he
must
be
sure
not
to
have
,
i.
not
to
trust
to
,
or
to
shroud
and
shelter
himselfe
under
from
the
stroke
of
Gods
justice
.
2º
,
affirmatively
thus
:
but
that
(
i
that
righteousnesse
)
which
is
through
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
God
by
Faith
.
Here
is
not
the
least
jot
or
tittle
of
any
mention
,
not
the
least
whispering
,
breathing
or
intimation
of
any
righteousnesse
he
should
have
by
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
no
nor
of
any
righteousnesse
,
by
or
through
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
:
but
only
such
a
righteousnes
as
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
through
Faith
of
Christ
,
or
by
beleeving
in
him
.
Now
because
such
a
righteousnesse
as
this
wherein
is
nothing
more
required
of
men
,
SECT.
2
but
only
Faith
in
Christ
,
might
seeme
a
slender
and
tickle
righteousnesse
to
adventure
so
great
a
weight
as
the
precious
soule
upon
,
and
comes
far
short
of
that
righteousnesse
of
a
mans
owne
,
which
he
might
make
out
by
the
works
of
the
Law
:
the
Apostle
addes
by
way
of
commendation
of
this
righteousnesse
,
to
uphold
the
credit
and
esteeme
of
it
in
the
hearts
and
consciences
of
men
,
that
it
is
the
righteousnesse
of
God
.
i.
a
righteousnesse
which
God
himselfe
hath
found
out
,
and
which
he
will
owne
and
countenance
and
account
for
righteousnesse
unto
men
,
and
no
other
but
this
:
Even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
(
saith
he
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
in
Faith
,
i.
which
comes
and
accrues
,
and
is
derived
upon
a
man
by
Faith
.
The
mentioning
of
this
righteousnesse
the
second
time
,
as
being
or
standing
in
Faith
,
is
doubtlesse
emphaticall
.
One
reason
Joseph
gave
(
Gen.
41.32
.
)
why
Pharohs
dreame
was
doubled
by
God
unto
him
,
was
to
shew
that
the
thing
was
established
by
God
:
so
the
reason
why
Paul
mentions
the
second
time
(
so
immediatly
upon
the
former
(
the
consistence
or
standing
of
this
righteousnesse
,
in
and
by
Faith
,
in
all
likely
hood
was
this
,
to
shew
that
this
righteousnesse
certainly
will
carry
it
,
notwithstanding
all
the
unlikelyhood
,
and
seeming
imperfections
of
it
,
and
that
the
thing
is
fully
concluded
and
established
with
God
accordingly
:
Or
as
it
is
often
in
speech
betweene
man
,
and
man
,
when
a
man
hath
spoken
that
which
seems
improbable
to
him
to
whom
it
is
spoken
,
and
may
be
conceived
that
the
Speaker
was
mistaken
in
his
words
,
and
would
correct
himselfe
,
if
he
considered
what
he
said
,
it
is
usuall
in
such
a
case
,
if
he
that
spake
,
spake
advisedly
and
be
able
to
make
good
what
he
said
,
and
meanes
to
stand
to
it
,
to
speake
the
same
thing
over
againe
,
and
so
to
confirme
and
ratifie
that
which
was
spoken
against
both
the
unlikelyhood
of
the
thing
,
and
the
unbeliefe
of
the
hearer
.
It
is
a
passage
(
I
conceive
)
carried
by
some
such
rule
as
this
,
which
the
Apostle
hath
in
the
following
Chapter
,
ver.
4.
Rejoyce
in
the
Lord
alwaies
:
Now
because
these
Philipians
were
under
great
trialls
and
afflictions
,
and
so
might
think
it
was
no
time
for
them
to
rejoyce
in
,
and
that
Paul
had
forgotten
himselfe
,
and
the
condition
they
were
in
,
to
speake
to
them
of
rejoycing
,
therefore
to
shew
that
he
knew
well
enough
what
he
said
,
and
that
he
had
weighed
his
words
sufficiently
,
before
he
put
them
downe
,
and
that
there
was
no
other
cause
but
why
they
should
rejoyce
in
the
Lord
,
notwithstanding
the
fiery
triall
that
was
upon
them
,
he
redoubles
the
words
of
his
exhortation
.
Rejoyce
in
the
Lord
alwaies
,
and
againe
I
say
rejoyce
.
So
Paul
here
,
having
once
affirmed
,
that
the
righteousnesse
wherein
he
desired
to
be
found
,
was
the
righteousnesse
which
is
by
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
least
he
should
seeme
to
have
spoken
that
which
he
would
not
stand
to
,
or
that
which
he
would
upon
second
thoughts
retract
,
he
speakes
the
same
words
(
in
effect
)
the
second
time
,
and
avouceth
that
very
righteousnesse
which
is
by
Faith
,
to
be
that
righteousnesse
that
he
would
stand
to
,
and
desired
to
be
found
with
.
If
Paul
had
had
any
mind
or
inclination
at
all
,
to
have
placed
the
righteousnesse
by
which
he
was
to
be
justified
,
in
the
righteousnesse
,
of
Christ
imputed
,
here
was
even
a
tempting
occasion
and
opportunity
to
have
drawne
him
into
expressions
of
himselfe
that
way
.
But
we
see
here
is
loud
speaking
,
againe
and
againe
,
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
but
altum
silentium
,
profound
silence
of
any
righteousnesse
from
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
This
for
a
fift
proofe
from
Scripture
.
CAP.
VII
.
Wherein
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
is
further
cleered
from
the
Scriptures
.
SIxtly
,
SECT.
1
that
that
which
God
imputes
for
righteousnesse
in
Iustification
,
is
not
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
himselfe
(
in
the
sense
refused
in
the
first
Chapter
of
this
discourse
)
but
Faith
in
Christ
,
I
conceive
may
be
cleerely
wrought
out
,
and
evicted
out
of
all
those
Scriptures
,
where
Iustification
is
ascribed
unto
Faith
.
Not
to
heap
up
places
in
this
kind
(
which
are
confessedly
many
:
)
Therefore
we
conclude
that
a
man
is
justified
by
Faith
,
&c.
Romans
3
,
28.
So
againe
,
Romans
5.1
.
Therefore
we
being
justified
by
FAITH
,
&c.
All
confesse
,
that
MEN
are
justifyed
by
Faith
:
and
indeed
the
conclusion
thus
far
,
is
greater
then
can
be
gaine-said
.
The
pregnant
letter
of
the
Scripture
is
too
hard
for
any
mans
contradiction
.
Now
when
men
say
and
professe
(
according
to
the
Scriptures
)
that
Faith
iustifieth
,
I
demand
,
what
is
it
they
meane
by
Faith
?
do
they
not
meane
their
beleeving
,
or
the
Act
of
Faith
(
usually
so
called
and
expressed
)
which
by
the
assistance
of
of
the
Holy
Ghost
is
raised
within
them
,
and
put
forth
by
them
?
If
by
Faith
in
this
case
,
they
meane
any
thing
besides
either
the
habit
or
act
of
beleeving
,
I
confesse
my
soule
hath
not
yet
entred
into
their
secret
.
The
Scriptures
in
the
matter
of
Iustification
,
seeme
rather
to
speake
of
that
which
we
call
the
act
of
beleeving
,
then
of
the
habit
:
and
so
learned
D●vines
(
as
far
as
I
have
observed
)
generally
conceive
.
Now
for
men
to
say
and
to
professe
themselves
that
Faith
justifieth
,
and
yet
to
condemne
it
for
an
error
in
another
,
that
shall
say
and
hold
,
that
it
is
an
act
of
Faith
that
justifieth
,
(
hath
in
my
apprehension
)
as
much
inconsistencie
of
reason
in
it
,
as
if
a
man
should
grant
,
that
Hierusalem
once
was
the
joy
of
the
whole
Earth
,
and
yet
should
censure
him
that
should
say
,
that
the
Citie
Hierusalem
was
ever
so
:
or
that
should
grant
,
that
Paul
laboured
in
the
Gospel
more
then
all
the
Apostles
,
but
would
not
endure
him
,
that
should
say
,
that
Paul
the
Apostle
did
so
.
As
Hierusalem
,
and
the
Citie
Hierusalem
are
the
same
,
and
Paul
,
and
Paul
the
Apostle
the
same
:
so
are
Faith
,
and
the
act
of
Faith
but
the
same
:
and
if
one
justifieth
,
certainly
the
other
justifieth
also
.
It
may
be
it
will
be
here
said
,
SECT.
2
that
they
which
confesse
that
Faith
justifieth
,
doe
not
meane
or
conceive
of
it
,
as
divided
or
severed
from
it's
object
,
CHRIST
.
No
more
did
ever
any
man
that
had
but
the
first
fruits
of
reason
given
him
for
his
allowance
.
For
a
man
to
say
,
that
he
seeth
,
and
yet
to
affirme
,
that
when
he
seeth
,
he
seeth
nothing
,
is
to
professe
open
enmitie
against
common
sense
and
reason
.
Neither
is
it
any
other
in
him
(
whosoever
he
be
)
that
shall
conceive
of
any
act
of
Faith
,
that
is
not
exercised
or
acted
upon
its
object
,
either
Christ
in
person
,
or
Christ
in
promise
,
or
the
like
.
It
is
unpossible
that
any
man
should
beleeve
,
but
that
he
must
beleeve
something
,
or
in
some
person
:
and
so
when
any
man
speakes
of
Faith
or
beleeving
,
he
must
of
necessity
imply
the
object
with
,
or
in
the
Act
,
though
he
names
only
the
Act
,
and
not
the
object
,
as
the
usuall
manner
of
the
Scripture
expression
is
,
where
Faith
or
beleeving
is
40
times
mentioned
,
without
addition
of
the
object
Christ
,
or
the
promise
of
God
in
Christ
,
or
any
thing
equivalent
to
either
.
Secondly
,
it
may
be
it
will
be
said
,
that
when
men
professe
and
say
,
that
Faith
iustifieth
,
their
meaning
only
is
,
that
Faith
justifieth
,
instrumentally
,
and
not
otherwise
.
To
this
I
answere
,
neither
hath
any
thing
more
bin
said
hitherto
by
me
,
neither
is
any
thing
intended
to
be
said
in
the
sequel
,
but
according
to
the
rule
of
this
position
:
Faith
justifieth
.
instrumentally
.
But
thirdly
,
it
may
be
it
will
be
yet
further
obiected
and
said
,
SECT.
3
that
when
men
confesse
that
Faith
iustifieth
,
their
meaning
is
,
that
it
Iustifieth
,
as
it
takes
hold
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
I
Answere
,
if
this
also
should
be
granted
(
but
the
Scripture
,
as
hath
bin
said
,
never
mentioneth
or
describeth
justifying
Faith
under
any
such
consideration
)
yet
it
is
the
act
of
Faith
that
Iustifieth
.
As
when
a
man
putteth
forth
his
arme
,
and
reacheth
a
pot
or
cup
with
drink
in
it
,
wherewith
he
quencheth
his
thirst
,
he
may
be
said
to
quench
his
thirst
instrumentally
,
by
reaching
out
his
arme
;
because
this
was
a
meanes
to
procure
it
.
So
let
men
put
what
meaning
or
interpretation
they
please
upon
their
words
,
when
they
professe
and
acknowledg
,
that
it
is
Faith
that
Iustifieth
,
if
they
meane
at
all
as
they
say
they
must
meane
that
it
is
the
Act
of
Faith
that
Iustifieth
,
because
both
that
Faith
by
which
a
man
beleeves
in
Christ
,
is
an
act
of
Faith
,
and
againe
,
that
Faith
by
which
a
man
is
instrumentally
Iustified
,
is
an
act
of
Faith
:
and
that
Faith
that
layeth
hold
upon
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
an
act
of
Faith
too
.
Therefore
let
men
turne
themselves
any
way
,
and
which
way
they
please
,
and
make
their
words
to
fall
either
to
the
North
,
or
towards
the
South
,
if
they
meane
as
they
say
,
that
faith
indeed
Iustifieth
,
they
must
meane
,
that
it
is
the
act
of
faith
that
Iustifieth
.
And
when
themselves
will
say
that
faith
Iustifieth
,
and
yet
will
condemne
it
for
an
error
in
another
,
that
the
act
of
faith
should
Iustify
:
they
cannot
escape
the
hands
of
this
dilemma
,
but
one
of
the
horns
will
gore
them
;
either
it
must
follow
,
that
they
doe
not
meane
,
as
they
say
:
or
that
they
condemne
their
owne
opinion
and
meaning
in
another
:
most
true
it
is
,
that
it
is
far
from
truth
to
say
,
that
faith
iustifyeth
as
it
is
an
act
:
and
as
far
from
truth
it
is
,
to
say
,
that
it
is
not
the
act
of
faith
that
Iustifieth
.
If
it
be
yet
further
replyed
and
said
,
SECT.
4
that
when
men
say
,
we
are
justified
by
Faith
,
their
meaning
is
,
that
we
are
justified
by
that
which
faith
apprehendeth
:
and
this
is
farre
from
saying
,
that
Faith
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
.
To
this
I
Answer
:
1.
if
their
meaning
be
simply
and
without
limitation
so
,
that
we
are
justified
by
that
which
Faith
apprehendeth
,
when
they
say
,
we
are
justified
by
Faith
,
then
they
speake
more
truth
,
then
they
are
aware
of
,
and
(
as
it
seems
)
more
then
they
intend
to
speake
.
For
that
Faith
justifieth
is
most
true
:
but
that
whatsoever
Faith
apprehendeth
should
justifie
,
hath
no
fellowship
with
truth
,
(
no
not
so
much
as
in
appearance
)
For
By
Faith
we
understand
(
or
apprehend
)
the
worlds
were
made
,
Heb.
11.3
.
yet
no
man
will
say
,
that
the
creation
of
the
world
justifies
men
.
Secondly
,
if
men
ascribe
justification
in
every
respect
and
consideration
to
that
which
Faith
apprehendeth
,
they
utterly
overthrow
that
which
generally
they
professe
,
viz.
the
instrumentall
justification
of
faith
.
For
if
any
thing
that
faith
apprehendeth
,
justifieth
every
way
,
both
materially
,
and
formally
,
and
meritoriously
,
and
principally
,
and
instrumentally
,
&c.
Faith
shall
justifie
no
wayes
:
and
so
when
men
say
,
they
are
justified
by
Faith
,
their
meaning
must
be
,
they
are
not
at
al
justified
by
Faith
,
but
by
some
other
thing
.
Therfore
of
necessity
it
is
,
that
Faith
must
justifie
some
way
:
if
it
iustifieth
any
way
,
it
must
of
neceility
be
,
by
imputation
or
account
from
God
for
righteousnes
,
because
it
is
all
that
God
requires
of
men
to
their
iustification
,
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
.
The
fore
if
God
shall
not
impute
or
account
it
unto
them
for
this
righteousnesse
,
it
would
stand
them
in
no
stead
at
all
to
their
iustificaetion
:
because
there
is
nothing
usefull
or
availeable
to
any
holy
,
or
saving
purpose
whatsoever
,
but
only
to
that
where●●
to
God
hath
assigned
it
.
If
God
in
the
new
Covenant
of
the
Gospell
,
requires
faith
in
Christ
for
our
iustification
,
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
in
the
old
,
and
this
Faith
will
not
passe
in
account
with
him
for
such
righteousnesse
,
both
his
Commandement
and
Covenant
for
beleeving
,
and
the
obedience
it selfe
of
beleeving
,
will
both
become
voyd
and
of
none
effect
;
the
intire
benefit
of
them
being
suspended
upon
the
gracious
pleasure
and
purpose
of
God
in
the
designation
of
them
to
their
end
.
CAP.
VIII
.
Conteining
the
last
proofe
from
Scripture
,
for
the
Non-imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
the
sence
controverted
.
THere
is
yet
one
Scripture
remaining
(
happily
amongst
many
more
that
have
not
yet
manifested
themselves
in
this
Controversie
)
that
seems
(
yea
I
verily
beleeve
,
SECT.
1
doth
more
then
seem
)
quite
to
overthrow
and
take
away
that
which
must
be
the
groundworke
and
foundation
to
set
this
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
upon
(
if
ever
it
stands
)
viz.
the
imputability
,
or
transferiblenesse
of
it
from
one
to
another
.
If
the
Scriptures
doe
not
only
no where
establish
,
but
in
any
place
absolutely
deny
a
possibility
of
the
translation
or
removing
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
from
one
person
to
another
;
this
will
strike
the
fatall
stroke
in
deciding
this
Question
.
This
I
conceive
will
be
evicted
with
a
pregnancie
irrefragable
from
that
Scripture
Gal.
3.12
.
And
the
Law
is
not
of
Faith
:
but
the
man
that
doth
them
,
shall
live
in
them
.
This
Scripture
doth
not
barely
and
simply
deny
a
deceivablenesle
or
possibility
of
translation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
from
one
person
to
another
,
but
denies
it
emphatically
,
and
with
the
utmost
advantage
of
a
deniall
.
For
it
denies
a
possibility
of
it
to
be
done
,
even
by
that
hand
expresly
,
and
by
name
,
(
I
meane
the
hand
of
faith
)
which
was
the
ikelyest
hand
under
Heaven
to
have
done
it
,
if
the
nature
of
the
thing
to
be
done
had
not
resisted
the
doing
of
it
.
The
Apostle
denyeth
unto
faith
it selfe
the
office
and
power
of
being
a
Mediatrix
in
this
case
,
to
derive
or
carry
over
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
from
one
person
to
another
,
By
which
it
appeareth
also
,
that
he
had
an
intent
particularly
to
make
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
as
performed
by
Christ
himselfe
,
uncapable
of
this
translation
or
imputation
:
because
faith
never
pretended
,
nor
ever
could
have
ground
or
colour
to
pretend
a
deriving
or
translating
of
any
other
legall
righteousnesse
from
one
person
to
another
for
Justification
,
but
only
that
which
was
performed
by
Christ
.
If
there
were
any
thing
in
all
the
world
that
could
have
done
the
thing
that
is
pleaded
for
,
Faith
indeed
hath
the
preheminence
of
likely
hood
to
do
it
:
because
it
doth
derive
a
righteousnesse
from
one
to
another
,
such
a
righteousnesse
as
is
deriveable
,
an
imputative
righteousnesse
you
may
call
it
,
because
it
is
such
by
account
or
interpretation
(
I
meane
,
remission
of
sins
:
)
this
Faith
derives
from
Christ
upon
him
that
beleeveth
:
but
for
a
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
it
cannot
derive
,
because
such
a
righteousnesse
is
not
deriveable
.
Let
the
words
and
scope
of
the
Scripture
mentionedbe
narrowly
examined
,
SECT.
2
and
all
this
that
hath
been
said
will
be
found
in
the
bowells
of
it
.
And
the
Law
is
not
of
Faith
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
the
man
that
doth
them
,
shall
live
in
them
:
or
(
if
you
would
translate
the
emphasis
also
which
is
in
the
originall
)
thus
:
the
very
doer
of
them
,
the
man
shall
live
.
The
former
clause
,
after
Pauls
succinct
and
presse
manner
of
expressing
himselfe
,
is
very
briefe
,
and
therefore
somewhat
obscure
in
it selfe
:
but
the
latter
clause
easeth
the
burden
of
the
dificulty
,
and
casteth
a
sufficient
light
upon
it
.
Whereunto
if
we
adde
but
the
dependance
and
reference
that
this
verse
hath
upon
the
former
,
Pauls
meaning
will
bee
found
as
cleere
as
the
noone
day
.
Therefore
when
he
saith
,
the
Law
is
not
of
faith
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
saith
the
originall
)
by
,
or
out
of
faith
,
his
meaning
can
be
no
other
but
this
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
doth
not
arise
or
come
upon
any
man
out
of
his
Faith
or
by
his
beleeving
,
or
that
no
man
is
made
partaker
of
a
legall
righteousnesse
by
beleeving
:
but
(
saith
he
)
the
very
doer
,
the
man
he
shall
live
in
(
or
by
)
them
.
He
proves
the
truth
of
the
former
clause
,
from
the
expresse
tenor
of
the
Law
,
or
legall
righteousnesse
,
as
standing
in
full
opposition
to
any
derivation
of
it
from
one
to
another
,
even
by
Faith
it selfe
.
As
if
he
should
say
,
no
legall
righteousnesse
can
come
upon
any
man
by
beleeving
,
because
it
is
only
the
man
himselfe
that
doth
the
things
of
the
Law
,
that
shall
be
justified
and
live
by
them
:
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
never
goeth
further
(
in
the
propriety
or
formalitie
of
it
)
to
the
justification
of
any
man
,
then
to
the
person
of
him
that
fulfills
the
Law
.
That
by
the
word
Law
,
in
this
place
,
is
meant
the
righteousnesse
or
fulfilling
of
the
Law
(
besides
that
there
can
hardly
be
made
any
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
clause
,
if
this
word
be
taken
in
any
other
sense
)
may
appeare
by
the
like
acception
of
the
same
word
,
the
Law
,
in
other
passages
of
this
Apostle
,
when
it
is
used
upon
like
occasion
.
Rom.
4.13
.
for
the
promise
was
not
to
Abraham
or
his
seed
through
the
LAW
.
i.
through
the
righteousnes
of
,
or
obedience
unto
the
Law
viz.
that
it
should
be
obtained
,
and
enjoyed
by
any
such
righteousnesse
:
as
is
evident
by
the
opposition
in
the
following
clause
,
but
through
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
i.
this
promise
was
not
made
unto
him
and
his
seed
,
that
the
benefit
and
blessing
of
it
should
be
obtained
by
the
former
,
but
by
the
latter
righteousnesse
.
The
word
is
againe
used
in
the
same
signification
in
the
very
next
verse
.
For
if
they
that
be
of
the
Law
,
be
heires
.
i.
that
are
for
the
righteousnesse
of
the
LAW.
and
will
stand
to
be
justified
by
that
,
(
besides
other
places
without
number
.
)
The
scope
likewise
of
the
place
,
and
the
dependence
of
the
clause
with
the
former
ver.
SECT.
3
apparantly
evinceth
this
interpretation
.
The
Apostle
in
the
former
verse
had
delivered
it
for
a
truth
,
that
no
man
could
be
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
by
the
Law
,
i.
by
the
righteousnesse
or
works
of
the
Law
,
for
this
reason
,
because
the
Scripture
saith
,
that
the
just
shall
live
by
faith
.
Now
because
this
consequence
might
seeme
somewhat
doubtfull
and
insu●ficient
,
lying
open
to
some
such
exception
against
it
as
this
:
what
though
the
just
doe
,
or
must
live
by
faith
,
may
they
not
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
too
,
and
live
by
them
also
?
may
not
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
be
made
over
unto
them
,
by
faith
,
and
so
compound
righteousnesse
be
made
for
them
,
of
both
together
?
No
(
saith
Paul
)
the
Law
is
not
of
faith
:
there
can
be
no
legal
righteousnesse
derived
or
drawn
upon
men
by
faith
:
and
that
for
this
reason
,
because
such
a
righteousnesse
is
by
the
expresse
letter
and
tenor
of
the
Law
,
consined
and
appropriated
to
the
person
of
him
that
fulfills
it
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
man
himselfe
that
doth
them
,
shall
live
by
them
.
q.
d.
there
is
a
repugnancy
and
contradiction
in
it
ex
naturarei
,
in
the
very
nature
and
essence
of
the
thing
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
should
●ver
be
removed
or
caried
over
from
one
mans
person
to
another
,
though
it
were
attempted
by
the
hand
of
Faith
it selfe
.
God
never
intended
that
the
Law
and
faith
should
meet
together
to
jumble
up
a
justification
for
any
man
.
And
whereas
it
is
frequently
charged
as
a
matter
of
deep
prejudice
upon
the
opinion
laboured
for
in
this
discourse
,
that
it
magnityeth
faith
above
measure
,
and
makes
an
Idol
of
it
:
the
truth
is
,
that
the
contrary
opinion
,
which
ascribes
to
it
a
power
of
transferring
a
legall
righteousnesse
,
●●●gnifieth
it
7
times
more
,
and
ascribes
a
power
even
of
impossibilities
to
it
.
Faith
may
boast
of
many
great
things
otherwise
:
and
may
remove
mountaines
:
but
for
removing
any
legall
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
we
speake
of
)
it
must
let
that
alone
for
ever
.
There
is
a
greater
contrariety
and
indisposition
in
the
severall
natures
of
faith
and
the
Law
,
in
respect
of
mixing
or
working
together
to
make
up
a
Iustification
,
then
was
betweene
the
lion
and
Clay
in
Nebuchadnezzars
vision
.
Dan.
2.43
.
though
in
other
things
they
well
agree
.
Repugnantia
legis
et
fidei
est
(
saith
Calvin
in
Gal.
3.12
)
in
causa
justificationis
:
facilius
enim
aquam
igni
copulabis
,
quam
haec
duo
concilies
,
homines
fide
et
lege
esse
justos
.
1.
There
is
a
repugnancie
betweene
the
Law
and
faith
,
in
the
matter
of
Iustification
:
and
a
man
may
sooner
couple
fire
and
water
together
,
then
make
these
two
agree
,
that
men
are
righteous
by
faith
,
and
yet
by
the
Law
too
.
Consonant
to
this
Scripture
last
opened
,
is
that
Rom.
4.14
.
For
if
they
which
are
of
the
Law
be
heires
,
faith
is
made
voyde
,
and
the
promise
is
made
of
none
effect
.
Where
you
see
as
full
and
as
irreconcileable
an
opposition
,
betweene
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
in
respect
of
justification
,
as
is
betweene
East
and
West
:
it
is
unpossible
they
should
be
brought
together
.
There
is
a
greater
gulfe
fixed
betweene
them
,
then
was
betweene
Abraham
and
Dives
:
faith
cannot
go
over
to
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
to
joyne
with
that
in
Iustification
:
neither
can
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
bee
brought
over
unto
faith
.
What
reason
there
may
bee
conceived
for
this
Non-imputabilitie
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
See
Cap.
21
we
shall
have
a
faire
opportunity
to
declare
,
in
the
prosecution
of
our
grounds
and
reasons
,
for
the
point
we
favor
in
this
discourse
:
which
is
the
next
thing
we
hast
unto
.
CAP.
IX
.
Wherein
the
first
ground
or
argument
for
the
conclusion
undertaken
,
is
propounded
and
established
.
HAving
considered
with
as
much
diligence
and
faithfulnesse
as
frailty
would
permit
,
how
the
Scriptures
stand
affected
and
incline
in
the
controversie
depending
,
we
are
lead
(
in
the
next
place
)
by
the
hand
of
a
plaine
and
familiar
method
,
to
propound
such
Arguments
and
considerations
for
the
confirmation
of
the
premisses
,
as
reason
and
sobriety
of
thoughts
about
the
stated
Question
,
have
suggested
.
My
first
ground
and
argument
to
prove
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
the
sence
now
under
dispute
,
viz.
in
the
letter
and
proprietie
of
it
)
cannot
be
imputed
unto
any
for
their
justification
.
I
propound
after
this
manner
.
That
righteousnesse
which
will
not
fit
,
and
furnish
all
beleevers
with
all
points
or
parts
of
that
righteousnesse
,
which
the
Law
requires
of
them
,
cannot
be
imputed
unto
them
unto
justification
.
But
the
obedience
that
Christ
performed
to
the
mor
all
Law
,
is
such
a
righteousnesse
as
will
not
fit
and
furnish
all
beleevers
with
all
points
of
righteousnesse
,
which
the
Law
requires
of
them
.
Therfore
it
cannot
be
imputed
to
beleevers
for
their
justification
.
The
reason
of
the
former
Proposition
is
,
because
a
perfect
and
compleat
legall
righteousnesse
(
and
such
certainly
,
I
meane
perfect
and
compleat
,
that
that
justifieth
,
must
of
necessity
be
)
requires
a
precise
,
punctuall
and
through
obedience
unto
all
things
in
the
Law
,
which
any
way
concernes
a
man
to
doe
.
If
there
be
but
a
letter
,
jot
,
or
title
wanting
in
any
man
righteousnesse
of
all
that
was
his
duty
to
doe
,
that
righteousnesse
is
not
(
at
any
hand
)
for
his
iustification
.
The
curse
of
the
Law
and
eternall
vengeance
will
breake
in
upon
a
man
,
body
and
soule
,
aswell
through
the
smallest
and
least-imaginable
defects
of
a
legall
righteousnesse
,
as
through
wider
breaches
,
and
greater
transgressions
,
in
case
a
man
hath
not
wherewith
to
secure
himselfe
otherwise
.
Cursed
is
every
one
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
,
to
doe
them
Gal.
3.10
.
Therfore
there
is
no
escaping
the
curse
of
the
La●●
by
the
law
,
except
a
mans
obedience
be
absolutely
absolute
,
aswell
for
constancie
as
univ●●se
,
in
ad
things
that
are
written
viz.
with
reference
to
him
,
and
〈◊〉
calling
.
For
otherwise
,
there
may
be
a
struct
and
compleat
I
〈◊〉
righteousnesse
,
with
〈◊〉
the
doing
〈…〉
Law
,
in
ca●e
they
have
no
〈…〉
As
for
instance
:
Adam
might
have
performed
,
and
accordingly
have
hin
still
Justified
by
a
compleat
Legall
righteousnesse
,
and
yet
never
have
performed
many
duties
,
which
the
Law
required
of
Eve
,
for
the
continuance
of
her
iustification
.
So
Christ
ful●filled
all
righteousnesse
(
as
himselfe
faith
,
it
became
him
to
doe
)
and
consequently
held
an
exact
conformity
with
the
Law
,
so
that
neither
Man
,
nor
God
himselfe
,
could
rebuke
him
of
sinne
:
and
yet
the
Law
requires
many
things
of
many
others
both
Men
and
Women
,
which
Christ
never
performed
,
as
will
appeare
in
the
demonstration
of
the
latter
Proposition
(
which
is
at
hand
.
)
For
the
truth
therfore
of
this
Proposition
that
the
righteousnesse
performed
by
Christ
unto
the
Morall
Law
,
SECT.
2
will
not
sit
and
furnish
all
beleevers
with
all
parts
of
such
a
righteousnesse
as
the
Law
requires
of
them
,
it
is
so
full
of
its
owne
light
,
that
further
proofe
will
but
runne
over
.
How
many
duties
are
Servants
indebted
unto
their
Masters
after
the
flesh
,
by
the
obligation
of
the
Law
,
which
Christ
never
discharged
or
performed
,
as
namely
that
they
should
be
obedient
unto
them
with
feare
and
trembling
.
Eph.
6.5
.
Againe
,
Wives
charged
by
the
Law
with
many
points
of
obedience
towards
their
Husbands
,
yea
and
Husbands
with
some
towards
their
Wives
,
which
certainly
Christ
never
performed
for
them
,
yea
he
expressely
declined
and
refused
the
doing
of
some
things
,
as
lying
without
the
verge
of
his
Calling
,
which
the
Law
requires
as
matters
of
speciall
dutie
from
others
.
When
he
was
desired
(
Luk.
12
13.14
.
)
to
do
Justice
,
or
take
up
a
controversie
betweene
a
man
and
his
Brother
,
his
answere
was
,
Man
,
who
made
me
a
Judge
,
or
divider
over
you
?
Implying
,
that
he
would
meddle
with
no
acts
of
righteousnesse
,
that
lay
without
the
precincts
of
his
Calling
.
And
indeed
if
he
had
(
though
it
was
unpossible
that
ever
his
foote
should
have
been
taken
in
that
snare
)
it
had
overthrowne
the
infinit
benefit
that
now
redounds
unto
the
world
,
from
those
acts
of
righteousnesse
,
which
were
performed
by
him
in
his
Calling
.
So
when
the
people
would
have
taken
him
and
made
him
King
,
Joh.
6.
he
absolutly
refused
:
and
refusing
the
office
of
a
King
,
doubtlesse
he
would
not
take
upon
him
the
execution
.
Therefore
what
righteousnesse
should
Kings
and
Magistrates
have
imputed
unto
them
from
Christ
to
make
them
just
and
righteous
in
their
Callings
,
when
Christ
himselfe
refused
to
performe
those
acts
of
righteousnesse
which
are
proper
thereunto
.
That
which
never
was
done
or
acted
by
Christ
,
cannot
be
imputed
:
that
which
never
had
a
being
,
is
not
capable
of
an
act
of
imputation
to
passe
upon
it
.
It
may
be
some
will
object
,
SECT.
3
that
Love
is
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
:
for
he
that
loveth
another
hath
fulfilled
the
Law
.
Rom.
13.8
.
and
this
fulfilling
of
the
Law
by
Love
,
is
such
a
righteousnesse
as
will
fit
all
persons
of
all
Callings
and
relations
in
the
world
whatsoever
.
Therefore
the
perfect
Love
of
Christ
,
may
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
all
,
though
particular
and
proper
acts
of
obedience
otherwise
be
wanting
.
But
to
this
I
Answere
.
First
,
howsoever
Love
may
be
termed
an
Evangelicall
keeping
or
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
because
God
accepteth
of
it
graciously
,
wheressoever
he
findeth
it
in
truth
,
and
rewar
deth
it
accordingly
,
yet
is
it
not
a
strict
,
literall
,
and
legall
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
it
is
not
such
a
fulfilling
of
it
,
as
will
hold
out
weight
and
measure
for
any
mans
justification
in
a
Covenant
of
works
.
For
first
,
the
Law
requires
many
duties
from
men
,
and
seizeth
upon
them
with
the
Curse
immediatly
upon
the
first
nonconti●
〈…〉
●al
t●in●s
.
N●w
Love
is
but
one
duty
〈…〉
and
therefore
cannot
be
many
,
much
〈…〉
Love
were
such
a
fu
filling
of
〈…〉
●●q●ired
in
a
legall
justification
〈…〉
beleevers
be
justified
,
not
by
an
〈…〉
by
a
pers
nal
▪
righteousnesse
:
because
no
〈◊〉
is
a
true
beleever
but
he
that
●oves
his
Brother
truely
,
and
whose
Faith
worketh
by
such
love
.
Thirdly
,
and
lastly
,
if
the
Love
of
Christ
were
capa●le
of
that
imputation
for
righteousnesse
,
that
is
pretended
,
then
will
it
follow
(
at
least
according
to
the
principl
●
of
that
Opinion
against
which
we
disput●
)
that
the
whole
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
I
meane
all
that
righteousnesse
of
his
which
stood
in
holy
actions
conformable
to
the
Law
,
was
in
vaine
:
be
cause
there
is
no
other
possible
necessity
granted
of
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
by
these
men
,
but
only
for
imputation
.
Therefore
Secondly
to
the
objection
I
answere
yet
againe
,
that
where
the
Scripture
calleth
Love
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
it
speaketh
only
of
that
part
of
the
Law
,
which
we
call
the
second
Table
:
as
is
no
whit
lesse
then
evident
in
the
place
last
named
.
Rom.
13.8.9
.
But
that
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
which
claimes
the
honour
of
a
justification
,
whether
by
imputation
or
personall
performance
,
must
comprehend
as
well
a
fulfilling
of
the
first
as
of
the
second
Table
.
Thirdly
and
lastly
,
that
proposition
,
Love
is
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
is
not
propositio
sormalis
,
but
causalis
&
consecutiva
(
as
Logiciaxs
speake
)
that
is
,
such
a
proposition
,
wherein
one
thing
is
said
to
be
another
,
not
because
it
is
precisely
the
same
in
nature
and
being
with
it
,
but
because
it
is
the
cause
of
it
,
and
so
hath
the
being
of
the
other
vertually
in
it
.
This
kind
of
proposition
is
frequent
in
Scripture
.
I
am
the
resurrection
(
saith
Christ
,
Ioh.
11.25
.
)
The
meaning
is
not
,
that
he
was
properly
and
formally
the
resurrection
,
but
that
he
was
the
cause
,
meanes
,
or
Author
,
of
the
resurrection
.
So
Paul
saying
that
Christ
is
our
hope
,
meaneth
only
,
that
CHRIST
is
the
ground
or
Author
of
our
hope
.
1
Tim.
1.1
.
In
like
manner
,
when
he
saith
,
Love
is
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
his
meaning
only
is
,
that
a
spirituall
and
unfeigned
affection
of
love
,
is
an
inward
principle
of
that
nature
and
importance
which
inclineth
and
disposeth
a
man
to
the
performance
and
practise
of
all
manner
of
duties
required
in
the
Law
.
Therefore
to
say
that
the
Love
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
men
for
their
fu
filling
of
the
Law
,
or
for
their
righteousnesse
,
is
ridiculous
.
More
might
be
added
by
way
of
answere
:
but
the
strength
of
the
Objection
is
small
.
Another
thing
that
(
happily
)
some
will
object
against
the
argument
propounded
,
is
this
:
SECT.
4
It
is
not
necessary
that
men
should
have
all
particular
acts
of
righteousnesse
qualified
with
all
circumstances
answerable
to
their
Callings
,
imputed
unto
them
for
their
justification
.
It
is
sufficient
,
if
they
have
a
righteousnesse
imputed
to
them
,
which
is
equivalent
to
such
a
righteousnesse
.
To
this
I
Answere
two
things
:
First
,
they
which
speake
such
things
,
doe
not
consider
the
severity
of
the
letter
,
the
strict
and
peremptory
nature
of
the
Law
.
The
Law
will
not
know
any
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
any
thing
by
way
of
proportion
or
equivalencie
:
one
thing
as
good
as
another
will
not
serve
the
turne
.
The
Law
must
have
jot
for
jot
,
title
for
title
,
point
for
point
,
letter
for
letter
,
every
thing
to
answere
in
the
most
exact
conformity
to
it
:
otherwise
it
hath
a
curse
in
a
readinesse
wherewith
to
take
vengeance
on
men
,
no
life
or
reward
.
Secondly
,
to
impute
acts
of
righteousnesse
to
a
man
which
are
proper
to
another
Calling
,
and
wholly
disagreeing
from
that
Calling
wherein
God
hath
placed
him
,
is
rather
to
impute
sinne
unto
him
,
then
righteousnesse
.
Because
though
such
acts
were
righteousnesse
to
him
that
wrought
them
,
yet
if
I
,
being
in
a
different
Calling
,
should
be
accounted
by
God
to
have
done
them
(
which
is
the
Law
of
imputation
)
I
must
be
judged
by
him
as
one
that
had
transgressed
the
bounds
of
my
Calling
,
&
consequently
had
sinned
.
Neither
is
that
reason
of
any
value
,
which
some
alledg
,
SECT.
5
to
countenance
an
equivalencie
of
righteousnesse
in
this
kind
,
instead
of
a
proprietie
viz.
that
God
was
not
punctuall
and
every
waies
circumstantiall
in
inflicting
the
Curse
of
the
Law
,
upon
the
transgression
of
it
:
because
they
suppose
,
that
by
those
words
(
wherein
the
Curse
of
the
Law
is
expressed
)
Thou
shalt
die
the
death
.
Gods
meaning
was
,
that
he
should
die
an
eternall
death
(
literally
)
and
not
by
way
of
equivalencie
.
Therefore
God
having
notwithstanding
inflicted
this
Curse
by
way
of
equivalencie
,
and
not
in
the
letter
of
it
,
why
may
he
not
impute
a
legall
righteousnesse
unto
men
,
that
hath
only
an
equivalencie
with
that
righteousnesse
which
they
should
have
performed
,
though
not
an
exactnesse
with
it
according
to
the
letter
.
For
to
this
I
answere
:
First
,
that
the
very
foundation
that
is
layed
to
build
this
objection
upon
,
is
sandy
,
and
hath
nothing
either
in
Scripture
,
or
sound
reason
to
bottome
it
.
From
the
Scriptures
,
nothing
that
I
have
read
,
is
so
much
as
pretended
that
way
,
viz
that
God
in
those
words
,
Thou
shalt
die
the
death
,
must
of
necessity
,
precisely
and
determinatly
meane
,
eternall
death
,
according
to
the
letter
.
And
by
what
fire
,
such
a
spirit
as
this
is
,
will
be
extracted
or
drawne
out
of
that
body
of
those
words
,
I
doe
not
yet
understand
.
If
we
judge
of
his
intent
and
meaning
in
those
words
by
the
event
of
things
,
or
manner
of
execution
,
they
were
meant
determinatly
,
neither
of
eternall
death
according
to
the
letter
,
nor
yet
of
an
eternall
death
by
way
of
equivalencie
,
but
indifferently
of
either
,
because
it
was
an
eternall
death
only
by
way
of
equivalencie
that
was
inflicted
upon
Christ
for
one
part
of
Adam
or
his
posterity
:
but
upon
the
other
part
which
perish
,
it
is
inflicted
according
to
the
letter
.
Secondly
upon
deeper
consideration
,
it
will
(
happily
)
be
found
to
be
neerer
the
truth
,
to
hold
,
that
in
those
words
,
Thou
shalt
die
the
death
,
God
his
meaning
was
not
(
at
lest
determinatly
)
to
threaten
eternall
death
either
in
one
kind
or
other
,
either
according
to
the
letter
,
or
by
way
of
equivalencie
:
but
to
have
the
word
Death
,
taken
and
understood
by
Adam
,
in
the
extent
of
the
signification
,
as
it
indifferently
signifieth
that
evill
of
the
punishment
which
was
represented
and
knowne
unto
him
,
by
the
name
of
Death
,
without
limiting
his
thoughts
to
the
consideration
either
of
the
shorter
continuance
,
or
of
the
everlastingnesse
of
the
duration
of
it
.
For
as
Scotus
well
determines
in
this
case
)
Aeternitas
non
est
de
ratione
poenae
peccatis
debitae
,
sed
peccatores
concomitans
,
qui
non
possunt
ut
Christus
,
vel
cum
Christo
cluctari
.
1.
Eternitie
is
not
of
the
nature
or
essence
of
the
punishment
due
unto
sins
,
but
it
followes
and
falls
upon
sinners
,
who
cannot
wrastle
out
as
Christ
did
,
or
with
him
.
So
then
,
eternity
not
being
essentiall
to
that
punishment
or
death
which
God
threatned
,
it
is
no
waies
necessary
that
it
should
be
included
(
especially
in
such
a
precise
and
determinate
manner
as
the
objection
pretendeth
)
in
the
signification
of
that
word
,
wherein
the
punishment
is
expressed
.
But
thirdly
and
lastly
,
suppose
the
foundation
be
gold
,
yet
will
it
be
found
hay
and
stubble
that
is
built
upon
it
.
For
what
if
God
should
take
liberty
to
varie
from
the
letter
of
the
Curse
,
in
the
execution
of
it
,
should
threaten
eternall
death
literally
,
and
inflict
it
equivalently
:
this
no
waies
proveth
,
that
the
creature
who
was
bound
to
obey
the
precepts
of
the
Law
,
might
take
the
like
liberty
to
performe
one
thing
instead
of
another
,
or
that
God
should
accept
any
such
payment
from
them
(
whether
made
by
themselves
,
or
by
another
for
them
,
)
in
the
nature
of
a
legall
payment
.
Indeed
having
received
a
full
satisfaction
for
all
the
transgressions
of
the
Law
,
he
may
by
a
second
or
new
Covenant
accept
of
what
he
pleaseth
to
estate
men
in
the
benefit
or
blessing
of
that
satisfaction
,
and
so
that
which
is
thus
accepted
,
becomes
in
this
respect
to
him
that
performs
it
and
from
whose
hand
it
is
accepted
,
equivalent
to
a
perfect
and
compleate
legall
righteousnesse
:
because
it
justifieth
him
(
in
respect
of
all
benefits
and
privileges
of
a
justification
)
as
well
as
such
a
righteousnesse
would
have
done
.
But
that
he
should
accept
on
any
mans
behalfe
,
as
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
,
the
performance
of
such
things
,
which
are
not
required
of
him
,
neither
by
the
first
Covenant
of
works
,
nor
by
the
second
of
Grace
,
hath
neither
correspondence
or
agreement
with
the
one
Covenant
,
or
with
the
other
.
A
man
(
me
thinks
)
must
have
a
rare
faculty
to
convert
any
thing
into
the
similitude
of
a
truth
at
pleasure
,
that
can
beleeve
or
conceive
,
that
Christs
preaching
on
the
Mount
,
ordaining
Disciples
,
reproving
the
Scribes
and
Pharises
,
working
miracles
and
the
like
(
which
were
parts
of
his
obedience
to
the
Law
)
should
be
imputed
to
a
woman
(
●or
example
)
instead
of
her
obedience
and
love
and
faithfulnesse
to
her
Husband
:
and
that
she
should
be
reputed
before
God
,
to
have
performed
all
these
duties
according
to
the
strict
forme
and
exigencie
of
●he
Law
,
because
Christ
performed
the
forenamed
duties
,
and
these
by
imputation
are
made
hers
.
CAP.
X.
A
second
ground
against
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
the
sense
formerly
rejected
)
drawn
from
the
transcendencie
of
the
nature
of
it
.
A
Second
Reason
,
SECT.
1
why
the
active
obedience
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
cannot
(
in
the
parts
and
proprietie
of
it
)
be
imputed
unto
any
man
whatsoever
for
righteousnesse
,
may
be
contrived
and
cast
into
this
frame
.
That
righteousnesse
which
is
exactly
and
precisely
fitted
to
the
person
and
office
of
him
,
that
is
mediator
betweene
God
and
man
,
or
Redeemer
of
the
world
,
cannot
be
imputed
unto
any
other
man
for
his
righteousnesse
.
But
such
is
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
a
righteousnesse
precisely
fitted
to
the
person
and
Calling
of
a
mediator
.
&c.
Therefore
it
cannot
be
imputed
unto
any
other
man
whatsoever
for
righteousnesse
unto
him
.
The
minor
proposition
(
I
conceive
)
will
be
yeelded
without
much
striving
.
If
any
man
will
undertake
to
finde
any
such
flaw
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
that
doth
amount
to
the
least
degree
of
an
incongruitie
,
or
inconsistencie
with
his
office
of
mediator
,
attempts
no
lesse
then
the
undermining
the
foundations
of
the
peace
of
the
world
,
and
laying
the
hope
of
the
salvation
of
men
in
the
dust
.
Such
an
High
Priest
(
saith
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
7.26
.
)
it
became
us
to
have
(
i.
that
it
was
necessary
we
should
have
,
if
we
looked
for
salvation
by
him
)
that
is
holy
,
harmlesse
,
undefiled
,
separate
from
sinners
,
&c.
And
woe
unto
the
world
,
if
the
least
either
spot
or
blemish
,
could
be
found
in
this
High
Priest
,
or
his
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
I
presume
that
the
deere
interest
which
every
man
layeth
claime
to
in
the
truth
of
this
proposition
,
will
secure
it
from
all
violence
of
contradiction
from
any
man
.
So
that
if
there
be
any
thing
weake
and
unconcluding
in
the
Argument
,
it
must
be
sought
for
in
the
major
Proposition
.
Therfore
let
us
cause
that
to
passe
through
the
fire
,
and
see
whether
any
flame
will
kindle
upon
it
.
The
tenor
of
this
was
:
that
that
righteousnesse
which
is
exactly
fitted
to
the
person
and
office
of
a
Mediator
,
cannot
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
any
other
man
.
How
a
conceipt
of
any
such
imputability
should
lodge
quietly
in
any
mans
thoughts
,
I
confesse
I
cannot
comprehend
.
The
whole
generation
of
Disputers
for
that
imputation
,
SECT.
2
which
we
oppose
,
generally
interpret
the
phrase
of
having
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
,
by
,
being
cloathed
with
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
or
,
with
the
robes
of
his
righteousnesse
.
Now
then
he
that
assumeth
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
himselfe
,
and
apparelleth
and
arayeth
himselfe
with
it
,
represents
himselfe
before
God
,
not
in
the
habit
of
a
just
or
righteous
Man
,
but
in
the
glorious
attire
of
him
,
that
makes
men
iust
and
righteous
,
the
great
Mediator
of
the
world
,
whose
righteousnesse
hath
heights
and
depths
in
it
,
a
length
and
breadth
,
which
insinitely
exceed
the
dimensions
and
proportions
of
all
men
whatsoever
.
And
as
John
speaking
(
as
is
probable
)
of
his
transfiguration
in
the
Mount
(
or
whether
it
be
of
any
other
manifestation
of
his
glory
,
it
is
not
much
materiall
)
useth
these
words
,
Joh.
1.14
.
We
beheld
his
glory
,
as
the
glory
of
the
only
begotten
of
the
Father
:
meaning
,
that
the
glory
wherein
Christ
then
appeared
,
was
so
supertranscendently
glorious
and
excellent
,
that
it
exceeded
the
rank
and
quality
of
the
creature
,
whether
Angel
or
Man
,
and
was
meet
only
for
him
to
weare
,
that
was
the
only
begotten
of
the
Father
:
i.
the
naturall
Sonne
of
God
,
the
greatnesse
of
the
person
could
not
but
have
bin
acknowledged
by
that
vestment
of
glory
,
which
he
then
had
on
:
so
may
(
and
must
)
it
be
acknowledged
and
said
of
the
righteousnesse
of
his
life
,
that
it
was
peculiarly
appropriated
to
him
that
was
the
only
begotten
of
the
Father
,
the
great
Saviour
and
Redeemer
of
the
world
.
Neither
did
that
glory
of
his
which
Iohn
saw
,
further
transcend
the
condition
of
the
creature
,
then
the
glory
of
this
righteousnesse
doth
.
Now
then
for
a
silly
worme
,
(
a
sinfull
and
contemptible
creature
)
to
take
this
robe
of
unmeasurable
Majesty
upon
it
,
and
to
conceit
it selfe
as
great
in
holinesse
and
righteousnesse
as
Iesus
Christ
himselfe
(
for
that
is
the
spirit
that
rules
in
that
opinion
,
to
teach
men
to
assume
all
that
Christ
did
unto
themselves
,
and
that
in
no
other
way
,
nor
upon
any
lower
terms
,
then
as
if
themselves
had
personally
done
it
)
whether
this
be
a
behaviour
and
deportment
of
soule
of
that
grace
and
acceptance
on
High
,
which
many
have
suffered
themselves
to
be
perswaded
of
;
whether
it
will
rellish
well
in
the
eye
of
jealousie
or
no
,
I
earnestly
desire
that
men
would
make
it
a
matter
of
Conscience
seriously
to
consider
and
re-examine
.
All
the
parts
of
his
righteousnesse
,
all
the
acts
of
obedience
that
he
performed
,
he
performed
them
as
one
that
had
received
the
spirit
without
measure
,
i.e.
there
was
a
weightinesse
and
worth
in
them
which
did
fully
answere
the
fullnesse
of
that
grace
that
was
given
unto
him
above
all
his
fellows
(
a
title
of
honour
wherewith
the
Holy
Ghost
is
pleased
to
honour
the
Saints
)
yea
those
acts
of
obedience
,
though
hee
wrought
them
in
the
humane
nature
,
or
as
he
was
Man
;
yet
by
reason
of
the
neere
neighbourhood
and
streight
combination
of
the
God
head
in
the
unitie
of
the
same
person
,
they
could
not
but
receive
excellent
impressions
from
that
also
:
The
righteousnesse
was
in
all
the
parts
and
circumstances
of
it
,
such
as
became
God
himselfe
in
personall
union
with
his
creature
,
the
humane
nature
.
Now
whether
that
be
not
to
be
accounted
robbery
(
and
that
of
a
high
nature
)
for
the
creature
to
assume
an
equality
of
righteousnesse
,
(
whether
by
imputation
or
however
)
with
God
himselfe
,
I
leave
to
the
sober
and
unpartiall
thoughts
of
men
to
consider
.
But
especially
there
are
some
streyns
in
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
that
cannot
be
appropriated
or
applyed
unto
any
other
whatsoever
without
notorious
and
manifest
impiety
.
All
that
Christ
taught
and
preached
on
earth
,
was
part
of
his
righteousnesse
and
obedience
.
For
I
have
not
spoken
of
my selfe
(
saith
he
,
Ioh.
12.49
.
)
but
the
Father
that
sent
me
gave
me
a
commandement
what
I
should
say
,
and
what
I
should
speake
.
Therfore
when
he
speaketh
these
and
many
such
like
words
,
I
am
the
light
of
the
world
:
Come
unto
me
all
that
are
wearie
and
heavie
laden
,
and
I
will
refresh
you
,
&c.
is
it
meet
for
any
other
to
conceive
them
as
spoken
by
himselfe
in
his
owne
person
,
but
only
for
him
that
spake
them
.
Those
which
were
words
full
of
grace
and
truth
in
that
mouth
that
spake
them
and
for
which
they
were
fitted
,
would
be
words
of
presumption
and
blasphemie
in
any
other
,
if
they
were
conceived
to
be
spoken
either
in
the
Name
,
or
concerning
the
person
of
the
speaker
.
So
that
you
see
clearly
,
SECT.
3
that
one
maine
reason
why
we
deny
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
the
propriety
or
formality
of
it
in
justification
,
is
,
not
because
we
deny
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
,
nor
because
we
deny
the
necessity
of
it
,
nor
yet
because
we
lesse
honour
and
magnifie
it
,
then
others
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
because
we
desire
to
establish
it
upon
better
foundations
,
and
shew
a
plainer
and
greater
necessity
of
it
,
and
give
more
honour
and
glory
to
it
,
then
the
adverse
opinion
can
do
.
If
men
will
needs
understand
that
Esay
42.21
.
of
Christs
fulfilling
the
Law
:
The
Lord
is
well
pleased
for
his
righteousnesse
sake
:
he
will
magnifie
the
Law
and
make
it
honourable
,
there
is
no
such
way
to
raise
the
interpretation
of
the
words
on
high
,
as
to
make
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
respect
of
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
)
incommunicable
.
He
that
should
have
taken
the
Reed
out
of
Christs
hand
,
that
was
put
into
it
instead
of
a
Scepter
,
and
have
broken
it
in
pieces
,
and
given
him
a
Scepter
's
of
gold
instead
of
it
,
should
have
honoured
Christ
more
,
then
they
that
gave
him
the
Reed
:
So
he
that
shall
overthrow
a
pretended
use
and
feigned
necessity
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
and
demonstrate
a
true
and
reall
necessity
of
it
indeed
,
he
no
waies
derogates
either
from
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
,
or
from
the
necessitie
of
it
,
but
addeth
weight
and
authority
unto
both
.
It
is
a
speciall
circumstance
or
qualification
much
insisted
upon
and
required
in
the
honour
we
ascribe
or
give
unto
God
,
that
it
be
precisely
,
that
honour
which
is
due
unto
him
,
or
due
unto
his
Name
.
Psal
.
29.2
.
and
Psal.
96.8
.
because
indeed
,
upon
a
true
account
,
that
would
be
found
no
honour
at
all
unto
him
,
which
is
not
due
unto
him
.
He
that
shall
deny
that
ever
any
man
lay
in
that
womb
of
the
Virgin
,
wherein
Christ
was
conceived
and
fashioned
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
besides
himselfe
,
shall
neither
disparage
the
womb
that
bare
him
,
nor
him
that
was
conceived
in
it
,
but
should
rather
honour
both
.
And
so
he
that
shall
say
,
there
was
never
man
buried
in
the
Tomb
wherein
Christs
body
lay
,
disparageth
neither
.
No
more
is
it
any
dispargement
or
prejudice
cast
upon
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
to
say
that
there
was
never
any
man
formally
justified
with
it
,
but
himselfe
alone
,
that
it
is
a
righteousnesse
sit
for
no
man
to
weare
or
assume
to
himselfe
,
but
only
for
the
person
of
him
that
wrought
it
.
Nay
,
he
that
here
speaketh
these
things
,
exalteth
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
on
high
:
and
mainteineth
the
honour
that
belongeth
to
it
.
Therefore
(
by
the
way
)
to
charge
the
crime
of
Arrianisme
upon
this
opinion
(
which
some
have
much
adoe
to
forbeare
)
is
to
frame
an
accusation
against
it
,
upon
the
like
termes
,
that
Potiphars
wife
proceeded
upon
in
her
inditement
against
her
Servant
Joseph
:
the
foule
crime
of
incontinencie
was
layd
to
his
charge
,
whereas
his
vertuous
offence
was
nothing
else
but
a
high
streine
of
a
chast
behaviour
.
Gen.
39.
Or
it
were
,
as
if
a
man
should
be
accused
of
want
of
love
to
the
Brethren
,
who
were
now
ready
to
lay
downe
his
life
for
their
sakes
:
greater
love
then
which
(
as
our
Saviour
saith
)
no
man
hath
.
There
is
no
opinion
that
can
more
deerely
sympathize
with
the
Divinity
of
Christ
,
then
that
that
denieth
the
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
so
frequently
disallowed
)
But
some
(
perhaps
)
will
think
sufficiently
to
salve
the
congruity
or
sitnesse
of
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
for
imputation
to
beleevers
,
SECT.
4
from
the
consideration
of
the
union
that
is
betweene
Christ
as
the
head
,
and
beleevers
as
the
body
or
members
;
and
reason
after
this
manner
.
Though
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
too
glorious
and
excellent
to
be
appropriated
unto
men
,
or
to
be
accompted
unto
them
for
their
personall
actions
,
as
they
are
men
,
or
as
they
are
sinfull
:
yet
as
they
are
members
of
Christ
,
and
he
their
head
,
they
see
no
inconvenience
in
it
,
they
may
be
ascribed
unto
them
.
May
not
that
which
is
done
by
the
head
,
be
ascribed
or
communicated
to
the
whole
body
?
To
this
I
Answere
two
things
:
First
,
that
Christ
and
beleevers
are
a
mysticall
body
,
that
is
,
a
body
only
by
way
of
a
secret
resemblance
or
similitude
with
a
naturall
body
.
Therefore
an
universall
concent
or
agreement
in
all
things
betweene
them
,
cannot
be
thought
on
:
because
then
a
similitude
would
be
no
longer
a
similitude
,
but
an
identitie
:
and
a
mysticall
body
would
be
no
longer
a
mysticall
body
,
but
a
naturall
.
Now
one
difference
betweene
them
is
this
:
what
any
one
member
of
the
body
naturall
doeth
,
as
head
,
eyes
,
eares
,
&c.
the
whole
may
be
said
to
do
:
when
the
head
studieth
,
the
man
may
be
said
to
study
:
So
when
the
eye
seeth
,
or
eare
heareth
,
&c.
yea
it
is
more
proper
to
ascribe
these
and
such
like
acts
which
are
exercised
by
the
particular
members
of
the
naturall
body
severally
,
and
the
whole
person
,
then
to
the
members
themselves
by
which
they
are
acted
:
it
is
more
proper
to
say
,
the
man
seeth
by
the
eye
,
then
to
say
the
eye
seeth
:
But
in
the
mysticall
body
,
it
is
otherwise
:
When
Christ
(
the
Head
of
this
body
)
wrought
miracles
,
the
body
could
not
be
said
to
have
wrought
them
.
So
when
Paul
(
a
speciall
member
of
this
body
)
reproved
Peter
,
the
whole
body
cannot
be
said
to
have
reproved
him
:
because
some
of
the
members
joyned
with
Peter
in
his
sinne
against
Paul
in
his
reproofe
.
The
Reason
of
which
difference
is
this
,
because
in
the
naturall
body
;
the
members
make
but
one
Suppositum
(
as
the
Schoolemen
speake
)
or
one
personall
being
,
and
so
have
but
one
and
the
same
numericall
principle
of
all
their
actions
and
motions
,
viz.
the
reasonable
soule
,
but
a
mysticall
body
,
being
made
up
of
many
persons
or
personall
beings
,
which
have
every
one
entire
natural
&
substantial
beings
in
themselves
(
besides
their
relation
of
members
one
to
another
)
and
so
have
every
one
principles
of
their
actions
really
distinct
each
from
other
.
One
mans
will
is
not
really
and
numerically
the
same
with
anothers
:
nor
one
mans
grace
really
the
same
with
anothers
.
And
hence
it
cometh
to
passe
,
that
what
one
of
these
members
doe
,
is
not
necessarily
to
be
ascribed
to
the
whole
body
,
but
to
that
member
only
which
doth
it
,
inasmuch
as
it
hath
a
principle
within
it selfe
,
which
is
not
numerically
the
same
with
the
rest
.
But
secondly
,
I
answere
more
briefly
and
plainely
to
the
objection
.
Though
the
benefit
of
what
the
head
doth
,
be
communicated
to
the
whole
body
,
and
every
member
(
for
every
member
in
the
naturall
body
fareth
the
better
for
the
Head
,
and
the
operations
of
it
)
yet
that
which
the
head
doeth
or
worketh
,
is
no
waies
to
be
imputed
or
ascribed
either
unto
the
hand
or
foot
,
or
any
other
member
,
as
if
it
were
done
by
them
:
so
doth
the
whole
mysticall
body
of
Christ
,
and
every
member
thereof
(
even
the
whole
Societie
and
fellowship
of
beleevers
)
reape
and
enjoy
abundantly
the
fruite
,
benefit
,
and
blessing
of
all
that
Christ
(
the
Head
)
either
did
,
or
suffered
in
the
world
:
forgivenesse
of
sins
,
peace
of
conscience
,
acceptation
into
favor
with
God
,
adoption
,
sanctification
,
hope
of
glory
,
glory
or
salvation
it selfe
(
when
it
cometh
)
&c.
all
these
and
the
like
are
Grapes
gathered
from
that
Vine
;
the
active
and
passive
obedience
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
furnisheth
his
whole
body
with
all
these
precious
and
pleasant
riches
:
and
yet
there
is
no
necessity
that
either
his
doings
or
sufferings
should
be
ascribed
or
imputed
unto
them
,
no
more
then
the
labor
and
skill
of
the
Bee
,
is
to
be
ascribed
unto
him
that
eates
the
honey
.
SECT.
5
Againe
,
some
urge
the
consideration
of
the
mariage
betweene
Christ
and
his
Church
,
(
and
consequently
,
every
beleever
)
to
salve
the
congruity
or
sitnesse
of
his
righteousnesse
for
imputation
to
beleevers
:
and
reason
after
this
manner
.
The
wife
by
mariage
,
hath
a
right
to
all
that
is
her
Husbands
:
she
is
endowed
with
all
his
goods
:
they
are
aswell
hers
,
as
his
.
Therefore
a
beleever
being
maried
to
Christ
,
hath
a
right
and
title
to
all
that
Christ
hath
,
all
that
Christ
hath
is
his
:
and
therefore
his
righteousnesse
is
his
.
&c.
To
this
I
Answere
two
things
.
First
,
it
is
true
,
the
wife
by
mariage
comes
to
be
endowed
with
all
that
is
her
Husbands
:
but
this
endowing
of
her
with
all
,
is
no
ingredient
into
the
mariage
it selfe
(
much
lesse
is
it
the
formall
cause
of
the
mariage
)
but
is
a
fruite
or
consequent
of
it
.
So
the
right
and
title
which
a
beleever
hath
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
accrues
unto
him
by
,
and
upon
the
spirituall
mariage
.
The
mariage
must
be
first
made
up
betweene
Christ
and
him
(
which
is
done
by
Faith
,
or
beleeving
)
before
he
comes
to
have
this
right
spoken
of
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Therefore
it
cannot
be
impured
unto
him
in
the
very
act
of
beleeving
(
which
is
the
golden
apple
the
adverse
opinion
strives
for
)
and
yet
much
lesse
before
the
act
of
beleeving
(
which
yet
is
affirmed
by
some
great
and
le●rned
abettors
of
that
side
)
Because
in
both
these
cases
,
the
title
we
speake
of
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
should
not
grow
to
a
beleever
,
by
,
or
from
,
or
upon
his
mariage
,
but
either
in
,
or
before
it
.
But
secondly
,
I
answere
yet
further
(
and
close
more
neerely
with
the
spirit
of
the
objection
)
Howsoever
by
mariage
there
ariseth
a
title
unto
the
wife
of
all
that
is
her
Husbands
,
so
that
it
may
be
sayd
,
that
all
that
is
the
Husbands
,
is
made
or
becomes
the
wifes
:
yet
this
is
so
to
be
qualified
and
understood
,
that
no
Law
either
of
naturall
decencie
and
sobriety
,
or
of
a
rationall
expediencie
or
behoofe
to
either
party
,
receive
prejudice
or
violation
.
All
that
is
the
Husbands
,
is
not
every
waies
the
wifes
by
meanes
of
her
mariage
,
nor
for
every
use
or
purpose
,
but
only
in
a
way
of
expediencie
or
beneficialnesse
to
her
.
As
for
instance
:
the
cloaths
or
garments
of
the
Husband
,
are
the
wifes
by
mariage
:
but
how
?
not
hers
to
put
on
,
and
weare
upon
her
owne
person
,
for
so
they
would
be
hers
to
her
owne
shame
and
reproach
.
We
know
it
was
prohibited
in
the
Law
.
Deut.
22.5
.
The
woman
shall
not
weare
that
which
perteyneth
unto
the
man
,
for
all
that
doe
so
are
an
abhomination
unto
the
Lord
thy
God
.
But
hers
they
are
,
(
and
may
be
called
hers
)
in
this
sense
,
as
it
is
a
comfort
and
credit
unto
her
that
her
Husband
be
cloathed
like
himselfe
,
and
that
his
habit
be
according
to
his
rank
and
quality
.
So
is
it
indeed
an
unspeakable
comfort
,
and
a
ground
of
a
glorious
rejoycing
unto
a
beleeving
Soule
,
that
her
Lord
and
Husband
Iesus
Christ
,
is
cloathed
with
that
rich
and
glorious
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
that
he
is
so
holy
,
so
harmlesse
,
so
far
separate
from
sinners
,
as
he
is
:
but
she
must
take
heed
of
assuming
these
things
unto
her selfe
,
otherwise
then
in
the
benefit
and
comfort
of
them
:
she
must
not
thinke
her selfe
as
holy
,
as
harmlesse
,
as
far
separate
from
sinners
,
as
Christ
himselfe
is
.
The
Common
or
inferior
Priest
that
should
put
on
and
serve
in
the
High
Priests
garments
,
was
by
the
Jewes
adjudged
guilty
of
death
,
by
the
hand
of
Heaven
.
As
Mr.
Ainsworth
citeth
out
of
Maimony
upon
Exod.
28.43
.
So
againe
,
the
wisdome
and
understanding
of
the
Husband
,
may
be
said
to
be
the
wifes
,
by
mariage
.
But
how
?
not
for
her
to
be
wise
withall
,
for
in
this
respect
it
is
her
Husbands
only
,
notwithstanding
mariage
:
the
woman
is
not
therefore
as
wise
as
her
Husband
,
because
the
Husbands
wisdome
is
hers
by
mariage
:
but
it
is
hers
in
the
benefit
and
comfort
of
it
,
thus
:
having
a
Husband
that
is
wise
,
she
shall
live
the
better
,
and
more
comfortable
life
with
him
,
she
shal
be
the
better
provided
for
,
and
the
like
.
So
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
becomes
ours
by
right
of
our
spirituall
mariage
with
him
:
but
not
to
be
righteous
withall
(
formally
)
for
this
is
still
his
personall
propriety
,
notwithstanding
the
giving
of
himselfe
in
mariage
to
us
:
but
to
have
the
benefit
and
blessing
of
communicated
unto
us
,
and
derived
upon
us
,
both
in
our
justification
,
adoption
,
and
salvation
.
CAP.
XI
.
A
third
ground
against
the
pretended
imputation
,
viz.
the
Non-necessitie
of
it
.
A
third
Reason
,
SECT.
1
warring
strongly
against
this
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
is
:
There
is
no
necessity
or
occasion
of
any
such
imputation
.
The
truth
of
the
old
rule
doth
not
wax
old
,
neither
will
ever
vanish
:
Deus
et
natura
nihil
faciunt
frustrà
.
Neither
God
the
Master
,
nor
Nature
the
servant
,
ever
make
any
thing
in
vaine
.
If
God
hath
sufficiently
provided
otherwise
for
the
justification
of
his
people
,
most
certaine
it
is
that
he
doth
not
impute
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
them
,
for
that
end
:
which
yet
is
the
only
end
,
for
which
the
necessity
thereof
,
either
is
o●
(
indeed
)
can
be
pretended
.
That
a
beleever
is
sufficiently
justified
before
God
,
without
any
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
I
still
meane
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
it
)
I
thus
demonstrate
.
He
that
is
compleatly
justified
by
having
his
sins
forgiven
,
is
justified
without
the
imputation
of
this
active
obedience
or
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
This
proposition
is
generally
granted
:
for
no
man
contends
for
this
imputation
(
in
the
sense
we
speake
of
)
in
regard
of
forgivenesse
of
sins
(
neither
is
there
any
colour
for
it
)
but
for
another
purpose
,
as
we
shall
see
hereafter
.
Therefore
I
assume
:
But
a
beleever
is
suthciently
justified
before
God
by
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sins
:
therefore
I
conclude
:
There
is
no
need
of
this
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
for
justification
.
The
latter
proposition
,
that
men
are
fully
justified
before
God
by
having
their
sins
pardoned
,
hath
been
already
proved
at
large
(
cap.
5.
)
by
expresse
testimonies
of
the
Scripture
:
whereunto
we
found
the
judgment
of
Calvin
(
with
other
learned
Divines
of
the
resormed
Religion
)
fully
conformable
.
Here
we
observed
,
that
to
justifie
in
Scripture
dialect
,
constantly
signifies
,
absolution
from
guilt
and
punishment
,
but
never
any
qualifying
or
investing
,
with
a
positive
or
legall
righteousnesse
,
either
by
imputation
,
or
otherwise
.
To
those
Scriptures
,
which
were
there
produced
and
insisted
upon
(
being
many
)
yet
many
more
might
be
added
of
like
importance
,
there
being
no
streame
of
truth
running
fuller
or
cleerer
along
the
Scriptures
then
this
.
But
because
we
shall
have
assistance
enough
from
those
very
places
alledged
,
to
vindicate
the
interpretation
given
against
all
that
is
,
or
can
be
objected
against
it
,
we
will
spare
that
time
and
labor
.
But
against
the
Exposition
given
of
these
Scriptures
,
wherein
it
was
affirmed
,
SECT.
2
that
the
Scriptures
know
no
other
justification
of
a
sinner
,
but
that
which
stands
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
or
discharge
from
the
punishment
or
condemnation
due
unto
them
,
it
is
objected
:
that
forgivenesse
of
sins
is
indeed
a
part
of
justification
but
not
the
whole
:
imputation
of
righteousnesse
must
be
likewise
added
.
To
this
I
answere
:
First
,
that
Calvin
is
as
expressely
of
another
judgment
as
words
can
make
him
:
a
professed
enemie
to
this
biformed
or
double
justification
.
On
Rom.
4.
ver.
6
,
7.
&c.
he
hath
these
words
.
Quibus
etiam
verbis
docemur
,
justitiam
Paulo
nihil
aliud
esse
,
quam
remissionem
peccatorum
.
i.
in
which
words
we
are
taught
,
that
righteousnesse
(
with
Paul
)
is
nothing
else
but
remission
of
sins
.
He
doth
not
say
,
that
Paul
placeth
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
partly
in
remission
of
sins
,
partly
in
somewhat
else
:
but
plainely
affirmes
,
that
that
righteousnesse
by
which
we
are
justified
or
made
righteous
before
God
,
is
NOTHING
ELSE
but
this
forgivenesse
.
Againe
,
in
his
Institutions
.
lib.
3.
cap.
11.
sect.
21.
Iustitia
fidei
est
reconciliatio
cum
Deo
,
quae
SOLA
REMISSIONE
PECCATORUM
constat
.
The
righteousnesse
of
Faith
is
our
reconciliation
with
God
,
which
consists
of
remission
of
sins
ONLY
.
Againe
in
the
same
Section
:
Constat
,
quos
Deus
amplectitur
,
NON
ALITER
fieri
justos
,
nisi
quòd
abstersis
peccatorum
remissione
maculis
purificentur
,
ut
talis
justitia
VNO
VBRBO
appellari
queat
REMISSIO
PECCATORUM
i.
It
is
evident
,
that
those
whom
God
embraceth
,
are
NO
OTHER-WAIES
made
righteous
,
but
because
they
are
purifyed
,
having
their
spots
washed
off
by
the
forgivenesse
of
sins
:
so
that
this
righteousnesse
may
IN
ONE
WORD
,
be
called
,
REMISSION
OF
SINNES
.
Againe
in
the
following
Section
.
Sic
remissionem
peccatorum
cum
justitiá
connectit
Apostolus
,
Act.
13.38
.
ut
IDEM
PRORSUS
esse
ostendat
.
i.
The
Apostle
,
Act.
13.38
.
doth
so
couple
or
conjoyne
forgivenesse
of
sins
with
righteousnesse
,
that
he
plainely
shewes
them
to
be
ABSOLVTELY
,
OR
ALTOGETHER
THE
SAME
.
Again
,
in
the
third
Section
of
the
same
Chapter
.
Cum
(
Scriptura
)
dicit
Deum
justificare
impium
quiest
ex
side
Christi
,
quis
sensus
esse
potest
,
nisi
fideibeneficio
a
damnatione
liberare
,
quam
ipsorum
impietas
merebatur
?
Et
paulo
pòst
:
Iustificare
ergo
NIHIL
ALIUD
EST
,
quam
eum
quireus
agebatur
,
tanquam
approbatâ
innocentiâ
,
à
reatu
absolvere
.
i.
When
the
Scripture
saith
,
that
God
justifieth
the
wicked
,
that
is
of
the
Faith
of
Jesus
,
what
else
can
be
meant
,
then
the
freeing
or
absolving
him
from
that
condemnation
by
the
benefit
of
his
Faith
,
which
his
sin
deserved
.
And
a
little
after
(
in
the
same
Section
)
To
justifie
therefore
is
nothing
else
,
then
to
absolve
a
man
from
guilt
,
as
one
of
approved
innocencie
,
who
was
accused
as
one
guiltie
.
Yet
once
more
:
in
the
same
Chapter
.
Sect.
15.
Hic
est
fidei
sensus
,
&c.
quòd
intercedente
Christi
justitiâ
,
impetratâ
remissione
peccatorum
,
justificatus
sit
.
1.
This
is
the
meaning
of
a
mans
Faith
,
&c.
that
by
the
mediation
or
intercession
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
he
is
justified
by
remission
of
sins
obtained
.
Laftly
in
the
fourth
Sect.
of
the
same
Chapter
.
Quarto
autem
capite
ad
Romanos
,
&c.
i.
In
the
fourth
Chapter
to
the
Romans
,
he
first
calls
(
justification
)
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
and
doubteth
not
to
place
it
in
REMISSION
OF
SINS
.
And
presently
citing
the
testimony
of
David
,
Blessed
are
they
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
&c.
commenteth
thus
upon
the
words
.
Illie
sane●nonde
justificationis
parte
,
&c.
i.
Questionlesse
he
doth
not
here
dispute
of
a
part
of
justification
,
but
of
the
whole
.
The
definition
whereof
he
further
affirmeth
to
be
set
downe
by
David
,
when
he
pronounceth
those
blessed
,
to
whom
a
free
forgivenesse
of
sins
was
given
.
From
whence
it
appeareth
,
that
that
righteousnesse
whereof
we
speake
,
is
simply
opposed
to
guilt
of
sinne
,
&c.
You
see
we
have
not
sought
far
for
all
this
abundance
of
this
Authors
minde
and
judgement
touching
the
point
in
Question
:
all
these
testimonies
(
the
first
excepted
)
are
found
within
the
compasse
of
one
only
Chapter
,
and
that
none
of
the
first
magnitude
neither
.
Hee
that
in
the
presence
of
all
these
witnesses
speaking
so
distinctly
and
fully
from
the
Authors
owne
pen
,
will
yet
say
,
that
Calvin
●●●d
not
remission
of
sinnes
to
be
our
entire
and
compleate
justification
;
had
need
be
able
to
prove
to
the
world
,
that
Calvins
H●ad
and
hand
were
at
ods
,
when
these
things
were
written
:
or
that
his
pen
was
suborned
and
bribed
by
some
adversarie
to
conspire
against
his
meaning
,
end
to
betray
his
judgement
in
the
point
.
Notwithstanding
a
great
Master
of
the
opposite
way
in
this
controversie
,
SECT.
3
being
loath
to
lose
a
man
of
such
authority
as
Calvin
is
,
from
his
partie
,
attempts
yet
by
force
to
bring
him
through
all
this
fire
and
water
over
to
him
:
and
therefore
pretends
to
finde
more
ingenuitie
in
Papists
and
in
Bellarmine
himselfe
towards
this
Author
,
then
in
men
of
his
owne
profession
(
Protestants
I
meane
)
that
are
of
an
opposite
judgment
to
him
in
this
point
.
Bellarmine
(
saith
he
)
doth
confesse
and
acknowledg
,
that
though
Calvin
doth
againe
and
againe
place
justification
in
remission
of
sinnes
only
,
yet
he
holds
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
too
.
To
this
I
answere
:
First
,
that
which
is
here
called
ingenuity
in
Bellarmine
,
I
fully
conceive
to
be
nothing
else
,
but
a
peece
of
Jesuiticall
cunning
,
to
make
his
adversaries
opinion
the
more
irrationall
,
that
so
he
might
have
the
more
advantage
against
him
in
disputation
:
which
will
further
appeare
by
and
by
.
Secondly
,
I
conceive
,
that
as
Paul
in
Christian
wisdome
pleaded
his
Pharisaisme
,
when
time
was
,
to
helpe
himselfe
at
a
pinch
,
though
otherwise
hee
little
regarded
it
:
or
as
Sampson
tooke
up
the
jaw-bone
of
an
Asse
,
to
revenge
himselfe
of
the
Philistins
,
and
threw
it
away
when
he
had
done
:
so
this
man
findesingenuity
in
Bellarmines
to
quit
himselfe
in
a
strcight
,
least
Calvin
should
be
taken
from
him
,
and
to
avenge
himselfe
of
his
adversaries
in
this
Question
:
but
otherwise
cares
little
for
it
.
But
thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
if
either
Bellarmines
,
or
his
interpreters
(
who
finds
this
miracle
of
ingenuity
in
him
)
meaning
be
,
that
Calvin
holds
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
neceslary
to
justification
,
by
way
of
merit
only
,
we
are
no
further
adversaries
in
this
point
:
But
if
their
meaning
be
(
and
other
it
cannot
be
without
apparant
prevarication
)
that
over
and
besides
remission
of
sinnes
,
Calvin
holds
a
necessity
of
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
justification
,
as
a
second
part
or
member
of
it
(
really
distinct
from
remission
of
sins
)
to
make
it
compleate
and
perfect
,
this
is
to
burthen
Calvin
with
such
an
imputation
,
as
is
not
lightly
incident
to
a
considering
and
learned
man
,
as
he
was
.
He
himselfe
in
his
Antidote
against
the
Counsell
of
Trent
,
in
their
sixt
Session
,
takes
those
Fathers
tardie
with
that
Logicall
Soloecisme
in
their
Divinitie
,
of
making
the
formall
cause
of
justification
double
,
acsi
partìm
remissione
peccatorum
,
partim
spirituali
regeneratione
justi
essemus
.
i.
as
if
we
were
righteous
partly
by
remission
of
sins
,
partly
by
spirituall
regeneration
.
Now
if
he
should
place
justification
partly
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
partly
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
:
who
seeth
not
that
himselfe
is
in
the
same
condemnation
with
his
adversaries
,
and
builds
up
by
example
,
what
he
pulls
downe
by
reproofe
?
But
he
washeth
his
hands
in
perfect
innocencie
this
way
:
Ego
autem
(
saith
he
)
unicam
et
simplicem
esse
assero
.
i.
but
I
hold
and
affirme
,
(
meaning
the
formall
cause
of
justification
)
to
be
but
one
and
simple
.
Bellarmine
indeed
doth
not
admit
of
this
purgation
of
himselfe
:
but
will
needs
finde
him
foule
in
the
businesse
notwithstanding
,
and
recriminates
upon
him
the
same
imputation
,
wherewith
he
had
burdened
the
counsell
.
Quippe
qui
saith
he
of
Calvin
,
De
Justificatione
.
lib.
2.
Cal.
Inst.
l.
3.
c.
11.
Sect.
2.
cap.
2.
)
disertis
verbis
,
justificationem
in
peccatorum
remissione
,
et
justitiae
Christi
imputatione
,
sitam
,
esse
scribat
.
i.
Carvin
in
expresse
words
,
delivers
it
,
that
justification
consists
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
And
here
is
the
interpretation
of
that
ingenuity
,
whereof
we
heard
the
innocent
Jesuit
lately
accused
:
we
see
how
kindly
and
lovingly
he
dealt
by
his
adversarie
,
when
he
would
needs
give
him
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
by
way
of
sub-intelligence
)
to
remission
of
sinnes
,
wherein
alone
he
had
placed
justification
.
The
old
adage
was
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
The
guifts
of
enemies
are
but
guile
.
Bellarmine
was
willing
to
enlarge
Calvins
opinion
,
and
to
adde
more
then
enough
to
it
,
that
so
he
might
make
it
the
fairer
marke
to
shoot
at
.
But
Paraeus
fairely
delivers
this
Souldier
of
Christ
out
of
the
hands
of
that
Romish
Champion
,
SECT.
4
only
by
an
ingenuous
and
faire
interpretation
of
that
passage
,
whereat
his
adversary
tooke
this
advantage
against
him
.
Paraeus
contr●
Bellarmun
.
lib.
2
,
cap
2.
Lect.
247.
See
the
same
Author
in
his
T●ract
De
justi●ia
Christi
Act.
&
Pass
.
p.
179
&c.
where
he
interprets
the
said
passage
of
Calvin
,
much
after
the
same
manne
.
Hinc
videre
potuit
adversarius
(
saith
Paraeus
)
&c.
i.
Hence
his
adversary
(
meaning
Bellarmine
)
might
see
and
perceive
,
that
saying
in
his
Institutions
,
that
Justification
consisted
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
his
meaning
was
not
,
that
there
should
be
a
double
[
formall
]
cause
of
Iustification
,
as
if
we
were
righteous
partly
by
remissió
of
sinnes
,
partly
by
imputation
,
and
neither
of
them
a
compleate
and
full
Iustification
(
for
so
hee
should
fight
both
against
himselfe
,
and
against
the
Scriptures
)
but
his
intent
was
,
by
two
Scripture-termes
equipollent
,
the
one
to
the
other
,
to
expresse
one
and
the
same
formall
cause
,
or
to
joyne
these
two
expressions
together
exegetically
(
i.
So
that
one
might
helpe
to
explaine
the
other
)
quia
remissio
peccatorum
sit
imputatione
justitiae
,
et
vicissim
imputatio
justitia
fit
remissione
peccatorum
,
teste
Apostolo
.
Rom.
4.
ver.
6.7
,
&c.
i.
because
remission
of
sinnes
is
made
,
by
or
in
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
:
and
againe
,
impu
tation
of
righteousnesse
made
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
witnesse
the
Apostle
:
Rom.
4.6.7
.
&c
,
If
this
Author
be
further
consulted
with
in
the
sequel
,
he
will
tell
you
more
at
large
,
how
Calvin
placeth
integram
justificationem
modò
sola
remissione
peccatorum
&c.
i.
intire
and
compleate
JUSTIFICATION
sometimes
in
remission
of
sinnes
onely
,
sometimes
in
remission
of
sinnes
and
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
without
any
contradiction
.
Neither
is
it
hard
to
conceive
,
how
the
one
may
be
the
sole
and
intire
formall
cause
,
and
the
other
the
meritorious
.
Which
to
have
been
the
very
expresse
meaning
and
minde
of
Calvin
,
is
so
apparant
by
comparing
and
laying
together
passage
with
paslage
from
him
,
that
except
a
mans
conceit
were
much
relieved
and
strengthened
by
his
will
,
he
would
finde
it
a
matter
of
much
difficulty
to
thinke
otherwise
.
SECT.
5
Bellarmine
himselfe
,
when
the
pange
of
ingenuity
is
but
a
little
of
him
,
can
finde
out
his
adversaries
opinion
cleerely
enough
.
For
explaining
those
words
of
the
Trent
Councell
,
wherein
it
is
said
,
that
righteousnesse
doth
not
consist
in
Remission
of
sinnes
only
,
Reijcitur
(
saith
he
)
sententia
Calvini
de
justificatione
,
more
forensi
,
&c.
i.
Calvins
opinion
concerning
Justification
after
a
juridicall
manner
,
is
here
rejected
.
And
so
generally
when
he
undertakes
the
confutation
of
that
error
(
as
he
calls
it
)
which
placeth
Justification
in
Remission
of
sinnes
only
;
he
still
chargeth
Calvin
with
it
,
and
seldome
any
other
:
as
on
the
contrary
,
when
he
disputes
against
that
opinion
,
which
placeth
Iustification
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
he
still
layes
on
upon
CHEMNI
TIUS
.
Compare
the
6
and
7
Chapters
together
,
in
his
Second
BOOKE
of
JUSTIFICATION
.
Let
me
adde
but
onething
more
here
out
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
it selfe
,
SECT.
5
which
seems
directly
to
point
at
Calvin
,
as
the
Anthor
or
maintainer
of
that
very
opinion
,
where
with
we
have
laboured
hitherto
to
honour
him
,
as
with
an
Lonour
which
belongs
unto
him
.
Or
if
Calvin
be
not
conceived
to
be
the
man
,
yet
the
opinion
we
shall
evince
from
hence
,
to
have
bin
famous
in
the
Reformed
Churches
,
when
the
Conncell
thus
thundred
out
against
it
.
〈…〉
11.
Si
quis
dixerit
,
hominem
justificari
,
velsola
imputatione
justitiae
Christs
,
vel
sola
peccatorum
remissione
,
&c.
Anathema
sit
,
i.
If
any
man
shall
say
,
that
a
man
is
justified
,
either
by
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
alone
,
or
by
remission
of
sins
alone
,
&c.
let
him
be
accursed
.
From
whence
observe
,
first
,
that
to
place
iustification
in
remission
of
sins
alone
,
was
an
opinion
by
it selfe
,
distinct
from
the
other
,
that
held
iustification
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
alone
.
For
it
is
evident
,
by
the
disjunctive
particles
in
this
Canon
,
that
the
Councell
,
being
(
as
it
seems
)
good
Husbands
of
their
thunderbolts
,
had
an
intent
to
strike
down
two
opinions
at
once
.
And
so
Bellarmine
(
as
we
heard
)
explains
the
Councell
.
Secondly
,
observe
(
that
which
follows
close
upon
the
former
observation
)
that
either
there
was
such
an
opinion
then
ruling
in
the
Reformed
Churches
,
or
at
least
taught
and
maintained
by
some
eminent
man
(
one
,
or
more
)
amongst
them
,
that
held
iustification
to
consist
in
Remission
of
sins
onely
:
otherwise
those
deep-advised
sages
of
the
Councel
,
should
have
but
put
a
dead
slie
into
their
box
of
oyntment
,
by
boltring
into
the
ayre
:
and
indeed
,
rather
have
forged
a
weapon
for
their
adversaries
,
then
taken
any
from
them
.
If
it
were
any
particular
and
eminent
man
,
they
struck
at
,
as
an
abettor
of
that
opinion
,
there
can
none
be
pitched
upon
with
greater
probability
then
Calvin
,
who
still
carried
matters
of
Religion
against
them
at
that
time
with
a
higher
hand
then
any
other
.
And
Bellarmine
(
as
we
heard
)
ingenuously
confessed
,
Calvin
by
name
to
be
the
man
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
from
this
passage
observe
,
how
some
mens
either
learning
or
memory
misuseth
them
,
by
suggesting
to
them
,
that
the
opinion
pleaded
and
contended
for
in
this
Treatise
,
viz.
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
that
iustification
stands
in
Remission
of
sins
onely
,
is
an
opinion
confederate
with
Popish
errors
.
Certainly
those
great
Agents
and
Factors
for
the
Roman
party
,
would
never
have
bin
so
farre
overseene
in
their
solemn
and
sacred
assembly
,
to
have
poured
out
the
vials
of
their
wrath
upon
the
head
of
an
opinion
,
that
was
their
owne
.
The
importune
striving
and
contendings
of
some
men
to
make
Galvin
for
them
,
in
an
opinion
,
wherof
(
doubtlesse
)
his
learning
was
never
guilty
,
have
compelled
us
to
make
somewhat
the
longer
labour
and
discourse
of
it
,
for
his
rescue
,
and
to
set
him
cleere
upon
his
own
principles
and
foundations
.
If
any
man
remains
yet
unsatisfied
touching
this
Authors
judgement
in
the
point
now
under
examination
,
and
desires
rather
an
heape
,
then
enough
:
it
were
an
easie
matter
to
make
the
pyle
of
testimonies
from
his
own
pen
yet
farre
greater
,
even
to
the
wearying
and
punishing
of
such
a
man
with
his
own
desire
.
Somewhat
more
then
hath
bin
here
delivered
,
may
be
found
in
the
first
Chapter
:
where
also
you
may
see
this
worthy
Champion
of
the
truth
,
accompanied
and
seconded
in
this
service
,
with
many
of
his
fellows
not
much
inferiour
to
him
.
And
this
bv
way
of
Answere
in
the
first
place
to
the
objection
,
that
Remission
of
sins
,
SECT.
6
was
not
the
whole
,
but
only
a
part
of
our
Iustification
.
Secondly
,
I
Answer
,
that
from
the
Scriptures
themselves
that
were
alledged
,
it
may
be
evidenced
,
as
by
expresse
demonstration
,
that
there
is
no
more
,
no
other
part
or
member
of
iustification
,
but
onely
forgivenesse
of
sins
:
that
the
nature
and
substance
of
it
is
fully
comprehended
in
this
.
What
can
be
more
pregnant
then
that
Rom.
4
6
,
7.
&c.
Even
as
David
also
describeth
the
blessednesse
of
the
man
,
unto
whom
God
imputeth
righteousnesse
without
works
:
saying
,
Blessed
are
they
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
and
whose
sinnes
are
covered
:
Blessed
is
the
man
,
to
whom
the
Lord
will
not
impute
sinne
.
If
there
were
any
thing
more
belonging
to
this
righteousnesse
which
is
by
imputation
,
then
only
the
forgivenesse
of
iniquity
,
or
the
covering
of
sin
,
would
the
Holy
Ghost
wholly
have
omitted
it
and
left
it
out
,
when
he
intended
a
description
,
or
declaration
if
it
?
Especially
would
he
have
omitted
,
that
which
is
the
maine
and
principall
and
formall
part
of
it
,
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
is
pretended
to
be
?
If
a
man
should
prefix
such
a
Title
as
this
before
a
Book
,
or
over
the
head
of
a
Mappe
,
A
description
of
the
world
,
&c.
and
never
so
much
in
all
his
Book
or
Mappe
,
as
once
mention
Europe
or
Asia
,
the
chiefe
parts
of
the
world
,
but
onely
some
obscure
and
lesser
Countries
,
would
it
not
argue
,
that
either
he
wanted
wit
himselfe
,
or
else
hoped
that
his
Readers
would
want
it
altogether
?
Or
if
a
Limner
should
be
set
on
worke
to
draw
a
mans
picture
or
portraicture
,
and
should
only
draw
the
trunk
of
his
body
,
without
a
face
or
head
upon
it
,
were
this
the
portraicture
or
description
of
a
man
?
No
more
would
Paul
(
or
rather
the
Holy
Ghost
)
have
called
the
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
a
description
or
declaration
of
the
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
by
Faith
,
if
it
had
bin
only
a
part
,
and
that
the
lesser
and
lesse
materiall
part
of
it
.
It
is
true
,
SECT.
7
sometimes
in
Scripture
,
by
a
Synechdoche
,
a
part
is
put
for
the
whole
:
as
the
persons
of
men
and
women
,
consisting
of
bodies
and
soules
,
are
called
soules
,
Act.
7.14
.
and
elsewhere
:
But
1.
this
is
never
done
in
descriptions
or
declarations
of
things
:
as
when
the
Holyghost
describes
the
creation
of
man
,
expresse
mention
is
made
,
both
of
the
materiall
part
,
the
dust
of
the
earth
,
and
likewise
of
the
formall
,
Gods
breathing
in
his
face
the
breath
of
life
.
Neither
in
reason
is
that
to
be
called
the
description
of
a
thing
,
which
conceales
and
silenceth
that
which
is
best
and
the
most
beautifull
part
of
it
,
and
onely
mentioneth
somewhat
of
inferiour
consideration
in
it
.
Secondly
,
when
such
a
figure
is
used
,
a
part
put
for
the
whole
,
it
is
seldome
or
never
,
that
the
worser
and
more
ignoble
part
is
mentioned
,
but
still
the
formall
and
better
part
,
as
bodies
are
no
where
put
for
the
persons
of
men
,
but
onely
Soules
:
Except
(
happily
)
in
two
cases
:
1.
when
the
whole
comes
under
consideration
and
is
spoken
of
,
by
reason
of
the
inferiour
part
,
as
somtimes
the
body
of
Christ
,
or
flesh
of
Christ
,
is
put
for
Christ
himselfe
as
man
,
and
for
the
whole
humane
nature
of
Christ
,
namely
when
that
which
is
spoken
of
him
,
hath
its
relation
to
him
,
in
respect
of
his
body
or
flesh
.
Or
else
2.
when
the
Holy
Ghost
would
represent
the
weaknesse
and
contemptiblenesse
of
the
condition
of
the
whole
,
then
(
somtimes
)
he
calls
the
whole
by
the
name
of
that
which
is
the
weakest
part
of
it
,
and
the
ground
or
cause
of
the
vanitie
and
weaknesse
of
the
whole
.
As
when
it
is
said
,
that
All
flesh
is
grasse
,
&c.
by
flesh
,
meaning
Men
,
in
respect
of
their
weake
and
vanishing
condition
in
this
world
.
Neither
of
which
cases
can
be
pretended
in
that
description
of
Iustification
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
when
this
Figure
Synechdoche
is
used
in
any
of
these
or
the
like
cases
,
a
part
being
put
for
the
whole
,
it
is
when
things
are
plaine
and
evident
,
so
that
by
the
part
which
is
named
and
expressed
,
that
may
readily
be
understood
which
is
implyed
,
as
easie
to
be
made
out
,
either
by
other
places
of
Scripture
,
or
by
common
sence
,
as
in
the
instances
given
.
All
flesh
is
grasse
:
by
flesh
here
,
no
man
can
understand
any
thing
else
,
but
men
cloathed
with
flesh
.
So
Acts
7.
where
Iacob
is
said
to
come
down
into
Egypt
with
threescore
and
fifteen
soules
:
no
man
can
think
that
these
soules
came
with
him
without
their
bodies
.
But
now
it
is
farre
otherwise
in
this
description
of
iustification
commended
unto
us
by
Paul
.
That
by
forgivenesse
of
sins
,
should
be
meant
,
both
forgivenesse
of
a
mans
own
sins
,
and
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
if
it
should
be
true
,
yet
is
it
no
wayes
necessary
:
neither
is
it
any
waies
apparent
,
that
these
are
parts
of
the
same
whole
,
of
one
and
the
same
iustification
:
neither
is
there
any
thing
expresly
delivered
in
any
part
of
the
Scripture
to
establish
it
.
Therfore
it
is
no
wayes
probable
(
even
in
these
respects
,
that
when
Paul
placeth
a
mans
righteousnesse
before
God
in
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sinnes
,
that
he
should
doe
it
by
the
figure
Synecdoche
,
onely
mentioning
one
part
,
and
implying
another
.
Againe
,
SECT.
8
2.
if
forgivenesse
of
sins
be
but
a
part
,
and
the
worser
halfe
of
our
iustification
,
then
when
the
Scripture
saith
,
We
are
iustified
by
his
blood
(
as
Rom
5.9
.
)
the
interpretation
must
be
:
we
are
justified
by
halfe
through
his
blood
,
but
the
better
of
our
iustification
must
come
another
way
.
For
by
his
blood
or
death
,
we
cannot
have
his
active
righteousnesse
imputed
to
us
.
So
where
it
is
said
againe
(
vers.
16.
)
that
the
guift
(
viz.
of
righteousnesse
by
Christ
)
is
of
many
offences
unto
iustification
:
if
the
guift
of
many
offences
,
i●
the
forgivenesse
of
a
mans
sins
,
will
not
amount
to
a
iustification
,
without
the
imputation
of
a
legall
righteousnesse
joyned
with
it
,
we
must
give
a
checke
to
Pauls
pen
,
as
the
High
Priests
did
unto
Pilate
,
Joh.
16.21
.
Write
not
,
the
King
of
the
Iewes
:
but
that
he
said
,
I
am
the
King
of
the
Jewes
:
So
must
we
say
unto
Paul
,
doe
not
write
,
that
the
guift
is
of
many
offences
unto
Iustification
:
but
,
the
guift
is
of
many
offences
,
and
of
many
acts
of
righteousnesse
too
imputed
,
to
Iustification
.
Pauls
pen
had
made
more
hast
then
good
speed
(
as
we
say
)
to
come
at
Iustification
before
its
time
.
And
thus
we
must
draw
blood
instead
of
milke
out
of
many
other
Scriptures
besides
these
,
to
nourish
that
opinion
of
the
imputation
of
a
formall
righteousnesse
for
Iustification
,
if
you
meane
to
keep
it
alive
:
for
the
sincere
milk
of
the
word
will
not
nourish
it
.
Thirdly
,
that
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
is
a
mans
entire
and
compleat
Iustification
,
and
that
there
is
no
such
further
piece
or
part
of
it
,
as
is
pretended
concerning
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
will
appeare
from
hence
,
because
that
end
,
for
which
this
imputed
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
thus
brought
into
the
businesse
of
iustification
,
viz.
to
be
the
right
or
title
of
the
iustified
to
their
heavenly
inheritance
,
is
otherwise
supplyed
by
the
wisdome
and
counsell
of
God
,
and
that
in
a
way
more
Euangelicall
,
and
of
more
sweetnesse
and
deernesse
to
the
children
of
God
,
viz.
by
the
grace
of
adoption
,
or
Son-ship
(
as
we
shall
further
shew
(
God
willing
)
in
the
reason
following
.
Fourthly
,
SECT.
9
if
men
will
have
the
active
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
unto
them
for
one
part
of
their
iustification
by
it selfe
,
and
the
passive
obedience
or
death
of
Christ
,
for
another
part
,
by
it selfe
,
and
so
separate
and
divide
the
benefit
of
his
active
obedience
from
that
which
we
have
by
his
passive
,
in
Iustification
:
this
is
a
method
or
course
to
destroy
and
lose
both
the
benefit
of
the
one
and
of
the
other
.
For
if
men
substract
the
righteousnesse
of
his
life
,
upon
a
conceit
,
that
that
will
doe
them
service
alone
(
which
it
will
not
doe
,
as
we
shall
see
afterwards
)
then
must
they
want
it
in
his
death
,
or
in
his
blood
,
and
so
that
wil
be
ineffectuall
too
If
it
had
bin
possible
,
under
the
Law
,
for
a
man
to
have
separated
those
qualifications
which
God
required
in
the
Beast
for
sacrifice
,
as
viz.
the
Sex
,
the
soundnesse
,
spotlessenesse
,
&c.
from
the
Beast
it selfe
,
neither
would
these
qualifications
,
separated
from
the
sacrifice
,
have
bin
of
any
use
to
the
man
;
neither
would
the
Beast
without
these
,
have
made
a
sacrifice
of
acceptation
.
So
neither
will
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
profit
men
,
if
they
separate
it
from
the
passive
Joh.
12.24
.
neither
will
the
passive
it selfe
be
found
it selfe
,
In
the
cleansing
of
the
Le●e
the
blood
of
the
flame
Syarrow
was
to
●e
joyned
and
mixed
with
pure
water
in
an
●●
then
vessell
and
the
person
cleansed
,
to
be
sprinkled
with
●●th
.
Lev.
14.4.5.6
.
that
is
,
an
attonement
or
expiation
for
sinne
according
to
the
will
and
purpose
of
God
,
except
we
bring
in
the
active
to
it
.
For
as
it
is
most
true
which
the
Apostle
affirmes
,
Heb.
9
22.
Without
shedding
of
blood
there
is
no
remission
of
sinnes
:
so
is
it
as
true
,
that
without
shedding
of
righteous
blood
there
is
no
remission
neither
.
And
howsoever
the
personall
union
of
the
humane
nature
with
the
Godhead
in
the
person
of
Christ
,
was
the
great
qualification
requisite
in
his
person
to
make
the
sacrifice
of
himselfe
compleatly
satisfactory
for
the
sinne
of
the
world
:
yet
was
it
(
as
God
willing
,
we
shall
hereafter
demonstrate
more
at
large
)
but
a
remote
qualification
in
this
respect
,
there
being
a
necessity
(
not
onely
in
respect
of
the
decree
and
purpose
of
God
,
but
of
other
ends
and
conveniences
also
)
that
this
qualification
we
now
speake
of
,
the
fullfilling
of
the
Law
,
should
intervene
and
come
between
that
union
and
his
sacrifice
.
In
the
mean
time
,
whilest
I
would
not
have
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
separated
from
the
passive
,
nor
againe
the
passive
from
the
active
,
in
respect
of
this
common
and
joynt
effect
of
forgivenesse
of
sins
or
justification
,
ariseing
from
a
concurrence
of
them
both
,
yet
would
I
not
have
Christ
in
his
mystery
tumbled
up
together
on
a
heap
:
for
this
would
be
to
deface
the
beauty
and
excellencie
of
that
wisdome
which
shines
forth
gloriously
in
the
face
thereof
.
I
would
have
every
thing
that
Christ
was
,
and
every
thing
that
Christ
did
,
and
every
thing
that
Christ
suffered
to
be
distinguished
,
not
only
in
themselves
,
but
also
in
their
proper
and
immediate
effects
,
respectively
ariseing
and
flowing
from
them
severally
.
A
pluralitie
of
causes
may
meet
together
in
one
and
the
same
effect
,
and
yet
the
diversitie
and
difference
of
their
severall
operations
and
influences
contributing
towards
the
raiseing
and
produceing
of
such
an
effect
,
may
easily
be
distinguished
and
apprehended
.
The
goodnesse
of
the
soyle
,
the
labour
of
the
Oxe
,
the
Plough
,
the
seed
that
is
sowne
;
the
Husbandmans
paines
in
ploughing
,
in
sowing
,
his
skill
in
both
;
the
raine
given
from
heaven
to
water
that
which
is
sowne
:
all
these
and
such
like
,
meet
together
in
one
joynt
and
common
effect
at
the
time
of
Harvest
,
viz.
the
Husbandmans
benefit
or
increase
.
Yet
is
there
scarce
any
man
so
much
a
stranger
to
the
method
and
principles
of
Husbandry
,
but
can
assigne
to
every
one
of
these
causes
,
their
proper
and
speciall
effect
,
though
all
meeting
together
in
that
great
and
common
effect
we
speake
of
:
the
soyle
is
for
one
purpose
,
the
Oxe
for
another
,
the
Plough
for
a
third
,
&c.
So
is
it
true
,
that
all
that
Christ
was
,
and
all
that
he
did
,
and
all
that
he
suffered
,
meet
together
in
that
great
and
common
effect
,
the
salvation
of
them
that
beleeve
:
yea
,
many
of
them
meet
by
the
way
,
in
the
justification
of
such
,
before
they
come
to
their
journeys
end
:
yet
to
justifie
the
wonderfull
and
deep
wisdome
of
God
,
as
we
ought
to
doe
,
in
bringing
about
this
great
work
of
the
salvation
of
the
world
,
we
must
enquire
after
and
find
out
peculiar
and
distinct
reasons
and
ends
,
for
all
that
variety
of
things
which
is
to
be
found
in
or
about
Christ
,
as
why
he
should
be
God
,
and
why
he
should
be
Man
,
what
both
the
one
and
the
other
of
these
peculiarly
contributes
towards
the
salvation
of
men
,
why
he
should
be
born
,
why
born
of
a
Virgin
,
why
he
should
grow
up
and
live
till
he
came
to
the
perfect
stature
and
age
of
a
man
,
why
he
should
be
circumcised
,
why
fullfill
the
Law
,
why
preach
the
Gospell
before
his
death
,
why
at
last
he
should
suffer
death
;
why
die
upon
the
Crosse
;
why
hee
should
be
buried
;
why
hee
should
rise
againe
,
&c.
with
many
more
particulars
of
like
nature
that
might
be
mentioned
:
all
which
have
their
speciall
and
peculiar
working
towards
the
great
worke
of
salvation
(
as
in
a
benigne
constellation
every
Staire
gives
out
his
peculiar
influence
by
himselfe
.
)
As
all
Rivers
fall
into
the
Sea
and
meet
there
in
one
,
though
the
course
of
their
waters
lie
from
all
parts
under
Heaven
,
from
the
East
and
from
the
West
,
from
North
and
South
:
So
whatever
Christ
was
,
and
whatever
he
did
,
spake
,
and
suffered
,
though
they
are
things
much
differing
in
themselves
,
and
in
their
immediate
and
proper
effects
,
yet
they
all
meet
and
center
in
that
common
and
glorious
effect
,
the
salvation
of
those
that
beleeve
.
And
for
men
not
to
distinguish
these
in
due
manner
,
aswell
in
their
effects
and
purposes
,
as
in
their
natures
,
is
not
only
to
confound
themselves
,
but
(
which
is
worse
)
to
confound
that
most
exquisite
and
admirably-beautifull
frame
of
the
Gospell
,
and
(
as
it
were
)
of
a
defenced
City
,
to
make
a
ruinous
heap
.
From
the
guilt
of
which
confusion-making
in
the
Gospell
,
how
unpossible
it
is
fairely
to
acquit
such
an
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
as
hitherto
we
have
opposed
,
will
further
appeare
in
the
reasons
ensuing
.
Fiftly
(
and
lastly
)
if
remission
of
sinnes
be
but
a
part
of
justification
,
SECT.
10
and
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
must
be
added
as
another
part
of
it
,
to
make
it
perfect
and
compleat
:
then
must
the
formall
cause
of
one
and
the
same
effect
,
be
double
(
the
absurdity
which
Calvin
,
as
we
heard
,
truly
charged
upon
the
Trent
Councellors
,
and
Bellarmine
as
falsely
recharged
upon
him
)
yea
(
that
which
makes
the
absurditie
swell
yet
higher
)
one
and
the
same
formality
,
or
formall
part
of
a
thing
(
which
is
ever
most
simple
and
indivissible
)
shall
be
compacted
and
compounded
of
two
things
,
not
only
of
a
differing
,
but
of
a
diverse
,
yea
and
of
an
opposite
importance
and
consideration
,
(
as
the
sequell
of
the
businesse
rightly
interpreted
,
will
make
manifest
.
)
For
where
there
is
a
perfect
and
compleat
righteousnesse
imputed
(
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
,
and
must
be
apprehended
)
there
is
no
place
for
remission
of
sinnes
.
CAP.
XII
.
A
fourth
reason
against
the
pretended
Imputation
;
it
frustrates
the
grace
of
Adoption
.
MY
fourth
ground
against
the
supposed
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
I
dispose
in
this
Syllogisme
.
That
which
dissolves
and
takes
away
the
necessity
and
use
of
that
sweet
and
Euangellicall
grace
of
Adoption
,
SECT.
1
cannot
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hold
a
streight
course
with
the
truth
of
the
Gospell
.
But
this
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
controverted
)
dissolves
and
takes
away
the
necessity
,
&c.
of
Adoption
.
Ergo.
The
proposition
(
I
conceive
)
will
be
yeelded
sine
sanguine
et
sudore
,
otherwise
the
sword
of
the
Spirit
,
the
word
of
God
,
would
soone
command
it
.
The
Scriptures
speake
much
of
the
grace
of
Adoption
,
or
Sonship
,
of
beleevers
being
made
the
Children
and
Sonnes
of
God
.
That
we
might
receive
the
Adoption
of
Sons
.
Gal.
4.5
.
And
because
yee
are
Sonnes
,
ver.
6.
Wherefore
thou
art
no
more
a
Servant
,
but
a
Sonne
&c.
ver.
7.
To
passe
by
other
places
without
number
:
Joh.
1.12
.
But
as
many
as
received
him
,
to
them
hee
gave
power
,
or
prerogative
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
to
be
made
[
or
to
become
]
the
Sonnes
of
God
.
Doubtlesse
this
grace
,
or
prerogative
of
Adoption
and
Sonne-ship
,
is
not
given
unto
men
by
God
in
vaine
,
not
for
the
sweet
sound
only
that
the
letter
or
name
of
Adoption
makes
in
the
cares
:
it
hath
relation
to
some
further
matter
of
moment
and
consequence
depending
thereon
.
It
is
given
as
an
immediate
capacitie
,
or
qualification
to
those
that
beleeve
,
to
make
them
capable
of
their
everlasting
inheritance
:
their
Son-ship
is
the
proper
and
next
ground
of
that
investiture
unto
them
.
The
Scriptures
are
in
nothing
more
expresse
then
this
.
If
we
be
Children
,
then
also
heires
,
even
heires
of
God
,
and
heires
annexed
with
Christ
.
Rom.
8.17
.
So
againe
:
Wherefore
thou
art
no
more
a
Servant
but
a
Son
&
if
a
Son
,
then
an
heire
of
God
through
Christ
.
Gal.
4
,
7.
As
if
he
should
say
,
we
are
therefore
made
Sonnes
,
or
adopted
to
be
Sonnes
,
that
so
by
right
of
this
Sonship
we
might
be
heires
of
God
,
and
by
the
right
of
this
Heyr-ship
come
to
inherit
that
immortall
,
undefiled
inheritance
,
which
fadeth
not
away
,
with
Iesus
Christ
himselfe
.
The
reason
or
strength
of
that
inference
,
or
consequence
,
If
Sonnes
then
Heires
,
seems
to
stand
in
this
:
because
though
amongst
men
all
that
are
Sons
,
are
not
Heires
,
if
we
speake
of
Sonnes
by
nature
,
but
only
he
that
is
the
first
borne
:
yet
Sonship
by
Adoption
(
I
conceive
)
hath
alwaies
respect
to
an
inheritance
,
a
man
never
adopteth
a
child
,
but
with
an
intent
or
purpose
to
make
him
his
heire
.
So
that
though
in
the
case
of
Son-ship
by
nature
,
it
will
not
follow
,
If
Sons
then
heires
,
yet
in
the
case
of
Adoption
,
it
will
.
And
this
(
we
know
)
is
the
case
and
condition
of
Beleevers
:
they
are
Sons
of
God
,
not
by
nature
,
but
by
Adoption
.
Vnlesse
(
perhaps
)
we
will
rather
conceive
the
reason
of
the
inference
to
lye
in
this
:
that
the
Apostle
argueth
and
concludeth
upon
the
supposition
of
this
truth
,
that
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
,
or
that
inheritance
which
God
hath
provided
for
his
Saints
,
is
of
another
nature
,
and
hath
a
preheminence
and
perfection
above
any
earthly
inheritance
,
as
in
a
thousand
other
respects
,
so
particularly
in
this
,
that
it
may
be
injoyed
,
possessed
and
inherited
by
all
the
Children
of
God
,
though
in
number
never
so
many
,
upon
such
terms
,
that
every
one
may
enjoy
,
and
possesse
the
whole
,
and
no
mans
portion
or
possession
here
suffers
any
losse
or
diminution
at
all
,
though
all
his
Brethren
enjoy
the
same
Portion
and
possession
with
him
.
And
in
this
respect
(
haply
,
with
some
others
)
it
may
be
ca●ed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
inheritance
of
the
Saints
IN
LIGHT
.
Colos.
1.12
.
The
light
of
the
Sun
(
we
know
)
is
of
that
nature
and
property
,
that
it
is
enjoyed
by
the
whole
world
,
and
by
all
the
Inhabitants
of
the
Earth
,
divisim
&
conjunctim
(
as
we
〈◊〉
)
upon
such
termes
,
that
no
mans
comfort
or
benefit
by
it
is
at
all
impaired
or
diminished
,
because
there
are
so
many
thousand
thousands
in
the
world
,
that
are
partakers
of
the
same
benefit
and
comfort
with
them
.
But
every
mans
enjoyment
and
possession
hereof
is
as
full
and
entire
to
him
,
as
if
the
Sun
shined
to
him
alone
,
and
there
were
no
other
to
divide
the
comfort
with
him
.
Doubtlesse
if
this
propertie
were
to
be
found
in
any
mans
Earthly
estate
or
inheritance
,
that
it
would
goe
as
far
,
and
hold
out
as
good
measure
amongst
many
,
as
among
few
,
or
as
given
but
to
one
:
though
a
man
had
never
so
many
Children
,
yet
this
consequence
would
hold
good
,
if
Sons
,
then
heires
,
he
would
bestow
his
whole
estate
aswell
upon
his
last-borne
,
as
his
first
.
But
because
there
is
a
defect
or
imperfection
this
way
in
earthly
inheritances
,
therefore
it
followes
not
with
men
,
if
Sonnes
then
heires
:
but
with
God
it
doth
,
because
such
imperfection
hath
no
place
,
in
his
heavenly
inheritance
.
But
howsoever
,
whether
the
strength
of
the
Apostles
inference
in
these
places
,
rests
either
in
this
,
or
in
the
former
consideration
,
or
in
any
other
:
evident
it
is
that
the
grace
or
guift
of
Adoption
is
given
by
God
unto
beleevers
for
an
Euangelicall
capacitie
,
right
,
or
title
to
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
.
And
therefore
whatsoever
opinion
or
notion
riseth
up
,
to
magnifie
it selfe
against
it
,
by
dissolving
and
frustrateing
the
use
,
end
,
and
intention
of
it
,
is
certainly
Anti-euangellicall
,
and
not
to
be
received
,
though
an
Angell
from
Heaven
,
should
bring
it
.
This
for
the
major
Proposition
in
the
syllogisme
,
rather
by
way
of
explication
,
then
confirmation
:
for
being
rightly
understood
,
it
cannot
lightly
be
denied
.
The
Assumption
followeth
:
But
such
an
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
as
is
contended
for
,
SECT.
2
dissolves
the
end
,
and
use
of
Adoption
.
This
is
evident
from
the
expresse
declaration
or
interpretation
which
themselves
make
of
their
imputation
,
who
are
the
abettors
and
maintainers
of
it
.
For
wherefore
is
this
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
introduced
into
the
businesse
of
Iustification
?
The
introducers
generally
make
but
one
mouth
amongst
them
,
and
say
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
must
be
imputed
unto
us
,
that
so
we
may
have
a
right
and
title
to
life
,
or
to
Heaven
,
according
to
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
:
Hoc
fac
,
et
vive
:
do
this
and
live
.
For
by
remission
of
sinnes
(
say
they
,
and
truely
)
a
man
is
only
delivered
from
death
and
condemnation
,
due
unto
sinne
:
but
there
accrues
or
growes
no
right
or
title
to
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
from
remission
of
sinnes
unto
any
man
.
And
so
apprehending
nothing
else
within
reach
in
or
about
a
beleever
,
meet
or
fit
to
make
a
plea
or
title
of
thereunto
,
they
have
compelled
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
to
take
this
honour
and
office
upon
it
,
in
a
way
of
imputation
.
Neither
indeed
is
it
easy
to
conjecture
or
conceive
,
what
other
service
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
should
doe
in
justification
,
or
for
what
other
end
or
purpose
it
should
be
introduced
upon
such
termes
,
and
in
such
a
way
,
then
to
qualifie
men
with
a
capacity
for
Heaven
.
Now
then
this
being
the
direct
and
proper
end
,
use
,
office
,
purpose
and
intent
of
Adoption
,
to
invest
a
beleever
with
a
capapacity
for
Heaven
(
as
hath
been
demonstrated
from
the
Scriptures
)
it
evidently
followes
,
that
whosoever
shall
offer
or
attempt
to
set
any
thing
else
upon
this
Throne
,
seekes
to
dissolve
and
make
frustrate
the
counsell
and
purpose
of
God
concerning
the
grace
of
Adoption
,
in
t●●s
behalfe
.
To
bring
in
any
other
right
or
title
to
salvation
besides
that
Adoption
of
Sonnes
which
we
have
in
Christ
,
is
to
depresse
or
put
downe
the
wisdome
of
God
,
and
to
exalt
another
instead
of
it
.
If
it
be
heere
objected
and
said
,
that
both
may
stand
together
,
imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
from
Christ
,
and
Adoption
both
:
why
may
they
not
together
make
a
twofold
coard
,
a
stronger
and
more
effectuall
title
,
then
either
alone
?
To
this
I
answere
,
No
:
they
will
not
twist
,
or
winde
or
worke
together
:
not
so
much
because
of
the
diversitie
and
contrariety
of
their
natures
,
as
the
clay
and
yron
would
not
worke
and
mix
together
in
Nebuchadnezzars
image
(
though
this
might
be
a
sufficient
consideration
,
I
conceive
,
to
build
a
negative
answere
upon
,
Legalls
and
Euangellicalls
will
not
joyne
or
combine
to
make
a
title
to
Heaven
)
but
chiefly
because
either
of
them
,
aswell
the
one
as
the
other
,
is
a
compleate
and
intire
title
within
it selfe
.
Perfect
righteousnesse
,
is
a
perfect
and
compleate
title
alone
:
so
is
Adoption
or
Son-ship
,
as
perfect
and
compleate
a
title
alone
,
as
it
:
As
to
be
the
first
borne
,
or
heire
to
an
earthly
inheritance
,
gives
as
direct
and
full
a
right
or
title
to
the
enjoyment
of
it
,
as
the
lawfullest
purchase
can
do
.
Now
it
is
certaine
,
that
God
never
ordeynes
a
plurality
of
meanes
for
one
and
the
same
end
or
purpose
,
when
one
meanes
is
entire
and
every
waies
sufficient
for
it
,
neither
in
the
world
naturall
,
nor
in
the
world
Spirituall
(
as
the
Gospell
may
be
called
.
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
i.
Nature
makes
one
for
one
,
was
the
old
axiome
in
Metaphysiques
.
But
especially
in
the
Gospell
,
you
shall
finde
it
generally
so
,
that
God
allowes
and
seales
still
but
one
means
,
for
one
purpose
(
I
meane
but
one
adaequate
meanes
in
one
kind
,
or
in
the
same
relation
to
the
effect
)
and
accordingly
upon
the
bringing
in
or
position
of
a
second
meanes
for
the
same
end
or
purpose
,
complaines
presently
of
the
abrogateing
or
making
voyd
the
other
.
You
shall
observe
many
such
passages
and
reasonings
in
the
Gospell
,
as
these
.
If
they
which
are
of
the
Law
be
heires
,
Faith
is
made
voyd
,
and
the
promise
made
of
none
effect
.
Rom.
4.14
.
So
againe
,
Jf
the
inheritance
be
of
the
Law
,
it
is
no
more
by
promise
.
Gal.
3.18
.
&
ver.
21.
Jf
there
had
bin
a
Law
,
that
could
have
given
life
,
surely
righteousnesse
should
have
bin
by
the
Law
.
Surely
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
verily
,
certainly
God
would
not
have
gone
further
then
this
Law
,
in
procureing
life
unto
any
,
if
there
had
bin
but
a
possibilitie
in
the
Law
to
have
done
it
.
But
I
desire
to
insist
a
little
upon
that
place
,
SECT.
4
Gal.
2.21
and
upon
occasion
of
the
passage
,
to
reason
the
point
a
little
further
.
I
do
not
(
saith
Paul
)
abrogate
the
grace
of
God
:
for
if
righteousnesse
be
by
the
Law
,
surely
Christ
hath
died
in
vaine
:
A
man
with
his
first
thoughts
,
may
thinke
the
inference
somewhat
strange
,
and
that
Paul
should
be
too
weake
and
contemptible
in
his
premises
,
to
be
so
sore
and
strong
in
his
Conclusion
.
For
thus
a
man
might
counter-argue
with
him
.
How
doth
it
necessarily
follow
,
that
if
righteousnesse
or
justification
were
by
the
Law
,
that
Christs
death
must
presently
be
in
vaine
?
What
if
there
were
more
meanes
of
justification
,
then
one
,
more
doers
open
into
life
,
then
one
,
one
by
Christ
,
another
by
the
Law
?
were
there
any
harme
in
this
?
it
may
be
some
would
enter
in
at
one
dore
,
and
some
at
another
,
as
we
doe
into
our
Churches
:
and
so
neither
would
be
in
vaine
.
But
to
this
I
answere
,
true
,
if
it
were
with
God
and
his
counsailes
and
waies
,
as
it
is
with
men
,
such
a
conclusion
would
follow
such
premises
but
weakly
and
faintly
:
but
it
being
with
God
and
in
his
waies
as
it
is
,
it
followes
roundly
,
and
faulters
not
at
all
.
It
is
with
the
poore
and
weake
creature
called
man
,
in
comparison
of
the
Great
and
Glorious
God
in
this
point
,
as
it
is
with
many
poore
people
in
the
Citie
,
that
live
upon
the
labour
of
their
hands
,
and
work
to
great
shops
,
and
rich
Shop-keepers
,
in
respect
of
their
great
Masters
,
to
whom
they
work
.
It
is
a
common
complaint
,
that
they
worke
for
little
,
and
are
content
to
do
it
,
fearing
least
otherwise
they
might
starve
:
they
do
much
work
for
a
little
profit
:
but
their
rich
Masters
will
gaine
to
some
purpose
,
or
else
they
will
not
,
or
care
not
to
trade
.
So
in
the
case
we
now
speake
of
,
men
being
a
feeble
and
impotent
generation
,
and
not
able
to
doe
,
what
,
and
as
they
would
,
count
it
their
wisdome
to
do
the
best
they
may
:
and
therefore
are
content
(
many
times
)
to
raise
great
summes
of
meanes
for
bringing
of
smaller
things
to
passe
,
it
may
be
in
a
double
or
triple
proportion
above
the
level
of
their
ends
,
because
they
are
still
jealous
and
doubtfull
about
the
successe
of
the
meanes
they
use
:
there
are
many
disticulties
and
miscariages
incident
to
the
manageing
of
their
designes
which
they
cannot
foresee
,
and
therefore
when
their
ends
are
matters
of
any
great
moment
and
consequence
,
or
much
desired
,
they
heape
on
meanes
upon
meanes
,
and
are
scarce
ever
secure
,
or
thinke
they
have
done
enough
.
Neither
is
it
any
disparagement
unto
them
in
the
world
amongst
men
like
themselves
,
though
halfe
of
their
meanes
be
lost
in
the
issue
,
or
be
found
unprofitable
and
redundant
because
men
use
to
beare
one
with
another
in
such
cases
,
it
being
one
mans
case
aswell
as
anothers
from
time
to
time
.
Yea
the
Scripture
it selfe
seemes
to
encourage
men
in
the
use
of
varietie
of
meanes
,
in
regard
of
the
uncertainty
of
the
succesle
.
In
the
merning
sow
thy
seed
,
and
in
the
evening
withhold
not
thy
hand
:
for
thou
knowest
not
whether
shall
prosper
,
either
this
or
that
.
Ecclesiast.
11.6
.
Suppose
a
single
dore
through
Gods
Providence
might
be
enough
and
enough
to
keepe
off
the
thiefe
from
the
rich
mans
baggs
,
yet
he
makes
a
double
dore
,
and
dore
upon
dore
for
that
purpose
:
in
this
case
it
is
no
pregnant
consequence
to
reason
thus
:
if
the
single
dore
were
sufficient
to
secure
the
treasure
from
thiefes
,
the
double
dore
,
and
all
the
rest
of
the
dores
were
in
vaine
.
Because
though
there
be
no
use
of
these
in
keeping
out
the
thiefe
(
who
perhaps
never
thought
of
making
any
attempt
upon
the
treasure
)
yet
are
they
of
use
to
qualifie
the
feares
of
the
rich
owner
,
and
to
make
him
possesse
his
treasure
in
more
peace
.
But
now
with
God
,
we
know
it
is
otherwise
:
he
never
raiseth
double
meanes
for
the
same
end
,
but
alwaits
makes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
as
was
said
)
one
meanes
for
one
end
:
both
because
hee
knowes
,
how
to
attaine
his
end
as
infalliably
by
single
meanes
as
by
double
:
and
besides
,
because
he
will
have
none
of
his
meanes
or
ordinances
laughed
to
scorne
,
or
disparaged
in
the
least
measure
,
or
to
be
despised
or
neglected
by
men
.
He
will
not
have
any
two
ordinances
of
his
of
the
same
occupation
,
because
he
will
have
no
contention
or
emulation
betweene
them
.
Consider
that
passage
,
Gal.
3.21
Is
the
Law
then
against
the
promises
(
saith
Paul
?
)
God
forbid
.
No
:
but
how
doth
he
prove
it
is
not
?
By
this
argument
,
because
the
Law
cannot
give
life
.
For
(
saith
he
)
had
there
been
a
Law
,
that
could
have
given
life
,
righteousnesse
should
have
been
by
the
Law
:
cleerely
implying
,
that
if
the
Law
could
have
given
life
,
which
is
the
proper
office
and
calling
(
as
it
were
)
of
the
promise
to
doe
,
then
indeed
it
had
bin
against
it
,
and
an
enemy
to
it
,
and
would
have
taken
it's
worke
(
which
is
it's
glorie
)
out
of
it's
hand
.
But
now
since
it
serves
quite
for
another
purpose
,
the
Law
and
the
Promise
agree
well
enough
together
,
and
doe
not
enter-meddle
one
with
anothers
worke
.
So
you
see
the
ground
and
bottome
of
the
Apostles
reasoning
in
the
forenamed
place
:
Jf
righteousnesse
be
by
the
Law
,
then
Christ
hath
died
in
vaine
.
He
supposeth
,
and
calls
that
an
abrogateing
and
makeing
voyd
any
the
counsailes
or
ordinances
of
God
,
when
another
thing
is
set
up
with
them
,
to
bring
the
same
end
to
passe
,
or
to
serve
in
the
same
place
and
office
,
whereunto
they
are
appointed
.
And
doubtlesse
by
authority
and
warrant
of
the
same
ground
,
we
may
set
this
paralell
proposition
at
the
right
hand
of
that
of
Paul
:
If
our
right
and
title
to
Heaven
be
by
imputati
on
of
Christ's
righteousnes
,
then
doth
God
give
the
grace
of
ADOPTION
in
vaine
.
And
this
for
our
fourth
argument
against
that
Imputation
.
CAP.
XIII
.
Conteyning
the
fist
and
sixt
grounds
against
the
said
imputation
,
viz.
the
taking
away
the
necessity
,
1º
,
of
Repentance
:
and
2º
,
of
Christs
death
.
GOD
(
saith
Paul
.
1
Cor.
14.33
.
)
is
not
the
Author
of
confusion
,
but
of
peace
.
SECT.
1
There
is
no
plant
of
his
planting
,
that
hurts
or
injur's
any
other
plant
which
himselfe
also
hath
planted
:
much
lesse
that
plucks
it
up
by
the
rootes
.
Now
first
,
it
is
certaine
that
Repentance
is
an
Euangelicall
plant
of
his
planting
,
and
of
absolute
necessity
unto
salvation
.
Except
yee
repent
(
saith
our
Saviour
Luk
13.3
.
)
yee
shall
all
likewise
perish
,
&c.
Secondly
,
it
wants
little
(
if
any
thing
)
of
the
like
certainty
,
because
of
the
evidence
of
truth
in
it
,
that
such
an
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
as
is
pretended
and
pleaded
for
by
some
,
wholly
dissolves
and
cuts
off
the
necessity
of
Repentance
.
For
he
that
hath
a
perfect
and
compleate
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
imputed
unto
him
,
upon
such
termes
,
that
it
shall
be
asmuch
his
,
being
imputed
,
as
if
he
had
personally
wrought
and
fulfilled
it
himselfe
,
what
colour
or
pretence
can
there
be
,
why
or
how
,
he
should
stand
in
need
of
any
repentance
?
The
righteous
(
saith
Christ
)
need
no
repentance
.
If
Adam
had
kept
the
Law
,
he
had
needed
no
repentance
more
then
Christ
himselfe
needed
:
and
those
that
were
in
Christ
and
kept
the
Law
in
him
,
as
exactly
and
perfectly
as
he
did
,
what
need
of
Repentance
have
they
,
or
can
they
have
,
more
then
he
?
For
if
the
exact
and
perfect
obedience
of
Christ
be
the
true
ground
and
reason
why
Christ
himselfe
needed
no
Repentance
:
and
this
obedience
of
his
,
in
all
the
exactnesse
and
perfection
of
it
,
be
as
truely
theirs
by
imputation
,
as
it
was
his
,
or
as
it
could
have
been
theirs
by
personall
performance
:
unpossible
it
is
,
but
if
it
were
a
sufficient
ground
of
a
non-necessitie
of
Repentance
in
the
one
,
it
must
be
the
same
in
the
other
also
.
He
that
is
as
righteous
as
Christ
is
(
which
those
must
needs
be
that
are
righteous
with
his
rightsousnesse
)
needs
no
more
repentance
then
Christ
himselfe
needeth
.
I
see
not
what
in
a
way
of
sober
reason
,
can
be
opposed
against
this
argument
That
was
a
desperate
Answere
,
which
a
zealous
defender
of
that
Faith
made
to
save
the
life
of
his
opinion
being
assaulted
by
this
argument
(
but
it
was
right-down
dealing
howsoever
,
and
faithfulnesse
to
his
principles
,
in
their
great
distresse
)
that
Beleevers
being
perfectly
righteous
in
Christ
,
have
indeed
no
need
of
Repentance
.
If
it
be
objected
,
and
said
,
that
notwithstanding
the
imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
from
Christ
,
SECT.
2
yet
beleevers
have
their
personall
sins
and
faileings
,
which
Christ
had
not
:
and
in
respect
of
these
,
they
need
not
daily
and
continuall
Repentance
.
To
this
I
answere
:
True
,
Beleevers
indeed
stand
in
need
of
daily
Repentance
,
in
respect
of
their
personall
sinnes
and
failings
,
which
are
daily
:
but
they
that
have
an
entire
,
and
perfect-Law-righteousnesse
imputed
to
them
,
have
no
such
need
in
any
respect
.
Therefore
Beleevers
are
not
the
men
,
that
have
any
such
righteousnesse
imputed
to
them
.
Certainly
they
that
have
the
perfect
fulfilling
and
observation
of
the
Law
imputed
unto
them
by
God
,
cannot
stand
guiltie
before
God
of
any
sinne
or
breach
of
this
Law
:
because
in
the
imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
there
is
an
universall
non-imputation
of
sinne
apparantly
included
.
Besides
,
if
God
doth
impute
a
perfect
Law-righteousnesse
to
men
,
it
must
be
supposed
that
the
rights
and
privileges
belonging
to
such
righteousnesse
doe
accompanie
it
,
in
the
imputation
:
so
that
the
person
to
whom
such
imputation
is
made
,
stands
really
invested
and
possessed
of
them
.
Otherwise
God
should
impute
the
shells
without
the
kernell
,
and
give
empty
titles
without
the
substance
of
honour
:
Now
one
maine
privilege
of
a
perfect
Law-righteousnesse
is
,
to
invest
with
a
full
and
entire
right
unto
life
,
out
of
its
owne
intrinsecall
and
inherent
dignity
and
worth
:
which
is
a
privilege
wholly
inconsistent
with
the
least
touch
or
tincture
of
sinne
in
the
person
that
stands
possessed
of
it
.
Therefore
where
such
a
privilege
or
right
is
,
there
can
be
no
occasion
or
necessity
of
Repentance
,
because
Repentance
presupposeth
sinne
.
If
it
be
yet
said
further
,
SECT.
3
that
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
will
be
asmuch
shaken
by
this
Objection
,
as
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
for
righteousnesse
,
because
if
Faith
be
imputed
for
,
or
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
it
must
bring
likewise
and
derive
all
the
privileges
of
such
a
righteousnesse
upon
the
person
,
to
whom
such
imputation
is
made
.
Therefore
that
privelege
also
,
which
excludes
the
necessity
of
Repentance
.
To
this
I
answere
,
by
denying
the
consequence
of
that
which
is
brought
to
justify
the
Exception
.
When
the
Scriptures
say
that
Faith
is
imputed
,
for
,
or
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
the
intent
and
meaning
is
not
,
as
if
God
either
imputed
,
or
accepted
or
accounted
Faith
,
for
the
selfe
same
thing
which
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
is
intrinse
cally
and
formally
,
or
as
if
God
in
this
imputation
either
gave
or
accounted
unto
Faith
:
any
power
or
privilege
to
justify
,
out
of
any
inherent
or
internall
dignity
or
worth
in
it
,
(
which
is
the
intrinsecall
and
formall
property
of
a
Law-righteousnesse
)
but
the
meaning
only
is
,
that
God
upon
a
mans
Faith
,
will
as
fully
justify
him
,
that
is
,
acquit
him
from
death
and
condemnation
,
as
if
he
had
perfectly
fulfilled
the
Law
.
He
that
beleeveth
may
be
as
fully
and
perfectly
justified
,
as
he
that
fulfilleth
the
Law
,
and
yet
not
bee
justified
in
the
same
manner
,
or
upon
the
same
termes
.
He
that
fulfilleth
the
Law
,
and
thereby
is
justifyed
,
is
justified
out
of
the
inherent
&
internall
dignity
of
that
which
justifyeth
him
:
but
he
that
is
justified
by
Faith
,
is
not
justifyed
by
the
inherent
dignity
,
or
merit
of
that
which
justifyeth
him
,
but
by
the
free
and
gracious
acceptatiō
of
it
by
God
,
for
that
which
is
justifying
in
it
own
nature
,
&
by
vertue
of
its
inherent
worth
&
dignity
.
So
that
although
Faith
be
imputed
to
a
man
,
for
,
or
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
and
he
by
such
imputation
of
his
Faith
,
be
justified
:
yet
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
therefore
he
is
justified
upon
the
same
terms
every
way
,
as
he
should
have
been
,
had
he
been
justifyed
by
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
of
the
Law
.
Wherefore
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
may
well
stand
with
personall
sinnes
in
him
,
to
whom
this
imputation
is
made
,
in
respect
of
which
sinnes
he
remaines
continually
oblieged
to
Repentance
:
but
the
imputation
of
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
,
for
righteousnesse
,
makes
a
man
perfectly
and
legally
righteous
,
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
it
.
And
this
is
that
kinde
of
righteousnesse
,
which
absolutly
excludes
all
consistencie
of
sinne
in
the
same
person
with
it
:
and
consequently
leaves
no
place
for
Repentance
.
This
for
the
fift
ground
or
reason
against
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
justification
(
sensuliterali
.
SECT.
4
)
A
Sixt
ground
against
the
same
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
is
:
it
takes
away
the
necessity
of
his
death
.
If
men
be
as
righteous
as
Christ
himselfe
was
in
his
life
,
there
were
no
more
necessity
of
his
death
for
them
,
then
ther
was
either
of
his
own
death
,
or
of
the
death
of
any
other
,
for
himselfe
.
If
we
were
perfectly
just
or
righteous
in
him
,
or
with
him
,
in
his
life
,
then
the
just
should
not
have
died
for
the
unjust
(
as
the
Scriptures
speak
)
for
whose
salvation
there
was
a
necessitie
he
should
die
:
but
he
should
have
died
for
the
just
,
for
whom
there
was
no
necessitie
why
he
should
die
.
This
Reason
the
Apostle
expresly
delivers
.
Gal.
2.21
.
If
righteousnesse
be
by
the
Law
,
then
Christ
died
in
vaine
.
I
desire
the
unpartiall
Reader
to
observe
narrowly
the
force
of
this
inference
made
by
the
Holy
Ghost
:
If
righteousnesse
(
or
,
justification
)
be
by
the
Law
,
then
Christ
died
in
vaine
.
Men
cannot
here
betake
themselves
to
their
wonted
Sanctuary
and
Refuge
,
to
say
that
by
the
Law
,
is
to
be
understood
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
a
mans
selfe
in
person
:
Nay
their
own
interpretation
here
will
betray
their
opinion
into
the
hand
of
this
Reason
,
that
fights
against
it
.
For
by
the
word
Law
,
in
this
place
,
understand
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
Christ
,
the
consequence
will
rise
up
rather
with
the
greater
strength
and
power
against
them
.
If
righteousnesse
were
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
performed
by
Christ
,
that
is
,
if
the
imputation
of
them
were
our
compleat
&
absolute
righteousnesse
,
the
death
of
Christ
for
us
had
bin
apparently
in
vaine
,
because
the
righteousnes
of
his
life
imputed
,
had
bina
sufficient
,
&
every
waies
a
compleat
righteousnes
for
us
.
Neither
can
it
be
here
said
,
SECT.
5
that
there
was
a
necessity
that
Christ
should
die
,
that
so
the
righteousnesse
of
his
life
might
be
imputed
to
us
.
For
certainly
this
righteousnesse
of
his
life
was
as
capable
of
such
an
imputation
,
before
and
with
out
his
death
,
as
after
,
or
with
it
.
For
what
defect
or
impediment
can
be
conceived
,
that
should
hinder
it
?
Adams
sin
(
according
to
the
principles
of
that
opinion
against
which
we
argue
)
was
capable
of
imputation
,
as
soone
as
●t
was
committed
:
and
why
should
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
require
any
further
qualification
or
recommendation
to
put
it
off
upon
the
like
terms
,
but
onely
the
working
and
performance
of
it
?
If
it
be
yet
said
:
but
the
persons
of
men
had
not
bin
capable
of
this
imputation
,
without
the
death
of
Christ
:
therfore
there
was
a
necessity
of
this
death
of
his
,
in
this
respect
.
To
this
I
Answer
:
True
indeed
,
the
persons
of
men
,
are
not
capable
of
this
imputation
,
without
the
death
of
Christ
:
but
neither
are
they
made
the
more
capable
by
it
.
But
if
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
we
speake
of
,
were
in
it selfe
imputable
(
in
the
sense
contended
for
)
why
should
not
the
persons
of
men
,
be
capable
of
the
imputation
thereof
in
the
midst
of
their
sins
,
aswell
as
Christ
was
capable
of
the
imputation
of
their
sins
,
in
the
midst
of
his
righteousnesse
?
Especially
considering
,
that
(
as
it
appeares
from
Rom.
5.14
.
)
the
grace
and
guift
of
God
which
is
by
Iesus
Christ
,
saveth
by
a
stronger
and
higher
hand
,
then
sin
condemneth
.
CAP.
XIV
.
Opening
a
Seventh
ground
against
the
pre-refused
Imputation
,
viz.
the
taking
away
of
forgivenesse
of
Sinnes
.
THat
opinion
which
makes
and
constitutes
men
perfectly
and
compleatly
righteous
(
with
allegall
righteousnesse
)
as
righteous
as
Christ
himselfe
(
though
it
be
but
quoad
veritatem
,
SECT.
1
non
quoad
modum
(
as
some
of
that
way
think
to
distinguish
themselves
safe
,
yet
it
comes
to
the
same
in
this
respect
)
leaves
no
place
for
forgivenesse
,
or
remission
of
sinnes
,
in
persons
so
made
righteous
:
it
evacuates
that
high
and
soveraigne
power
of
God
(
at
least
in
the
use
and
exercise
of
it
towards
those
that
beleeve
)
whereby
he
forgiveth
sins
.
God
(
we
know
)
forgave
Christ
no
sinne
:
why
?
because
he
was
perfectly
righteous
,
and
in
him
was
no
sinne
(
as
Iohn
speaketh
,
1
Iohn
5.3
.
)
Therefore
if
men
be
righteous
with
the
same
righteousnesse
,
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
as
compleatly
righteous
as
he
,
they
have
no
more
sin
to
be
pardoned
,
then
he
had
.
If
it
be
said
that
God
first
gives
remission
of
sinnes
unto
men
,
and
then
imputes
this
perfect
righteousnesse
unto
them
.
To
this
exception
,
answere
hath
bin
made
already
,
Cap.
5.
Sect.
2.
To
that
which
is
there
delivered
,
I
adde
:
that
Christ
hath
taught
us
to
pray
for
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
even
after
this
imputation
of
righteousnesse
(
if
any
such
thing
were
)
except
we
will
say
,
that
he
fram'd
that
patterne
of
Prayer
(
usually
called
the
Lords
Prayer
)
onely
for
the
use
of
infidels
and
unbeleevers
.
Now
to
aske
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
of
God
,
and
yet
to
conceit
our selves
as
righteous
as
Christ
was
,
is
rather
to
mock
then
to
worship
him
,
whom
we
pray
unto
.
If
it
be
here
objected
(
as
the
like
objection
was
made
against
the
fift
ground
,
SECT.
2
in
the
former
Chapter
)
that
this
inconvenience
sits
as
close
,
to
the
Imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
as
to
the
Imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
for
that
purpose
.
For
if
faith
be
imputed
for
,
or
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
must
it
not
derive
a
righteousnesse
upon
the
person
to
whom
such
imputation
is
made
,
as
perfect
and
compleat
,
as
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
it selfe
,
and
consequently
,
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
himselfe
?
How
then
doth
that
opinion
leave
any
other
place
for
remission
of
sinnes
in
those
that
beleeve
,
then
that
which
standeth
for
the
Imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
?
Are
they
not
both
under
the
same
condemnation
this
way
?
Not
to
repeat
what
was
so
lately
delivered
in
full
for
satisfaction
and
Answere
to
this
Objection
:
I
yet
further
adde
(
ex
abundanti
)
that
when
Faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
justification
,
instead
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
it
is
evidently
implyed
,
that
it
is
not
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
it selfe
that
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
but
another
thing
,
Faith
by
name
,
instead
of
it
.
Now
any
other
righteousnesse
,
or
any
other
thing
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
besides
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
will
apparently
beare
a
consistencie
of
sinne
with
it
,
and
so
leave
a
place
for
forgivenesse
of
sins
:
but
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
excluding
the
former
,
cannot
give
entertainment
to
the
latter
.
When
a
perfect
sanctification
is
imputed
to
a
Man
for
his
justification
,
that
Man
can
be
no
more
reputed
or
thought
to
have
sinne
in
him
,
then
to
be
obnoxious
to
death
and
condemnation
,
which
is
most
opposite
to
justification
.
But
when
that
which
either
is
no
sanctification
,
or
at
most
but
an
imperfect
sanctification
,
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
a
mans
justification
,
there
may
be
as
full
a
justification
,
as
perfect
a
deliverance
from
death
and
condemnation
,
as
in
the
former
case
,
and
yet
place
left
in
the
person
so
justified
,
for
an
inherencie
of
sin
:
and
consequently
,
for
the
forgivenesse
of
it
.
CAP.
XV.
Enforceing
an
Eight
Reason
against
the
Imputation
questioned
,
viz.
a
manifest
compliance
with
that
dangerous
errour
,
That
God
seeth
no
sinne
in
his
people
.
WHat
communion
hath
light
with
darknesse
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
and
what
concord
hath
Christ
with
Belial
?
2
Cor.
6.14
,
15.
SECT.
1
If
this
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
which
we
oppose
,
were
from
Christ
,
doubtlesse
it
would
have
no
intelligence
,
or
compliance
with
any
opinion
so
opposite
to
him
and
his
truth
,
as
this
,
That
God
seeth
no
sinne
in
his
people
.
The
opinion
it selfe
,
is
an
error
so
grosse
and
like
the
darknesse
of
Egypt
,
that
it
is
even
palpable
and
may
be
felt
.
Therefore
we
will
not
spend
time
in
arraigning
it
as
guilty
,
which
is
already
so
generally
condemned
.
But
that
the
opinion
,
against
which
the
face
of
this
discourse
is
set
,
is
of
the
same
confederacie
with
this
,
and
gives
the
right
hand
of
fellowship
to
it
,
nay
,
leades
and
caries
men
directly
into
it
,
will
cleerely
appeare
by
this
Demonstration
.
Whosoever
is
perfectly
righteous
,
or
as
righteous
as
Christ
is
,
in
him
God
can
see
no
sinne
.
But
every
beleever
(
saith
this
opinion
which
we
impugne
)
is
as
perfectly
and
compleatly
righteous
,
as
Christ
himselfe
is
:
Therefore
in
such
God
can
see
no
sinne
.
You
see
in
this
Syllogisme
,
how
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
in
the
sense
contended
for
by
many
,
brings
in
that
error
with
a
high
hand
:
and
therefore
is
to
be
cut
off
from
the
Sanctuary
of
God
.
And
those
that
will
hold
and
maintaine
such
an
imputation
,
and
yet
crie
out
upon
,
and
condemne
the
opinion
of
Gods
not
seeing
sin
in
his
Children
,
are
(
in
a
spirituall
or
morall
sense
)
like
those
Idolaters
of
old
,
that
caused
their
owne
Children
to
passe
through
the
fire
.
Ismael
was
not
the
more
naturall
and
genuine
fruite
of
Hagars
wombe
that
bare
him
,
then
this
conclusion
o●
tenet
,
that
God
seeth
no
sinne
in
his
Children
,
is
of
that
opinion
,
which
mainteyneth
men
to
be
compleatly
righteous
,
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
.
But
as
sometimes
it
comes
to
passe
,
that
a
man
falling
into
love
with
a
woman
that
hath
a
great
charge
of
Children
hanging
upon
her
,
having
maried
the
mother
,
would
willingly
wrangle
or
beate
the
Children
out
of
dores
,
and
turne
them
off
to
begg
:
so
it
is
often
seene
,
that
when
men
have
unadvisedly
imbraced
an
opinion
,
seeming
in
their
eye
a
beautifull
and
lovely
truth
,
and
did
not
at
first
,
before
they
were
wedded
to
it
,
apprehend
and
consider
what
rugged
and
harsh
consequences
it
had
attending
upon
it
,
they
shift
and
turne
and
winde
themselves
about
every
way
,
to
quit
themselves
of
that
dishonourable
charge
,
wherewith
they
finde
themselves
by
reason
of
their
opinion
,
encumbred
withall
.
But
how
men
that
will
owne
an
imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
can
with
any
tollerable
appearance
of
reason
,
shift
off
from
themselves
the
opinion
of
Gods
not
seeing
sin
,
in
those
that
are
cloathed
with
it
,
is
(
I
confesse
)
beyond
the
line
of
my
apprehension
.
If
God
could
see
no
sinne
in
Christ
,
because
he
was
perfectly
and
compleatly
righteous
,
how
he
should
see
it
in
any
that
are
as
compleatly
and
perfectly
righteous
as
he
,
and
that
with
the
same
righteousnesse
wherwith
he
was
righteous
,
is
a
riddle
that
cannot
be
made
out
,
but
by
him
that
plougheth
with
a
better
heyfer
then
yet
I
have
met
with
any
.
CAP.
XVI
.
Propounding
a
ninth
Demonstration
against
the
pretended
imputation
:
viz.
the
confounding
of
the
two
Covenants
.
IT
is
true
,
SECT.
1
many
that
hold
the
way
of
imputation
,
are
nothing
ashamed
,
nor
afraide
,
of
this
consequent
,
the
confounding
of
the
two
testaments
or
covenants
of
God
with
men
,
that
of
the
works
with
that
of
grace
,
and
(
vice
versa
)
that
of
grace
,
with
that
of
works
.
These
conceive
that
God
never
made
more
covenants
then
one
,
with
man
:
and
that
the
Gospell
is
nothing
else
but
a
gracious
aide
or
reliefe
from
God
,
to
helpe
man
out
with
the
performance
of
the
first
Covenant
of
works
:
so
that
that
life
and
salvation
which
is
said
to
come
by
Christ
,
shall
in
no
other
sense
be
said
to
come
by
him
,
but
only
as
he
fulfilled
that
Law
of
works
for
man
,
which
men
themselves
were
not
able
to
fulfill
:
and
by
imputation
,
as
by
a
deed
of
guift
,
makes
over
that
his
perfect
obedience
and
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
to
those
that
beleeve
;
so
that
they
in
the
right
of
this
perfect
obedience
,
thus
made
theirs
by
imputation
,
shall
come
to
inherit
life
and
salvation
,
according
to
the
strict
and
rigid
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
works
,
Doe
this
and
live
.
But
as
far
as
I
am
able
to
conceive
,
men
may
aswell
say
,
there
was
no
second
Adam
,
really
differing
from
the
first
,
as
no
second
Covenant
differing
really
from
the
first
,
and
that
mount
Sina
in
Arabia
,
is
the
same
mountaine
with
mount
Sion
in
Judaea
,
and
that
the
Spirit
of
bondage
is
the
same
with
the
Spirit
of
Adoption
,
and
that
Isaak
and
Ishmael
were
but
the
same
Child
.
If
the
second
Covenant
of
Grace
,
were
implicitly
and
tacitly
conteyned
in
the
first
,
then
the
meaning
of
the
first
Covenant
,
conceived
in
those
words
,
Doe
this
and
live
,
must
be
thus
:
Doe
this
,
either
by
thy selfe
,
or
by
another
,
(
thy
surety
)
and
live
.
There
is
no
other
way
to
reconcile
them
,
or
to
reduce
them
into
one
and
the
same
Covenant
.
If
this
were
Gods
meaning
in
the
first
Covenant
,
that
keeping
the
Law
,
either
by
a
man
himselfe
in
person
,
or
by
another
,
should
equally
serve
the
turne
,
and
a
man
should
live
by
either
,
then
1º
,
it
must
follow
that
a
Mediator
was
promised
before
the
fall
:
for
this
Covenant
was
struck
with
man
in
Innocencie
.
2º
,
that
Adam
either
understood
not
his
Covenant
that
was
made
with
him
:
or
else
knew
of
a
surety
and
redeemer
before
his
fall
;
at
least
as
being
in
a
readinesse
for
him
,
in
case
he
should
fall
.
3
,
if
keeping
the
Law
either
by
a
mans
selfe
,
or
by
another
,
were
(
in
Gods
meaning
in
that
Covenant
)
a
sufficient
meanes
of
life
,
then
any
other
surety
,
any
other
Mediator
,
would
have
made
the
reconciliation
aswell
as
he
that
was
God
and
man
:
For
God
might
have
created
a
meere
man
with
abilities
to
have
kept
the
Law
,
as
fully
as
Adam
or
any
of
his
posterity
was
bound
to
doe
.
4
(
and
lastly
)
if
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
by
any
surety
whatsoever
,
were
a
sufficient
meanes
of
life
unto
Adam
and
his
,
then
was
the
death
of
Christ
no
waies
necessary
:
because
Christ
had
perfectly
kept
and
fulfilled
the
Law
before
his
death
.
Againe
2
,
SECT.
2
If
the
first
and
second
Covenant
were
in
substance
the
same
,
then
must
the
conditions
or
te●ms
of
agreement
in
both
be
the
same
.
For
the
conditions
or
terms
of
agreement
in
a
Covenant
,
are
as
formall
and
essentiall
a
part
of
a
Covenant
,
as
any
other
thing
belonging
to
it
.
Though
there
be
the
same
parties
Covenanting
,
and
the
same
things
Covenanted
for
or
about
:
yet
if
there
be
new
articles
of
agreement
,
it
is
really
a
new
bargaine
and
another
Covenant
.
Now
if
the
conditions
or
terms
of
agreement
be
the
same
in
both
those
Covenants
,
then
to
DOE
THIS
,
and
TO
BELEEVE
,
Faith
and
works
,
are
really
the
same
:
whereas
the
Scripture
from
place
to
place
,
makes
the
most
irreconcileable
opposition
betweene
them
.
But
it
may
be
there
are
some
,
that
are
more
shie
of
this
consequence
:
that
stick
not
to
hold
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
opposed
)
and
yet
demuire
upon
an
identitie
of
the
two
Covenants
:
they
doe
not
conceive
this
to
be
the
fruite
of
that
wombe
.
Wherefore
to
prove
,
that
the
mother
hath
no
wrong
at
all
,
in
having
this
dead
child
layed
by
her
side
,
for
her
owne
,
I
thus
reason
.
Where
the
parties
covenanting
are
the
same
,
and
the
things
covenanted
for
,
the
same
,
and
the
conditions
or
agreement
the
same
,
there
the
Covenants
are
every
waies
the
same
.
But
if
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
imputed
to
us
,
be
the
agreement
or
condition
of
the
Now
Covenant
,
all
the
three
,
persons
,
things
,
conditions
,
are
the
same
.
Therefore
the
two
Covenants
,
first
,
and
second
,
the
old
and
the
new
,
are
every
waies
the
same
:
because
as
concerning
the
other
two
,
the
parties
Covenanting
,
and
the
things
covenanted
for
,
it
is
agreed
on
both
sides
,
that
they
are
the
same
.
If
it
be
Objected
and
said
:
That
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
imputed
from
another
,
and
personally
wrought
by
a
mans
selse
,
are
two
deffering
conditions
:
therfore
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
the
Covenants
should
be
the
same
.
To
this
I
Answere
,
that
the
substance
of
the
agreement
,
will
still
be
found
the
same
notwithstanding
:
the
works
,
or
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
are
the
same
,
by
whomsoever
wrought
:
If
Adam
had
fulfilled
the
Law
,
as
Christ
did
,
he
had
bin
justified
by
the
same
righteousnesse
,
wherewith
Christ
himselfe
was
righteous
.
If
it
be
yet
said
:
that
Imputation
in
the
second
Covenant
,
which
was
not
in
the
first
,
makes
a
reall
difference
in
the
condition
.
To
this
I
answere
two
things
in
two
words
:
1.
Imputation
of
works
or
of
righteousnesse
,
is
not
the
condition
of
the
new
Covenant
,
but
beleeving
.
If
imputation
were
the
condition
,
then
the
whole
Covenant
should
lye
upon
God
,
and
nothing
should
be
required
on
the
creatures
part
:
for
imputation
is
an
act
of
God
,
not
of
men
.
2.
I
answere
,
that
if
it
were
granted
,
that
the
righteousnesse
or
the
works
of
the
Law
imputed
from
Christ
,
were
that
whereby
we
are
iustified
,
yet
they
must
iustifie
,
not
as
imputed
,
but
as
righteousnesse
or
works
of
the
Law
.
Therfore
imputation
makes
no
difference
in
this
respect
.
Imputation
can
be
no
part
of
that
righteousnesse
by
which
we
are
iustified
,
because
it
is
no
conformity
with
any
Law
,
nor
with
any
part
or
branch
of
any
Law
(
especially
of
any
Law
that
Man
was
ever
bound
to
keep
.
)
Therfore
it
can
be
no
part
of
that
righteousnesse
by
which
he
is
to
be
iustified
.
So
that
the
condition
of
both
Covenants
will
be
found
every
waies
the
same
,
(
and
consequently
both
Covenants
every
wayes
the
same
)
if
iustification
be
maintained
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
.
CAP.
XVII
.
Wherin
three
Arguments
more
are
managed
against
the
already-impugned
Imputation
.
THere
is
no
kind
of
error
,
SECT.
1
that
requires
,
or
will
take
more
strength
and
plenty
of
truth
for
the
conviction
and
demolishing
of
it
,
then
that
which
is
fortified
with
the
pleasing
appearance
of
a
speciall
confederacie
with
the
glory
of
God
,
or
of
an
intire
sympathie
with
the
honour
of
Christ
.
Knowing
that
enemie
against
which
we
conflict
and
wrastle
in
this
discourse
,
to
have
as
much
or
more
of
that
advantage
,
then
most
other
opinions
have
,
that
are
as
legitimate
as
it
:
I
conceive
it
necessary
in
that
respect
,
to
arme
and
imploy
the
more
reasons
and
arguments
in
this
warfare
and
service
.
Therfore
in
the
Tenth
place
,
against
the
Imputation
so
much
contended
for
.
I
oppose
this
Demonstration
.
That
for
which
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
those
that
beleeve
,
that
cannot
be
imputed
unto
them
for
righteousnesse
:
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
that
for
which
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
those
that
beleeve
:
Therfore
it selfe
cannot
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
.
The
Assumption
(
I
presume
)
no
man
will
deny
,
except
those
that
deny
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
that
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
which
is
conferred
upon
men
:
an
opinion
to
which
no
man
(
I
know
)
ever
said
,
live
,
but
onely
Socinus
and
his
peeres
.
The
Major
Proposition
I
demonstrate
thus
:
If
it
be
unpossible
,
that
the
thing
merited
,
should
be
the
same
thing
with
that
which
is
the
meritorious
cause
of
it
,
then
it
is
not
only
untrue
,
but
unpossible
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
should
be
the
righteousnesse
of
a
beleever
.
Sed
verum
prius
:
Ergo
et
posterius
.
For
the
consequence
in
the
Major
Proposition
,
it
is
so
evident
in
common
apprehension
,
that
to
labour
any
further
illustration
of
it
,
were
but
to
light
up
a
Candle
to
the
Sun
.
Because
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
and
the
righteousnesse
or
justification
of
a
Beleever
,
stand
in
that
relation
we
speake
of
,
the
one
to
the
other
,
as
the
cause
to
the
effect
:
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
being
the
(
meritorious
)
cause
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
a
beleever
or
person
justified
,
as
the
effect
merited
and
effected
by
that
cause
.
And
for
the
Minor
,
that
is
every
whit
as
evident
and
undeniable
,
as
it
,
viz.
that
the
thing
merited
,
cannot
be
the
same
with
that
which
is
the
meritorious
cause
of
it
:
for
so
the
same
thing
should
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
it selfe
:
a
conclusion
so
broad
,
that
there
is
no
apprehension
so
weake
,
but
hath
strength
enough
to
disclaime
.
Neither
can
it
be
here
said
,
SECT.
2
that
though
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
cannot
be
meritorious
of
it selfe
simply
,
yet
being
a
righteousnesse
wrought
by
Christ
,
it
may
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
its
own
imputation
,
and
this
imputation
may
be
the
formall
cause
of
the
iustification
of
a
beleever
.
For
to
this
,
an
answere
is
ready
:
that
suppose
it
should
merit
it
's
owne
imputation
,
(
though
this
be
very
unproper
,
and
requires
an
interpretation
more
then
abounding
with
charity
,
to
make
truth
of
it
any
waies
)
yet
is
not
this
imputation
that
,
which
men
say
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
any
man
,
but
the
righteousnesse
it
sel●e
of
Christ
.
Therfore
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
that
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
to
a
beleever
,
and
this
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
be
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
then
it
is
evident
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
must
be
(
directly
and
plainly
)
the
meritorious
cause
of
it selfe
.
Againe
(
in
the
Eleventh
place
)
to
second
the
former
argument
with
another
like
unto
it
.
SECT.
3
If
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
imputed
to
a
beleever
for
righteousnesse
in
his
instification
,
then
the
meritorious
cause
of
his
iustification
is
imputed
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
:
But
the
meritorious
cause
of
a
mans
iustification
cannot
be
thus
imputed
unto
him
:
Therfore
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
cannot
be
thus
imputed
neither
.
The
truth
of
the
Major
Proposition
the
former
Argument
will
maintaine
against
any
contradiction
:
besides
,
it
is
pregnant
with
an
innate
evidence
of
truth
.
The
reason
of
the
Minor
,
is
this
:
because
the
meritorious
cause
being
a
kind
of
efficient
(
as
is
confessed
on
all
hands
)
cannot
be
either
the
matter
or
the
forme
of
that
,
whereof
it
is
efficient
.
Wherfore
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
meritorious-efficient
cause
of
our
iustification
,
unpossible
it
is
,
that
by
any
contriving
or
casting
,
or
bringing
about
either
by
imputation
or
otherwise
,
it
should
ever
be
found
or
made
either
the
matter
or
the
forme
of
this
iustification
.
For
this
is
famously
known
to
be
an
indispensable
and
inviolable
Law
amongst
the
foure
kinds
of
causes
,
materiall
,
formall
,
finall
and
efficient
:
that
the
two
former
only
doe
ingredi
compositum
or
effectum
,
and
are
partes
reiconstitutae
,
i.
are
intrinsecall
and
essentiall
parts
of
the
effect
,
or
thing
produced
:
and
that
the
two
latter
,
viz.
the
finall
and
efficient
,
are
all
waies
extrinsecall
,
and
stand
without
.
As
for
example
:
when
a
Plaisterer
or
Painter
whites
a
wall
,
the
effect
of
his
worke
is
the
whitenesse
of
the
wall
,
or
the
wall
as
made
white
.
Now
into
this
effect
,
this
whitenesse
of
the
wall
,
there
is
none
of
the
efficient
causes
producing
It
,
either
any
part
of
it
,
or
any
ingredient
into
it
;
neither
the
plaisterer
himselfe
,
who
is
the
principall
efficient
cause
of
it
,
nor
his
brush
or
pensill
,
which
is
the
instrumentall
efficient
cause
,
nor
the
money
or
wages
he
receives
for
the
doing
it
,
which
is
as
the
meritorious
efficient
cause
of
it
.
None
of
all
these
,
is
any
intrinsecall
or
constituting
part
of
the
effect
,
neither
as
the
matter
,
nor
as
the
forme
thereof
.
The
whitenesse
applyed
or
put
upon
the
matter
or
subject
,
viz.
the
wall
,
by
all
the
three
efficients
(
according
to
their
severall
operations
about
it
)
is
the
forme
,
or
formall
part
of
it
:
and
the
wall
it selfe
,
whereunto
this
form
is
joyned
,
coupled
,
or
applyed
,
by
the
said
efficients
,
is
the
matter
or
materiall
part
of
it
.
So
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
neither
is
God
himselfe
,
who
is
the
principall
efficient
of
this
effect
of
justification
;
neither
is
Faith
,
which
is
the
iustrumentall
efficient
of
it
(
for
God
is
said
in
Scripture
to
justifie
men
,
by
or
through
it
,
Rom.
3.30
.
which
for
the
most
part
are
symptomaticall
particles
of
the
instrumentall-efficient
cause
)
neither
is
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
is
the
meritorious
effi●ient
cause
of
it
,
none
of
these
are
either
matter
or
forme
,
or
any
constituting
cause
of
iustification
:
but
only
remission
of
sins
,
or
absolution
from
punishment
,
as
the
forme
applyed
unto
,
or
put
upon
the
matter
:
and
the
matter
or
subject
it selfe
,
whereunto
this
forme
is
applyed
by
all
the
3
efficients
spoken
of
,
according
to
their
severall
and
distinct
manner
of
working
,
viz.
the
person
of
the
beleever
.
This
Argument
,
to
him
that
understands
,
and
will
seriously
consider
,
that
unchangable
Law
,
mentioned
of
the
4.
kinds
rally
acknowledged
by
the
contrary-minded
themselves
in
this
Controversie
.
But
that
Christ
should
be
reputed
before
God
to
have
sinned
in
me
,
seems
unto
me
an
assertion
so
uncouth
and
un-Christian
,
that
a
Christian
had
need
to
borrow
the
eares
of
a
Pagan
to
hear
it
with
patience
.
However
,
the
untruth
of
it
is
thus
made
manifest
:
If
Christ
be
reputed
before
God
to
have
sinned
in
me
,
he
must
be
reputed
to
have
had
a
being
in
me
:
for
as
operatio
consequitur
esse
,
i.
the
operation
of
a
thing
follows
and
depends
upon
the
being
of
it
;
so
he
that
supposeth
,
or
reputeth
a
person
to
have
done
any
thing
,
either
good
or
evill
in
another
,
must
necessarily
suppose
or
repute
him
to
have
had
a
being
there
.
But
what
being
Christ
should
be
reputed
by
God
to
have
had
in
me
being
yet
an
unbeleever
,
is
a
speculation
too
high
for
me
to
attaine
unto
.
Againe
,
Argum.
14
SECT.
2
against
this
supposed
imputation
,
I
oppose
this
consideration
.
If
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
be
imputed
unto
me
in
my
justification
,
then
is
the
passive
imputed
also
.
For
there
can
be
no
sufficient
reason
given
,
why
the
one
should
be
taken
,
and
the
other
left
.
Neither
are
the
adversaries
themselves
partiall
(
in
this
point
)
to
the
one
above
the
other
:
they
(
generally
)
allow
place
for
both
in
their
imputation
.
But
that
the
death
or
sufferings
of
Christ
,
are
not
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
them
,
imputed
unto
me
,
I
thus
demonstrate
.
If
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
be
imputed
unto
me
then
may
I
be
accounted
or
reputed
to
have
died
and
suffered
in
Christ
.
But
I
can
at
no
hand
be
reputed
to
have
died
or
suffered
in
Christ
:
Therefore
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
are
not
imputed
unto
me
(
I
meane
still
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
them
,
as
I
would
be
understood
in
the
ma●or
proposition
also
)
The
reason
of
the
sequel
in
that
proposition
,
is
evident
from
the
former
argument
.
To
have
any
thing
imputed
to
a
man
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
,
and
to
be
reputed
and
taken
as
the
doer
or
sufferer
of
what
is
so
imputed
,
are
termini
aequipollentes
,
et
sese
mutuò
explicantes
,
are
expressions
that
differ
not
in
sense
,
but
relieve
one
the
other
in
their
significations
.
The
Reason
of
the
minor
,
that
no
man
is
to
be
conceived
or
said
to
have
suffered
in
Christ
,
is
this
,
because
in
Christ
we
are
justisied
and
absolved
from
punishment
:
and
therefore
cannot
be
said
to
have
been
punished
in
him
.
He
hath
made
us
freely
accepted
in
his
beloved
Ephes.
16.
Therefore
he
poured
not
out
his
wrath
upon
us
in
his
beloved
.
And
by
his
stripes
we
are
healed
,
(
which
is
contrary
to
being
wounded
or
punished
.
1
Pet.
224.
And
to
say
that
we
suffered
,
or
were
punished
in
Christ
,
is
(
in
effect
)
to
unsay
,
or
gainsay
,
what
the
Gospell
every
where
speaketh
touching
our
Redemption
and
de●iverance
from
punishment
by
Christ
.
In
what
sence
the
sufferings
of
Christ
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
tobeleevers
,
is
〈◊〉
plained
in
the
Second
part
cap.
3.
Sect.
7.
He
that
knoweth
how
to
reconcile
these
two
,
may
undertake
to
make
light
and
darknesse
friends
,
and
needs
not
feare
miscarying
in
his
designe
:
that
God
should
freely
forgive
us
our
sinnes
,
and
yet
punish
us
for
them
,
and
that
to
the
full
,
(
which
must
be
said
by
those
,
that
will
say
,
we
were
punished
in
Christ
.
If
Christ
were
punished
for
us
,
or
in
our
stead
(
which
is
the
Scripture
language
2
Cor.
5.21
,
who
made
him
sinne
for
us
,
)
doubtlesse
we
our selves
can
in
no
sense
(
wherein
words
and
truth
will
agree
)
be
said
to
be
punished
,
or
to
have
suffered
in
him
.
One
Reason
more
,
and
no
more
of
this
Chapter
.
If
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
the
sense
so
oft-expressed
)
be
imputed
to
us
,
Argum.
15
SECT.
3
then
are
we
justifyed
(
at
least
in
part
)
by
the
Ceremoniall
Law
.
This
consequence
is
too
good
to
be
denyed
:
because
part
of
that
righteousnesse
which
Christ
wrought
,
stood
in
obedience
to
the
Ceremoniall
Law
:
he
was
circumcised
,
kept
the
Passeover
,
&c.
Therfore
,
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
imputed
unto
us
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
,
that
part
of
his
righteousnesse
,
which
stood
in
obedience
ceremoniall
,
must
be
imputed
also
.
But
that
we
are
not
justified
,
either
in
whole
or
in
part
by
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
is
a
truth
so
neare
scituate
to
every
mans
apprehension
,
that
it
needs
not
be
brought
neerer
by
force
of
argumentation
.
If
it
be
replyed
,
that
there
is
no
necessity
that
any
part
of
his
righteousnesse
Ceremoniall
should
be
imputed
,
because
his
morall
righteousnesse
is
sufficient
for
imputation
.
To
this
I
answere
:
First
,
there
is
no
warrant
or
rule
in
Scripture
thus
to
rend
and
teare
in
pieces
the
one
halfe
from
the
other
,
that
which
was
one
entire
and
compleat
righteousnesse
in
Christ
:
and
to
take
which
part
we
please
to
our selves
,
and
leave
the
other
as
a
cast
piece
.
Secondly
,
if
that
part
only
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
stood
in
his
obedience
to
the
Morall
Law
,
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
in
our
justification
,
then
will
there
not
be
found
the
same
way
or
meanes
of
justification
for
the
whole
body
of
Christ
:
but
the
beleeving
Jewes
before
Christs
death
,
must
be
made
righteous
or
justified
with
one
kind
of
righteousnesse
,
and
the
Gentiles
with
another
.
For
the
Jewes
before
the
death
of
Christ
,
had
a
necessitie
of
both
parts
of
this
righteousnesse
to
be
imputed
to
them
in
their
justification
(
supposing
their
justification
had
stood
in
such
an
imputation
,
as
some
stand
up
to
maintaine
)
aswell
ceremoniall
as
morall
.
But
that
the
Jewes
should
be
justified
with
one
kind
of
righteousnesse
and
the
Gentiles
with
another
,
as
there
is
no
colour
of
reason
(
that
I
know
)
to
maintaine
,
so
there
is
substance
and
strength
of
Scripture
to
oppose
,
Rom.
3.22.30
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
is
called
Morall
,
if
separated
and
divided
from
the
other
part
which
is
Ceremoniall
,
was
not
a
compleat
and
perfect
righteousnesse
in
him
:
because
it
became
him
to
fulfill
all
righteousnesse
)
aswell
ceremoniall
as
Morall
)
Mat
3.15
.
So
then
,
if
men
should
be
justified
,
onely
by
the
Morall
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
,
it
would
follow
,
that
we
should
be
justified
before
God
with
an
incomplete
and
half-righteousnesse
.
Therfore
if
the
Ceremoniall
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
be
not
(
in
the
letter
of
it
)
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
,
in
our
Justification
;
neither
can
his
Morall
righteousnesse
make
matter
of
any
such
imputation
.
CAP.
XIX
.
Propounding
Five
further
demonstrations
of
the
Conclusion
undertaken
for
.
THe
Conclusion
undertaken
in
this
discourse
,
SECT.
1
hath
many
Friends
(
as
you
see
)
and
those
made
of
reason
and
Logique
,
and
not
of
Rhetorique
and
affection
,
to
speake
for
it
.
There
is
(
I
conceive
)
the
better
ground
of
hope
,
that
it
will
be
found
a
truth
,
after
all
contradiction
.
If
your
perswasion
this
way
be
not
yet
as
fully
grown
as
mine
,
I
desire
you
goe
along
with
me
to
that
which
remaineth
:
sometimes
the
rere
may
doe
better
service
then
the
front
.
Argum.
16
If
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
,
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
us
in
our
just
●fication
,
then
are
our
sinnes
imputed
to
Christ
after
the
same
manner
,
viz.
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
them
,
in
his
death
or
condemnation
.
This
consequence
is
blamelesse
:
because
there
is
the
same
reason
of
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
that
is
of
the
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
to
us
:
at
least
,
such
is
the
confession
generall
of
those
that
are
pleased
with
opposite
thoughts
in
this
question
,
(
as
was
formerly
signified
.
)
But
that
our
sinnes
are
not
imputed
to
Christ
in
any
such
manner
,
viz.
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
them
,
I
thus
demonstrate
.
If
the
sins
of
men
be
imputed
to
Christ
,
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
them
,
then
God
looks
upon
him
and
reputes
him
in
his
sufferings
as
one
that
truly
and
really
had
provoked
him
and
sin'd
against
him
.
Even
as
our
adversaries
are
wont
frequently
to
expresse
themselves
concerning
beleevers
,
by
reason
of
that
righteousnesse
,
which
they
say
is
imputed
tot
hem
,
viz.
that
God
looks
upon
them
and
considers
them
,
as
having
really
and
truly
fulfilled
the
Law
.
But
God
doth
not
looke
upon
Christ
in
his
sufferings
or
reput●
him
as
one
that
had
truly
and
really
sinned
against
him
.
Therefore
our
sins
are
not
imputed
unto
him
after
any
such
manner
in
his
sufferings
.
The
truth
of
the
Assumption
I
thus
make
manifest
:
If
God
looks
upon
Christ
in
his
death
,
as
one
that
had
truly
sin'd
against
him
,
then
he
looks
upon
him
as
one
having
deserved
the
death
he
suffers
.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
apparent
:
because
as
to
sin
,
and
to
deserve
death
,
are
termini
convertibles
,
expressions
of
the
same
importance
:
so
to
look
upon
a
man
as
a
sinner
,
and
as
one
that
hath
deserved
death
,
are
but
the
same
looke
.
But
that
God
doth
not
looke
upon
Christ
in
his
sufferings
,
as
one
that
had
deserved
that
things
he
suffers
,
is
evident
:
First
,
because
as
Christ
offered
himselfe
without
spot
unto
God
,
so
God
looked
upon
him
in
that
his
offering
.
Otherwise
,
if
he
had
overlooked
that
spotlessenesse
of
his
,
and
imputed
sin
unto
him
in
stead
thereof
.
What
had
this
bin
,
but
to
have
put
darknesse
for
light
,
and
call
good
,
evill
?
which
to
affirme
,
or
once
to
conceive
of
God
,
may
be
called
the
first●orne
of
a
blaspemous
ignorance
.
Secondly
,
if
God
looked
upon
Christ
,
as
haveing
deserved
death
,
SECT.
2
his
death
could
not
have
bin
accepted
as
satisfactory
for
others
.
For
as
he
that
hath
deserved
death
,
cannot
by
his
death
deserve
the
sparing
of
others
from
death
,
who
have
deserved
it
,
aswell
as
he
,
because
such
a
mans
death
only
answers
his
own
personall
demerit
or
sin
,
as
he
that
oweth
a
certaine
summe
of
money
,
cannot
by
the
payment
therof
discharge
any
mans
debt
,
but
his
own
:
So
neither
can
the
reputing
of
any
man
to
have
deserved
death
,
be
made
consistent
with
a
reputeing
of
such
a
mans
death
,
to
be
expiatorie
,
or
satisfactory
for
the
taking
of
the
guilt
of
death
from
others
,
except
we
suppose
him
that
reputeth
in
this
case
,
to
be
,
either
unable
to
discerne
or
apprehend
,
or
else
fully
able
to
reconcile
and
compose
the
broadest
contradictions
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
if
God
look'd
upon
him
in
his
death
,
as
deserving
to
die
,
then
did
Christ
suffer
death
,
not
for
our
sins
,
as
they
are
ours
,
but
as
they
were
his
(
by
imputation
.
)
Whereas
the
Scriptures
every
where
testifie
of
his
suffering
death
for
our
sins
,
but
never
for
any
sinne
of
his
own
,
no
more
by
imputation
then
by
inhesion
.
And
the
truth
is
,
looke
in
what
sence
our
sins
may
be
said
to
have
bin
imputed
to
him
in
the
same
sence
they
may
be
said
to
have
bin
inherent
in
him
:
yea
the
inherencie
of
them
in
their
punishment
upon
him
(
wherein
they
stuck
close
to
him
indeed
)
is
all
the
imputation
the
Scriptures
know
,
or
speake
of
.
He
laide
upon
him
the
iniquity
of
us
all
Esa.
53.6
,
viz.
in
the
punishment
due
to
it
and
deserved
by
it
.
So
againe
:
Who
himselfe
bare
our
sins
in
his
own
body
,
&c.
1
Pet.
2.24
.
that
is
,
the
punishment
of
our
sins
(
as
we
shall
have
occasion
to
shew
further
,
God
willing
in
the
second
part
of
this
discourse
.
)
Let
this
reason
also
be
laid
into
the
ballance
,
Argum.
17
SECT.
3
and
taken
into
consideration
with
the
former
.
If
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
be
,
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
imputed
unto
us
in
our
justification
,
then
doth
God
looke
upon
us
as
worthy
of
that
justification
,
which
we
receive
from
him
.
But
this
is
an
uncleane
saying
:
therfore
the
former
,
out
of
which
it
is
brought
,
is
uncleane
also
.
The
consequence
in
the
major
Proposition
,
is
like
Mount
Sion
,
and
cannot
be
moved
.
For
if
God
reputes
me
to
have
kept
the
Law
,
as
perfectly
as
Christ
did
,
he
must
conceive
of
me
,
as
worthy
of
my
justification
.
For
as
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
and
deserving
justification
,
are
but
the
same
,
Rom.
4.4
.
So
the
reputeing
of
a
man
to
have
done
the
one
,
is
the
reputeing
of
him
to
have
deserved
the
other
.
The
reason
of
the
minor
Proposition
(
if
it
be
not
reason
enough
it selfe
)
viz.
that
God
doth
not
looke
upon
us
as
worthy
that
Iustification
which
we
receive
,
is
this
:
because
then
God
should
shew
us
no
grace
or
favour
at
all
in
our
Justification
(
Rom
4.4
.
with
Rom.
11.6
.
)
but
if
any
favour
be
shewed
,
it
is
only
in
this
,
that
he
reputeth
us
worthy
to
be
Iustified
,
or
puts
a
worthinesse
upon
us
for
Iustification
.
Whereas
the
Scripture
expresly
affirmeth
,
that
God
justifieth
,
not
the
worthy
,
but
the
ungodly
,
that
is
,
the
unworthy
,
Rom.
4.5
.
Against
the
foresaid
imputation
,
Argum.
18
SECT.
4
I
yet
oppose
this
briefe
Demonstration
.
If
men
be
formally
just
by
Gods
act
imputing
Christs
righteousnesse
unto
them
,
then
doe
men
become
formally
sinfull
by
the
like
act
of
God
imputeing
Adams
sinne
unto
them
(
for
no
reason
can
be
given
of
any
difference
.
)
But
men
are
not
made
formally
sinfull
by
Gods
act
of
imputeing
Adams
sinne
unto
them
(
because
then
an
act
of
God
should
be
,
as
it
were
the
life
and
soule
of
that
sin
,
which
is
in
men
)
Therfore
men
are
not
made
formally
just
or
righteous
by
any
act
of
God
imputeing
righteousnesse
unto
them
.
The
Argument
(
I
conceive
)
is
of
no
easie
solution
to
those
who
maintain
the
imputation
it selfe
of
this
righteousnesse
,
and
not
the
righteousnesse
imputed
,
to
be
the
form
of
justification
.
Which
yet
I
conceive
to
be
an
apprehension
every
whit
as
rationall
,
as
that
which
on
the
other
hand
,
maintaineth
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
of
Christ
imputed
,
to
be
this
forme
.
For
whether
we
conceive
of
justification
,
either
under
the
notion
of
a
relation
,
being
a
new
condition
come
upon
the
person
justified
(
which
seems
to
be
the
best
and
truest
notion
of
it
)
or
whether
we
conceive
it
as
a
passion
(
besides
which
two
I
know
no
predicament
a
I
nature
that
can
be
put
upon
it
)
certainly
no
righteousnesse
whatsov●
(
properly
so
called
)
much
lesse
the
righteousnesse
of
another
then
of
the
person
justified
,
can
be
the
forme
of
it
.
It
is
unpossible
that
one
predicament
,
or
predicamentall
being
,
should
informe
another
:
and
that
righteousnesse
,
whether
we
speake
of
that
which
is
habituall
,
or
that
which
is
actuall
,
belongeth
neither
to
the
predicament
of
relation
,
nor
to
that
of
passion
,
is
better
known
to
Logicians
,
then
to
be
made
matter
of
disputation
.
The
oyle
in
the
cruse
doth
not
yet
faile
.
SECT.
5
There
are
some
drops
still
of
further
reason
,
to
exaucthorize
the
opinion
of
this
imputation
.
If
justification
consists
partly
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
partly
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
then
must
there
be
a
double
formall
cause
of
justification
,
and
that
made
up
and
compounded
of
two
severall
natures
,
really
differing
the
one
from
the
other
.
But
this
is
unpossible
.
Ergo.
With
the
rod
of
this
Argument
Calvin
scourg'd
those
Fathers
of
Trent
for
joyning
regeneration
or
infusion
of
grace
with
remission
of
sins
,
in
justification
(
as
we
heard
before
)
which
supposing
him
a
man
but
tolerably
sound
or
sober
in
his
intellectualls
,
is
a
demonstration
in
abundance
,
that
his
meaning
never
was
,
to
place
Iustification
in
any
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
really
distinct
from
remission
of
sins
:
but
that
his
apprehensions
in
this
point
,
were
praecise
et
formaliter
the
same
,
with
this
Country-mans
of
latter
times
,
who
calls
Remission
of
sins
,
that
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
:
[
](A85397-e50940-b)(a)
(a)
Remissio
peccatorum
,
est
justitia
imputata
.
Chamier
.
Panstrat
.
t.
3.
l.
21.
cap.
19.
see
.
10.
Idem
sunt
justificatio
,
et
Remissio
peccatorum
.
Vismus
Cat.
part
.
2.
Qu.
60.
sect.
3.
Whose
meaning
(
by
the
way
)
is
not
(
as
some
of
the
opposite
party
in
this
cause
,
have
catch'd
and
quarrel'd
with
like
expressions
from
others
)
as
if
God
in
justification
,
did
imputeremission
of
sins
unto
men
,
and
in
this
sence
,
remission
of
sins
should
be
called
the
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
:
but
that
God
really
remitting
and
forgiving
mens
sinnes
,
such
remission
and
forgivenesse
,
may
well
be
called
an
imputed
righteousnes
,
partly
because
it
is
no
absolute
,
legall
,
or
text
-
righteousnesse
,
but
a
righteousnesse
by
interpretation
,
or
construction
of
favour
:
partly
because
such
a
righteousnesse
as
it
is
,
it
is
notwithstanding
given
,
in
the
strength
and
mediation
of
the
righteousnesse
,
merit
,
and
satisfaction
of
another
,
which
is
Christ
.
Let
us
yet
heare
(
and
not
be
wearie
)
what
both
reason
and
Religion
can
further
speake
against
this
imputation
so
much
spoken
for
.
SECT.
6
If
such
imputation
be
necessary
in
justification
,
Argum.
20
this
necessity
must
be
found
,
either
in
respect
of
the
justice
of
God
,
because
otherwise
he
could
not
be
just
in
pronouncing
men
righteous
,
or
in
respect
of
his
mercie
,
or
for
the
salving
or
advanceing
of
some
other
Attribute
,
&c.
But
there
is
no
necessity
of
bringing
in
such
an
imputation
into
justification
in
respect
of
any
of
these
.
Therfore
it
is
brought
in
without
any
necessity
at
all
:
and
consequently
must
(
of
necessity
)
be
cast
out
againe
.
The
Protectors
of
it
themselves
assigne
no
other
necessity
of
it
,
but
onely
in
respect
of
Gods
justice
.
God
(
they
say
)
cannot
salvâ
justiciâ
,
with
the
safety
of
his
justice
,
pronounce
a
man
righteous
,
that
is
not
righteous
(
their
meaning
is
)
according
to
the
strict
and
literall
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
.
But
to
this
I
answere
:
First
,
that
there
is
nothing
at
all
necessarie
to
be
done
either
by
God
himselfe
or
by
man
,
about
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
by
way
of
satisfaction
to
the
Justice
of
God
,
since
that
one
offering
of
Christ
of
himselfe
upon
the
crosse
.
Otherwise
there
must
be
found
somwhat
defective
or
wanting
in
that
satisfaction
.
If
the
justice
of
God
be
fully
and
every
waies
satisfied
,
and
provided
for
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
concerning
the
Iustification
of
sinners
:
doubtlesse
there
remaines
nothing
further
as
necessarie
to
be
done
,
either
by
God
,
or
by
man
,
or
by
any
other
creature
,
for
the
satisfaction
of
the
same
Justice
.
Therfore
if
God
should
impute
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
men
in
this
case
,
some
other
end
or
pretext
for
it
must
be
sought
out
,
not
any
provision
for
,
or
satisfaction
to
his
justice
.
The
infinite
valour
of
Christs
passives
,
must
not
be
abated
or
drawn
down
,
to
make
way
for
an
imaginatie
exaltation
of
his
actives
.
The
necessity
of
Faith
to
Iustification
(
which
is
a
necessity
confessed
and
acknowledged
by
all
)
●●y●th
not
in
reference
to
Gods
Justice
,
as
if
any
man
satisfied
that
,
either
in
who●e
or
in
part
,
by
beleeving
:
but
the
necessity
of
it
respecteth
either
his
wisdome
,
or
the
counsaile
of
his
will
(
as
the
Apostles
expression
is
,
Eph.
1.11
)
He
judged
it
not
meet
(
not
counted
it
unjust
)
to
save
men
in
any
other
way
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
then
by
the
way
of
Faith
.
This
is
the
WILL
of
him
that
sent
me
(
saith
our
Saviour
Ioh
6.40
.
)
not
the
righteousnes
or
Iustice
,
of
him
that
sent
me
,
that
every
man
which
seeth
the
Sonne
,
and
beleeveth
in
him
,
should
have
everlasting
life
.
If
there
were
nothing
else
to
h●nder
,
but
want
of
satisfaction
to
divine
iustice
,
doubtlesse
the
whole
world
should
be
saved
,
Vehemens
in
De●
est
ad
homini
benefaciendum
affectus
:
quem
eousque
puratus
est
extendere
qu●●●l
IVSTICIA
vlle
modo
permittit
.
Corvin
,
Cersur
.
Anatom
.
p.
79.
without
any
more
adoe
.
And
therfore
(
by
the
way
)
that
saying
of
Arnoldus
,
in
his
Censure
of
Molineus
p.
79.
is
deeply
taxable
(
except
he
can
best
●●e
himselfe
,
to
make
an
a●tonem●nt
for
the
hardnesse
of
his
text
,
with
a
soft
interpretation
)
There
is
(
saith
he
)
a
strong
affection
in
God
,
to
doe
good
to
man
:
and
this
affection
he
is
still
ready
to
act
or
exercise
,
as
far
as
ever
his
justice
will
give
him
leave
.
Secondly
,
whereas
it
was
sayd
,
that
God
cannot
,
SECT.
7
with
the
safety
of
his
justice
or
truth
,
pronounce
a
man
righteous
,
that
is
not
so
indeed
with
a
legall
righteousnesse
,
litterally
and
properly
so
called
,
I
answere
that
doubtlesse
he
may
aswell
and
as
truely
pronounce
and
cal
that
man
righteous
,
that
wants
a
literal
or
legall
righteousnesse
upon
him
(
especially
supposing
he
hath
another
righteousnesse
,
holding
any
analogie
or
proportion
thereunto
)
as
he
may
account
any
mans
uncircumcission
,
circumcission
.
Rom
2.26
.
Or
call
the
un-circumcised
Gentiles
the
circumcision
.
Philip.
3.3
.
O●
pronounce
and
call
Iohn
Baptist
,
Elias
.
Mat.
11.14
.
Or
call
the
two
witnesses
,
two
O
live
Trees
,
and
two
Candle-sticks
,
Revel
.
11.4
.
besides
other
instances
in
Scripture
of
like
interpretation
,
without
number
)
Now
as
Christ
spake
as
truly
,
when
he
called
John
Elias
,
as
he
should
have
done
,
if
he
had
called
him
,
only
Iohn
:
and
the
Holy
Ghost
spake
as
truly
when
he
called
those
that
beleeve
,
though
uncircumcised
in
the
flesh
,
the
circumcision
,
as
if
he
called
them
,
the
uncircumcision
,
or
as
if
they
had
bin
literally
circumcised
:
So
may
God
with
as
much
righteousnesse
and
truth
,
pronounce
and
call
or
account
a
man
righteous
,
that
is
not
strictly
,
properly
,
or
literally
such
,
if
he
hath
any
qualification
upon
him
,
that
any
way
answereth
or
holds
proportion
in
any
point
with
such
a
righteousnesse
,
as
he
should
doe
,
in
case
this
man
had
this
legall
righteousnesse
,
as
he
should
doe
,
in
case
this
man
had
this
legall
righteousnesse
upon
him
in
the
absolutest
perfection
of
the
letter
.
For
as
in
those
and
such
like
Scripture
instances
,
the
ground
of
the
communication
of
the
Name
,
is
only
some
particular
agreement
betweene
either
the
persons
or
things
,
not
an
universall
concent
or
identitie
in
all
things
:
So
when
God
pronounceth
or
accounteth
a
man
righteous
,
it
is
not
necessarie
that
he
should
be
literally
,
properly
,
morally
and
every
way
RIGHTEOUS
:
it
is
sufficient
to
beare
out
the
justice
and
truth
of
God
in
giving
either
the
Name
or
esteeme
of
a
righteous
man
unto
him
,
if
his
person
be
under
any
such
relation
or
condition
,
Idemsunt
,
habere
temissionem
peccarorum
,
et
esse
justum
.
Vrsinus
Cat.
part
.
2
Qu.
56.
Sect.
1.
Idem
sunt
justificatio
et
remssio
peccatorum
,
ibid.
Q.
60.
Sect.
3.
as
belongeth
to
a
legall
righteoussesse
or
which
a
legall
RIGHTEOUSNESSE
would
cast
upon
him
.
Now
one
especiall
privilege
or
benefit
(
we
know
)
belonging
to
a
perfect
legall
righteousnesse
,
is
to
free
the
person
in
whom
it
is
found
,
from
death
and
condemnation
:
Doe
this
and
thou
shalt
live
:
and
he
that
hath
his
sinnes
forgiven
him
,
is
partaker
with
him
in
the
fullnesse
of
this
privilege
is
as
free
from
condemnation
,
as
he
:
and
may
with
truth
and
proprietie
of
speech
enough
,
in
this
respect
,
be
either
called
or
accounted
a
righteous
man
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
answere
might
be
made
(
in
few
words
)
that
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
is
a
true
,
yea
&
a
compleate
righteousnesse
,
in
the
kind
,
though
it
be
not
a
through
conformity
with
the
morall
Law
.
Remission
of
sins
,
is
a
passive
righteousnesse
,
as
absolute
&
perfect
in
the
kind
of
it
,
as
any
active
righteousnes
,
which
consists
in
an
entire
observation
of
some
Law
.
And
for
him
that
hath
once
sinned
,
or
ever
failed
in
the
observation
of
the
Law
,
there
is
no
other
righteousnesse
appliable
unto
him
,
or
whereof
he
is
capable
,
but
only
this
passive
righteousnesse
of
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
.
Which
for
all
other
ends
,
purposes
,
advantages
,
privileges
whatsoever
,
is
as
effectuall
to
him
that
is
invested
with
it
,
as
the
active
righteousnesse
it selfe
could
be
,
except
only
for
selfe-boasting
,
and
glorying
in
the
flesh
:
which
is
a
privilege
(
if
it
must
needs
be
so
called
)
altogether
inconsistent
with
,
and
numeet
for
the
lapsed
,
weake
,
and
sinfull
condition
of
man
.
So
that
God
when
he
hath
forgiven
any
man
his
sinnes
,
may
with
abundance
both
of
justice
and
truth
,
pronounce
and
call
him
a
righteous
man
,
though
he
be
as
far
from
that
legall
righteousnesse
,
as
the
East
is
from
the
West
.
CAP.
XX.
Conteyning
the
21
,
22
,
23
,
and
24
Reasons
to
prove
the
imputation
of
Faith
,
and
the
non-imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
CHRIST
.
TRuth
may
have
many
Reasons
for
her
,
SECT.
1
though
many
times
she
hath
but
few
friends
.
But
Reasons
,
give
them
time
,
will
make
friends
,
and
the
usurpation
of
error
will
cease
from
the
judgements
and
understandings
of
men
,
when
her
nakednesse
and
filthinesse
shall
be
discovered
.
But
they
shall
proceed
no
further
(
saith
Paul
of
men
that
resist
the
truth
.
2
Tim.
3.8.9
.
)
and
gives
this
signe
or
reason
of
their
period
approching
:
for
their
follie
shall
be
manifest
unto
all
them
,
&c.
Men
that
either
are
,
or
would
be
esteemed
wise
,
will
owne
nothing
that
is
foolish
,
when
the
follie
thereof
is
made
manifest
unto
them
.
Now
as
some
things
are
more
visible
and
easier
to
be
seene
or
discerned
then
other
,
for
the
manifestation
whereof
a
lesser
light
is
sufficient
,
whereas
things
lesse
perceptible
,
require
an
advantage
of
light
more
condensed
and
fortified
,
to
make
a
cleere
and
distinct
representation
of
themselves
to
the
sight
:
so
are
some
truths
in
Religion
better
prepared
and
fitted
for
the
understandings
and
judgments
of
men
in
themselves
,
and
consequently
the
errors
opposite
to
them
,
have
a
more
pregnant
inconsistencie
with
reason
:
and
for
the
discoverie
of
such
,
both
errors
and
truths
,
a
weaker
and
fainter
light
of
argumentation
,
is
(
for
the
most
part
)
sufficient
:
but
againe
there
are
other
truths
,
whose
scituation
lyeth
at
a
greater
distance
from
those
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
common
principles
of
reason
,
or
that
have
a
more
subtile
and
lesse
perceptible
connexion
with
them
,
and
for
the
manifestation
of
these
(
together
with
their
opposite
errors
)
to
the
judgments
and
consciences
of
men
,
many
times
the
most
strongest
and
cleerest
,
and-most
multiplied
light
of
discourse
and
argumentation
,
is
found
lesse
then
enough
.
Therefore
let
us
yet
contend
with
some
further
demonstrations
,
to
bring
the
conclusion
laboured
for
,
into
a
cleere
and
perfect
light
,
that
it
may
be
no
charge
or
trouble
at
all
,
to
the
minds
and
thoughts
of
men
to
receive
it
.
That
which
having
bin
done
in
our
owne
persons
,
Argum.
21
SECT.
2
could
not
have
bin
our
Iustification
,
nor
any
part
of
the
righteousnesse
by
which
we
could
have
bin
justified
,
cannot
be
made
our
justification
,
nor
any
part
of
it
by
imputation
from
another
.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
pretended
to
be
imputed
from
Christ
,
in
justification
,
had
it
been
wrought
by
our selves
,
in
our
owne
persons
,
could
not
have
been
our
iustification
,
nor
any
part
of
that
righteousnesse
by
which
we
were
to
be
justified
.
Therefore
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
made
our
justification
,
nor
any
part
of
it
,
by
imputation
from
him
.
The
major
(
I
conceive
)
hath
more
reason
in
it
,
then
to
be
denyed
.
If
a
personall
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
could
have
bin
no
justification
nor
part
of
justification
to
us
,
certainly
an
imputative
fulfilling
of
it
could
not
have
bin
either
.
The
imputation
of
a
thing
from
another
cannot
adde
any
strength
or
vertue
to
it
,
above
a
personall
acting
or
working
,
yea
the
nature
and
intent
of
imputation
(
in
the
sense
we
now
speake
of
it
)
is
only
to
supplie
the
defect
of
personall
performance
,
therefore
it
cannot
exceed
it
.
For
the
minor
;
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
which
was
performed
by
Christ
,
could
not
have
bin
our
justification
either
in
whole
,
or
in
part
,
in
case
it
had
bin
performed
by
our selves
,
is
evident
from
hence
:
because
man
being
once
fallen
by
sinning
against
the
Law
,
and
made
obnoxious
to
condemnation
,
can
never
be
raised
or
recovered
againe
by
ten
thousand
observations
of
this
Law
.
The
Law
was
able
to
have
given
life
,
had
it
alwaies
bin
fulfilled
,
and
never
broken
:
but
unto
him
that
had
once
failed
in
the
observation
of
it
,
though
he
had
bin
made
able
to
have
kept
it
ten
times
afterward
,
it
had
no
power
at
all
to
give
either
life
or
justification
.
The
guilt
of
that
sinne
wherin
he
had
once
sinned
,
could
never
have
bin
purged
by
any
Law-righteousnesse
:
noactive
obedience
whatsoever
,
would
ever
have
bin
an
attonement
for
him
.
Without
shedding
of
blood
,
there
is
no
remission
of
sinnes
.
Heb.
9.22
.
Let
me
joyne
another
argument
of
the
same
lineage
and
stock
with
the
former
.
That
which
men
are
not
bound
by
any
Law
or
command
of
God
to
doe
in
their
owne
persons
,
Argum.
22
SECT.
3
for
their
justification
,
cannot
be
imputed
from
another
,
to
any
such
end
.
But
men
are
not
bound
by
any
Law
or
command
from
God
to
observe
the
Moral
Law
for
their
justification
.
Therefore
the
observation
of
it
cannot
be
imputed
unto
them
from
any
other
,
for
any
such
end
.
The
reason
of
the
major
proposition
(
if
the
conclusion
sticks
there
)
is
:
because
imputation
,
in
the
sense
it
is
still
taken
by
our
adversaries
in
this
controversie
,
must
be
found
out
and
ordained
by
God
to
supplie
personall
defects
and
inabilities
.
But
where
there
is
no
Law
or
command
given
unto
men
to
obey
,
there
can
be
no
personall
defect
:
It
is
no
sinne
or
defect
in
any
man
,
not
to
obey
,
where
he
hath
no
command
:
and
consequently
there
is
no
place
,
nor
occasion
for
any
imputation
to
supplie
it
.
For
the
minor
,
there
is
both
substance
and
appearance
enough
of
truth
in
it
,
to
privilege
it
from
being
a
proposition
of
any
further
contention
or
strife
.
Most
evident
it
is
from
the
whole
course
and
current
of
the
Scriptures
,
that
man
in
his
lapsed
condition
,
since
the
fall
,
had
not
the
Law
of
works
,
or
the
observation
of
the
Morall
Law
imposed
upon
him
for
his
justification
before
God
,
but
the
Law
of
Faith
only
.
The
morall
Law
,
as
it
hath
received
a
new
authority
and
establishment
from
Christ
,
obligeth
and
bindeth
the
conscience
under
the
Gospell
to
the
observation
thereof
by
way
of
dutie
and
thankfulnesse
unto
God
:
but
neither
now
nor
at
any
time
since
the
fall
,
did
it
ever
bind
any
man
to
the
practise
of
it
,
for
his
justification
.
And
therfore
where
it
is
said
Rom.
2.13
.
that
the
hearers
of
the
Law
are
not
just
before
God
,
but
the
doers
of
the
Law
shal
be
justified
:
the
meaning
is
not
,
as
if
God
exacted
the
strict
observing
of
the
Law
for
their
iustification
,
or
that
none
should
be
iustified
without
such
an
observance
,
but
either
1º
,
the
words
may
be
conceived
spoken
in
a
kind
of
ironie
,
as
if
God
did
deride
the
hope
and
confidence
of
all
those
,
that
should
stand
upon
any
such
doing
of
the
Law
,
for
their
instification
:
A
man
that
promiseth
a
reward
or
matter
of
benefit
,
upon
such
termes
and
conditions
,
which
he
knoweth
will
never
be
performed
,
by
him
that
undertakes
the
performance
of
them
,
rather
derides
the
pride
and
ignorance
of
his
presumption
,
then
really
intends
the
collation
of
what
he
seemes
so
to
promise
.
To
this
interpretation
Beza
much
inclineth
in
his
marginall
note
upon
that
clause
.
Or
else
2º
,
the
meaning
of
those
words
,
the
doers
of
the
Law
shall
be
iustified
,
may
be
only
this
:
that
God
will
accept
,
justifie
,
and
save
only
such
,
who
out
of
a
sincere
and
sound
Faith
towards
him
by
his
Christ
,
shall
addresse
themselves
to
serve
and
please
him
in
a
way
of
obedience
to
his
Lawes
.
In
this
sense
(
which
I
rather
conceive
to
be
the
expresse
intent
of
the
Apostle
in
the
words
)
the
doing
of
the
Law
is
mentioned
,
not
as
the
meanes
or
meritorious
cause
of
the
iustification
adjoyning
,
but
either
as
a
condition
,
sine
quinon
,
without
which
iustification
is
not
to
be
expected
:
or
rather
as
an
outward
signe
and
manifestation
of
the
persons
,
that
shall
be
iustified
,
but
in
another
way
,
viz.
by
Faith
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
by
the
Law
in
this
place
,
the
doers
whereof
(
as
is
said
)
shall
be
iustified
,
is
not
meant
the
Morall
Law
only
(
which
restreyned
signification
was
simply
necessary
,
to
have
given
the
clause
any
colour
of
opposition
or
contradiction
to
the
proposition
mentioned
)
but
the
whole
Mosaicall
dispensation
,
consisting
(
according
to
the
common
distribution
)
of
Ceremonialls
,
moralls
,
and
judicialls
.
The
observation
of
all
which
,
no
man
(
I
think
)
ever
affirmed
to
have
bin
imposed
by
God
upon
men
for
their
justification
.
But
I
feare
we
stand
too
long
about
oyling
a
wheele
,
which
would
run
merrily
enough
without
it
.
Let
us
rather
heare
the
voyce
of
a
new
argument
speaking
.
Jf
God
requires
only
Faith
of
men
to
their
justification
,
then
he
imputes
this
Faith
unto
them
thereunto
.
Argum.
23
SECT.
4
But
God
requires
only
Faith
to
justification
.
Ergo.
The
consequence
in
the
Maior
Proposition
,
is
blamelesse
,
for
this
reason
:
because
to
impute
unto
iustsfication
,
and
to
accept
unto
justification
,
are
somwhat
differing
in
sound
,
but
nothing
at
all
in
sence
and
signification
.
Now
if
God
should
require
faith
of
men
,
and
onely
Faith
to
their
Iustification
,
and
not
accept
it
thereunto
,
he
should
make
a
bargaine
or
Covenant
with
men
,
and
refuse
to
stand
to
it
when
he
had
done
:
his
overtures
would
be
faire
and
gracious
,
but
his
intentions
would
be
to
seek
,
and
no
where
in
Scriptures
to
be
found
.
If
it
be
here
replyed
and
said
:
that
though
God
requires
onely
faith
of
men
to
their
justification
,
yet
he
requires
somwhat
more
and
besides
,
at
the
hand
of
another
thereunto
:
therfore
that
which
he
imputes
unto
men
for
their
justification
,
is
not
necessarily
that
which
he
requires
of
themselves
,
but
rather
that
which
he
requires
of
another
for
them
.
To
this
I
answer
:
if
it
were
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
which
is
presumed
to
be
the
thing
required
of
another
)
and
not
the
faith
that
is
required
of
themselves
,
that
God
imputes
for
righteousnesse
unto
them
in
their
justification
,
then
may
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
imputed
for
this
end
and
purpose
,
before
,
yea
and
without
the
faith
of
any
man
.
For
it
is
certaine
,
that
the
Faith
of
men
addes
no
vertue
or
vaiue
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
:
therfore
if
this
be
that
which
God
imputeth
for
righteousnesse
in
justification
,
it
may
be
imputed
aswell
without
faith
,
as
with
it
:
and
so
men
might
be
justified
without
beleeving
.
Neither
will
it
help
in
this
case
,
to
say
,
SECT.
5
that
imputation
followeth
the
will
and
pleasure
of
God
:
and
therfore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
not
imputed
unto
any
,
but
to
him
that
beleeveth
,
because
the
will
and
pleasure
of
God
is
,
not
to
make
imputation
of
it
in
any
other
way
,
or
upon
any
other
terms
.
For
To
this
I
answere
:
if
the
will
and
pleasure
of
God
be
to
make
no
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
but
upon
the
condition
of
Faith
intervening
:
then
is
it
evident
,
that
this
righteousnes
is
not
imputed
unto
justification
to
any
man
,
because
the
condition
of
faith
must
necessarily
intervene
,
and
come
betweene
.
So
that
if
this
righteousnes
of
Christ
were
(
as
our
Adversaries
would
have
it
)
imputed
unto
men
,
yet
it
must
be
onely
towards
Iustification
,
not
unto
it
:
for
by
their
own
affirmation
,
it
is
faith
that
hath
the
next
and
most
immediat
connexion
therewith
.
Secondly
,
if
God
suspends
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
upon
the
performance
of
the
condition
of
faith
,
and
then
makes
this
imputation
:
then
faith
doth
not
take
hold
of
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
imputed
,
but
first
takes
bold
of
it
,
and
then
the
imputation
followeth
after
.
Which
1.
is
contrary
to
the
expresse
judgement
of
some
of
the
learnedest
of
their
owne
party
:
Who
affirme
this
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
by
God
,
to
precede
the
condition
of
faith
,
or
act
of
beleeving
in
men
.
[
](A85397-e53740-b)a
a
Deus
primum
imputat
satisfactionem
Christi
:
deinde
in
nobis
efficit
sidem
,
quam
illamimputatam
applicemus
.
Vrsinus
Cat.
part
.
2
Qu.
60.
sect.
5.
Fides
ex
parte
nostra
hanc
justitiam
.
Sic
sia
Deo
imputatam
,
apprehendit
solummodoet
applicat
.
Dr.
Prid.
Lect.
5.
de
Instificat
.
Sect.
11.
Secondle
,
if
faith
should
first
take
hold
of
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
before
it
be
imputed
,
and
then
the
act
of
Gods
imputation
should
supervene
upon
it
,
and
the
beleever
not
be
justified
,
till
this
act
of
Gods
imputation
had
passed
upon
him
:
then
must
it
be
conceived
,
that
a
man
may
have
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
upon
him
by
faith
,
and
yet
not
be
justified
by
it
.
For
if
the
will
of
God
be
,
not
to
impute
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
unto
Iustification
,
but
upon
the
condition
of
faith
performed
,
and
this
condition
is
performed
by
laying
hold
on
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
(
not
yet
imputed
)
by
faith
:
it
evidently
followeth
,
that
a
man
may
lay
hold
on
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
by
faith
,
and
yet
want
that
which
is
essentiality
requisite
to
his
Iustification
(
according
to
this
opinion
)
viz.
Gods
imputation
of
this
righteousnes
unto
him
,
which
(
as
the
opinion
teacheth
)
followeth
the
apprehension
therof
by
faith
,
and
is
not
precedaneous
to
it
.
Againe
,
SECT.
6
yet
once
more
for
the
imputation
of
Faith
in
the
sence
insisted
upon
,
I
plead
the
Apostles
plea
and
Argument
,
Rom.
4.
That
which
was
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousnes
in
his
Iustification
,
Argum.
24
is
imputed
to
other
beleevers
also
.
But
the
Faith
of
Abraham
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnes
,
&c.
Ergo.
Whether
both
these
Propositions
,
in
the
direct
sence
here
implyed
,
and
with
relation
to
the
conclusion
issuing
from
between
them
(
as
they
are
here
layd
down
)
be
not
the
genuine
and
unwrested
Doctrine
of
the
Apostle
Paul
,
and
that
over
and
over
,
in
that
4th
chapter
to
the
Romans
,
and
whether
the
choycest
learning
,
aswell
ancient
,
as
moderne
,
hath
not
sealed
and
subscribed
hereunto
,
I
referre
the
Reader
to
a
diligent
perusal
of
the
second
Chapter
of
this
discourse
,
for
his
satisfaction
:
where
likewise
he
may
see
the
ashes
of
the
contrary
interpretation
consumed
and
burnt
up
with
the
fire
of
the
triall
.
So
that
(
I
conceive
)
here
needeth
no
addition
of
any
thing
to
strengthen
either
the
one
Proposition
or
the
other
,
above
what
hath
bin
there
delivered
.
CAP.
XXI
.
Wherein
the
last
reason
against
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
viz.
the
non-imputability
of
the
Law
,
is
propounded
and
maintained
.
IF
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
be
not
imputable
,
Argum.
25
SECT.
1
or
deriveable
(
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
)
from
one
mans
person
to
another
,
then
cannot
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
be
imputed
to
any
man
in
Iustification
,
after
any
such
manner
.
The
consequence
cannot
lightly
be
denyed
by
him
that
will
but
grant
light
not
to
be
darknesse
.
Therfore
I
assume
:
But
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
is
not
imputable
from
one
mans
person
to
another
.
Therfore
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
is
not
imputable
(
much
lesse
imputed
)
to
any
man
in
his
Iustification
.
This
Argument
was
mentioned
in
our
Scripture
proofes
,
cap.
8.
where
you
shall
find
it
built
upon
that
Foundation
of
truth
,
Gal.
3.12
.
The
reason
or
ground
of
which
non-imputability
,
or
untransferiblenesse
of
the
Law-righteousnesse
,
we
found
expresse
in
the
very
tenour
and
plaine
words
of
the
Law
it selfe
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
i.
the
very
man
that
hath
done
them
,
shall
live
by
them
[
and
no
other
.
]
From
which
inference
or
addition
,
no
mans
understanding
can
(
with
reason
)
abstaine
.
But
it
is
like
we
must
here
againe
prepare
to
battaile
,
and
shall
be
assaulted
with
this
Objection
.
SECT.
2
If
the
transgression
of
the
Law
be
imputable
from
one
mans
person
to
another
,
Object
.
then
may
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
be
imputed
also
,
after
the
same
manner
.
For
what
should
cause
a
difference
between
the
one
and
the
other
in
this
respect
?
But
that
the
transgression
of
the
Law
is
imputable
from
one
mans
person
to
another
,
is
evident
from
hence
,
because
the
sinne
of
Adam
in
eating
the
forbidden
fruit
,
is
imputed
to
his
posterity
.
Ab
actu
ad
potentiam
validissima
est
consequentia
.
Ergo.
Give
me
leave
to
deliver
my
last
Argument
,
out
of
the
hand
of
this
Objection
:
and
so
we
shall
draw
towards
a
Conclusion
of
this
first
part
.
In
my
answer
,
I
shall
addresse
my selfe
to
both
the
Propositions
:
but
chiefly
insist
upon
the
instance
that
is
brought
to
prove
the
Minor
,
to
demonstrate
the
insufficiencie
and
impertinencie
of
that
for
that
purpose
.
For
the
former
Proposition
(
not
to
let
passe
incerta
procert●
,
that
which
is
weake
,
with
the
credit
and
reputation
of
strength
)
I
answere
therfore
to
it
,
that
the
consequence
in
it
is
not
so
tight
and
pregnant
,
(
as
happily
is
conceived
)
or
as
the
confidence
of
the
demand
annexed
by
way
of
confirmation
,
seems
to
import
.
The
imputablenesse
of
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
were
it
granted
,
is
no
concluding
demonstration
of
the
like
imputablenesse
of
the
righteousnesse
,
or
obedience
performed
unto
it
:
and
then
this
Proposition
will
not
be
found
any
such
Oracle
of
truth
.
First
,
in
the
tenour
of
the
Law
,
there
is
no
such
emphaticall
restraint
of
the
guilt
or
punishment
due
unto
the
transgression
of
it
,
to
the
person
of
the
transgressor
,
as
ther
is
of
the
reward
promised
to
the
observation
of
it
,
to
the
person
of
the
observer
;
as
we
heard
in
the
clause
cited
from
Gal.
3.12
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
i.
the
very
man
that
hath
done
them
,
shall
live
by
them
:
It
is
no
where
found
on
the
other
hand
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
the
very
man
that
transgresseth
them
,
shall
die
for
his
transgression
.
As
if
God
in
giving
the
Law
,
had
left
unto
himselfe
a
libertie
and
scope
to
derive
and
carry
the
guilt
and
punishment
due
to
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
as
far
as
he
pleased
:
but
had
no
intent
to
extend
the
reward
promised
to
the
fulfilling
of
it
,
beyond
the
person
of
the
fulfiller
.
Some
indeed
conceive
,
that
Adams
standing
in
obedience
to
the
Law
,
had
bin
the
standing
and
perpetuall
confirmation
in
grace
,
of
all
his
posterity
.
If
this
opinion
could
be
made
to
appeare
any
thing
more
then
conjecturall
Divinitie
,
I
grant
that
then
,
in
respect
of
the
intent
and
purpose
of
God
,
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
had
been
as
imputable
,
as
the
transgression
of
it
,
but
this
will
not
prove
it
such
in
the
nature
of
it
,
but
only
by
way
of
Covenant
:
and
so
the
consequence
in
the
proposition
will
still
languish
and
be
infirme
.
But
though
I
can
be
confident
with
Paul
,
to
call
Christ
,
the
last
Adam
.
1
Cor.
15.45
.
Yet
I
am
somwhat
tender
to
call
Adam
,
the
first
Christ
.
To
say
that
Adam
by
his
righteousnesse
should
have
merited
the
justification
of
himselfe
and
all
his
posterity
,
is
(
I
take
it
)
to
make
him
somwhat
more
then
a
figure
of
him
that
was
to
come
.
But
to
say
,
that
by
his
transgression
,
he
merited
the
condemnation
both
of
himselfe
and
posterity
,
is
no
such
hard
saying
(
I
conceive
)
in
the
cares
of
any
man
.
Therefore
however
,
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
is
not
as
imputable
,
as
the
transgression
of
it
.
Secondly
,
whereas
demand
was
made
,
SECT.
3
by
way
of
absolute
confirmation
of
that
former
proposition
,
what
should
make
any
such
difference
,
betweene
the
obedience
of
the
Law
,
and
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
that
the
former
should
not
be
as
imputable
as
the
latter
,
the
obedience
,
as
the
transgression
?
I
answere
,
there
may
be
this
conceived
as
a
ground
of
difference
betweene
them
,
in
that
respect
.
Sinne
or
disobedience
to
a
Law
is
ever
greater
in
ratione
demeriti
,
in
way
of
demerit
or
desert
of
punishment
:
then
obedience
or
subjection
to
a
Law
,
is
in
ratione
meriti
,
in
deserving
a
reward
.
One
that
takes
a
purse
,
or
murders
a
man
by
the
high
way
side
,
deserveth
to
receive
more
in
punishment
,
then
a
thousand
deserve
in
reward
,
that
suffer
men
to
travaile
peaceably
by
them
.
Though
he
that
dishonestly
refuseth
to
pay
a
debt
where
it
is
due
,
may
deservedly
be
cast
into
prison
:
yet
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
he
that
keeps
touch
and
payeth
at
his
day
,
deserves
to
be
exalted
to
a
Throne
.
So
might
Adam
by
his
transgression
of
the
Law
,
merit
death
and
condemnation
to
himselfe
and
posterity
:
and
yet
not
have
merited
life
and
salvation
to
both
,
by
his
obedience
.
The
reason
of
which
difference
is
evident
:
because
if
he
had
obeyed
and
kept
the
Law
,
he
had
only
done
that
which
was
his
duty
to
doe
:
and
this
(
by
our
Saviours
rule
,
Luk
17.10
)
makes
but
an
unprofitable
servant
.
i.
(
I
conceive
)
is
no
ground
to
demand
or
challenge
any
great
matters
at
his
masters
hand
,
except
it
be
by
Covenant
or
promise
from
him
.
Adams
obedience
to
the
Law
,
was
a
debt
due
unto
God
from
him
,
severall
waies
,
and
in
sundry
respects
or
considerations
.
First
,
God
was
his
soveraigne
Lord
,
and
had
absolut
power
over
him
,
to
command
him
what
service
or
obedience
he
pleased
.
Secondly
,
he
was
his
maker
and
Creator
,
and
had
given
him
his
being
:
and
in
this
respect
had
full
right
and
title
to
imploy
him
as
he
pleased
.
Thirdly
,
God
had
bin
liberall
and
exceeding
bountifull
unto
him
,
many
waies
:
he
created
him
in
his
owne
image
and
likenesse
:
furnished
him
with
principles
of
righteousnesse
:
made
him
Lord
over
the
works
of
his
hand
:
placed
him
in
a
Paradise
of
all
delight
and
contentment
.
In
all
these
respects
,
Adam
was
a
debtor
,
yea
and
more
then
a
debtor
unto
God
,
of
that
obedience
unto
his
Law
,
which
he
required
of
him
.
Now
the
greater
debtor
Adam
was
unto
God
,
the
more
and
greater
bands
and
ingagements
were
upon
him
,
to
make
good
that
obedience
which
God
required
of
him
,
to
his
Law
:
the
lesse
meritorious
had
this
obedience
bin
,
in
case
Adam
had
stood
and
performed
it
:
and
the
more
demeritorious
also
was
his
transgression
and
disobedience
.
Therefore
that
consequence
in
the
major
proposition
of
the
objection
,
If
the
transgression
of
the
Law
be
imputable
,
then
is
the
obedience
imputable
also
,
is
so
farre
from
being
legitimate
,
and
solid
,
that
the
imputablenesse
of
the
transgression
of
it
,
rather
overthroweth
the
imputablenesse
of
the
obedience
of
it
,
then
any
waies
proveth
or
establisheth
it
.
For
the
more
imputable
,
that
is
,
punishable
,
the
transgression
of
it
is
,
the
lesse
imputable
,
that
is
,
rewardable
,
is
the
obedience
of
it
.
So
that
you
see
,
now
we
have
touch'd
the
hollow
of
the
right
thigh
of
the
Objection
,
how
it
halts
right
downe
upon
it
.
And
you
see
withall
,
how
we
might
fairely
and
honestly
discharge
our selves
from
having
any
thing
more
to
doe
with
the
Minor
Proposition
,
or
with
the
instance
of
the
imputation
of
Adam's
sin
,
which
was
insisted
upon
for
the
proofe
of
it
:
because
if
either
Proposition
be
disabled
,
the
glory
of
the
whole
Argument
is
layed
in
the
dust
.
Notwithstanding
,
because
the
imputation
of
Adams
sinne
to
his
posteritie
(
as
it
is
ordinarily
phrased
)
is
conceived
to
be
a
master
veyne
in
this
Controversie
,
and
is
frequently
produced
to
prove
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
by
way
of
analogie
or
proportion
.
)
I
shall
be
willing
to
lay
downe
with
as
much
brevitie
and
plainenesse
as
I
can
,
how
,
and
in
what
sense
onely
,
either
the
Scriptures
themselves
,
or
sound
reason
,
will
countenance
the
notion
of
that
imputation
.
The
issue
will
be
,
that
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
will
be
found
,
either
to
owne
or
favour
any
other
imputation
of
Adam's
sin
to
his
posterity
,
then
we
have
hitherto
granted
of
Christs
righteousnesse
to
those
that
beleeve
:
The
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
imputed
,
i.
is
made
over
or
given
to
those
that
beleeve
,
not
in
the
letter
or
formality
of
it
(
as
hath
bin
often
said
)
but
in
blessings
,
priviledges
and
benefits
,
purchased
of
God
by
the
merit
or
mediation
of
it
.
So
the
sinne
of
Adam
is
imputed
to
his
posterity
,
not
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
(
which
is
the
imputation
commonly
urged
)
but
in
the
demerit
of
it
,
i.
in
the
curse
or
punishment
due
to
it
(
which
is
the
imputation
commonly
urged
)
but
in
the
demerit
of
it
,
i.
in
the
curse
or
punishment
due
to
it
,
or
deserved
by
it
.
Therfore
as
concerning
this
imputation
of
Adams
sin
,
I
answere
.
First
,
the
Scripture
no
where
affirms
,
either
the
imputation
of
Adams
sin
to
his
posterity
,
or
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
to
those
that
beleeve
:
neither
is
the
phrase
or
manner
of
such
speaking
,
any
waies
agreeable
to
the
Dialect
or
language
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
For
still
in
the
Scriptures
,
whersoever
the
word
or
term
of
IMPUTING
is
used
,
it
is
only
applyed
unto
,
or
spoken
of
somthing
of
the
same
persons
,
to
whom
the
imputation
is
said
to
be
made
,
and
never
(
to
my
remembrance
)
to
,
or
of
any
thing
of
anothers
,
Rom.
4.3
.
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
IMPUTED
to
him
for
righteousnesse
,
i.
his
own
beleeving
was
imputed
to
him
,
not
another
mans
.
So
verse
5.
But
to
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
beleeveth
,
His
Faith
is
IMPUTED
to
him
for
righteousnesse
.
So
Psal.
106.30
,
31.
Phineas
stood
up
and
executed
judgement
,
&c.
and
that
(
viz.
act
of
his
)
was
IMPUTED
to
him
for
righteousnesse
.
i.
received
a
testimony
from
God
of
being
a
righteous
and
holy
act
.
So
againe
,
2
Cor.
5.19
.
not
IMPUTING
their
trespasses
(
i.
their
own
trespasses
)
unto
them
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
5
when
a
thing
is
said
simply
to
be
imputed
,
as
viz.
sinne
,
folly
,
and
so
righteousnesse
,
or
the
like
,
&c.
the
meaning
of
the
phrase
is
not
to
be
taken
concerning
the
bare
acts
of
the
things
,
as
if
(
for
example
)
to
impute
sin
to
a
man
,
signified
this
,
to
repute
the
man
(
to
whom
sin
is
imputed
)
to
have
committed
a
sinfull
act
:
or
,
as
if
to
impute
folly
,
were
simply
to
charge
a
man
to
have
done
foolishly
:
but
the
phrase
of
imputing
,
when
it
is
applyed
to
things
that
are
evill
,
and
attributed
to
persons
that
have
a
power
of
judicature
over
those
,
to
whom
the
imputation
is
made
(
in
which
posture
only
,
to
my
remembrance
the
word
is
found
in
Scripture
)
signifieth
,
the
charging
of
the
guilt
or
demerit
of
what
is
said
to
be
imputed
,
upon
the
head
of
the
person
to
whom
the
imputation
is
made
,
with
an
intent
of
inflicting
some
condigne
punishment
upon
him
.
So
that
to
impute
sinne
(
in
Scripture
phrase
)
is
to
charge
the
guilt
of
sin
upon
a
man
with
a
purpose
to
punish
him
for
it
.
Thus
Rom.
5.13
.
Sinne
is
said
not
to
be
IMPUTED
,
whilest
there
is
no
Law
.
The
meaning
cannot
be
,
that
that
act
which
a
man
doth
,
whether
there
be
a
Law
or
no
Law
,
should
not
be
imputed
to
him
.
The
Law
doth
not
make
any
act
to
be
imputed
,
or
ascribed
to
a
man
,
which
might
not
aswell
have
bin
imputed
without
it
.
But
the
meaning
is
,
that
there
is
no
guilt
of
any
act
charged
by
God
upon
men
,
nor
any
punishment
inflicted
upon
men
for
any
thing
done
by
them
,
but
only
by
vertue
of
the
Law
prohibiting
or
restreyning
it
.
In
which
respect
the
Law
is
said
to
be
the
strength
of
sinne
,
viz.
because
it
giveth
a
condemning
power
against
the
doer
,
to
that
,
which
otherwise
would
have
had
none
,
1
Cor.
15.56
.
So
againe
,
Job
24.12
.
when
it
is
said
,
that
God
doth
not
lay
folly
to
the
charge
of
them
(
i
impute
folly
to
them
)
that
make
the
soules
of
the
slaine
to
cry
out
,
&c.
the
meaning
is
not
,
that
God
doth
not
repute
them
to
have
committed
the
acts
of
oppression
,
murder
,
&c.
For
supposeing
they
did
such
things
,
it
is
unpossible
but
that
God
should
repute
them
to
have
done
them
:
but
the
meaning
is
,
that
God
doth
not
visibly
charge
the
guilt
of
these
sins
upon
them
,
or
inflict
punishment
for
them
.
So
2
Sam.
19.19
.
When
Shimei
prayeth
David
not
to
IMPUTE
wickednesse
unto
him
,
his
meaning
is
not
,
to
desire
David
not
to
think
he
had
done
wickedly
in
rayling
upon
him
(
for
himselfe
confesseth
this
in
the
very
next
words
)
but
that
David
would
not
inflict
that
punishment
upon
him
,
which
that
wickednesse
deserved
.
This
was
that
non-imputation
of
wickednesse
which
Shimei
desired
of
David
So
when
David
himselfe
pronounceth
the
man
blessed
,
to
whom
the
Lord
IMPUTETH
not
sinne
,
his
meaning
is
not
,
as
if
there
were
any
man
,
whom
the
Lord
would
not
repute
to
have
committed
those
acts
of
sin
,
which
indeed
they
have
committed
:
but
that
such
are
blessed
,
upon
whom
God
will
not
charge
the
demerit
of
their
sins
in
the
punishment
due
to
them
.
So
yet
againe
(
to
forbeare
further
citations
in
this
point
)
2
Cor.
5.19
.
when
God
is
said
,
not
to
IMPUTE
their
sinnes
unto
men
,
the
meaning
is
not
,
that
God
should
not
repute
men
to
have
committed
such
and
such
sins
against
him
:
but
this
,
that
he
freely
discharged
them
from
the
punishment
due
unto
them
By
all
which
testimonies
and
instances
from
the
Scriputres
,
concerning
the
constant
and
solemne
use
and
signification
of
the
terme
imputing
,
or
imputation
,
it
is
evident
,
that
the
M●nor
Proposition
in
the
Objection
,
viz.
that
the
transgression
of
the
Law
is
imputable
from
one
mans
person
to
anothers
,
hath
no
such
cleere
or
certaine
soundation
in
the
Scriptures
.
SECT.
6
And
therfore
thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
to
come
home
to
the
instance
of
the
imputation
of
Adam's
sinne
to
his
posterity
,
which
is
brought
for
the
confirmation
of
it
,
I
answere
also
,
First
,
that
either
to
say
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
his
posteritie
(
of
beleevers
)
or
the
sin
of
Adam
to
his
,
are
both
expressions
(
at
least
)
unknowne
to
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
Scriptures
.
There
is
neither
line
,
nor
word
,
nor
syllable
,
nor
letter
,
nor
tittle
of
any
such
thing
to
be
found
there
.
But
that
the
faith
of
him
that
beleeveth
,
is
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
are
words
which
the
Holy
Ghost
counteth
neither
errour
,
nor
heresie
to
use
.
But
secondly
,
because
I
would
make
no
exception
against
words
,
further
then
necessitie
(
I
meane
a
necessitie
of
making
provision
for
the
truth
)
enforceth
(
I
doe
not
like
that
any
mans
words
that
will
take
salt
,
and
be
made
savourie
by
interpretation
,
should
be
cast
out
upon
the
dunghill
:
though
I
know
a
man
that
hath
received
this
measure
,
pressed
down
,
heaped
up
,
and
running
over
,
from
many
)
gran
,
that
there
are
expressions
in
Scripture
concerning
both
,
both
the
communication
of
Adams
sinne
with
his
posterity
,
and
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
with
those
that
beleeve
,
that
will
fairely
enough
beare
the
terme
of
imputation
,
if
it
be
rightly
understood
,
and
according
to
the
use
and
importance
of
it
in
Scripture
upon
other
occasions
(
as
we
lately
cited
many
instances
)
but
as
it
is
commonly
taken
and
understood
by
many
,
it
is
no
currant
language
,
but
occasions
much
error
and
mistake
.
Concerning
Adam's
sinne
or
disobedience
,
SECT.
7
many
are
said
to
be
made
sinners
by
it
.
Rom.
5.19
.
And
so
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
it
is
said
(
in
the
same
place
)
that
many
shall
be
made
righteous
.
But
now
if
men
will
needs
exchange
language
with
the
Holy
Ghost
,
they
must
see
to
it
that
they
make
him
no
loser
.
If
when
they
say
,
that
Adams
sinne
is
imputed
to
all
unto
condemnation
,
their
meaning
be
the
same
with
the
Holy
Ghosts
,
when
he
saith
,
that
by
the
disobedience
of
one
,
many
were
made
sinners
,
there
is
no
harme
done
:
to
exchange
upon
such
terms
,
is
not
to
rob
.
But
it
is
much
to
be
suspected
,
nay
it
is
too
evident
by
what
many
of
themselves
by
way
of
interpretation
speake
,
that
the
Holy
Ghost
and
they
are
not
of
one
mind
,
touching
the
imputation
or
communication
of
Adams
sinne
with
his
posterity
,
but
that
they
differ
as
much
in
meaning
,
as
in
words
.
If
when
they
say
,
that
Adams
sinne
is
imputed
to
all
unto
condemnation
,
their
meaning
be
,
plaine
and
right
downe
this
,
that
the
demerit
or
guilt
of
Adams
sin
is
charged
upon
his
whole
posteritie
,
or
that
the
punishment
of
Adams
sinne
,
redounded
and
ran
over
(
as
it
were
)
from
his
person
to
his
whole
posterity
,
a
maine
part
of
which
punishment
,
lyeth
in
that
originall
defilement
wherin
they
are
all
conceived
and
borne
,
and
wherby
they
are
made
truly
and
formally
sinners
before
God
:
if
this
(
I
say
)
be
the
meaning
of
the
terme
,
Imputation
,
when
it
is
applyed
to
Adams
sin
,
Transeat
,
let
it
passe
.
But
if
the
meaning
be
,
Adams
sin
is
imputed
to
his
posteritie
,
i.
that
sinfull
act
wherein
Adam
transgressed
when
heate
the
forbidden
fruit
,
is
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
it
,
and
as
it
was
Adams
owne
personall
sinne
,
imputed
to
his
posteritie
,
so
that
by
this
imputation
all
his
posterity
are
made
formally
sinners
,
before
any
part
of
the
punishment
of
that
si●ne
comes
upon
them
:
this
is
an
imputation
,
which
(
I
am
certaine
)
the
Scripture
wil
never
justifie
,
neither
in
the
letter
of
it
,
nor
in
the
spirit
of
it
:
yea
and
reason
it selfe
riseth
up
against
it
with
a
high
hand
.
The
equitie
(
on
Gods
part
)
for
the
involving
of
Adams
posteritie
,
SECT.
8
in
the
punishment
due
to
his
first
sinne
(
for
I
do
not
conceive
it
to
be
an
act
either
of
district
and
essentiall
justice
in
God
,
or
yet
of
absolute
or
pure
prerogative
)
but
a
certaine
mixt
act
betweene
both
seemeth
to
be
founded
upon
3
things
:
Sine
dubio
potuit
Deus
,
si
sic
ei
visum
fuisset
,
Adae
peccatum
,
aut
ipsi
condonare
,
aut
in
ipso
tantum
ulcisci
,
posterisque
omnibus
gratiam
salutarem
,
co
neutiquam
obstante
,
liberare
gratificari
.
Dr.
Twist
.
and
yet
none
of
them
the
act
of
Adams
sinne
,
nor
yet
the
imputation
of
it
.
But
1º
,
the
demerit
or
sinfullnesse
of
the
sinne
:
which
is
a
thing
much
differing
from
the
act
of
it
:
the
act
of
it
being
principally
from
God
him
elfe
,
and
that
by
way
of
efficiencie
properly
so
called
(
as
all
Divines
unanimously
agree
)
but
the
sinfulnesse
of
it
wholly
from
the
creature
.
Secondly
,
the
streightnesse
,
or
narrownesse
,
or
scantnesse
of
Adams
person
:
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
that
speciall
and
neere
relation
that
his
posterity
had
to
his
person
.
From
the
posture
(
I
conceive
)
or
standing
up
of
these
(
or
the
like
)
circumstances
before
God
,
may
be
demonstrated
the
equitie
of
his
proceedings
,
in
involving
or
binding
over
,
aswell
Adams
posterity
,
as
his
person
,
in
and
to
the
same
condemnation
and
punishment
with
him
for
his
first
sinne
.
First
for
the
fullnesse
and
weight
of
the
demerit
or
sinfulnesse
of
it
:
it
is
almost
unconceiveable
of
what
aggravations
it
is
capable
of
,
if
all
those
circumstances
and
considerations
were
but
made
to
speake
home
,
which
are
able
to
charge
it
in
this
kind
.
Some
we
touched
towards
the
begining
of
this
Chapter
:
and
many
others
there
are
,
which
I
do
not
purpose
now
to
insist
upon
,
because
the
sinfullnesse
of
this
sin
,
is
generally
confessed
and
acknowledged
by
all
,
though
it
be
true
also
,
there
are
some
circumstances
on
the
other
hand
,
which
doe
much
case
and
lighten
the
provocation
and
offensi●●nesse
of
it
,
as
we
shall
have
occasion
to
shew
hereafter
in
the
second
part
.
Onely
I
desire
to
mention
one
thing
,
SECT.
9
(
which
to
my
best
remembrance
)
I
have
not
often
met
with
under
observation
in
this
kind
:
though
it
be
a
consideration
obvious
and
neere
at
hand
.
The
sinne
of
Adam
hath
this
peculiar
streyne
or
burden
of
sinfulnesse
in
it
,
wherein
it
justifieth
the
sinne
even
of
the
reprobate
Angells
themselves
,
being
(
in
that
respect
)
a
sinne
more
intolerable
then
theirs
,
These
wicked
Angells
were
entrusted
but
with
their
owne
portions
,
respectively
,
and
therefore
what
they
sinned
,
they
sin'd
to
themselves
,
they
sin'd
away
&
ruin'd
only
their
personall
estates
in
blessedness
.
But
Adam
had
a
deerer
and
deeper
ingagement
upon
him
,
to
keep
him
upright
:
he
had
the
estates
of
all
his
posterity
put
into
his
hand
:
and
knew
,
that
if
he
sinned
and
fell
,
he
should
draw
thousands
thousands
of
soules
after
him
into
the
same
perdition
with
him
:
and
those
such
,
the
things
of
whose
peace
,
safety
and
welfare
,
the
Law
,
of
nature
it selfe
obliged
him
to
provide
for
,
with
more
care
and
tendernesse
,
then
of
all
other
creatures
whatsoever
,
being
those
that
were
to
be
his
owne
naturall
children
,
even
flesh
of
his
flesh
and
bone
of
his
bone
:
the
ingagement
of
which
relation
the
Apostle
averreth
(
in
this
respect
)
2
Cor.
12.14
.
where
he
saith
,
that
Children
ought
not
to
lay
up
for
the
Parents
,
but
Parents
for
the
Children
.
If
it
be
esteemed
a
sore
brand
(
as
well
it
may
)
upon
the
wickednesse
of
Ieroboam
,
that
he
made
Israel
to
sinne
:
and
yet
this
was
no
other
making
to
sinne
,
then
what
possibly
might
(
and
ought
)
to
have
bin
resisted
and
withstood
,
by
those
that
were
drawne
to
sinne
by
it
:
then
must
it
needs
be
a
far
soarer
charge
upon
the
sinne
of
Adam
,
who
made
not
Israel
onely
,
but
the
whole
world
to
sinne
:
and
that
in
such
a
way
,
and
by
such
a
making
,
against
which
there
was
not
the
least
strength
or
power
in
the
world
to
make
the
least
resistance
or
opposition
.
So
then
the
exceeding
sinfulnesse
or
demerit
of
this
sinne
of
Adam
being
granted
,
it
cannot
be
judged
any
waies
unequall
in
God
or
repugnant
to
the
rules
of
justice
,
to
inflict
an
unanswerable
measure
or
weight
of
punishment
upon
it
.
Punishment
is
a
kind
of
payment
or
recompence
for
an
injury
or
losse
susteyned
.
J
paied
(
or
restored
)
saith
David
,
Psal
.
69.4
.
)
the
things
that
I
never
tooke
.
i.
I
went
under
censure
,
and
was
punished
in
my
good
Name
and
otherwise
,
for
offences
whereof
I
was
never
guilty
.
The
like
phrase
of
restitution
by
way
of
punishment
,
you
shall
finde
Iob
20.18
.
So
that
now
to
require
or
take
in
punishment
,
valuably
to
the
losse
or
injury
a
man
hath
susteyned
,
hath
thus
far
no
appearance
of
unrighteousnesse
in
it
.
Therefore
2º
,
SECT.
10
consider
we
further
the
narrownesse
or
scantnesse
of
Adams
person
,
of
how
small
receipt
or
capacitie
his
vessell
was
,
to
containe
that
abundance
of
wrath
,
or
that
fulnesse
of
punishment
,
which
God
might
lawfully
require
,
for
the
great
injury
or
dishonor
done
unto
him
in
that
mighty
sin
:
and
this
will
bring
you
to
confesse
and
acknowledge
this
further
,
that
either
God
must
sit
downe
by
the
losse
(
as
we
use
to
say
)
and
want
meanes
of
coming
againe
into
his
owne
,
or
else
he
must
looke
out
beyond
Adams
person
,
for
more
to
be
joyned
in
the
punishment
with
him
,
to
supplie
(
as
it
were
)
that
was
wanting
in
him
,
in
that
respect
.
In
civill
and
politique
States
,
it
is
not
more
usuall
then
equall
and
reasonable
,
that
when
the
offence
is
of
a
very
high
nature
,
as
in
the
case
of
Treason
and
the
like
&c.
the
punishment
should
not
be
confin'd
to
the
person
of
the
offender
(
which
how
great
soever
,
is
ever
lesse
then
an
offence
of
that
nature
)
but
be
further
extended
,
untill
the
qualitie
of
the
offence
be
somewaies
answered
.
Vpon
this
ground
of
equitie
(
I
conceive
)
it
was
,
that
God
would
not
be
satisfied
with
the
personall
destruction
(
though
in
a
way
of
extraordinary
judgement
)
of
Korah
,
Dathan
,
and
Abiram
,
their
sin
of
rebellion
against
Moses
and
Aaron
,
riseing
to
a
greater
height
then
so
:
but
involved
their
Families
their
wives
,
their
Sons
,
their
little
ones
,
yea
their
Tents
and
all
their
goods
,
in
the
punishment
with
them
.
Numb
.
16.27
,
32
,
33.
with
Deut.
11.6
.
Indeed
for
Korahs
Children
(
at
least
for
some
of
them
,
it
seemes
from
Num.
26.11
.
that
they
had
withdrawne
themselves
from
their
Fathers
Tent
and
company
,
before
the
judgement
came
,
and
so
escaped
.
But
for
the
Families
,
wives
,
Children
,
little
ones
,
yea
tents
and
all
the
goods
of
the
other
,
yea
and
all
those
persons
that
remained
and
were
found
with
Korah
whether
Children
or
others
;
when
the
stroke
of
Divine
recompence
came
;
together
with
al
his
goods
,
were
cast
in
together
into
the
scale
of
the
punishment
to
make
weight
for
the
height
and
hey
nousnesse
of
the
sinne
.
The
like
is
to
be
conceived
in
the
case
of
Achan's
sinne
.
Ios
.
7.24.25
.
If
the
personall
punishments
of
these
men
would
have
held
out
just
and
full
consideration
with
their
offences
,
it
is
no
waies
probable
,
but
that
the
punishing
hand
of
God
wou●d
have
stayed
there
,
and
not
have
bin
stretched
out
further
.
In
like
manner
,
if
the
person
of
Adam
had
bin
as
great
and
large
,
as
his
offence
,
so
that
he
had
●in
able
himselfe
to
have
borne
the
fulnesse
of
the
punishment
,
which
his
sin
deserved
:
I
conceive
it
most
likely
that
God
would
have
deserved
and
satisfied
himselfe
in
point
of
justice
,
out
of
his
person
alone
,
and
not
have
arrested
all
his
posterity
for
the
debt
.
Because
the
most
district
justice
that
is
in
God
,
can
but
require
and
exact
from
the
creature
offending
,
that
degree
or
measure
of
punishment
for
sin
,
quae
est
internimiùm
et
parum
,
which
holds
a
just
and
even
proportion
with
it
.
And
if
the
person
of
the
creature
offending
,
be
able
to
pay
the
whole
reckoning
and
summe
it selfe
,
the
like
justice
seemeth
to
require
,
that
it
be
not
demanded
elsewhere
,
nor
any
others
without
their
consent
be
charged
with
contributing
to
it
.
So
that
if
we
shall
suppose
the
person
of
Adam
to
have
bin
punishable
according
to
the
height
and
full
extent
of
his
sin
,
and
yet
will
say
,
that
God
had
power
to
charge
this
sinne
upon
his
posteritie
,
this
must
be
understood
of
such
a
power
,
as
indeed
God
hath
by
way
of
absolute
prerogative
and
soveraigntie
of
dominion
over
the
creature
,
not
of
any
power
he
stands
possessed
of
in
a
way
of
regular
and
ordinary
justice
.
If
it
be
here
objected
:
SECT.
11
that
notwithstanding
God
hath
thus
seized
upon
Adam
himselfe
and
all
his
posterity
with
him
,
and
hath
involved
them
together
,
and
made
them
all
contributers
in
the
punishment
due
to
the
first
sin
,
yet
doth
not
all
this
punishment
in
the
utmost
extent
of
it
,
answere
(
in
strict
consideration
)
the
demerit
of
that
sin
:
so
that
that
which
God
hath
done
in
this
kind
,
is
no
sufficient
meanes
to
heale
the
wound
of
that
dishonour
which
he
received
from
the
hand
of
the
creature
.
To
this
I
answere
:
First
,
if
this
be
a
truth
(
as
for
the
present
I
have
nothing
in
a
strict
way
of
arguing
to
oppose
against
it
directly
)
that
notwithstanding
God
hath
fallen
thus
heavily
upon
Adam
&
al
his
,
yet
hath
not
hereby
made
himselfe
any
full
satisfaction
for
the
offence
committed
against
him
:
this
rather
tends
to
ease
and
justifie
these
proceedings
of
God
in
punishing
aswell
Adams
posteritie
as
his
person
,
for
his
offence
,
that
is
,
for
the
demerit
of
his
offence
,
then
any
waies
infringeth
or
impleadeth
any
thing
therein
.
So
that
we
shall
not
need
,
for
the
cleering
of
Gods
justice
in
troubling
all
Adams
posteritie
for
Adams
sinne
,
to
have
recourse
to
a
supposed
imputation
of
the
act
of
this
sinne
unto
them
,
the
sinfullnesse
or
demerit
of
it
(
which
as
hath
been
said
,
is
a
thing
far
differing
from
,
and
indeed
contra-distinguished
against
the
act
of
it
)
is
abundantly
sufficient
thereunto
.
Yet
secondly
I
answere
withall
:
that
though
the
punishment
of
the
sinne
poured
out
upon
Adams
posteritie
as
well
as
his
person
,
will
not
hold
out
full
weight
and
measure
with
the
sinfullnesse
or
demerit
of
it
,
in
which
respect
God
may
seeme
still
to
be
behind
hand
with
the
creature
,
and
not
to
have
repaired
his
breach
sufficiently
:
yet
who
seeth
not
but
that
he
hath
made
a
far
more
abundant
provision
for
the
vindicating
of
his
glorious
greatresse
,
by
causeing
this
dreadfull
tempest
of
his
displeasure
to
raine
upon
all
flesh
,
then
if
Adams
person
alone
had
bin
rained
upon
in
this
kind
,
and
the
expressions
of
his
indignation
had
reached
no
further
.
We
have
a
common
saying
:
That
where
it
is
not
to
be
had
,
the
King
must
loose
his
right
.
Certainly
if
the
great
and
terrible
God
ever
payed
any
sinne
home
in
wrath
and
vengeance
,
he
is
not
behind
hand
with
this
sin
of
Adam
.
Thirdly
and
lastly
,
SECT.
12
I
answere
yet
once
more
:
that
in
this
respect
God
may
be
said
to
have
made
,
or
given
himselfe
full
satisfaction
,
in
pouring
out
this
fullnesse
of
wrath
upon
Adams
sinne
,
not
upon
his
person
only
,
but
whole
posterity
also
:
because
he
requireth
nothing
more
by
way
of
any
further
satisfaction
for
that
sinne
,
but
only
the
abiding
or
suffering
of
that
wrath
and
punishment
which
he
hath
inflicted
upon
it
,
by
Adam
and
his
posterity
.
This
sheweth
that
he
is
perfectly
eased
of
that
his
great
adversarie
.
At
least
wise
,
where
he
complaineth
not
,
nor
maketh
any
further
demand
,
we
cannot
say
that
he
is
unsatisfyed
.
That
sacrifice
which
he
required
of
his
Sonne
Jesus
Christ
for
the
taking
away
or
purging
the
sinne
of
the
world
,
was
not
required
by
way
of
addition
to
that
punishment
,
which
hee
had
inflicted
upon
Adam
and
all
his
;
as
if
Christ
with
his
sufferings
,
and
men
with
theirs
,
should
together
make
up
one
and
the
same
entire
satisfaction
unto
God
for
Adams
sin
.
No
,
the
Scripture
calleth
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
a
vice-ransom
,
or
counter-ransom
,
i.
a
satisfaction
instead
of
a
satisfaction
.
1
Tim.
2.6
.
which
implieth
,
that
that
wrath
which
God
had
already
poured
out
upon
the
world
for
sinne
,
was
in
the
nature
of
it
and
would
have
bin
,
had
his
mercy
bin
pleased
to
have
suffered
his
justice
to
goe
on
with
the
full
execution
of
it
,
and
to
have
received
at
large
.
This
for
answer
to
the
objection
:
and
for
the
second
particular
;
upon
which
the
equity
of
Gods
proceedings
in
involving
as-well
the
whole
posterity
of
Adam
as
his
person
in
the
punishment
due
to
his
first
sinne
,
may
well
be
built
(
as
hath
bin
suid
)
viz
the
narrownesse
of
Adams
person
.
SECT.
13
The
third
and
last
(
but
of
principall
consideration
in
the
businesse
)
is
,
the
peculiar
and
neere
relation
of
the
posteritie
of
Adam
to
his
person
.
His
posteritie
was
so
neerely
and
intirely
his
,
when
the
sinne
was
committed
,
and
the
judgment
first
poured
out
upon
it
,
that
they
were
in
his
person
,
and
as
it
were
a
part
,
or
somewhat
of
it
.
The
time
was
,
when
all
men
were
but
one
Adam
:
as
Augustine
expresseth
it
:
Adam
erat
nos
omnes
.
i.
Adam
was
us
all
.
Augustin
.
De
Peccat
.
Merit
.
et
Remiss
.
And
againe
,
Omnes
eramus
ille
vnus
Adam
.
i.
We
were
all
that
one
Adam
.
And
the
whole
generation
of
mankind
,
is
but
Adam
,
or
Adams
person
interpreted
,
or
expounded
at
large
:
and
may
with
as
good
propriety
of
speech
be
called
Adam
,
as
the
nation
of
the
Iewes
is
often
in
the
Scripture
called
Iacob
.
So
then
it
being
granted
,
1ᵒ
that
the
sinne
of
Adam
was
exceedingly
sinfull
and
demeritorious
.
2º
,
that
his
person
(
properly
taken
)
by
reason
of
the
scantnesse
or
narrownesse
of
it
,
was
not
capable
of
the
fulnesse
of
that
wrath
,
which
that
sin
deserved
,
and
which
it
stood
best
with
the
glory
of
God
,
should
be
executed
or
poured
out
upon
it
:
it
cannot
be
thought
any
waies
unrighteous
or
unequall
,
that
his
posteritie
should
be
arrested
also
,
and
taken
into
Communion
with
his
person
in
the
punishment
inflicted
,
to
supplie
that
which
was
wanting
in
it
.
That
God
should
not
be
stinted
or
streightned
in
making
provision
for
his
owne
glory
in
the
punishment
of
sin
,
but
that
he
should
punish
till
he
maketh
himselfe
whole
,
at
least
till
he
cometh
as
neere
into
his
owne
,
as
conveniently
he
may
,
there
is
no
man
can
judge
unequall
or
unjust
.
Now
then
Adam
,
who
was
the
sinner
,
having
of
his
owne
,
whereof
or
wherewith
to
make
satisfaction
,
I
meane
a
posterity
,
which
was
so
fully
,
so
intirely
,
and
(
as
I
may
say
)
so
identically
his
owne
,
that
it
was
as
yet
rather
himselfe
then
his
;
it
cannot
but
be
thought
equall
and
meet
,
that
God
should
father
seize
upon
these
,
to
doe
himselfe
right
,
then
upon
the
Angells
or
any
other
kind
of
creature
that
had
not
that
neere
and
speciall
relation
to
the
transgressor
.
As
in
the
case
of
the
sinne
of
Korah
,
Dathan
,
and
Abiram
,
(
and
so
of
Achan
)
before
mentioned
,
the
personall
punishment
of
the
offenders
not
holding
out
proportion
with
the
nature
and
quality
of
their
offences
:
there
is
no
man
but
must
needs
conceive
it
more
agreeable
to
justice
,
that
their
owne
families
respectively
,
and
those
that
had
the
neerest
relation
to
them
,
should
be
taken
to
make
up
the
exemplarinesse
of
the
punishment
,
till
it
was
increased
and
raised
to
the
line
and
levell
of
the
offence
,
then
any
other
family
or
person
,
that
stood
at
a
further
distance
from
them
.
God
,
in
a
faire
and
reasonable
construction
,
involving
Adam
and
his
posterity
in
the
punishment
for
his
sinne
,
did
but
involve
Adam
himselfe
,
or
his
person
only
,
because
his
person
and
posterity
,
when
this
punishment
was
executed
,
were
but
one
and
the
same
Adam
.
This
is
the
third
and
last
particular
,
upon
which
the
equitie
of
God
,
in
punishing
aswell
Adams
posterity
,
as
his
person
,
for
his
sinne
,
seemes
to
be
grounded
,
viz.
the
peculiar
neerenesse
and
relation
betweene
his
person
and
posteritie
.
Me
thinks
there
is
a
joynt
intimation
of
all
the
three
,
SECT.
14
in
that
Scripture
,
Rom.
5.12
.
Wherfore
as
by
one
man
sinne
entred
into
the
world
,
and
death
by
sinne
,
and
so
death
passed
upon
all
men
,
in
that
(
or
rather
,
according
to
the
best
translations
and
expositions
,
in
whom
)
all
men
have
sinned
.
Here
is
first
the
demerit
of
this
sin
implied
,
in
that
death
is
said
to
enter
into
the
world
by
it
.
There
is
nothing
in
sinne
to
draw
death
and
condemnation
after
it
,
but
only
the
demerit
or
sinfulnesse
of
it
:
as
for
the
act
it selfe
,
whereunto
this
sinfullnesse
cleaveth
(
for
malum
semper
habitat
in
alieno
fundo
,
as
one
saith
,
evill
is
alwaies
found
with
somwhat
that
is
not
evill
)
this
is
directly
and
efficiently
from
God
himselfe
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
and
therfore
death
is
no
wages
due
to
this
:
neither
would
it
,
in
case
it
were
imputed
to
any
man
,
bring
any
guilt
or
condemnation
upon
him
.
Secondly
,
it
being
further
said
,
that
death
being
entred
into
the
world
,
passed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
upon
all
men
,
or
over
all
men
,
it
sheweth
,
that
Adams
single
person
,
was
not
sufficient
or
able
to
beare
the
fullnes
of
that
punishment
,
which
the
sinfullnesse-of
his
sin
had
deserved
:
otherwise
death
(
doubtlesse
)
would
have
stopp'd
there
,
and
have
gone
,
or
passed
on
no
further
.
Thirdly
and
lastly
,
where
it
is
added
in
the
close
,
as
the
reason
why
death
,
being
gotten
into
the
world
,
should
passe
directly
towards
men
,
and
should
prevaile
(
in
speciall
manner
)
over
them
,
and
that
over
them
all
(
without
exception
)
viz.
because
that
in
him
,
i.
Adam
,
all
men
had
sinned
:
this
implieth
,
that
had
not
men
bin
in
the
loynes
of
Adam
,
who
was
the
sinner
,
or
otherwise
had
no
speciall
or
neere
relation
to
him
,
this
death
had
had
no
more
right
or
advantage
against
them
,
then
against
other
creatures
.
So
that
now
,
these
things
duly
considered
,
SECT.
15
evident
it
is
,
that
the
imputation
of
Adams
sinne
,
or
rather
of
the
act
of
Adams
sinne
:
(
for
otherwise
it
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
(
so
much
spoken
of
and
urged
in
this
case
)
to
his
posteritie
,
is
not
the
ground
or
cause
of
the
punishment
that
is
fallen
upon
his
posteritie
for
it
(
neither
is
there
the
least
little
in
the
Scriptures
founding
that
way
)
but
chiefly
that
speciall
communion
they
had
with
him
in
his
nature
(
having
then
their
severall
beings
respectively
in
his
loynes
)
and
consequently
in
his
sinne
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
See
more
of
this
in
the
Second
Part.
cap.
2.
Sect.
11
,
12
,
13.
in
whom
all
have
sinned
(
saith
Paul
.
)
Therfore
now
the
ground
of
that
punishment
or
condemnation
which
is
come
upon
all
men
,
is
not
the
imputation
of
Adams
sinne
,
much
lesse
of
the
act
of
Adams
sinne
(
as
before
we
distinguished
,
but
if
any
imputation
be
in
this
case
,
it
is
of
every
mans
owne
sinne
in
Adam
,
for
it
was
not
Adam
alone
that
sinned
,
but
all
sinned
in
him
it
is
every
mans
owne
sinne
that
is
imputed
to
him
,
and
for
which
he
is
punished
.
As
Levi
himselfe
is
said
to
have
paied
tithes
in
the
loynes
of
Abraham
his
Father
,
not
that
Abraham's
paying
of
tithes
was
imputed
to
Levi
,
Heb.
7.9.10
.
so
neither
is
it
to
be
said
,
that
Adams
sinne
is
imputed
to
his
posterity
,
but
rather
that
this
posteritie
themselves
sinned
in
Adam
;
and
it
is
but
every
mans
own
sin
,
not
Adams
,
that
is
imputed
to
him
.
To
make
a
bare
and
district
imputation
of
the
act
of
anothers
sin
,
the
adequate
and
sole
ground
and
foundation
of
that
heavy
judgement
and
punishment
that
is
layed
upon
all
men
in
this
kind
,
is
not
so
much
to
represent
God
to
the
minds
and
consciences
of
men
,
as
a
district
,
just
and
severe
Judge
(
which
with
their
interpretations
may
be
affirmed
of
him
)
as
to
make
him
so
farre
to
take
pleasure
,
or
to
delight
in
blood
,
and
in
the
ruine
of
his
creature
,
that
he
will
take
occasion
,
even
where
none
is
,
to
slay
and
to
destroy
with
death
And
of
the
two
(
doubtlesse
)
it
were
lesse
dishonourable
unto
God
,
to
conceive
or
say
of
him
in
this
case
,
that
he
fell
thus
heavie
in
wrath
and
judgement
upon
the
whole
posterity
of
Adam
,
because
he
would
doe
it
,
or
because
it
was
his
absolute
will
and
pleasure
so
to
doe
:
then
to
pretend
or
conceive
the
bare
imputation
of
the
act
of
Adams
sin
,
the
cause
or
reason
of
it
.
For
in
the
former
,
the
absolute
power
or
Soveraigntie
of
God
over
the
creature
,
is
plainly
asserted
(
though
perhaps
in
terms
somwhat
harder
then
many
eares
will
well
beare
)
but
in
the
latter
,
there
is
only
a
cold
and
hungry
pretence
alledged
,
to
beare
out
one
of
the
greatest
and
most
weighty
acts
of
judgement
that
ever
God
exercised
.
Of
the
two
it
is
lesse
dishonourable
to
a
Prince
or
Monarch
,
to
professe
a
power
above
Law
,
then
to
exercise
it
under
a
pretence
of
justice
.
And
what
is
there
more
in
the
imputation
of
Adams
sinne
,
to
make
the
punishment
of
it
upon
all
his
posterity
,
an
act
of
justice
in
God
,
or
to
ease
the
conceit
of
absolute
Sovereigntie
,
then
if
there
were
no
such
imputation
at
all
?
Or
suppose
God
should
repute
me
to
have
sin'd
in
Adam
,
and
because
he
so
reputeth
me
,
shall
execute
judgement
upon
me
;
in
case
I
did
not
so
sinne
,
as
God
reputeth
me
to
have
done
,
it
had
bin
altogether
as
much
justice
in
God
to
have
punished
me
without
any
such
reputing
me
to
have
sinned
,
as
with
it
.
But
in
case
I
did
sinne
(
as
the
Scripture
testifieth
to
my
face
I
did
)
now
there
is
no
necessity
or
occason
why
God
should
impute
Adams
sinne
unto
me
,
to
make
me
capable
of
punishment
:
the
imputation
of
this
my
owne
sinne
is
abundantly
sufficient
.
Besides
,
suppose
I
could
not
be
truly
said
to
have
sinned
my selfe
,
being
yet
in
the
loynes
of
Adam
,
and
so
my
owne
sinne
not
to
be
imputed
unto
me
:
yet
my
communion
with
Adam
in
his
nature
,
or
my
neere
relation
to
him
,
being
one
of
his
children
and
posterity
,
upon
the
former
supposition
,
that
Adams
sin
was
not
punishable
to
the
height
in
the
punishment
of
his
person
only
,
is
a
full
and
sufficient
ground
to
beare
out
the
justice
of
God
,
in
laying
all
that
punishment
upon
me
he
hath
done
.
But
of
all
conceits
or
apprehensions
in
this
point
,
that
hath
the
least
consistencie
with
sobernes
and
truth
,
which
makes
the
impuputation
of
the
act
of
Adams
sin
,
which
act
was
more
from
God
,
then
from
Adam
,
as
hath
bin
said
,
though
the
sinfulnes
of
this
act
,
was
wholly
from
Adam
,
and
not
at
all
from
God
)
to
his
posterity
,
to
be
the
reason
and
ground
of
that
fore
punishment
wherin
they
are
all
included
&
involved
:
as
if
Gods
reputing
a
world
of
men
to
have
done
that
,
which
indeed
was
from
himselfe
(
and
therfore
could
at
no
hand
be
sinfull
)
were
a
sufficient
ground
in
justice
&
equiti●
,
to
bring
the
guilt
of
everlasting
death
and
wrath
upon
them
.
The
summe
of
all
that
●ath
bin
reasoned
at
large
in
this
Chapter
,
SECT.
16
amounteth
to
this
:
1.
that
the
imputablenes
of
the
transgression
of
the
Law
(
were
it
granted
)
from
one
person
to
another
,
doth
not
necessarily
evince
the
like
imputability
of
the
obedience
of
the
Law
.
2.
that
in
Scripture
,
there
is
nothing
said
to
be
imputed
unto
any
man
but
that
which
was
his
,
before
the
imputation
.
3.
that
to
impute
,
doth
never
signifie
the
bare
ascribing
or
setting
over
any
act
good
or
bad
,
unto
any
man
:
but
a
suitable
dealing
by
the
person
,
to
whom
the
imputation
is
made
,
according
either
to
the
merit
or
demerit
,
of
such
an
act
.
4.
that
therfore
,
neither
the
act
of
any
mans
obedience
nor
disobedience
to
the
Law
,
can
either
in
Scripture
language
,
or
propriety
of
speech
,
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
any
other
,
then
to
the
persons
themselves
,
obeying
and
disobeying
.
5.
That
the
Scriptures
are
altogether
silent
concerning
the
imputation
of
Adams
sin
to
his
posterity
.
6.
That
reason
it self
fully
demonstrates
,
any
such
imputation
,
to
be
no
sufficient
or
tollerable
ground
or
reason
,
why
God
in
a
way
of
justice
and
equity
,
might
involve
Adams
posterity
with
his
person
,
in
the
punishment
due
to
his
sin
.
7.
(
and
lastly
)
that
there
are
other
grounds
herof
both
more
agreeable
to
reason
,
&
to
the
rules
&
principles
of
common
justice
&
equity
:
so
that
there
is
not
so
much
as
the
least
degree
of
any
necessity
,
to
bring
the
Imputation
of
Adams
sin
(
in
the
sence
pressed
by
our
adversaries
for
their
turns
)
upon
this
theatre
The
Conclusion
resulting
from
the
constellation
of
these
particulars
,
is
easily
discerned
to
be
this
,
that
the
Imputation
of
Adams
sin
to
his
posterity
,
is
no
better
Argument
to
prove
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
(
in
the
sence
questioned
)
to
beleevers
then
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
,
is
to
prove
,
the
imputation
of
Adams
sin
:
and
that
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
(
in
the
sence
urged
and
opposed
)
have
any
firm
footing
either
in
reason
or
Religion
.
The
end
of
the
first
part
.
THE
SECOND
PART
,
CAP.
I.
Wherein
is
contained
a
briefe
proposall
of
the
Particulars
in
this
Second
Part.
HAving
brought
forth
our
strength
,
both
of
Scripture
and
Reason
(
seconded
in
both
with
sufficient
authorities
of
men
of
best
esteeme
)
as
well
to
overthrow
the
conclusion
set
up
by
the
Adversary
in
the
Question
debated
,
as
to
establish
that
which
we
have
undertaken
for
and
oppose
against
it
:
it
remaines
,
that
for
the
making
good
the
ground
which
we
have
gotten
,
we
should
disarme
our
enemies
,
and
take
away
those
weapons
from
them
wherein
they
trust
,
by
answering
those
Scriptures
and
Reasons
which
are
usually
chosen
for
the
service
of
this
warrefare
,
and
whereby
some
endeavour
as
well
to
build
up
,
what
we
have
laboured
hitherto
to
throw
downe
,
as
to
cast
downe
what
we
have
to
built
up
.
The
truth
is
,
that
no
cause
or
truth
reigneth
in
fulnesse
of
glorie
and
peace
,
till
all
the
enemies
thereof
be
,
either
reconciled
or
put
under
his
feete
.
In
consideration
whereof
.
I
shall
no
wayes
smoother
or
dissemble
any
objection
of
the
adverse
party
,
as
farre
as
I
know
,
they
have
yet
pleaded
,
or
can
conceive
,
they
may
possibly
plead
yet
further
for
themselves
in
the
point
depending
,
nor
seeke
to
gaine
the
least
advantage
to
my selfe
by
cutting
the
haire
,
or
diminishing
the
strength
of
any
argument
,
I
shall
propound
against
my selfe
to
answer
:
but
rather
on
the
other
side
,
shall
shew
all
fairenesse
and
faithfulnesse
in
relieving
my
adversaries
,
in
their
oversights
and
as
farre
as
my
ability
extendeth
endeavour
to
supply
that
which
is
wanting
on
their
part
,
in
maintenance
of
the
cause
they
have
undertaken
.
I
shall
therefore
in
this
Second
Part
of
my
Worke
:
first
lay
downe
and
prove
(
with
all
convenient
briefenesse
that
may
be
)
some
conclusions
,
which
have
speciall
relation
to
the
Question
depending
,
and
will
give
a
further
light
of
insight
therein
,
and
which
will
be
as
foundations
or
grounds
to
frame
answers
upon
,
to
severall
objections
that
are
,
or
may
be
made
,
against
the
decision
maintained
in
this
Discourse
.
2.
I
shall
lay
downe
and
open
some
distinctions
,
which
will
make
a
cleare
and
lightsome
way
for
the
truth
through
the
darkenesse
of
many
difficulties
,
which
seeme
to
oppose
it
on
every
side
,
as
well
from
the
Scriptures
,
as
reasoning
otherwise
.
3.
I
shall
lay
downe
the
nature
and
purport
of
Iustification
,
in
the
severall
causes
and
carriages
thereof
according
to
the
Scriptures
,
as
farre
as
I
am
able
to
conceive
.
4.
I
shall
briefely
propound
and
answer
the
Scriptures
that
are
conceived
to
make
against
the
opinion
contended
for
in
this
Treatise
,
according
to
the
tenour
and
importance
of
the
former
grounds
and
distinctions
.
5.
And
lastly
,
I
shall
with
like
brevitie
close
the
whole
businesse
,
by
propounding
and
answering
the
reasons
and
Arguments
,
that
seeme
chiefely
to
lye
against
,
the
Doctrine
hitherto
maintained
.
CAP.
II.
Some
Conclusions
laid
downe
,
and
proved
for
the
further
clearing
of
the
Point
in
Question
,
and
for
answering
sundry
of
the
Objections
following
.
HE
for
whose
sinnes
a
plenary
satisfaction
hath
beene
made
(
either
by
himselfe
,
or
another
for
him
,
Conclusion
1
SECT.
1
and
hath
beene
accepted
by
him
against
whom
the
transgression
was
committed
,
is
as
just
and
righteous
,
as
he
that
never
sinn'd
,
but
had
done
all
things
that
were
requisite
and
meete
for
him
to
doe
:
This
is
evident
:
because
there
is
as
much
justice
and
righteousnesse
in
repairing
the
wrongs
and
injuries
done
to
any
,
as
there
is
in
abstaining
from
doing
wrong
.
Hee
that
by
his
cattel
,
or
otherwise
,
hath
made
spoile
in
his
neighbours
corne
,
and
hath
given
him
full
satisfaction
for
the
spoyle
done
to
his
contentment
,
is
as
good
a
neighbour
,
and
deales
as
justly
and
honestly
with
him
,
as
he
that
never
trespassed
in
that
kind
upon
him
.
The
essence
and
nature
of
Justice
or
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
we
now
speake
of
)
is
this
(
as
the
knowne
definition
gives
it
)
Suum
cutque
tribuere
;
to
give
to
every
one
his
owne
,
i.
that
which
in
a
way
of
equity
and
right
is
due
from
us
unto
them
.
Now
when
we
have
injured
or
damnified
any
man
in
any
of
his
rights
,
or
things
belonging
to
him
,
there
is
nothing
more
due
to
him
from
us
,
then
that
which
is
his
owne
,
i.
that
which
is
fully
valuable
to
the
injurie
we
have
done
unto
him
.
Therefore
he
that
tenders
a
valuable
consideration
,
or
satisfaction
,
for
an
injurie
done
to
another
,
is
just
according
to
the
height
and
utmost
exigencie
of
justice
,
and
consequently
as
just
as
he
that
never
was
injurious
,
or
did
wrong
.
There
is
no
medium
,
or
middle
condition
or
standing
,
beteewne
a
perfect
absolution
and
freedome
from
all
sinne
,
and
a
perfect
and
compleate
righteousnesse
;
Conclu
.
2
SECT.
2
but
hee
that
is
fully
discharged
and
freed
from
sinne
,
ipso
facto
,
is
made
perfectly
and
compleately
righteous
.
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
p.
34.
And
Mr.
Bradshaw
Iustisi
.
p.
78.
&c.
The
reason
of
this
is
evident
:
nothing
can
any
way
diminish
or
prejudice
the
perfection
of
righteousnesse
,
but
only
sin
:
as
nothing
can
hinder
perfection
of
light
,
but
darkenesse
in
one
degree
or
other
,
or
perfection
of
sight
,
but
blindnes
in
some
degree
or
other
.
So
that
as
the
aire
when
it
is
free
from
all
degrees
of
darkenesse
must
of
necessitie
be
perfectly
and
fully
light
,
and
a
man
that
is
in
no
measure
or
degree
blinde
,
must
needs
be
perfectly
sighted
:
so
he
that
is
perfectly
freed
from
all
sinne
whatsoever
must
of
necessitie
be
compleately
and
perfectly
righteous
withall
.
It
is
unpossible
to
conceive
a
man
defective
in
any
part
or
point
of
righteousnesse
,
and
yet
withall
to
conceive
him
free
from
all
sinne
,
sinne
and
righteousnesse
being
in
subjecto
capaci
contraria
immediata
,
as
Logicians
speak
.
The
Scriptures
themselves
stil
make
an
immediate
opposition
between
the
two
Natures
or
Conditions
we
speake
of
,
Sinne
,
and
righteousnesse
,
never
acknowledging
,
or
so
much
mentioning
a-any
third
between
them
.
As
by
one
mansdisobedience
(
saith
Paul
)
many
were
made
sinners
;
so
by
the
obedience
,
of
one
shall
many
be
made
righteous
.
To
findout
a
third
estate
betweene
sina
nd
righteousnesse
,
we
must
find
out
a
third
Adam
,
from
whom
it
should
be
derived
.
An
estate
of
neutrality
here
,
is
such
an
estate
or
condition
,
as
the
man
in
the
Moone
enjoyeth
.
Adam
,
Conclusion
3
SECT.
3
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
p.
28.
whilst
his
innocencie
stood
with
him
,
and
till
his
fall
by
sinne
,
was
compleately
righteous
,
and
an
estate
of
justification
before
God
;
yea
,
for
the
truth
and
substance
of
righteousnesse
,
as
righteous
,
as
he
could
or
should
have
beene
,
if
he
had
liv'd
to
this
day
in
the
most
entire
and
absolute
obedience
to
the
Law
.
His
righteousnesse
by
this
meanes
had
beene
of
a
longer
continuance
,
but
not
of
any
greater
perfection
or
truth
.
Even
as
the
second
Adam
,
the
Lord
Christ
himselfe
,
was
as
compleately
and
perfectly
righteous
from
the
wombe
and
so
from
his
first
entrance
upon
his
publique
ministery
as
he
was
at
last
when
he
suffered
death
.
And
had
there
beene
any
defect
or
want
of
righteousnesse
in
Christ
at
any
time
from
his
conception
to
his
death
it
must
needs
have
beene
sinfull
(
all
absence
of
righteousnesse
necessarily
including
a
presence
of
sinne
as
the
absence
of
light
a
presence
of
darkenesse
answerable
thereunto
)
and
consequently
the
great
worke
of
the
salvation
of
the
world
had
miscarried
in
his
hand
.
To
say
that
Adam
was
not
perfectly
righteous
,
and
consequently
in
a
justified
estate
or
condition
before
God
,
untill
his
fall
by
sin
,
is
to
place
him
in
an
estate
of
condemnation
before
his
sinne
,
there
being
no
middle
or
third
estate
betweene
these
two
.
Justification
and
Condemnation
,
as
the
Scriptures
evidently
imply
in
many
passages
as
Rom.
5.18
.
Deut.
25.1
.
Rom.
33.34
.
&c.
in
all
which
places
(
with
some
others
)
you
shall
finde
an
immediate
opposition
betweene
them
.
But
especially
this
appeareth
from
Rom.
8.1.2
.
compared
with
verse
3.
and
4.
where
you
will
finde
Justification
described
by
non-condemnation
,
or
freedome
from
the
Law
of
sinne
and
death
:
if
there
were
a
third
estate
or
condition
,
betweene
justification
and
condemnation
,
non-condemnation
would
not
so
much
as
necessarily
imply
justification
,
much
lesse
be
used
as
a
clause
or
terme
equivolant
thereunto
.
Therefore
to
grant
,
that
forgivenesse
of
sinne
puts
a
man
into
the
same
estate
and
condition
wherein
Adam
stood
before
his
fall
(
which
is
generally
granted
by
men
of
opposite
judgement
in
this
controversie
,
and
nothing
granted
,
neither
in
this
,
but
the
unqeustionable
truth
)
is
to
grant
the
Point
in
question
,
and
to
acknowledge
the
truth
laboured
for
throughout
this
whole
Discourse
.
Perfect
remission
or
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
includes
the
imputation
or
acknowledgement
of
the
observation
of
the
whole
Law
,
Conclu
.
4
SECT.
4
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
p.
27.28
.
Omnia
mandata
factadeputantur
,
quando
quicquid
non
fit
,
ignoscitur
.
Aug.
Retra
.
l.
1.
c.
19.
even
as
the
imputation
of
the
Law
fulfilled
,
necessarily
includes
the
non-imputation
of
sinne
,
or
the
forgivenesse
of
all
sinne
,
in
case
any
hath
beene
committed
For
how
can
he
be
said
to
have
all
his
sinnes
fully
forgiven
who
is
yet
look'd
upon
or
intended
to
be
dealt
withall
,
as
one
that
hath
transgressed
,
either
by
way
of
omission
,
or
commission
,
any
part
of
the
Law
,
and
he
that
is
look'd
upon
,
as
one
that
never
transgressed
any
part
of
the
Law
,
neither
by
omission
,
nor
commission
must
needs
be
conceived
or
look'd
upon
as
one
that
hath
fulfilled
and
kept
the
whole
Law
which
is
nothing
else
but
to
have
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
a
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
Law
imputed
to
him
.
So
that
besides
that
perfect
remission
of
sinnes
,
which
hath
beene
purchased
by
the
blood
of
Jesus
Christ
for
those
that
beleeve
,
there
is
no
neede
of
(
indeede
no
place
for
)
the
imputation
of
any
righteousnesse
performed
by
Christ
unto
the
Law
,
because
in
that
very
act
of
remission
of
sinnes
,
there
is
included
an
imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
:
or
to
speake
more
properly
,
and
with
Scripture
exactnesse
,
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
remitteth
and
pardoneth
sinne
,
is
interpretatively
,
nothing
else
but
an
impuattion
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
or
of
a
fulfilling
of
the
Law
.
Compare
Rom.
4.
ver.
6.
with
ver.
7.
and
11.
Even
as
that
act
of
the
Physition
by
which
he
recovereth
his
patient
from
his
sicknesse
,
may
with
full
proprietie
of
speech
be
called
that
act
,
whereby
he
restoreth
him
to
his
health
:
this
expression
were
but
a
plaine
interpretation
of
the
other
,
and
no
more
nor
any
thing
else
in
substance
,
but
it
.
And
so
that
Act
,
by
which
the
Sunne
dispells
the
darkenesse
,
may
indifferently
be
called
that
act
,
by
which
hee
fills
the
Aire
with
light
.
And
as
the
Physitian
doth
not
heale
the
disease
by
one
act
,
and
recover
or
restore
health
by
another
act
,
really
differing
from
it
,
but
doth
both
by
one
and
the
same
act
,
healing
the
disease
,
and
restoring
,
of
health
,
being
but
two
differing
names
or
considerations
of
one
and
the
same
thing
;
In
like
manner
,
God
doth
not
heale
sinne
,
that
is
,
forgive
sinne
by
one
act
,
and
restore
the
life
of
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
impute
righteousnesse
by
another
act
at
all
differing
from
it
,
but
in
and
by
one
and
the
same
punctuall
and
precise
act
,
hee
doth
the
one
and
the
other
;
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
and
imputation
of
righteousnesse
;
being
but
two
different
names
,
expressions
,
or
considerations
of
one
and
the
same
thing
.
And
as
it
is
but
one
and
the
same
person
that
is
sometimes
called
Iesus
,
and
sometimes
Christ
,
and
the
person
Iesus
,
is
sometimes
called
by
the
name
of
Christ
,
to
import
and
signifie
,
that
he
is
an
annointed
one
;
and
againe
,
the
person
Christ
,
is
sometimes
called
by
the
name
Iesus
,
to
signifie
that
he
is
a
Saviour
:
even
so
one
and
the
same
act
of
God
is
sometimes
called
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
and
sometimes
an
imputing
of
righteousnesse
,
and
the
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
is
sometimes
called
an
imputing
of
righteousnesse
,
to
shew
and
signifie
that
a
man
needs
nothing
to
a
compleate
righteousnesse
,
or
justification
,
but
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sinnes
:
and
againe
,
the
imputing
of
righteousnesse
,
is
sometimes
called
the
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
to
shew
that
God
hath
no
other
righteousnesse
to
conferre
upon
a
sinner
,
but
that
which
stands
in
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
.
So
that
these
two
termes
or
expressions
;
imputing
righteousnesse
,
and
forgiving
sinne
,
do
but
aide
and
assist
one
the
other
towards
a
full
explication
of
the
nature
and
importance
of
that
act
of
God
,
which
sometimes
goeth
under
the
one
name
,
and
sometimes
under
the
other
.
If
it
be
here
demanded
:
SECT.
5
but
how
can
God
be
said
to
impute
a
righteousnesse
to
a
man
,
which
never
was
,
nor
ever
had
a
being
,
no
righteousnesse
(
at
least
of
that
kinde
,
whereof
we
now
speake
)
having
ever
beene
,
but
that
perfect
obedience
which
Christ
performed
to
the
Law
?
I
answer
,
1.
That
there
is
as
expresse
and
compleate
a
righteousnesse
in
the
Law
,
as
ever
Christ
himselfe
performed
:
yea
,
a
righteousnesse
more
proper
,
and
appropriable
to
all
sorts
and
conditions
of
men
,
than
that
personall
righteousnesse
which
Christ
himselfe
performed
(
as
was
shewed
at
large
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
)
And
what
if
it
be
said
,
that
God
,
in
remission
of
sins
through
Christ
from
and
out
of
the
Law
imputeth
to
every
man
that
beleeveth
,
such
a
righteousnesse
as
is
proper
to
him
?
This
I
am
certaine
,
is
a
thousand
times
more
agreeable
both
to
reason
and
to
the
Scriptures
,
then
to
hold
an
imputation
of
such
a
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
of
such
a
systeme
and
frame
of
actions
,
which
were
indeed
a
righteousnesse
to
him
that
wrought
them
,
the
Law
requiring
them
of
him
,
but
can
be
a
righteousnesse
to
none
other
person
whatsoever
,
the
Law
requiring
the
same
acts
for
no
man
is
therefore
just
or
righteous
,
because
he
doth
the
things
which
the
Law
simply
requireth
,
but
because
he
doth
those
things
which
the
Law
requireth
of
him
,
in
reverence
to
his
personall
condition
,
calling
,
and
relations
in
every
kinde
.
A
man
may
be
as
wicked
and
sinfull
by
doing
that
which
the
Law
requireth
of
another
man
,
as
by
doing
that
which
the
Law
prohibiteth
unto
all
men
.
But
of
this
enough
already
.
But
2.
To
the
Objection
propounded
,
I
answer
,
further
,
that
to
say
God
cannot
impute
a
righteousnesse
which
never
had
a
being
,
i.
which
never
was
really
and
actuually
performed
by
any
man
,
is
to
deny
that
he
hath
power
to
forgive
sinnes
.
Because
for
givenesse
of
sinne
is
an
imputation
of
righteousnesse
(
as
hath
beene
proved
)
yea
,
and
of
such
a
righteousnesse
which
as
the
Scripture
teacheth
us
,
is
without
workes
,
(
Rom.
4
6.
Rom.
3.28
&c.
)
i.
a
righteousnesse
,
not
consisting
or
made
up
of
any
workes
performed
to
the
Law
by
any
man
:
and
what
is
this
,
but
such
a
righteousnesse
,
as
never
had
a
being
?
Conclusi
.
5
Hee
that
is
fully
acquitted
and
discharged
from
his
sinnes
,
SECT.
6
needeth
no
other
righteousnesse
,
to
give
him
a
right
or
title
unto
life
.
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
p.
27.34
.
&c.
The
Reason
of
this
is
evident
also
.
Death
is
the
wages
of
sin
,
and
of
sin
only
,
being
due
to
no
creature
in
any
other
respect
nor
upon
any
other
terme
whatsoever
:
and
therefore
cannot
in
a
way
of
ordinary
justice
be
inflicted
by
God
upon
any
creature
,
but
for
sin
.
Now
he
that
is
free
from
death
,
and
no
wayes
obnoxious
thereunto
,
See
Mr.
Bradshaw
Iustific
.
p.
79.
cannot
but
be
conceived
to
have
a
right
unto
life
,
there
being
neither
any
middle
condition
betweene
death
and
life
,
wherein
it
is
possible
for
a
reasonable
creature
to
subsist
,
nor
againe
any
capacity
of
life
,
but
by
some
right
and
title
thereunto
.
Adam
whilst
his
innocency
and
he
stood
together
,
and
whilst
he
was
free
from
sinne
,
had
a
right
and
title
unto
life
,
yea
,
and
had
the
possession
and
fruition
of
it
given
unto
him
;
(
for
how
could
he
be
threatned
with
death
,
Gen.
2.17
.
who
was
not
actually
possessed
of
life
)
though
he
had
not
yet
performed
the
Law
;
either
by
himselfe
or
any
other
for
him
,
in
any
such
sence
as
is
contended
for
by
some
,
as
of
absolute
necessitie
to
give
a
right
and
title
unto
life
:
and
if
he
had
not
a
right
unto
life
by
his
freedome
from
sinne
,
but
was
to
purchase
this
right
by
an
actuall
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
it
would
be
known
,
what
quantities
of
obedience
to
the
Law
hee
must
have
paid
,
before
he
had
made
this
purchase
,
and
how
long
he
must
have
obeyed
and
kept
the
Law
,
before
this
right
and
title
unto
life
would
have
accru'd
unto
him
.
For
had
he
lived
a
1000.
yeares
in
his
integritie
and
uprightnesse
without
the
least
touch
of
any
transgression
,
he
had
still
bin
a
debtor
of
obedience
to
the
Law
,
upon
the
same
termes
that
he
was
at
the
beginning
,
and
the
least
interruption
or
breach
in
the
course
of
his
obedience
,
had
even
now
beene
the
forfeiture
of
that
life
hee
enjoyed
.
So
then
this
position
also
is
unquestionably
true
,
that
there
needs
no
other
righteousnesse
,
but
onely
the
forgivenesse
of
,
or
freedome
from
sinne
,
to
give
a
man
a
cleare
and
lawfull
title
unto
life
.
Notwithstanding
the
Scriptures
of
the
new
Testament
,
seeme
to
place
the
immediate
right
or
capacitie
which
beleevers
have
to
the
Kingdome
of
heaven
,
and
eternall
glory
,
rather
in
the
grace
of
Adoption
or
Sunship
vouchsafed
by
God
unto
them
through
Jesus
Christ
,
then
in
any
righteousnesse
whatsoever
(
even
remission
of
sinnes
it selfe
not
excepted
,
(
as
was
proved
more
at
large
in
the
12th
.
Chapter
of
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
.
The
reason
whereof
may
(
haply
)
be
this
:
because
the
life
and
blessednesse
which
come
by
Jesus
Christ
to
the
world
through
Faith
,
are
of
a
farre
higher
nature
,
excellencie
,
and
worth
,
than
that
life
which
was
covenanted
by
God
with
Adam
,
by
way
of
wages
for
his
worke
,
or
obedience
to
the
Law
;
and
therefore
require
a
higher
,
and
fuller
,
and
richer
capacity
or
title
in
the
creature
,
to
interesse
him
therein
,
than
that
did
.
Worke
or
labour
faithfully
performed
,
is
sufficient
to
entitle
a
man
to
his
wages
,
or
hire
:
the
labourer
(
saith
Christ
)
is
worthy
of
his
hire
:
but
the
gift
of
an
inheritance
,
requireth
a
speciall
grace
and
favour
,
no
lesse
than
of
an
Adoption
to
make
a
man
regularly
,
and
according
to
the
usuall
course
of
humane
transactions
capable
thereof
.
That
satisfaction
which
Christ
made
to
the
justice
of
God
for
sin
,
Conclusion
6
SECT.
7
and
whereby
he
procured
remission
of
sinnes
(
or
,
perfect
righteousnesse
)
and
reconciliation
with
God
for
those
that
beleeve
,
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
.
p.
4.15.25
.
And
Paraus
de
Iustit
.
Christi
.
Act.
&
pass.
p.
168.
&
180.
consists
onely
in
that
obedience
of
his
,
which
he
performed
to
that
peculiar
and
speciall
Law
of
mediation
which
God
imposed
upon
him
(
which
we
commonly
,
though
perhaps
not
altogether
so
properly
call
his
passive
obedience
)
and
not
at
all
in
that
obedience
or
subjection
which
he
exhibited
to
that
common
Law
of
nature
,
which
we
call
morall
.
This
is
evident
;
because
nothing
can
be
satisfactory
to
divine
justice
for
sinne
,
but
that
which
is
penall
,
without
shedding
of
blood
(
saith
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
9.22
)
there
is
no
remission
,
and
consequently
no
satisfaction
:
for
doubtlesse
where
there
is
satisfaction
;
there
is
,
and
may
be
remission
.
Now
that
that
obedience
or
subjection
which
Christ
exhibited
to
the
morall
Law
,
was
no
wayes
penall
to
him
,
is
evident
from
hence
:
Penall
to
him
in
respect
of
his
Godhead
it
could
not
be
,
the
divine
Nature
being
no
wayes
passive
in
it selfe
,
nor
capable
of
punishment
.
Againe
,
in
respect
of
his
humane
nature
,
this
obedience
could
not
be
penall
,
because
it
was
required
of
man
in
his
innocency
,
and
imposed
by
God
upon
Adam
before
his
fall
:
yea
,
and
still
lieth
,
and
shall
he
to
the
dayes
of
eternity
,
upon
men
and
Angels
,
yea
and
upon
Jesus
Christ
himselfe
in
their
glorified
conditions
.
Love
(
which
the
Apostle
affirmeth
to
be
the
fulfilling
or
keeping
of
the
Law
)
never
falleth
away
.
Therefore
to
make
obedience
to
the
morall
Law
,
penall
,
is
to
affirme
,
that
man
was
punished
;
and
that
by
order
and
appointment
from
God
before
his
fall
,
or
before
hee
sinned
,
and
that
the
glorified
Saints
and
Angels
,
yea
and
Iesus
Christ
himselfe
are
now
punished
in
heaven
.
Besides
,
the
Scriptures
themselves
no
where
ascribe
this
satisfaction
we
speak
of
,
or
the
work
of
Redemption
,
nor
any
part
or
degree
of
it
to
the
holinesse
,
innocency
,
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
but
still
to
his
passive
.
See
Rom.
3.25
.
Rom.
5.6
,
8.
2
Cor.
5.21
,
Eph.
1.7
.
Ephe.
2.16
.
Col.
1.14
.
Heb.
2.14
.
Heb.
9.12.14.26
.
Heb.
10.10
.
1
Pet.
2.24
.
1
Pet.
3.18
,
1
Iohn
1.7
.
Revel.
1.5
.
&c.
Besides
many
other
places
of
like
importance
,
Conclusion
7
But
this
is
a
point
which
I
have
had
occasion
to
prosecute
more
at
large
elsewhere
,
SECT.
8
where
I
have
fully
answered
that
common
answer
and
exception
to
these
and
such
like
Scriptures
,
See
Mr.
Gataker
against
Gomarus
,
p.
8.19.20
.
&c.
Qui
verò
obedientiae
activae
,
aut
sanctitati
nativae
,
meritum
justitia
ascribun●
,
mortem
Christi
fine
dubio
inanem
reddunt
.
Par.
de
Iustic
.
Christi
Activa
&
Pas●va
.
p.
181.182
.
that
they
are
all
figurative
,
and
by
a
Synechdoche
,
expresse
the
whole
by
mentioning
only
a
part
.
Therefore
I
shall
not
further
insist
upon
this
here
.
If
Christ
had
fulfilled
and
kept
the
Law
for
us
,
i.
in
our
steed
till
the
utmost
period
of
his
life
,
there
had
beene
no
occasion
or
necessity
of
his
dying
for
us
.
There
is
no
light
clearer
than
this
.
For
if
we
stand
before
God
by
vertue
of
the
perfect
obedience
of
Christs
life
imputed
to
us
as
our
owne
righteousnesse
and
obedience
to
the
Law
,
perfectly
righteous
,
we
are
no
more
obnoxious
to
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
and
consequently
have
no
neede
of
any
satisfaction
to
divine
justice
,
nor
of
any
remission
of
sinnes
by
blood
.
Duo
ista
pronustciata
,
Christu●
sanguinis
effusione
redemit
nes
ab
execratione
legis
,
&
Christus
obedientiam
pr●stitit
pro●●●bis
,
implicant
contradictionem
.
Piscator
.
There
needs
nothing
more
to
a
perfect
justification
,
than
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
or
a
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
Law
.
This
the
Apostle
clearely
layeth
downe
,
Gal.
2.21
.
If
righteousnesse
be
by
the
Law
(
whether
performed
by
our selves
,
or
by
another
for
us
,
for
there
is
the
same
reason
of
both
in
respect
of
justification
)
then
Christ
is
dead
in
vaine
.
This
proposition
is
so
cleare
,
and
full
of
the
light
of
its
owne
truth
,
that
both
Piscator
,
and
Pareus
heretofore
,
and
Mr.
Gataker
of
late
,
have
not
simply
affirmed
,
but
with
more
than
an
ordinary
confidence
avouched
,
that
to
hold
an
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
amounts
to
no
lesse
than
an
abrogation
of
his
death
.
But
this
consequence
also
(
I
remember
)
I
have
argued
more
at
large
in
the
13.
Chap.
of
the
former
Part
of
this
Treatise
,
and
therefore
for
the
present
leave
it
.
Conclusi
.
8
That
Vnion
and
Communion
which
true
beleevers
have
with
Christ
,
SECT.
9
doth
no
wayes
require
or
suppose
any
such
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
unto
them
,
as
is
conceived
.
That
Vnion
and
Communion
which
the
wife
hath
with
the
husband
,
doth
not
require
,
that
whatsoever
the
husband
hath
should
be
imputed
to
the
wife
,
or
that
the
wife
should
be
reputed
to
have
whatsoever
the
husband
hath
.
The
wife
is
not
reputed
wise
,
because
the
husband
is
wise
,
she
may
be
weake
and
simple
notwithstanding
,
and
justly
so
reputed
to
be
:
neither
is
the
honestie
or
faithfulnesse
of
the
husband
in
marriage
so
imputed
to
the
wife
,
and
therefore
she
must
be
reputed
faithfull
and
honest
in
the
same
kinde
.
The
wife
may
be
loose
and
false
,
and
deservedly
so
esteemed
by
all
men
,
notwithstanding
her
union
and
communion
with
an
husband
,
of
upright
affections
,
neither
doth
the
union
and
communion
which
the
rest
of
the
members
of
the
body
have
with
the
head
,
necessarily
require
,
that
whatsoever
the
Head
hath
or
doth
,
should
be
imputed
to
all
the
members
respectively
.
The
eyes
which
are
in
the
head
,
are
not
imputed
to
the
hands
or
feete
,
nor
the
eares
which
grow
upon
the
head
,
imputed
to
the
heeles
,
nor
the
actions
or
naturall
functions
of
seeing
and
hearing
,
the
one
performed
by
the
eyes
,
the
other
by
the
eares
,
imputed
to
the
armes
or
legges
,
so
that
these
should
be
said
either
to
see
or
to
heare
as
they
doe
.
In
like
manner
there
is
not
the
least
shew
or
colour
of
pretence
,
to
build
a
necessity
of
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
to
beleevers
,
upon
that
union
and
communion
which
they
have
with
him
,
or
to
conclude
and
inferre
,
that
because
beleevers
have
union
and
communion
with
Christ
,
therefore
his
righteousnesse
must
be
theirs
in
such
a
sence
,
that
they
may
have
the
denomination
of
righteous
therefrom
,
or
be
constituted
and
made
righteous
therewith
.
May
it
not
be
said
with
as
much
reason
,
that
because
beleevers
have
union
and
communion
with
Christ
,
therefore
his
soule
and
his
body
must
needs
be
imputed
to
them
,
yea
and
his
wisedome
,
and
his
power
,
and
his
glory
imputed
to
them
also
,
so
that
they
are
esteemed
by
God
,
as
wise
,
as
powerfull
,
as
glorious
by
vertue
of
such
imputation
,
as
Christ
himselfe
is
.
That
union
and
communion
which
beleevers
have
with
Christ
,
SECT.
10
are
sufficiently
,
yea
abundantly
salved
and
made
good
in
these
and
such
like
particulars
.
1.
By
vertue
of
this
union
and
communion
with
him
,
they
are
actuall
members
of
that
mysticall
and
blessed
body
or
society
,
whereof
he
is
the
head
.
2.
They
are
partakers
of
the
same
spirit
with
him
who
dwelleth
in
them
,
as
he
dwelleth
in
Christ
himself
.
3.
They
have
communion
&
fellowship
in
the
same
fruits
and
effects
of
the
Spirit
with
him
.
4.
By
vertue
of
this
union
and
communion
with
him
they
have
part
and
fellowship
in
that
Redemption
,
which
he
hath
purchased
with
his
blood
.
5.
They
have
speciall
interest
in
that
infinite
wisedome
and
power
of
his
,
as
in
all
other
perfections
,
and
excellent
endowments
of
his
person
,
whereby
he
is
both
every
wayes
able
,
and
alwayes
ready
and
willing
to
doe
marvellously
for
them
,
and
to
advance
the
things
of
their
peace
.
6.
they
have
a
compleate
right
and
title
to
that
immortall
and
undefiled
inheritance
,
which
is
reserved
in
the
heavens
.
7.
They
have
communion
and
fellowship
with
God
himselfe
,
and
speciall
interest
in
his
love
.
8.
And
lastly
,
they
have
communion
and
fellowship
one
with
another
,
and
are
dearely
and
deepely
interessed
in
the
mutuall
affections
one
of
another
,
besides
many
other
rich
priviledges
of
like
nature
,
and
of
very
precious
concernment
.
So
that
to
deny
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
is
no
more
to
deny
or
any
wayes
to
obscure
their
union
&
communion
with
Christ
,
than
to
deny
that
the
miracles
which
Christ
wrought
are
imputed
to
us
,
or
than
to
deny
that
a
man
seeth
with
his
hands
,
or
healeth
with
his
heeles
,
is
a
denying
that
the
members
of
the
body
have
any
connexion
,
union
or
communion
,
with
the
head
.
The
sinne
in
of
Adam
is
no
where
in
Scripture
said
to
be
imputed
to
his
posterity
:
Conclusi
.
9
SECT.
11
neither
can
any
other
imputation
thereof
be
proved
,
either
by
Scripture
or
sound
reason
,
than
that
which
stands
,
either
in
a
communion
of
all
his
posteritie
with
him
therin
(
the
second
Adam
only
excepted
,
who
for
divers
reasons
was
an
exempt
person
)
or
els
in
a
propagation
of
his
nature
defiled
therewith
,
or
lastly
,
in
that
punishment
or
condemnation
that
is
come
upon
the
world
by
it
.
But
as
for
any
such
imputation
of
it
,
by
vertue
whereof
,
precisely
considered
,
and
simply
as
an
act
of
Gods
justice
,
all
his
posterity
should
be
constituted
and
made
formally
sinners
,
neither
doe
the
Scriptures
acknowledge
,
nor
sound
reason
admit
.
The
former
clause
of
this
Conclusion
is
unquestionable
.
The
Scriptures
wheresoever
they
speake
of
Adams
sin
,
and
the
relation
of
it
to
his
posterity
,
wholly
abstaine
from
the
terme
of
imputation
,
neither
doe
they
use
any
other
word
or
phrase
in
this
Argument
of
like
signification
and
importance
with
it
,
at
least
in
that
notion
and
sence
,
wherein
it
is
so
frequently
used
by
many
in
this
controversie
.
But
first
,
they
acknowledge
a
communion
betweene
Adam
and
his
posterity
(
except
the
before
excepted
)
in
this
sin
,
in
respect
whereof
,
the
sinne
may
as
well
be
attributed
to
any
,
and
to
all
of
his
posterity
,
as
to
Adam
himselfe
,
as
Abrahams
act
of
paying
tythes
to
Melchizedeth
,
is
ascribed
to
Levie
being
in
his
loynes
,
as
well
as
to
Abraham
himselfe
.
And
to
say
as
the
thing
is
(
saith
the
Holy
Ghost
,
Heb.
7.9
.
)
Levie
also
which
receiveth
tythes
,
paied
tythes
in
Abraham
.
The
truth
and
propriety
of
which
saying
,
he
makes
good
by
this
demonstration
in
the
next
words
.
For
he
was
yet
in
the
loynes
of
his
Father
[
Abraham
]
when
Melchizedech
met
him
.
It
is
not
here
said
,
that
Abrahams
paying
tythes
,
was
imputed
to
Levie
,
but
that
Levie
himselfe
payed
tythes
(
in
that
act
of
Abrahams
)
as
well
as
Abraham
.
So
that
this
act
of
paying
tythes
,
was
as
well
Levies
act
,
as
Abrahams
,
and
is
imputed
to
him
not
as
Abrahams
act
,
but
as
his
owne
.
In
like
manner
the
Scripture
plainely
affirmeth
,
that
all
Adams
posterity
sinn'd
in
Adam
(
in
that
first
sinne
of
his
especially
)
Rom.
5.12
.
but
it
no
where
affirmeth
,
that
Adams
sinne
is
imputed
to
them
.
Their
owne
sinne
in
Adam
,
may
with
good
propriety
of
speech
,
and
safety
of
truth
,
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
:
but
that
Adams
sinne
,
otherwise
than
as
it
is
or
was
theirs
,
as
well
as
his
,
by
reason
of
that
subsistance
and
being
they
had
in
him
or
in
his
loynes
,
should
be
imputed
to
them
,
hath
neither
ground
in
Scripture
,
nor
consistence
either
with
reason
or
truth
.
That
old
rule
in
Metaphysiques
,
SECT.
12
Operatio
rei
consequitur
esse
rei
,
i.
the
Acts
or
operations
of
things
still
follow
the
being
of
things
,
and
are
proportionable
and
suteable
thereunto
,
is
sound
and
rationall
,
and
of
perfect
agreement
with
that
Scripture
Reason
,
cited
from
Heb.
7.10
.
There
are
severall
kinds
of
beings
and
subsistences
of
things
.
A
thing
may
have
its
being
,
either
in
causis
,
or
extra
causas
,
i.
either
in
the
causes
of
it
onely
,
or
out
of
the
causes
viz.
when
it
is
actually
produced
and
in
a
compleate
being
.
Againe
,
those
things
that
have
their
beings
onely
in
their
causes
,
may
have
their
being
either
in
their
supernaturall
causes
onely
,
as
the
counsell
,
purpose
,
and
power
of
God
;
or
in
the
naturall
causes
also
,
that
is
,
when
such
things
have
an
actuall
and
compleate
being
,
which
according
to
the
common
course
of
nature
and
providence
,
are
able
and
apt
to
produce
them
.
Thus
in
Winter
,
the
Rose
may
be
said
to
have
a
being
in
the
roote
of
that
shrubbe
that
is
apt
to
beare
it
in
Summer
,
the
naturall
season
for
such
births
Thus
Levie
(
as
we
heard
)
is
said
to
have
beene
,
i.
to
have
had
a
being
,
in
the
loynes
of
Abraham
.
And
this
all
mankinde
,
even
Adams
whole
posterity
,
had
a
being
and
subsistence
in
Adam
.
Now
there
are
none
of
these
kinds
of
beings
and
subsistences
of
things
,
but
have
their
acts
and
operations
proportionable
and
proper
to
them
;
the
perfecter
being
,
the
perfecter
and
lesse
dependent
operation
.
Things
that
have
an
actuall
and
compleate
being
out
of
their
causes
,
act
,
and
worke
of
themselves
,
their
causes
that
produced
them
,
as
such
,
having
no
communion
or
fellowship
with
them
in
their
actions
:
Things
that
have
their
beings
onely
in
their
causes
,
act
and
operate
in
,
and
by
,
and
with
these
onely
,
as
having
their
whole
dependence
on
them
,
and
subsistence
in
them
,
yet
are
these
acts
and
operations
of
things
in
their
causes
onely
,
as
truely
theirs
,
though
not
as
perfectly
and
compleately
theirs
as
they
are
the
causes
themselves
,
in
and
by
whom
they
were
performed
.
Thus
Levie
did
as
truely
pay
tythes
in
Abraham
,
as
Abraham
himselfe
did
,
in
whom
he
paied
them
,
otherwise
wee
make
the
Scripture
lesse
true
,
in
affirming
the
one
,
then
the
other
.
So
that
act
of
eating
the
forbidden
fruit
by
Adam
,
was
as
truely
the
act
of
all
his
posterity
,
as
his
owne
,
though
not
so
compleately
and
perfectly
theirs
,
as
his
,
hee
having
no
dependance
on
them
,
or
subsistence
in
any
of
them
therein
,
but
they
all
depending
on
him
,
as
one
in
and
by
whom
God
had
given
them
all
their
beings
,
and
having
their
subsistence
in
him
,
as
the
naturall
productive
roote
of
all
their
actuall
&
compleate
beings
.
[
](A85397-e60940-b)a
a
The
Fathers
generally
have
taught
this
inexistence
or
being
of
all
men
in
Adam
.
Fuit
Adam
,
&
in
illo
perierunt
omnes
.
Amb.
in
Luc.
lib.
7.
Adam
erat
nos
omnes
:
omnes
eramus
ille
unus
Adam
.
Certum
manifestumque
est
,
alia
esse
propria
cuique
peccata
,
in
quibus
hi
tantum
peccant
,
quorum
peccata
sunt
,
aliud
hoc
unum
,
in
quo
omnes
peccaverunt
,
quando
omnes
ille
unus
homo
suerunt
.
Aug.
de
Peccat
.
Merit
.
&
Remis
.
l.
1.
c.
10.
In
Adamo
omnes
peccavimus
ib.
c.
13.
Si
parvuli
,
quod
vera
fides
habet
,
nasiuntur
peccatore●
,
profecto
eo
modo
quo
sunt
:
peccatores
,
etiam
pravaticatores
legis
illius
,
quae
in
Paradise
lata
est
,
agnoscuntur
,
Aug.
de
Civi
.
l.
16.
c.
27.
Qui
non
fuerit
regeneratus
,
interibit
,
anima
illa
de
genere
ejus
,
quia
testamentum
meum
dissipavit
,
quando
in
Adam
cum
omnibus
etiam
ipse
peccavit
,
ib.
There
being
then
a
certaine
and
unquestionable
truth
,
in
this
,
that
Adams
sinne
,
was
the
sinne
of
his
posteritie
,
as
well
as
of
his
person
,
this
the
Scripture
affirmeth
and
holdeth
forth
unto
us
,
as
one
maine
ground
and
consideration
,
why
and
how
the
world
comes
to
be
involved
in
the
guilt
and
punishment
of
Adams
transgression
.
2.
Adams
sinne
comes
to
relate
or
to
have
reference
to
his
posteritie
,
in
matter
of
pollution
and
defilement
,
and
consequently
of
guilt
and
punishment
by
naturall
descent
and
propagation
from
him
.
Adams
person
,
the
fountaine
and
spring-head
of
all
his
posteritie
,
being
corrupted
and
poysoned
with
him
,
except
God
should
have
wrought
miraculously
and
above
the
course
of
nature
,
either
by
a
through
purging
of
the
fountaine
,
before
any
streame
issued
from
it
,
or
by
dissevering
and
untwisting
(
as
it
were
)
the
poyson
from
the
waters
,
in
the
very
point
and
moment
of
their
issue
and
source
(
neither
of
which
he
was
any
wayes
bound
to
doe
)
could
not
but
send
forth
streames
of
like
corruption
and
defilement
with
the
fountaine
it selfe
.
This
the
Scripture
plainely
teacheth
in
many
places
.
Who
can
bring
a
cleane
thing
out
of
an
uncleane
?
not
one
,
Iob
14.4
.
God
himselfe
by
his
ordinary
power
cannot
doe
it
.
So
our
Saviour
,
Ioh.
3.6
.
That
which
is
borne
of
the
flesh
[
corrupted
and
weakened
by
sinne
]
is
[
by
the
course
of
nature
,
whereunto
God
himselfe
hath
righteously
consented
]
flesh
,
i.
a
creature
or
thing
of
the
same
sinfull
and
weake
nature
and
condition
with
it
.
And
(
to
forbeare
other
texts
of
like
importance
this
way
)
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
5.19
.
expresly
affirmeth
,
that
by
the
disobedience
of
one
(
meaning
Adam
)
many
were
made
sinners
:
not
by
the
imputation
of
the
Act
of
his
sinne
to
them
(
this
is
neither
Sunne
,
nor
Moone
,
neither
Scripture
,
nor
good
Reason
)
but
by
corrupting
and
defiling
his
owne
person
,
by
reason
whereof
,
all
that
are
borne
of
him
in
a
way
of
naturall
dissent
and
propagation
,
must
needs
be
borne
sinners
.
3.
(
And
lastly
)
death
and
condemnation
are
justly
come
upon
the
world
,
no
so
much
(
to
speake
properly
,
and
with
the
Scriptures
)
for
Adams
transgression
,
as
by
Adams
transgression
,
partly
as
this
transgression
of
his
was
the
sinne
and
transgression
of
the
world
(
as
hath
beene
already
said
and
proved
)
partly
as
by
meanes
of
this
sin
,
the
world
,
I
meane
all
the
sonnes
and
daughters
of
men
that
are
borne
into
it
,
are
become
personally
(
and
so
compleately
sinfull
.
In
this
sence
,
it
is
said
,
that
by
the
offence
of
one
death
reigned
(
viz.
over
all
)
by
one
)
Rom.
5.17
.
and
so
that
death
passed
over
all
,
in
that
all
had
sinned
,
ver.
12.
And
againe
,
that
judgement
came
by
one
unto
condemnation
,
ver.
16.
And
that
all
men
by
nature
are
children
of
wrath
,
&c.
Ephes.
23.
If
men
can
find
any
propriety
in
the
word
Imputation
,
to
signifie
any
of
these
three
Considerations
,
let
the
sinne
of
Adam
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
his
posterity
,
I
shall
no
wayes
contradict
it
:
but
for
any
such
imputation
,
as
is
pretended
and
pressed
by
many
,
by
which
men
should
be
constituted
and
made
formally
sinners
before
God
,
and
the
sinne
no
wayes
looked
upon
as
theirs
,
but
onely
by
meanes
of
such
imputation
.
I
neither
finde
the
Scriptures
affirming
,
nor
am
otherwise
able
to
comprehend
.
Though
justification
and
salvation
came
unto
the
world
by
Christ
the
second
Adam
,
Concusi
.
10
sect.
14
as
condemnation
and
death
came
by
the
first
Adam
,
yet
are
there
many
different
considerations
and
circumstances
,
betweene
the
comming
and
bringing
in
of
salvation
by
the
one
,
and
of
condemnation
by
the
other
.
The
Apostle
himselfe
gives
instance
in
two
particulars
wherein
they
differ
greatly
,
Rom.
5.15.16
.
And
besides
these
,
there
are
many
others
.
As
first
,
the
sinne
of
Adam
,
by
which
he
brought
condemnation
upon
the
world
,
was
as
well
the
act
of
all
his
posteritie
as
his
owne
,
in
which
respect
they
may
as
truely
be
said
to
have
brought
condemnation
upon
themselves
,
as
Adam
,
but
that
obedience
,
by
which
Christ
brought
salvation
into
the
world
,
can
with
no
propriety
of
speech
,
nor
with
any
consistence
of
truth
,
be
said
to
have
beene
theirs
,
or
performed
by
them
,
who
are
saved
by
it
,
so
that
these
cannot
now
be
said
with
any
more
truth
to
have
saved
themselves
,
then
if
they
had
not
beene
saved
at
all
.
It
is
said
indeede
,
that
God
was
in
Christ
reconciling
the
world
unto
himselfe
,
2
Cor.
5.19
.
But
it
is
no
where
said
,
that
the
world
was
in
Christ
reconciling
it selfe
unto
God
.
2.
Adam
by
his
sinne
brought
condemnation
upon
those
who
were
in
his
loynes
,
and
had
a
naturall
being
in
him
:
but
Christ
by
his
obedience
brought
salvation
unto
them
,
that
had
no
such
relation
to
him
,
nor
any
being
or
subsistance
in
him
,
either
naturall
or
spirituall
(
which
is
by
faith
)
but
were
wholly
aliens
and
strangers
from
him
,
yea
and
enemies
to
him
.
3.
All
those
that
are
condemned
by
Adam
had
their
being
in
him
altogether
,
at
one
and
the
same
time
.
Caine
was
not
in
Adam
,
before
Iudas
,
nor
Iudas
after
Caine
,
but
amongst
those
that
are
saved
by
Christ
;
there
is
an
order
and
difference
of
time
in
respect
of
their
ingraffing
into
him
:
some
are
sooner
,
and
some
later
in
him
.
Andronicus
,
and
Iunia
Pauls
Cozens
,
were
in
Christ
before
him
,
Rom.
16.7
.
4.
That
disobedience
of
Adam
by
which
he
brought
condemnation
upon
the
world
,
was
active
:
but
that
obedience
by
which
Christ
brings
salvation
to
the
world
,
is
passive
,
as
hath
beene
already
proved
,
and
may
further
appeare
by
comparing
,
Rom.
5.19
.
with
Phil.
2.8
.
&c.
5.
And
lastly
,
the
whole
weight
of
the
Redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
by
Christ
,
depended
upon
the
merit
and
satisfactorinesse
of
that
obedience
of
his
by
which
it
was
procured
,
and
not
at
all
upon
any
relation
of
those
to
him
or
seminall
involution
or
comprehension
in
him
,
for
whom
it
was
procured
but
the
burthen
of
the
condemnation
comming
by
the
transgression
of
Adam
,
depended
not
onely
(
or
not
so
much
)
upon
the
demerit
,
or
offensivenesse
of
the
transgression
but
upon
the
relation
of
those
to
him
who
were
condemned
by
him
,
as
having
a
true
naturall
and
seminall
being
in
him
or
in
his
loynes
,
when
he
transgressed
.
So
that
though
the
sin
of
Adam
had
bin
of
an
inferior
nature
and
of
lesse
demerit
&
provocation
in
the
sight
of
God
than
it
was
,
yet
might
Adams
posteritie
justly
have
bin
involv'd
in
the
same
condemnation
by
it
,
wherein
now
it
is
,
but
if
the
obedience
or
sufferings
of
Christ
had
beene
of
lesse
value
,
merit
,
acceptation
or
satisfaction
then
they
were
,
the
redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
,
could
not
have
beene
carried
out
,
or
obtained
by
them
.
Hence
the
different
manner
of
the
Scriptures
speaking
of
the
one
and
of
the
other
,
SECT.
15
is
very
considerable
,
when
it
speakes
of
the
Redemption
or
Iustification
by
Christ
,
it
sometimes
useth
an
expression
,
importing
the
worth
,
merit
,
or
acceptation
of
Christ
in
his
sufferings
,
as
where
God
is
said
for
Christs
sake
to
have
forgiven
us
our
sins
,
as
Eph.
4.32
.
But
when
it
speaketh
of
the
condemnation
of
the
world
by
Adam
,
it
no
where
saith
,
that
God
for
Adams
sake
,
subjected
the
world
to
death
and
condemnation
but
only
thus
,
By
one
man
sinne
entred
into
the
world
,
and
death
by
sin
,
Rom.
5.12
.
And
againe
,
through
the
offence
of
one
many
are
dead
,
ver.
15.
Againe
,
By
one
mans
offence
death
reigned
by
one
,
ver.
17.
with
many
the
like
,
still
using
termes
and
expressions
,
which
doe
not
necessarily
import
the
sinne
of
Adam
to
have
beene
the
meritorious
or
demeritorious
cause
,
(
though
this
be
not
denied
)
but
rather
the
instrumentall
and
mediating
cause
simply
of
this
condemnation
.
It
is
true
,
the
vertue
and
efficacie
of
the
passive
obedience
of
Christ
it selfe
,
whereby
the
salvation
of
the
world
is
purchased
,
is
many
times
expressed
by
the
fame
propositions
or
particles
of
speech
,
By
,
and
Through
,
as
Rom
5.11
.
By
him
we
have
received
the
attonement
,
&c.
but
there
is
nothing
more
frequent
in
the
Scriptures
then
to
speake
that
sparingly
,
and
in
generall
termes
onely
in
one
place
,
which
it
speaketh
fully
,
and
with
exactnesse
,
in
another
.
But
when
it
useth
expressions
constantly
of
one
and
the
same
line
and
importance
,
and
never
riseth
higher
,
there
can
be
no
ground
from
the
Scriptures
,
of
conceiving
any
thing
above
or
beyond
such
expressions
,
in
any
subject
;
as
on
the
other
hand
,
when
we
have
expressions
that
are
richer
and
fuller
,
and
more
distinct
in
any
place
,
we
are
not
to
measure
or
confine
our
apprehensions
and
understandings
of
things
to
those
that
are
lower
and
more
generall
.
As
in
the
case
in
hand
,
the
more
frequent
expressions
are
,
that
,
by
Christ
,
or
through
Christ
,
and
so
by
his
blood
,
or
thorough
his
blood
,
&c.
we
have
Redemption
,
or
Remission
of
sinnes
:
yet
must
we
not
from
hence
conclude
,
that
therefore
Christ
,
or
his
blood
are
barely
an
instrumentall
cause
or
meanes
of
Redemption
,
and
have
nothing
of
merit
in
them
,
because
these
particles
,
by
and
through
,
usually
signifie
an
instrumentall
efficiencie
,
and
no
more
:
the
reason
is
,
because
the
Scripture
elsewhere
supplieth
that
which
is
wanting
in
such
expressions
as
these
,
and
represents
to
us
that
speciall
and
peculiar
kinde
of
efficiencie
,
which
we
call
meritorious
in
Christ
and
his
sufferings
.
And
had
it
bin
simply
the
demerit
or
offensivenesse
of
Adams
sin
that
had
brought
the
judgement
or
condemnation
upon
his
posterity
,
there
can
hardly
any
reason
be
given
,
why
the
sin
of
the
Angels
that
fell
,
should
not
have
brought
the
like
judgement
and
condemnation
upon
their
whole
creation
:
because
doubtlesse
the
sin
of
these
Angels
,
was
every
whit
as
demeritorious
,
and
full
of
provocation
,
as
the
sinne
of
Adam
was
.
And
therefore
(
by
the
way
)
they
that
use
our
English
Translation
onely
,
had
neede
be
admonished
,
SECT.
16
that
they
take
the
word
,
OFFENCE
(
as
the
Originall
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
five
or
sixe
times
translated
in
that
one
Chapter
,
Rom.
5.
)
not
,
as
commonly
it
is
taken
,
in
an
active
signification
,
or
sence
,
as
if
it
were
either
simply
or
principally
the
offensivenesse
of
Adams
sinne
to
God
,
or
the
height
of
the
demerit
thereof
,
that
inclin'd
or
moved
him
to
bring
death
and
condemnation
upon
the
world
for
it
,
but
rather
in
a
passive
(
which
is
the
sence
that
the
Originall
directly
leadeth
unto
)
i.
for
a
sinfull
stumbling
(
as
it
were
)
or
miscarriage
,
not
out
of
envie
,
malice
,
or
other
sinister
end
or
intention
,
which
are
the
maine
aggravations
of
a
sin
,
and
raising
the
offensivenesse
of
it
to
the
greatest
height
,
but
out
of
an
inconsideratenesse
or
incogitancie
,
which
though
it
be
no
cloake
for
sinne
,
yet
is
it
a
roote
of
the
least
bitternesse
or
provocation
,
from
whence
it
is
lightly
possible
for
sinne
to
spring
.
And
doubtlesse
(
to
speede
this
Conclusion
as
fast
as
wee
can
)
the
consideration
of
that
difference
betweene
the
first
and
second
Adam
,
which
we
have
in
hand
,
I
meane
in
respect
of
the
great
disproportion
betweene
the
demerit
of
the
one
,
and
merit
of
the
other
,
is
the
ground
and
bottome
of
that
notable
and
comfortable
difference
betweene
them
,
wherein
the
Apostle
so
triumpheth
,
Rom.
5.15
.
reasoning
and
raising
up
himselfe
and
others
after
this
manner
:
but
not
as
the
offence
,
so
also
is
the
free
gift
,
viz.
in
respect
of
an
equall
efficacie
and
power
in
the
one
to
condemne
,
and
in
the
other
to
justifie
and
save
:
there
is
a
great
difference
betweene
them
in
this
regard
;
For
if
through
the
offence
of
one
,
many
be
dead
,
much
more
the
grace
of
God
,
and
the
gift
by
grace
,
which
is
by
one
man
Iesus
Christ
,
hath
abounded
unto
many
.
i.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
q.d.
If
the
sinne
of
Adam
being
but
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
an
inconsiderate
stumbling
,
or
a
sinne
proceeding
from
incogitancie
,
and
Adam
hmselfe
but
one
,
hath
yet
beene
able
to
involve
many
.
i.
his
whole
posteritie
,
all
that
shall
be
borne
of
him
,
in
death
and
condemnation
;
much
more
must
it
needs
be
conceived
,
that
the
grace
,
i.
the
gracious
intent
&
purpose
of
God
towards
men
,
and
the
gift
by
that
grace
,
viz.
of
righteousnes
&
justification
,
by
such
a
man
as
Iesus
Christ
is
,
who
is
both
God
and
man
,
should
abound
unto
many
,
i.
justifie
and
save
with
farre
greater
efficacie
power
,
and
authority
,
(
and
as
it
were
)
with
an
higher
hand
,
all
those
that
by
spirituall
regeneration
and
a
true
faith
shall
descend
from
him
.
The
strēngth
of
of
the
Apostles
reasoning
and
inference
in
this
passage
Scripture
,
lyeth
in
this
.
The
salvation
of
the
world
(
faith
he
)
must
needs
proceede
with
farre
higher
hand
by
Christ
,
then
the
condemnation
of
it
did
,
or
doth
by
Adam
;
Because
1.
The
foundation
and
ground
worke
of
the
one
,
was
the
free
and
gracious
intent
and
purpose
of
God
,
which
is
a
stronger
,
and
more
active
and
lively
principle
or
spring
to
set
all
the
wheeles
and
worke
on
going
that
depend
upon
it
then
a
permissive
decree
onely
,
which
(
as
seemeth
here
intimated
and
imployed
)
is
the
maine
foundation
the
other
(
viz.
the
condemnation
of
the
world
by
Adam
)
had
,
in
respect
of
God
.
This
permissive
decree
,
though
it
be
as
cleare
as
the
other
,
in
respect
of
the
event
and
comming
to
passe
of
such
things
as
are
comprehended
in
it
,
yet
is
the
motion
of
it
but
slow
and
heavie
in
comparison
of
the
other
.
Gods
permissive
decrees
are
chiefely
executed
by
second
meanes
,
or
by
occasion
,
of
his
withdrawing
himselfe
and
leaving
the
creature
to
it selfe
:
but
his
gracious
decrees
have
his
heart
and
soule
and
strength
,
and
might
in
their
execution
.
And
secondly
,
(
that
which
is
the
more
proper
and
immediate
cause
of
the
difference
here
laid
downe
by
the
Apostle
)
the
condemnation
of
the
world
,
as
touching
matter
of
provocation
and
offence
given
unto
God
,
proceeds
onely
in
the
demerit
and
strength
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
of
one
inconsiderate
act
of
sinne
,
and
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
from
one
onely
meere
man
,
whereas
the
salvation
of
the
world
,
advanceth
in
the
strength
of
such
a
righteousnesse
,
attonement
,
or
justification
,
as
was
procured
indeed
by
one
man
,
but
this
one
man
was
Jesus
Christ
,
who
is
valuable
with
thousand
thousands
of
men
,
and
ten
thousand
times
ten
thousand
thousands
.
So
that
what
he
hath
purposely
,
and
with
all
his
might
done
for
the
justification
and
salvation
of
the
world
,
must
needs
be
of
an
incomparable
farre
greater
efficacie
to
carry
these
before
it
,
then
the
stumbling
,
or
unadvised
sinne
of
one
poore
,
meere
,
and
meane
man
(
in
comparison
)
can
be
to
procure
the
condemnation
of
it
.
Onely
I
desire
that
it
should
be
here
considered
and
remembered
,
that
there
is
nothing
said
in
all
this
Conclusion
,
any
wayes
to
extenuate
,
either
the
demerit
or
guilt
of
Adams
sinne
,
beneath
their
just
proportions
and
degrees
,
but
onely
to
shew
,
that
there
is
a
great
excesse
of
merit
in
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
above
the
rate
and
proportion
of
demerit
in
the
disobedience
of
Adam
.
There
being
these
and
other
differences
betweene
Adam
,
in
his
condemning
the
world
,
and
Christ
in
his
Act
or
Worke
in
saving
it
:
it
is
evident
that
all
such
arguments
or
reasonings
which
are
drawne
from
specialites
and
particularities
of
agreement
betweene
them
,
are
invalid
and
insufficient
,
except
they
have
some
other
foundation
to
beare
them
.
That
which
makes
a
true
and
lively
Faith
instrumentall
in
Justification
,
Conclusi
.
11
SECT.
17
is
nothing
that
is
essentiall
or
naturall
to
it
,
whether
descent
,
propertie
or
act
,
but
somewhat
that
is
extrinsecall
,
and
purely
adventitious
,
viz.
the
force
and
efficacie
of
that
will
,
good
pleasure
,
ordination
,
covenant
,
and
appointment
of
God
in
that
behalfe
.
As
it
was
neither
the
stature
nor
comelinesse
of
Aarons
person
,
nor
his
descent
from
Levie
,
nor
his
grace
,
nor
his
wisedome
,
nor
his
knowledge
,
nor
any
service
formerly
done
by
him
,
either
unto
God
,
or
his
Church
,
nor
any
thing
that
in
any
proprietie
of
speech
could
be
called
his
,
that
made
him
an
high
Priest
,
but
Gods
calling
him
unto
,
and
investing
him
with
that
honour
and
function
;
he
might
have
beene
all
that
hee
was
otherwise
,
and
might
have
done
all
that
hee
did
otherwise
,
and
yet
without
this
anointing
and
appointment
from
God
,
another
might
have
beene
high
Priest
,
and
not
he
:
So
might
Faith
have
beene
Faith
,
both
in
the
Originall
and
descent
of
it
from
the
Spirit
of
God
,
as
likewise
in
all
that
native
beautie
and
excellencie
that
belongs
to
it
,
yea
and
put
forth
all
those
acts
,
which
otherwise
it
puts
forth
,
as
to
bring
men
to
Christ
,
to
lay
hold
of
Christ
,
&c.
and
yet
never
have
attained
the
honour
that
is
now
put
upon
it
,
never
have
beene
instrumentall
in
Justification
.
And
as
the
same
anointing
or
calling
from
God
,
which
were
confer'd
upon
Aaron
,
would
have
made
any
other
man
Priest
,
though
of
another
Tribe
,
though
lesse
gracefull
of
person
,
of
meaner
gifts
and
abilities
every-wayes
than
Aaron
was
,
had
they
beene
conferred
upon
him
;
so
had
any
other
grace
,
as
love
,
patience
,
temperance
,
or
the
like
,
the
force
and
power
of
the
same
covenant
or
ordination
from
God
to
assist
them
,
it
cannot
be
conceived
,
but
that
any
of
these
would
justifie
as
effectually
,
as
faith
it selfe
now
doth
.
Therefore
it
is
unquestionably
evident
,
that
Faith
doth
not
justifie
,
as
it
relates
to
Christ
or
as
it
apprehends
him
,
or
redemption
by
him
,
or
the
like
,
because
all
these
,
and
such
like
properties
or
acts
as
these
are
essentiall
and
naturall
unto
Faith
(
I
meane
to
such
a
Faith
as
we
speake
of
)
and
that
Faith
which
hath
not
,
or
doth
not
all
this
,
is
no
true
,
lively
,
or
effectuall
Faith
,
or
instrumentall
in
justification
:
Wherefore
,
if
Faith
should
justifie
in
regard
,
or
by
vertue
of
any
of
these
,
it
should
justifie
by
it selfe
,
or
by
some
dignity
,
quality
,
or
act
that
is
proper
to
it
,
or
inherent
in
it
.
Hence
it
is
that
Scripture
still
suspends
the
justifying
power
or
propertie
of
Faith
,
upon
the
will
,
free
grace
,
and
good
pleasure
of
God
,
but
never
upon
any
act
or
qualitie
proper
to
it selfe
.
This
is
the
will
of
him
that
sent
me
(
saith
our
Saviour
,
Ioh.
6.40
.
)
that
every
man
that
seeth
the
Sonne
,
and
beleeveth
in
him
should
have
everlasting
life
,
&c.
clearely
implying
.
1.
That
it
is
not
any
seeing
of
Christ
,
either
corporally
or
spiritually
,
nor
any
beleeving
in
him
that
could
carry
eternall
life
,
had
it
not
the
efficacie
of
the
will
of
God
to
strengthen
it
thereunto
.
And
2
that
had
this
Will
of
God
fallen
in
conjunction
with
any
other
grace
,
or
act
of
grace
besides
Faith
they
would
have
carried
eternall
life
;
after
the
same
manner
,
and
with
as
high
an
hand
,
as
beleeving
now
doth
.
Naamans
leprosie
was
cureable
onely
by
the
waters
of
Iordan
,
why
?
because
the
will
and
decree
of
God
concerning
this
effect
were
upon
these
waters
,
and
upon
these
onely
;
Abana
and
Pharpar
,
or
any
other
River
whatsoever
would
have
done
as
much
,
had
the
same
decree
of
God
concurred
with
them
.
When
causes
have
an
intrinsecall
and
naturall
power
and
efficacie
to
produce
their
effects
,
it
is
very
improper
(
if
not
ridiculous
)
to
ascribe
such
effects
to
the
will
and
good
pleasure
of
God
.
As
to
say
it
is
the
will
of
God
,
that
the
grace
of
patience
should
make
a
man
patient
,
or
the
grace
of
humility
,
should
make
a
man
humble
,
or
that
such
an
element
as
we
call
fire
,
should
burne
,
or
the
like
,
though
there
be
a
truth
in
them
;
yet
there
is
so
little
savour
or
weight
of
truth
in
them
,
that
such
sayings
are
not
worthy
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
neither
these
nor
any
of
their
fellowes
of
like
importance
to
be
found
in
the
whole
Booke
of
God
.
So
to
say
,
that
it
is
the
Will
of
God
,
that
beleeving
in
Christ
should
justifie
,
and
so
save
men
,
if
beleeving
in
Christ
simply
as
it
is
beleeving
in
Christ
did
it
,
were
an
eccentricall
expression
,
and
no
where
to
be
parallell'd
in
the
Scriptures
,
I
might
adde
many
other
Scriptures
,
as
Ioh.
1.12
.
where
it
is
said
,
that
to
those
that
received
Christ
,
i.
that
beleeved
in
him
,
God
gave
the
power
or
prerogative
to
be
his
Sonnes
,
i.
decreed
that
such
should
be
Sonnes
unto
him
,
and
by
vertue
of
such
a
decree
,
really
made
them
such
upon
their
beleeving
;
which
clearely
shewes
,
that
beleeving
in
Christ
,
as
such
,
doth
not
make
a
Son
of
God
,
but
receives
this
power
or
prerogative
by
especiall
guift
from
God
:
which
gift
might
have
beene
given
to
any
other
grace
,
as
well
as
beleeving
.
So
Eph.
2.8
.
By
grace
ye
are
saved
,
through
Faith
,
viz.
in
Christ
:
therefore
Faith
doth
not
save
simply
,
as
,
or
because
Christ
is
the
object
of
it
,
but
by
the
efficacie
and
force
of
that
gracious
and
good
pleasure
of
God
whereby
he
hath
covenanted
with
his
creature
that
such
a
Faith
shall
save
it
;
which
good
pleasure
or
Covenant
of
God
with
men
concerning
Faith
,
is
called
,
Rom.
3.27
.
the
Law
of
Faith
which
Law
is
that
which
gives
it
that
strength
and
power
which
it
now
hath
,
to
justifie
and
save
.
It
were
easie
to
make
this
pile
of
Scriptures
large
:
but
those
that
have
beene
touched
,
are
sufficient
to
shew
which
way
they
generally
incline
in
this
particular
.
Neither
is
that
common
plea
,
SECT.
18
which
is
so
frequently
insisted
upon
,
to
prove
the
contrary
,
viz.
that
Faith
justifieth
in
relation
to
its
object
,
or
as
it
receiveth
and
apprehendeth
Christ
,
or
Christs
righteousnesse
,
or
the
like
,
of
any
value
,
if
it
be
duely
considered
.
The
strength
of
the
argument
is
usually
bound
up
in
this
similitude
.
As
the
hand
is
said
to
enrich
a
man
,
because
it
receives
the
money
or
treasure
,
whereby
he
is
inriched
;
so
Faith
must
needs
be
said
to
justifie
,
because
it
receives
Christ
,
who
is
our
righteousnesse
,
and
by
whom
we
are
justified
.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
it
is
not
simply
the
taking
silver
or
gold
with
the
hand
,
that
enricheth
a
man
,
no
nor
the
silver
or
gold
so
taken
,
that
simply
enricheth
him
.
A
man
may
be
never
the
richer
for
receiving
great
summes
of
money
of
silver
and
gold
;
nay
,
a
man
may
be
much
the
poorer
and
more
miserable
for
receiving
or
taking
money
,
if
he
receives
or
takes
it
contrary
to
the
Lawes
:
As
when
a
thiefe
breakes
into
an
house
,
and
takes
away
much
treasure
with
him
,
or
puts
forth
his
hand
to
take
a
mans
purse
by
the
high-wayes
side
;
his
hand
in
these
cases
cannot
be
said
to
make
him
rich
because
it
receives
treasure
:
neither
doth
the
treasure
so
received
make
him
rich
,
but
poore
and
miserable
,
because
now
he
is
obnoxious
to
the
sentence
of
the
Law
,
and
ownes
his
life
and
all
he
is
worth
besides
,
unto
it
.
Therefore
if
a
mans
hand
enricheth
him
by
receiving
that
which
doth
enrich
him
,
it
doth
it
not
simply
as
it
receiveth
it
(
for
then
it
should
doe
it
alwayes
,
and
in
all
cases
whatsoever
)
but
it
doth
it
by
vertue
of
that
Law
,
or
agreement
of
the
state
where
he
lives
,
which
secureth
a
man
in
the
quiet
possession
and
enjoyment
,
of
such
money
or
treasure
,
as
hee
lawfully
receives
to
his
owne
use
.
So
,
though
Christ
be
a
treasure
of
righteousnesse
and
justification
in
himselfe
it
doth
not
presently
follow
,
that
whosoever
takes
hold
on
him
,
or
beleeves
in
him
,
should
presently
be
made
righteous
,
or
justified
by
him
:
but
here
must
intervene
some
Law
,
Covenant
,
or
Decree
from
God
,
to
establish
and
authorize
such
a
beleeving
or
laying
hold
on
him
to
be
a
mans
righteousnesse
or
justification
.
Wee
doe
not
suppose
they
can
,
but
for
argument
sake
we
will
suppose
,
that
if
the
Devills
should
beleeve
on
Christ
,
hoping
,
or
expecting
to
be
justified
by
him
as
men
doe
,
who
beleeving
are
justified
,
yet
they
should
be
never
the
nearer
any
justification
by
him
,
though
he
be
a
treasure
of
righteousnesse
.
Why
?
because
God
hath
made
no
Law
,
Promise
,
Covenant
,
or
agreement
with
them
,
that
they
should
be
justified
by
Faith
:
therefore
if
it
were
possible
for
them
to
beleeve
as
men
doe
,
yet
Christ
would
be
no
more
any
righteousnesse
unto
them
than
now
he
is
.
Much
more
might
be
said
(
and
may
be
said
elsewhere
)
for
the
evidencing
of
this
Conclusion
:
but
here
I
would
hasten
.
In
the
meane
time
I
desire
to
explaine
my selfe
a
little
further
;
touching
this
Conclusion
,
onely
in
two
words
.
When
I
denie
that
Faith
justifieth
in
its
relation
to
its
object
,
or
as
it
layeth
hold
on
Christ
;
I
am
farre
from
saying
,
or
conceiving
that
any
Faith
should
justifie
,
but
that
onely
which
layeth
hold
on
Christ
;
yea
,
I
grant
,
and
verily
beleeve
,
that
whereas
there
are
many
other
acts
of
Faith
besides
beleeving
or
laying
hold
on
Christ
,
as
viz.
to
comfort
and
strengthen
and
purifie
the
hearts
of
those
that
beleeve
,
and
the
like
,
yet
that
decree
or
good
pleasure
of
God
,
which
(
I
conceive
makes
Faith
justifying
,
concurres
with
it
towards
this
great
effect
,
onely
in
that
act
of
laying
hold
on
Christ
,
and
not
in
any
of
the
other
.
So
,
that
in
this
sence
,
I
grant
&
hold
that
Faith
may
be
said
to
justifie
,
as
it
layeth
hold
of
Christ
comparatively
,
viz.
as
this
act
of
Faith
is
distinguished
,
from
those
other
acts
,
which
it
likewise
produceth
;
it
doth
not
justifie
,
either
as
it
comforts
,
or
as
it
purifies
the
heart
,
&c.
but
onely
as
it
relateth
to
Christ
,
and
layeth
hold
on
him
.
This
onely
is
that
which
I
deny
,
that
this
act
of
Faith
,
whereby
it
receiveth
or
layeth
hold
on
Christ
,
hath
that
in
the
nature
,
or
inherently
in
it
,
or
any
otherwise
,
or
by
any
other
meanes
,
then
from
the
will
and
good
pleasure
of
God
,
which
makes
it
availeable
unto
justification
.
It
hath
no
foundation
,
Conclus
.
12
either
in
the
Scriptures
or
Reasons
to
say
,
SECT.
19
that
Christ
by
any
imputation
of
sinne
,
was
made
formally
a
sinner
:
nor
that
sinne
in
any
other
sence
should
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
,
then
as
the
punishment
due
unto
it
was
inflicted
on
him
.
I
shall
not
neede
to
insist
upon
the
justification
of
this
Conclusion
partly
because
it
hath
beene
sufficiently
argued
and
cleered
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
:
[
](A85397-e62370-b)a
a
Cap.
19.
Sect.
1.2
.
but
chiefely
,
because
it
is
given
in
with
both
hands
by
the
chiefe
masters
of
that
way
of
Imputation
which
we
oppose
.
Christ
(
saith
Bishop
Downham
[
](A85397-e62410-b)b
b
Tract
of
Iustifica
.
p.
40.
)
was
made
sinne
,
or
a
sinner
,
by
our
sinnes
,
not
formally
(
God
forbid
)
but
by
imputation
,
&c.
And
Bishop
Davenant
[
](A85397-e62440-b)c
c
De
Iustit
.
Habit
.
●●einhaerent
.
Desp
.
c.
24.
p.
33.
Voluit
Christus
peccata
ita
in
se
suscipere
,
ut
non
inde
peccator
,
sed
hostia
pro
peccato
constitueretur
.
idem
.
p.
333.
calls
it
a
thing
repugnant
to
the
salvation
of
men
,
and
blasphemous
once
to
imagine
,
that
Christ
should
be
made
wicked
,
[
i.
formally
a
sinner
]
by
any
imputation
of
sinne
to
him
.
And
a
little
before
,
hee
makes
the
impu●ation
of
sinne
to
Christ
,
to
stand
in
the
translation
of
the
punishment
of
sinne
,
and
curse
of
the
Law
upon
him
.
And
in
another
place
,
Christ
was
willing
so
farre
to
take
our
sinnes
upon
him
,
not
as
to
be
made
a
sinner
hereby
,
but
[
onely
]
a
sacrifice
for
sinne
.
So
that
if
the
men
with
whom
wee
have
to
doe
in
this
businesse
of
imputation
,
would
but
stand
their
owne
ground
,
and
walke
peaceably
with
their
owne
principles
,
wee
should
soone
comprimize
.
For
their
great
maxime
is
,
that
in
that
manner
wherein
our
sinnes
are
imputed
unto
Christ
,
in
the
same
Christs
righteousnesse
is
imputed
unto
us
.
If
so
,
then
are
not
we
made
formally
righteous
by
any
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
because
Christ
is
not
made
formally
a
sinner
by
any
sinne
of
ours
imputed
to
him
.
Conclusi
.
13
SECT.
20
Faith
doth
not
onely
(
if
at
all
declare
a
man
to
be
righteous
,
or
in
a
justified
estate
,
but
is
the
very
meanes
by
which
Justification
or
righteousnesse
is
obtained
,
so
that
no
man
is
to
be
reputed
(
nor
indeede
is
)
a
person
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
(
specially
if
we
speake
of
yeares
of
discretion
)
untill
hee
obtaines
this
grace
of
justification
,
by
beleeving
.
This
is
the
constant
Doctrine
of
the
Scriptures
:
and
there
is
not
one
of
many
of
our
Reformed
Divines
that
doe
oppose
it
.
He
that
beleeveth
not
(
saith
our
Saviour
himselfe
,
Mar.
16.16
.
)
shall
be
damned
.
If
Justification
were
in
order
of
time
before
faith
,
it
might
very
possibly
be
that
many
might
escape
damnation
,
who
yet
never
beleeved
,
because
they
might
die
in
that
interim
of
time
,
which
is
supposed
to
lie
betweene
a
mans
justification
,
and
his
beleeving
.
The
like
argument
might
be
framed
from
that
passage
also
,
Ioh.
8.24
.
Except
you
beleeve
that
I
am
he
,
you
shall
die
in
your
sinnes
.
But
there
are
other
texts
of
Scripture
so
pregnant
for
this
truth
,
that
there
is
no
rising
up
with
reason
against
them
.
Therfore
we
conclude
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
that
a
man
is
justified
by
Faith
,
without
the
works
of
the
Law
,
Rom.
3.28
.
That
which
hee
had
laboured
hitherto
,
and
laboureth
on
in
some
Chapters
following
,
to
prove
,
was
not
how
,
or
by
what
meanes
a
man
might
know
,
or
be
declared
,
either
to
himselfe
or
others
that
he
is
a
justified
person
,
but
how
and
by
what
meanes
he
might
come
to
be
justified
.
These
two
are
of
a
very
farre
differing
consideration
and
importance
.
It
is
of
a
thousand
times
more
concernement
to
a
man
to
be
justified
,
than
to
know
that
he
is
justified
.
Besides
,
if
the
Apostles
scope
and
intent
here
had
beene
to
argue
the
declaration
,
or
to
propound
the
meanes
of
a
discovery
or
manifestation
of
a
person
justified
,
and
not
simply
to
prove
and
shew
,
how
and
by
what
meanes
justification
it selfe
is
to
be
attained
,
there
can
no
reason
be
given
,
either
why
he
should
have
excluded
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
or
insisted
upon
Faith
,
rather
than
many
other
graces
,
as
love
,
patience
,
&c.
especially
why
he
should
have
insisted
on
Faith
onely
;
without
the
association
of
other
graces
.
For
it
is
certaine
,
that
obedience
to
the
Law
,
and
so
love
,
patience
,
temperance
,
humilitie
,
&c.
are
as
effectuall
,
nay
,
have
a
preheminence
above
Faith
it selfe
,
for
the
discovery
of
a
man
in
the
estate
of
Justification
.
Shew
me
thy
faith
by
thy
workes
,
and
I
will
shew
thee
my
faith
by
my
workes
,
Iam.
2.18
.
Therefore
workes
are
more
easie
to
be
seene
,
and
more
apt
for
discovery
or
manifestation
,
then
Faith
:
for
that
which
discovereth
or
maketh
things
manifest
,
is
light
(
Ephes.
5.13
.
)
whereas
that
which
needs
manifestation
,
is
darkenesse
in
(
comparison
)
and
therefore
the
more
unfit
and
uncapable
of
being
a
meanes
for
the
discovery
and
manifestation
of
other
things
.
So
elsewhere
,
love
is
represented
as
a
grace
of
speciall
use
and
service
this
way
,
I
meane
for
the
discovery
and
manifestation
of
justification
,
or
of
a
man
in
a
justified
condition
,
but
is
never
mentioned
,
as
of
any
use
for
justification
it selfe
.
Wee
know
that
we
have
passed
from
death
to
life
because
we
love
the
brethren
,
1
Iohn
3.14
.
)
The
Scripture
doth
not
any where
ascribe
the
like
discoverie
of
justification
,
unto
Faith
:
but
justification
it selfe
it
ascribeth
unto
Faith
againe
and
againe
.
Therefore
being
justified
by
Faith
,
&c.
Rom.
5.1
.
So
ver.
2.
so
Gal.
3.8
.
The
Scriptures
foreseeing
that
God
would
justifie
the
Gentiles
by
faith
,
&c.
It
would
make
a
sence
very
unsavoury
and
weake
,
to
carry
the
interpretation
of
these
words
,
thus
.
The
Scriptures
foreseeing
that
God
would
declare
by
Faith
,
that
the
Gentiles
were
justified
:
neither
would
such
a
sence
any
wayes
accommodate
that
which
followeth
.
But
I
hasten
,
SECT.
21
passing
over
many
places
;
wherein
Justification
it selfe
,
not
the
discovery
of
Justification
,
is
attributed
unto
Faith
,
and
conclude
with
that
one
testimony
,
Gal.
2.16
,
We
knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
but
by
the
faith
of
Iesus
Christ
,
Even
we
have
beleeved
in
Iesus
Christ
,
that
wee
might
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
,
&c.
not
because
we
were
righteous
or
justified
,
or
that
we
might
know
our selves
to
be
justified
,
but
that
we
might
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Iesus
.
If
the
Apostle
should
here
speak
of
a
declarative
justification
,
there
is
no
relation
why
he
should
have
excluded
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
these
being
every
whit
of
as
declarative
an
importance
this
way
,
as
beleeving
it selfe
,
nay
,
above
it
(
as
we
proved
before
)
and
the
Scripture
it selfe
plainely
intimates
:
Little
children
(
saith
Iohn
)
let
no
man
deceive
you
,
He
that
doth
righteousnesse
is
righteous
,
&c.
i.
is
thereby
,
viz.
by
his
doing
righteousnesse
,
declared
to
be
righteous
or
a
person
justified
:
it
is
no
where
said
in
such
a
sence
,
that
he
that
beleeveth
,
is
righteous
.
Therefore
it
is
evident
,
that
the
opposition
which
this
Apostle
still
makes
betweene
the
works
of
the
Law
,
and
beleeving
,
in
the
point
of
justification
,
is
not
at
all
in
respect
of
the
notification
or
discovery
of
it
,
either
to
the
justified
themselves
or
others
,
but
simply
and
absolutely
in
respect
of
the
effecting
it
.
Besides
,
to
make
Paul
say
thus
,
that
they
had
beleeved
in
Christ
,
that
they
might
know
that
they
had
beene
justified
by
beleeving
in
him
,
is
to
make
him
speake
at
a
very
low
rate
of
reason
,
and
understanding
,
and
not
much
short
of
contradictions
.
For
with
what
tolerable
congruity
or
construction
of
reason
,
can
a
man
be
said
,
to
beleeve
with
this
intent
,
or
for
this
end
,
that
hee
may
know
he
is
justified
by
beleeving
?
The
doing
of
a
thing
for
a
certaine
end
,
is
no
meanes
to
certifie
,
or
assure
any
man
,
that
the
end
is
,
or
shall
be
,
much
lesse
that
it
hath
already
beene
obtained
,
by
the
doing
it
.
Much
more
might
be
argued
both
from
the
Scriptures
,
and
reason
,
and
testimony
of
Authors
for
this
Conclusion
,
if
it
were
either
necessary
or
seasonable
in
this
place
.
Neither
are
the
things
that
can
be
objected
against
it
,
SECT.
22
of
any
such
weight
,
but
that
they
may
receive
a
faire
and
ready
answer
.
I
have
heard
onely
of
two
Arguments
that
are
made
against
it
.
The
first
is
this
,
If
a
man
must
beleeve
,
before
he
be
justified
,
then
God
doth
not
justifie
the
ungodly
,
because
he
that
beleeveth
cannot
be
counted
an
ungodly
man
.
To
this
I
answer
in
few
words
,
that
when
the
Scripture
saith
,
that
God
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
the
meaning
is
not
as
if
the
person
to
be
justified
must
needs
be
ungodly
,
i
in
the
midst
of
his
prophanenesse
,
in
the
very
nicke
and
instant
of
time
,
wherein
God
justifieth
him
.
But
God
may
be
said
to
be
he
that
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
because
he
hath
found
out
a
way
and
meanes
whereby
to
juftifie
sinners
and
ungodly
men
,
viz.
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
which
neither
the
Law
knoweth
,
nor
could
ever
the
wisedome
of
men
or
Angels
have
imagined
.
The
justification
of
the
ungodly
is
ascribed
unto
God
,
as
an
high
and
excellent
clogium
of
his
wisedome
and
goodnesse
;
as
when
Christ
is
said
to
save
sinners
,
the
meaning
is
not
,
that
men
are
actually
wicked
and
sinfull
,
when
salvation
is
actually
conferr'd
upon
them
,
but
that
he
affords
meanes
to
those
that
are
sinners
,
as
viz.
the
grace
of
Faith
,
Repentance
,
&c.
whereby
they
may
be
(
and
many
are
)
saved
.
Or
else
secondly
Answer
might
be
,
that
God
may
be
said
to
justifie
,
not
onely
when
hee
absolves
and
perfecteth
the
act
or
worke
of
justification
i.
when
hee
passeth
a
sentence
of
absolution
upon
the
beleever
,
but
even
when
hee
beginneth
it
,
i.
when
he
first
toucheth
,
moveth
,
or
incline
the
heart
to
beleeve
,
upon
which
justification
properly
so
called
,
dependeth
and
followeth
immediatly
.
Now
before
and
untill
this
supernaturall
touch
or
motion
of
the
heart
from
God
,
a
man
in
strictnesse
and
proprietie
of
speech
may
be
called
,
ungodly
.
It
is
a
common
rule
among
Divines
for
the
interpretation
of
many
Scriptures
:
In
Scripturis
,
saepe
fieri
dicitur
,
quod
fieri
incipit
.
In
Scripture
that
is
often
said
to
be
done
,
which
is
onely
begun
to
be
done
,
and
whereof
the
cause
onely
is
yet
in
being
.
Thus
Prov.
11.2
.
Shame
is
said
to
come
,
when
pride
commeth
,
viz.
because
pride
is
the
cause
of
shame
;
and
Tit.
3.5
.
God
is
said
to
have
saved
men
,
when
he
hath
conferred
regeneration
,
or
the
washing
of
the
new
birth
upon
them
,
because
regeneration
is
a
meanes
of
salvation
;
besides
many
like
instances
that
might
be
added
.
In
like
manner
justification
may
be
said
to
come
,
when
Faith
commeth
;
and
God
may
be
said
to
justifie
,
when
he
giveth
men
Faith
,
whereby
they
shall
be
justified
,
&c.
In
this
sence
therefore
God
may
be
said
to
justifie
the
ungodly
,
because
he
giveth
Faith
unto
men
being
yet
sinfull
,
whereby
they
are
justified
.
Thirdly
,
(
and
lastly
)
Further
answer
might
be
,
that
there
being
no
prioritie
of
time
at
all
but
onely
of
nature
between
a
mans
beleeving
and
his
being
justified
;
so
that
in
the
very
first
instant
and
touch
of
time
wherein
he
can
be
conceived
truely
to
beleeve
,
he
is
to
be
conceived
justified
also
;
God
may
as
properly
be
said
to
justifie
the
ungodly
,
though
he
justifieth
onely
those
that
beleeve
,
as
to
give
Faith
,
or
the
grace
of
beleeving
unto
the
ungodly
.
The
reason
is
plaine
,
because
in
respect
of
time
,
a
man
is
as
immediately
ungodly
before
his
justification
,
as
he
is
before
his
beleeving
,
though
he
be
not
justified
,
SECT.
23
till
hee
beleeveth
.
The
later
Objections
against
the
Conclusion
in
hand
,
is
,
if
a
man
hath
the
Spirit
of
God
given
him
,
before
hee
beleeveth
,
he
must
needs
be
justified
before
he
beleeveth
:
otherwise
it
must
be
said
,
that
a
man
may
have
the
Spirit
of
grace
and
sanctification
,
and
yet
be
in
an
estate
of
wrath
and
condemnation
.
And
that
a
man
hath
,
and
must
have
the
Spirit
of
Grace
before
hee
beleeveth
,
it
is
evident
,
because
otherwise
he
could
not
beleeve
.
To
this
I
answer
,
first
,
by
concession
,
that
a
man
is
not
able
of
himselfe
,
and
without
the
speciall
presence
and
assistance
of
the
Spirit
of
grace
,
to
raise
an
act
of
a
true
beleeving
in
his
soule
.
But
secondly
,
by
way
of
exception
,
I
answer
two
things
,
first
,
that
though
a
man
cannot
beleeve
,
without
the
gracious
assistance
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
yet
doth
it
not
follow
from
hence
,
that
there
should
be
the
least
imaginable
distance
,
or
space
of
time
,
betweene
a
mans
receiving
the
Spirit
,
and
his
beleeving
,
wherein
hee
should
remayne
liable
to
condemnation
,
because
the
first
touch
of
the
Spirit
upon
the
soule
,
&
the
act
of
beleeving
,
may
be
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
sticke
as
fast
and
close
together
in
respect
of
time
,
as
the
scales
of
Leviathan
doe
in
respect
of
place
,
which
(
by
the
description
and
testimony
of
God
himselfe
,
who
best
knowes
their
composure
and
frame
)
are
so
neere
one
to
another
,
that
no
ayre
can
come
between
,
Ioh.
41.16
.
The
Sunne
was
not
first
made
,
and
afterwards
shined
:
but
his
shining
in
respect
of
time
,
is
as
ancient
as
his
creation
,
there
was
not
the
least
distance
or
space
of
time
betweene
,
wherein
any
thing
could
be
done
,
or
the
least
motion
performed
.
So
may
the
comming
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
unto
the
soule
,
and
the
act
of
the
soules
beleeving
,
touch
in
one
and
the
same
point
of
time
(
an
infinit
power
being
able
to
worke
any
thing
in
a
moment
)
in
which
case
it
is
evident
,
that
there
is
no
place
for
the
inconvenience
mentioned
in
the
objection
,
viz.
that
a
man
endued
with
the
spirit
of
grace
should
for
a
time
be
in
an
estate
of
condemnation
,
except
hee
were
justified
before
he
beleeveth
.
2.
SECT.
24
Be
it
supposed
that
the
spirit
of
grace
should
be
at
worke
in
the
soule
for
any
space
of
time
before
the
soule
hath
put
forth
an
act
of
true
beleeving
,
yet
till
there
be
a
saving
worke
of
Faith
wrought
by
him
in
the
soule
,
it
is
no
wayes
inconvenient
nor
contrary
to
truth
,
to
judge
the
person
in
an
estate
of
condemnation
,
though
he
may
be
comming
on
in
a
way
towards
justification
.
As
men
that
never
come
to
be
justified
,
but
perish
in
their
sinnes
everlastingly
,
are
said
to
be
partakers
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
(
Heb
6.4
.
)
that
is
,
may
have
many
great
and
excellent
workings
of
the
holy
Ghost
within
them
,
and
upon
them
;
so
may
men
to
whom
the
grace
of
justification
(
and
salvation
upon
it
)
is
intended
by
God
,
have
the
like
workings
of
the
Spirit
upon
them
for
a
time
,
and
yet
have
no
worke
at
all
upon
them
truely
saving
.
i.
which
hath
an
essentiall
and
necessary
connexion
with
salvation
.
And
till
some
such
worke
as
this
is
wrought
,
though
the
Spirit
of
God
be
in
them
,
yet
are
they
under
condemnation
,
and
dying
in
their
present
condition
,
without
somefurther
worke
of
grace
should
certainely
perish
.
Now
though
there
may
be
many
workings
of
the
Spirit
of
God
in
men
before
they
beleeve
,
which
may
be
called
Saving
in
regard
of
their
issue
and
event
;
yet
is
there
none
formally
saving
,
that
is
,
that
hath
salvation
promised
unto
it
,
till
Faith
it selfe
be
wrought
.
The
first
touch
of
any
worke
upon
the
soule
,
that
is
,
either
truly
sanctifying
,
or
necessarily
saving
is
that
whereby
the
soule
is
inabled
to
touch
upon
Christ
for
its
justification
;
neither
is
the
habit
of
Faith
first
planted
in
the
soule
by
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
afterwards
,
the
soule
enabled
by
it
,
'to
exercise
and
put
forth
an
act
of
beleeving
whereby
it
,
is
justified
:
but
as
the
common
and
more
probable
opinion
is
,
that
fruit-bearing
trees
,
were
at
first
created
with
ripe
fruits
upon
them
,
so
doth
God
at
first
create
both
the
habit
and
act
of
faith
in
the
soule
in
the
same
moment
of
time
,
and
not
the
one
before
the
other
.
So
that
the
first
act
of
beleeving
whereby
the
creature
is
primarily
justified
,
is
not
rais'd
out
of
any
pre-existent
habit
or
grace
of
Faith
,
as
all
after
acts
of
beleeving
are
,
but
is
as
immediately
the
product
or
effect
of
the
power
of
God
as
the
habit
of
Faith
it selfe
is
;
even
as
the
fruits
which
(
according
to
the
opinion
mentioned
were
created
with
and
upon
their
trees
,
did
not
grow
out
of
these
trees
,
nor
were
produced
in
a
naturall
way
by
them
,
as
all
after
fruits
growing
upon
them
were
,
but
were
as
proper
and
immediate
effects
of
the
creative
power
of
God
,
as
the
trees
themselves
.
So
we
see
at
last
,
that
the
conclusion
laid
downe
,
is
no
waies
prejudic'd
nor
shaken
by
either
of
these
objections
.
Conclu
.
14
SECT.
25
The
sentence
or
curse
of
the
Law
,
was
not
properly
executed
upon
Christ
in
his
death
,
but
this
death
of
Christ
was
a
ground
or
consideration
unto
God
,
whereupon
to
dispence
with
his
Law
,
and
to
let
fall
or
suspend
the
execution
of
the
penalty
or
curse
therein
threatned
.
This
is
evident
,
because
the
threatning
and
curse
of
the
Law
,
was
not
at
all
bent
or
intended
against
the
innocent
or
righteous
,
but
against
transgressors
onely
.
Therefore
God
in
inflicting
death
upon
Christ
,
being
innocent
&
righteous
,
did
not
follow
the
purport
or
intent
of
the
Law
.
If
he
had
inflicted
death
upon
all
the
transgressors
of
the
Law
,
this
had
bin
a
direct
execution
of
the
Law
,
because
this
was
that
which
the
Law
threatned
and
intended
.
But
God
in
spareing
and
forbearing
the
transgressors
,
(
who
according
to
the
tenor
of
the
Law
,
should
have
bin
punished
)
manifestly
dispenceth
with
the
Law
,
and
doth
not
execute
it
.
As
when
Zaleucus
(
the
Locrian
Lawgiver
)
caused
one
of
his
owne
eyes
to
be
put
out
,
that
one
of
his
Sons
eyes
might
be
spared
,
who
according
both
to
the
Letter
and
intent
of
the
Law
,
should
have
lost
both
,
he
did
not
precisely
execute
the
Law
,
but
gave
a
sufficient
account
or
consideration
,
why
it
should
for
that
time
be
dispenced
with
,
and
not
put
into
execution
.
In
this
sense
indeed
Christ
may
be
said
to
have
undergone
or
suffered
the
penalty
or
curse
of
the
Law
:
1º
,
it
was
the
curse
or
penalty
of
the
Law
,
as
now
hanging
over
the
head
of
the
world
,
and
ready
to
be
executed
upon
all
men
for
sinne
,
that
occasioned
his
suffering
of
those
things
which
he
endured
.
Had
not
the
curse
of
the
Law
either
bin
at
all
,
or
not
incurr'd
by
man
,
doubtlesse
Christ
had
not
suffered
at
all
.
Againe
2º
;
(
and
somewhat
more
properly
)
Christ
may
be
said
to
have
suffered
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
because
the
things
which
he
suffered
,
were
of
the
same
nature
and
kind
(
at
least
in
part
)
with
those
things
,
which
God
intended
by
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
against
transgressors
,
namely
death
.
But
if
by
the
curse
of
the
Law
we
understand
either
that
intire
systeme
and
historicall
body
(
as
it
were
)
of
penalties
and
evills
,
which
the
Law
it selfe
intends
in
the
terme
,
or
else
include
and
take
in
the
intent
of
the
Law
as
touching
the
quality
of
the
persons
,
upon
whom
it
was
to
be
executed
;
in
neither
of
these
senses
did
Christ
suffer
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
neither
ever
hath
it
,
nor
ever
shall
be
suffered
,
by
any
transgressor
of
the
Law
that
shall
beleeve
in
him
.
So
that
God
required
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
,
not
that
the
Law
properly
,
either
in
the
letter
or
intention
of
it
,
might
be
executed
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
that
it
might
not
be
executed
,
I
meane
upon
those
,
who
being
otherwise
obnoxious
unto
it
should
beleeve
.
Neither
did
God
require
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
as
a
valuable
consideration
whereon
to
dispence
with
his
Law
towards
those
that
beleeve
,
SECT.
26
more
(
if
so
much
)
in
a
way
of
satisfaction
to
his
justice
,
then
to
his
wisdome
.
For
(
doubtlesse
)
God
might
with
asmuch
justice
,
as
wisdome
(
if
not
much
more
)
have
passed
by
the
transgression
of
his
Law
without
consideration
or
satisfaction
.
For
him
that
hath
a
lawfull
authority
and
power
,
either
to
impose
a
Law
,
or
not
,
in
case
he
shall
impose
it
,
it
rather
concern's
in
point
of
wisdome
and
discretion
,
not
to
see
his
Law
despised
and
trampled
upon
without
satissaction
,
then
in
point
of
justice
.
No
man
will
say
,
that
in
case
a
man
hath
bin
injured
and
wrong'd
,
that
therefore
he
is
absolutly
bound
in
Justice
,
to
seeke
satisfaction
,
though
he
be
never
so
eminent
in
the
grace
and
practise
of
Justice
:
but
in
many
cases
of
injuries
susteyned
,
a
man
may
be
bound
in
point
of
wisdome
and
discretion
,
to
seeke
satisfaction
in
one
kind
or
other
.
Austin
of
old
,
and
D.
Twist
of
late
,
besides
many
other
Orthodox
&
learned
Divines
[
](A85397-e63700-b)a
a
See
Mr.
Gataker
Defence
of
Mr.
Wotton
.
p.
59.60
.
,
hold
,
that
God
,
if
it
had
pleased
him
,
might
have
pardoned
Adams
transgression
,
without
the
atonement
made
by
the
death
of
Christ
.
Therfore
according
to
the
opinion
of
these
men
,
it
had
bin
no
waies
contrary
to
the
Justice
of
God
,
nor
derogatory
to
the
glory
of
it
,
if
he
had
freely
pardoned
it
,
without
any
consideration
or
attonement
.
Only
it
is
true
,
his
requiring
that
full
satisfaction
which
hath
now
bin
made
by
Christ
,
is
very
sutable
and
agreeable
to
that
nature
in
him
which
we
call
JUSTICE
,
or
severity
against
sinne
:
and
if
he
had
pardoned
sinne
without
it
,
he
had
lost
or
passed
over
an
opportunity
of
the
declaration
and
manifestation
of
it
to
the
world
,
but
had
done
nothing
repugnant
to
it
,
or
to
the
prejudice
or
disparagement
of
it
.
And
thus
far
I
can
willingly
subscribe
to
the
opinion
.
But
whether
such
a
free
and
satisfactionlesse
condonation
may
be
conceived
to
have
had
any
possible
consistence
with
the
wisdome
of
God
,
(
and
therefore
whether
it
had
bin
simply
possible
or
no
)
I
am
yet
somewhat
unsatisfied
.
For
a
man
to
over-slip
an
opportunity
,
that
might
lawfully
be
taken
hold
of
,
and
managed
by
him
to
some
speciall
advantage
to
himselfe
,
either
in
point
of
Reputation
,
Estate
,
&c.
or
the
like
,
is
repugnant
to
the
principles
of
sound
wisdome
and
discretion
,
but
not
of
Justice
;
at
least
not
of
Justice
properly
so
called
.
And
the
Holy
Ghost
(
Heb.
2.11
.
)
making
it
a
thing
so
well
becoming
God
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
i.
For
it
became
him
,
&c.
)
intending
to
bring
many
children
unto
glory
,
to
consecrate
the
Prince
of
their
salvation
through
sufferings
,
i.
not
to
save
men
without
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
,
seems
rather
to
ascribe
this
cariage
and
method
of
the
businesse
to
the
wisdome
of
God
,
then
to
his
Justice
.
But
because
confidence
requires
better
grounds
,
then
present
conceptions
and
apprehensions
,
I
forbeare
further
contending
about
the
point
in
hand
,
for
the
present
.
Only
I
desire
this
may
be
considered
and
remembred
,
as
fully
evident
from
the
tenour
of
the
Conclusion
last
estsblished
,
that
neither
did
the
Law
require
of
Christ
the
suffering
of
those
things
which
he
suffered
,
nor
were
the
things
which
he
suffered
every
waies
the
same
(
though
in
consideration
,
value
,
and
importance
,
the
same
fully
)
with
those
,
the
suffering
whereof
the
Law
threatned
against
all
transgressors
.
CAP.
III.
Certaine
distinctiōs
propounded
and
explained
,
necessary
for
the
further
understanding
of
the
businesse
in
question
,
and
the
cleering
of
many
difficulties
incident
to
it
.
THe
word
Iustification
is
taken
in
a
double
sense
:
Distincti
1
SECT.
1
either
actively
,
or
passively
:
In
the
active
signification
(
as
farre
as
concern's
the
question
in
hand
,
and
as
the
Scripture
use
of
it
extendeth
in
the
great
businesse
of
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
before
God
)
it
most
usually
signifieth
that
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
justifieth
,
i.
absolveth
a
beleeving
sinner
from
the
guist
of
,
and
punishment
due
to
,
his
sinnes
.
It
may
,
in
this
active
signification
,
signifie
also
,
any
act
of
any
other
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
whatsoever
(
of
which
kind
there
are
many
,
as
we
shall
shew
afterwards
)
whereby
it
operates
or
contributes
any
thing
,
towards
this
effect
,
the
justification
of
a
sinner
.
Yea
to
this
active
signification
of
the
word
,
may
be
referred
the
act
of
the
forme
it selfe
,
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
which
also
in
a
way
proper
to
it
,
may
be
said
to
justify
.
In
the
passive
sense
,
justification
may
signifie
the
effect
it selfe
of
any
or
of
all
the
former
actions
,
but
most
properly
and
frequently
it
signifieth
,
that
comcompleate
and
intire
effect
wherein
all
their
severall
influences
and
contributions
meet
and
center
together
,
viz.
that
alteration
or
change
which
is
made
in
the
person
,
or
rather
in
the
estate
or
condition
of
a
person
,
when
he
is
justified
;
which
effect
,
alteration
,
or
change
,
standeth
in
this
,
that
whereas
he
was
before
the
passing
of
such
an
act
upon
him
,
a
man
under
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
and
liable
to
condemnation
,
now
he
is
a
free
man
,
acquited
and
discharged
from
both
.
In
the
former
sense
,
justification
is
atributed
to
God
1
Rom.
8.30
.
Whom
he
hath
called
,
them
also
he
hath
justified
,
&c.
and
ver.
33.
it
is
God
that
justifieth
,
and
so
to
Faith
often
.
In
the
latter
sense
,
it
is
attributed
to
,
or
spoken
of
men
.
Rom.
5.1
.
Therefore
being
justified
by
Faith
,
&c.
and
ver.
18.
Even
so
by
the
righteousnesse
(
or
justification
)
of
one
,
the
free
guift
came
upon
many
to
the
justification
of
life
.
i.
to
the
full
discharge
and
acquitting
them
from
all
sinne
,
upon
which
life
and
salvation
alwaies
follow
.
So
that
if
the
Question
be
asked
what
our
justification
is
,
or
wherein
it
stands
,
it
must
first
be
inquired
,
what
justification
it
is
,
that
the
Question
intends
,
for
active
justification
is
one
thing
,
and
passive
another
,
and
answere
is
to
be
made
accordingly
:
In
like
manner
remission
of
sinnes
,
signifieth
either
Gods
act
,
whereby
he
remitteth
a
manssinnes
:
or
else
the
effect
of
this
act
in
and
upon
him
,
whose
sinnes
are
so
remitted
.
And
generally
all
actions
,
either
have
,
or
in
sufficient
propriety
of
speech
,
may
have
the
same
name
with
their
proper
passions
or
effects
(
yea
and
sometimes
with
the
relations
resulting
from
them
)
.
As
calefaction
,
frigefaction
,
&c.
It
is
true
,
there
are
severall
other
acceptions
and
significations
of
the
word
Iustification
,
besides
absolution
from
sinne
,
when
it
is
,
or
as
it
may
be
used
in
other
cases
,
or
upon
other
occasions
:
as
Christ
himselfe
is
said
to
have
bin
justified
1
Tim.
16.
who
yet
had
no
sinnes
forgiven
him
:
and
Abraham
is
said
to
have
bin
justified
by
workes
.
Jam.
2.21
.
who
yet
had
not
his
sinnes
forgiven
by
or
through
his
works
.
So
a
man
that
is
falsely
accused
,
may
be
justified
,
and
yet
have
no
offence
forgiven
him
,
as
Christ
was
by
Pilate
when
he
professed
that
he
found
no
fault
in
him
.
Luk
23.4
.
But
in
the
case
and
Iustification
of
a
sinner
before
God
,
the
word
justification
still
signifies
and
imports
,
absolution
from
,
or
remission
of
sinnes
,
together
with
the
punishment
due
to
them
:
Neither
can
there
any
instance
be
produced
from
the
Scriptures
,
of
any
other
signification
.
Iustice
,
or
righteousnesse
,
Distincti
.
2
SECT.
2
hath
severall
acceptions
in
the
Scriptures
when
it
is
atributed
unto
God
,
it
signifies
sometimes
,
that
universall
and
absolute
holynesse
and
integritie
of
his
nature
,
which
maketh
him
infinitely
averse
from
doing
any
thing
,
little
or
much
,
contrary
to
the
true
rules
of
Iustice
and
Equity
,
and
inclines
him
only
to
do
things
agreeable
hereunto
.
Thus
it
seemes
to
be
taken
.
Psal.
11.7
.
For
the
righteous
Lord
loveth
righteousnesse
,
&c.
So
Dan.
9.14
.
Rove
.
16.5
.
besides
many
other
places
.
Sometimes
againe
(
and
that
very
frequently
)
it
signifieth
,
that
nature
in
God
which
we
commonly
call
truth
,
or
faithfulnesse
,
in
keeping
promise
.
Thus
it
is
taken
,
Psal.
36.6
.
Thy
righteousnesse
is
like
the
great
Mountaines
.
i.
thy
truth
in
thy
promises
can
never
be
shaken
,
or
removed
:
Thus
Heb.
6.10
.
God
is
said
not
to
be
unrighteous
,
i.
(
as
Paraeus
well
interprets
)
not
unfaithfull
in
his
promise
,
&c.
So
againe
,
1
Ioh.
1.9
.
God
is
faith
full
and
Iust
to
forgive
us
our
sinnes
,
i.
constant
in
his
promise
this
way
.
Thirdly
,
by
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
is
often
meant
that
gracious
affection
and
disposition
of
his
towards
his
people
,
by
reason
whereof
he
is
still
propense
and
inclineable
,
to
doe
them
good
,
as
either
to
relieve
and
support
them
in
trouble
,
or
to
deliver
them
out
of
trouble
,
or
the
like
.
And
this
(
doubtlesse
)
is
the
most
frequent
signification
of
the
word
of
all
other
.
Thus
Psal.
145.7
.
They
shall
abundantly
utter
the
memory
of
thy
great
goodnesse
,
and
shall
sing
of
thy
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
of
thy
clemency
and
grace
towards
thy
people
.
So
Psal
51.14
.
Mica
.
6.5
.
besides
other
places
without
number
.
Fourthly
,
that
gracious
purpose
and
intent
of
God
towards
his
elect
,
for
giving
them
saving
Faith
in
due
time
,
is
sometimes
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
.
Thus
,
2
Pet.
1.1
.
those
beleevers
to
whom
Peter
writes
,
are
said
to
have
obteyned
like
precious
Faith
with
him
,
through
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
&c.
Fiftly
,
(
that
which
is
of
most
concernment
to
the
question
in
hand
)
by
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
is
sometimes
meant
,
that
Iustification
,
or
that
way
,
method
,
or
meanes
of
Iustification
,
whereby
God
Iustifieth
,
and
makes
men
righteous
.
Thus
Rom.
3.21
.
The
righteousnesse
of
God
which
is
without
the
Law
,
i.
that
way
and
course
which
God
hath
found
out
for
the
Justification
or
making
men
righteous
,
which
consists
not
in
the
observation
or
works
of
the
Law
,
is
said
to
be
manifested
,
being
witnessed
by
the
Law
.
(
i.
the
writeings
of
Moses
)
and
the
Prophets
.
So
the
verse
following
:
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
the
Faith
of
Iesus
Christ
.
In
the
like
sense
the
word
is
also
used
Rom
,
1.17
.
Rom.
10.3
.
In
all
which
places
(
with
their
fellowes
)
by
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
is
meant
that
Iustification
,
or
way
of
making
men
righteous
,
which
God
himselfe
out
of
his
speciall
wisdome
and
grace
,
hath
found
out
and
recommended
unto
the
world
,
as
being
farre
differing
from
that
way
of
Iustification
,
which
the
wisdome
of
the
flesh
and
the
thoughts
of
men
run
so
much
upon
,
viz.
by
workes
and
observation
of
the
Law
.
In
the
same
kind
of
expression
,
mens
owne
righteousnesse
,
signifies
(
Rom.
10.3
.
)
that
way
or
meanes
by
which
they
intend
or
seeke
to
be
Iustified
.
Some
Divines
of
great
worth
and
fame
,
affirme
,
Iustitiae
ve●abulum
,
in
Scripturis
,
se
mper
notas
Dei
bonitatem
,
Miseri●ordians
,
salutem
&
redemptionem
:
nunquam
vere
adhibetur
ad
id
significandum
,
quod
vulgo
iustitiam
dicimus
,
nēpe
affectum
illum
quo
Deus
ad
scelera
et
peccata
.
vindicanda
propendet
:
irae
&
iudicij
vocabula
ad
hoc
significandum
potius
adhibentur
.
Cameron
:
Myroth
:
in
ve
.
21.
cap.
3.
ad
Rom.
p.
178.
that
the
word
Iustitia
,
Justice
or
righteousnesse
,
in
Scripture
,
never
signifieth
,
that
which
is
commonly
called
Justice
in
God
,
that
is
,
that
nature
or
affection
in
God
,
which
inclineth
him
to
punish
,
or
take
vengeance
on
sinne
;
(
this
they
say
is
usually
expressed
by
those
terms
,
wrath
and
judgment
)
but
either
the
goodnesse
,
mercy
,
and
salvation
of
God
,
or
the
like
.
But
whether
this
observation
will
stand
or
no
,
I
make
some
question
.
For
in
the
sixt
place
,
I
conceive
that
sometimes
,
that
very
affection
in
God
mentioned
,
viz.
his
severity
against
sinne
and
sinners
,
is
expressed
by
this
word
,
righteousnesse
.
In
this
sense
the
word
(
I
conceive
)
may
well
be
taken
.
Rom.
3.25.26
.
&c.
that
he
(
i
God
)
might
be
Iust
,
and
a
Iustifier
of
him
which
is
of
the
Faith
of
Iesus
.
that
is
,
that
God
might
appeare
and
be
declared
to
be
a
severe
Judge
and
punisher
of
sinne
,
and
yet
iustifie
and
acquit
all
those
from
sinne
,
who
beleeve
in
Iesus
Christ
.
Seventhly
,
Christ
himselfe
sometimes
seemes
to
be
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
as
Esa
42.21
.
The
Lord
is
well
pleased
for
his
righteousnesse
sake
.
So
Esa.
51.5
.
&c.
Now
Christ
may
be
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
because
he
is
the
great
Author
or
Mediator
of
that
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
which
God
vouchsafeth
unto
the
world
.
Lastly
,
the
society
and
company
of
those
that
are
made
righteous
or
iustified
by
God
through
Christ
,
are
called
the
righteousnesse
of
God
:
2
Cor.
5.21
.
of
which
phrase
we
shall
speake
further
in
this
Distinction
.
Againe
2º
,
this
word
Iustice
or
righteousnesse
,
SECT.
3
when
applied
to
men
,
sometimes
signifieth
,
that
generall
frame
of
the
heart
or
soule
,
consisting
of
all
those
holy
dispositions
and
affections
,
which
are
found
in
some
degree
,
in
every
true-borne
child
of
God
.
In
this
sense
God
himselfe
attributeth
righteousnesse
unto
Noah
Gen.
7.1
.
Thee
have
I
seene
righteous
,
&c.
In
this
sense
righteousnesse
is
opposed
to
the
corrupt
and
sinfull
frame
of
the
heart
in
the
estate
of
unregeneratenesse
,
and
a
righteous
man
to
an
unregenerate
man
.
This
sense
is
obvious
in
Scripture
.
Secondly
,
the
fruits
,
works
,
or
actions
,
arising
from
such
a
frame
of
heart
,
are
sometimes
called
,
righteousnesse
.
Thus
it
is
used
.
Act.
10.35
.
1
Ioh.
3.7
.
and
elsewhere
.
Thirdly
,
that
particular
and
speciall
disposition
,
which
inclineth
a
man
to
deale
uprightly
and
according
to
the
rules
of
equity
,
with
all
men
,
and
is
opposed
to
fraud
,
violence
,
oppression
,
&c.
together
with
the
worke
and
fruite
of
such
a
disposition
,
sometimes
goeth
under
the
Name
of
Iustice
or
righteousnesse
.
See
Gen.
30.33
.
Deut.
1.16
.
Esa
33
,
15.
besides
many
other
places
.
Fourthly
,
(
and
with
more
concernment
to
the
point
in
hand
)
Iustification
it selfe
(
in
the
passive
sense
declared
in
the
former
distinction
)
is
sometimes
(
by
a
metonymie
of
the
cause
for
the
effect
)
expressed
by
the
word
,
righteousnesse
.
Thus
Gal.
2.21
.
If
righteousnesse
(
i.
Justification
)
come
by
the
Law
,
i.
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
then
Christ
is
dead
in
vaine
.
So
Rom.
10
,
4.
Christ
is
the
end
of
the
Law
for
righteousnesse
(
i.
for
Justification
)
to
them
that
beleeve
.
So
ver.
5.
Moses
describeth
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
the
Law
,
&c.
i.
sheweth
wherein
that
Justification
consisteth
,
which
is
to
be
attained
by
the
Law
,
if
men
will
seeke
to
be
justified
by
it
:
So
againe
.
Ro.
5
,
17
,
The
guift
of
righteousnesse
,
i.
of
Justification
:
and
ver.
18
,
by
the
righteousnesse
of
one
,
&c.
i.
by
the
iustifying
of
one
(
as
the
former
translation
reads
it
,
and
that
I
conceive
more
agreeably
to
the
originall
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
)
or
rather
by
one
iustifying
,
i.
by
one
procurement
of
Iustification
,
the
gift
came
upon
all
men
(
viz.
that
beleeve
)
unto
Iustification
of
life
:
meaning
,
that
Christ
by
one
and
the
same
meanes
used
for
the
iustifying
of
men
,
purchased
and
procured
the
Justification
of
all
those
that
should
beleeve
,
be
they
never
so
many
,
and
that
such
a
Iustification
,
which
shall
be
accompanied
with
salvation
:
See
more
instances
of
this
signification
of
the
word
.
Rom.
8.4
.
Rom.
9.30
.
Rom.
10.10
.
1
Cor.
1.30
.
&c.
with
divers
others
.
Thus
also
,
in
the
same
propriety
of
speech
,
to
make
righteous
and
to
iustify
,
are
but
the
same
:
as
to
make
wicked
and
to
condemne
.
Compare
Rom.
5.
ver.
19.
with
ver.
18.
Fiftly
,
sometimes
Christ
himselfe
is
(
by
an
ellipsis
of
the
efficient
or
procuring
cause
very
usually
in
Scripture
)
called
the
righteousnesse
of
men
.
i.
the
Author
or
procurer
of
their
Justification
or
righteousnesse
:
as
Ier.
23.6
.
33.16
.
&c.
In
the
same
figure
of
speech
,
he
is
elsewhere
called
our
hope
,
our
life
,
our
sanctification
,
our
redemption
,
&c.
i.
the
Author
,
and
procurer
of
all
these
respectively
.
Sixtly
,
by
a
metonymy
of
the
cause
for
the
effect
,
or
of
the
antecedent
for
the
consequent
(
a
common
dialect
also
in
Scriptures
)
aswell
the
benefits
,
and
rewards
of
a
mans
righteousnesse
,
in
the
first
and
third
acception
of
the
word
,
as
the
blessings
and
privileges
which
accompany
that
righteousnesse
which
we
have
by
the
merits
of
Christ
in
our
Iustification
,
are
sometimes
expressed
by
the
terme
,
righteousnesse
.
Thus
Iob
33.26
.
God
will
render
unto
man
his
righteousnesse
.
i.
will
recompence
and
reward
every
mans
uprightnesse
and
integrity
,
with
sutable
blessings
,
and
expressions
of
his
love
So
Psal.
112.9
.
His
righteousnesse
remaineth
for
ever
.
i.
the
praise
,
and
other
rewards
of
his
righteousnesse
,
shall
be
durable
and
lasting
.
So
Gal.
5.5
.
We
through
the
Spirit
waite
for
the
hope
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
.
i.
for
the
great
and
royall
privileges
promised
by
God
(
and
accordingly
hoped
for
by
us
)
to
that
Iustification
which
is
by
Faith
in
Iesus
Christ
,
See
the
first
Chapter
of
the
former
part
of
this
discourse
.
Sect.
4.
p.
12.
&c.
Seventhly
,
the
word
righteousnesse
,
in
some
construction
of
words
with
it
,
hath
no
precise
or
proper
signification
,
distinct
and
apart
from
the
word
with
which
it
is
joyned
,
but
together
with
that
word
makes
a
sense
or
signification
of
one
and
the
same
thing
.
Thus
in
the
phrase
of
imputing
righteousnesse
(
Rom.
4.6.11
.
&c.
)
the
word
imputing
,
See
impedit
ira
.
&c.
p.
43.
doth
not
signifie
one
thing
,
and
righteousnesse
another
,
but
together
they
signifie
one
and
the
same
act
of
God
,
which
we
call
,
free
iustifying
:
So
that
to
impute
righteousnesse
,
is
nothing
else
but
freely
to
iustifie
:
and
righteousnesse
imputed
,
free
iustification
(
passive
)
It
is
th●●
in
many
idiom's
and
proprieties
of
languages
.
In
that
Hebrew
phrase
of
covering
the
feet
,
Iudg.
3.24
.
1
Sam.
24.3
.
Neither
of
the
words
are
to
be
taken
in
any
proper
or
peculiar
signification
,
but
together
they
signifie
one
and
the
same
thing
,
and
that
differing
from
the
proper
signification
of
either
of
the
words
.
Many
other
instances
might
be
given
in
severall
phrases
or
formes
of
speech
the
true
sense
and
meaning
whereof
is
not
to
be
gathered
from
the
proper
signification
which
the
words
have
severally
in
other
constructions
,
but
from
the
concurrence
and
joynt
aspect
of
them
in
that
phrase
.
Thus
the
Scripture
phrase
of
going
in
to
a
woman
is
not
to
be
interpreted
,
according
to
the
significations
of
the
words
,
in
other
sentences
or
constructions
of
speech
;
but
according
to
the
importance
which
they
still
joyntly
have
when
they
are
found
together
.
Eightly
(
and
lastly
)
the
word
,
righteousnesse
according
to
the
propriety
of
the
Hebrew
stongue
,
which
often
useth
abstracts
for
concretes
,
signifieth
sometimes
a
Society
or
company
of
righteous
or
iustifiedones
,
sometimes
of
just
or
upright
ones
.
In
the
former
sense
you
have
it
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
That
we
should
be
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
,
i.
a
company
of
righteous
or
iustified
persons
,
made
such
by
God
,
through
Iesus
Christ
.
In
the
latter
sense
you
have
it
Esa
60.17
.
where
God
promiseth
to
his
Church
and
people
to
make
their
exactors
righteousnesse
i.
a
generation
or
company
of
men
that
should
deale
righteously
and
fairely
with
them
.
In
this
dialect
of
speech
,
poverty
(
for
so
it
is
in
the
originall
)
is
put
for
a
company
of
poore
men
.
2
Kings
24.14
.
So
Captivity
for
a
company
of
Captives
.
2
Chr.
28.5
.
Deut.
21.10
.
and
in
sundry
other
places
.
So
againe
,
circumcision
for
circumcised
:
Phil.
3.3
.
election
for
elected
,
Rom.
11.7
.
with
the
like
.
So
that
aswell
in
studying
as
arguing
the
Question
in
hand
,
great
care
must
be
had
,
that
we
be
not
intangled
and
lose
our selves
in
this
multiplicitie
of
significations
of
this
word
,
righteousnesse
,
which
is
a
word
almost
of
continuall
use
and
occurrence
in
the
businesse
of
Iustification
,
and
yet
of
such
an
ambiguous
and
different
signification
and
importance
,
Distincti
.
3
See
sect
.
4.
See
Pareus
De
Iusti
.
Christi
Active
et
Passive
:
p.
180.
D.
Prideaux
Lect.
5.
de
Iustifi
.
p.
162.
Mr.
Eradshaw
Iustifica
:
p.
68
,
69.
&c.
Mr.
Forbez
.
Iustificate
.
25.
p.
111
,
112
,
&c
that
without
much
heedfulnesse
,
it
may
occasion
much
stumbling
and
miscariage
in
our
understanding
.
The
righteousnesse
or
obedience
of
Christ
is
twofold
,
o●
of
two
kindes
:
the
one
Divines
call
Iustitia
personae
,
the
righteousnesse
of
his
person
:
the
other
Iustitia
meriti
,
the
righteousnesse
of
his
merit
.
The
terms
of
Active
and
Passive
,
wherein
this
Distinction
is
commonly
conceived
,
are
not
altogether
so
proper
,
because
even
in
that
obedience
which
we
call
Passive
,
Christ
was
in
some
sort
active
,
as
willingly
and
freely
submitting
himselfe
unto
it
.
Notwithstanding
the
Distinction
might
passe
well
enough
in
these
termes
,
Obedientia
Christi
duplex
●st
:
altera
,
quam
vi
legus
communu
,
qua
creatura
rationalus
,
verus
homo
cum
esset
;
altera
,
quam
vi
legude
mediatione
peculiarus
,
sive
pacti
de
redemptionis
negotio
initi
,
quam
neris
humani
Mediator
et
Redemptor
,
Dro
Patri
,
debu●t
et
exhibuit
,
Gataker
against
Gomarus
,
p.
4.
See
further
p.
15.
〈◊〉
p.
25.
ibid.
The
righteousnesse
of
his
person
is
that
,
whereby
he
iustifyeth
himselfe
only
,
or
is
himselfe
righteous
:
the
righteonsnesse
of
his
merit
,
is
that
whereby
he
iustifyeth
others
.
The
former
consisteth
partly
of
that
integrity
of
nature
which
was
in
him
,
partly
of
that
obedience
which
he
performed
to
the
morall
Law
,
or
that
Law
which
is
generally
imposed
upon
all
men
.
The
latter
,
of
that
obedience
or
subjection
which
he
performed
to
that
peculiar
Law
of
Mediator-ship
,
which
was
imposed
upon
him
alone
,
and
never
upon
any
man
besides
.
For
it
is
evident
that
Christ
both
did
and
suffered
many
things
,
not
simply
as
he
was
man
,
but
as
he
was
Mediator
:
especially
his
voluntary
submission
of
himselfe
unto
death
for
the
ransome
and
attonement
of
the
world
,
was
the
fulfilling
of
the
great
commandement
in
the
peculiar
Law
of
Mediator-ship
,
being
no
waies
bound
by
any
precept
in
the
Morall
Law
thereunto
.
If
Christ
had
been
bound
as
man
,
or
by
the
Morall
Law
,
to
die
for
the
sinnes
of
men
,
his
death
had
bin
ineffectuall
for
others
.
For
certaine
it
is
,
that
no
man
dischargeth
another
mans
debt
,
Qui
obedientiae
activae
aut
sanctitati
nativae
,
meritum
justitla
ascribunt
,
morrem
Christi
sine
dubie
innnem
reddunt
.
Pareus
De
Iustic
:
Christi
Activ
.
and
Pass
.
p.
181.182
.
&c.
by
paying
his
owne
:
and
our
Saviour
himselfe
,
injoyneth
his
Disciples
,
when
they
should
doe
only
that
which
was
commanded
them
,
though
they
should
do
this
to
the
uttermost
,
yet
to
say
that
they
were
unprofitable
Servants
,
they
had
done
but
that
which
was
their
duty
to
doe
.
Luk
17.10
.
Besides
,
hee
that
maintaineth
,
that
Christ
was
bound
by
the
moral
Law
to
die
for
the
sinnes
of
men
,
saith
(
in
effect
)
that
if
he
had
not
died
,
he
had
bin
a
sinner
,
and
deserved
to
have
bin
punished
himselfe
:
and
so
extenuateth
and
abaseth
to
the
dust
the
infinitenesse
of
that
grace
,
which
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
manifested
unto
the
world
,
by
his
dying
for
it
.
If
it
be
objected
and
said
,
SECT.
5
that
other
men
are
bound
to
lay
downe
their
lives
for
the
truth
when
they
are
call'd
thereunto
,
and
so
for
one
another
.
1
John
3.16
.
and
this
must
needs
be
by
the
Morall
Law
:
therefore
Christ
stood
bound
by
the
same
Law
to
doe
the
like
.
To
this
I
answere
,
1º
,
that
men
considered
simply
as
men
,
and
not
as
sinners
,
or
as
men
that
have
sinned
,
were
not
bound
by
any
Law
whatsoever
to
lay
downe
their
lives
at
all
,
nor
upon
any
occasion
whatsoever
:
because
God
by
promise
had
setled
the
inheritance
and
possession
of
life
upon
innocencie
and
integrity
,
for
ever
.
Therefore
as
the
Apostle
reasons
in
another
case
.
Gal.
3
,
21.
Is
the
Law
then
against
the
promises
of
God
?
God
forbid
.
So
is
it
to
be
conceived
in
this
case
,
that
the
promise
of
God
being
,
Dee
this
and
thou
shalt
live
,
there
was
no
Law
that
should
contradict
it
,
that
is
,
that
should
enjoyne
a
man
being
innocent
,
and
doing
all
things
required
in
the
Law
,
to
die
or
part
with
his
life
,
upon
any
termes
whatsoever
.
Therefore
secondly
,
that
obligation
or
commandement
which
now
lieth
upon
men
to
part
with
their
lives
,
either
for
witnessing
the
truth
,
or
upon
any
other
occasion
,
was
not
originally
any
branch
of
the
Morall
Law
;
but
partly
by
reason
of
the
interveening
of
sinne
,
but
especially
by
reason
of
the
great
benefit
of
the
redemption
of
the
world
from
sinne
by
Iesus
Christ
,
it
is
now
a
superadded
duty
(
amongst
many
others
)
somewaies
reducible
to
the
Morall
Law
,
but
not
properly
or
directly
conteyned
in
it
.
And
thus
the
Scripture
it selfe
plainely
determineth
.
For
speaking
of
this
duty
,
of
laying
downe
a
mans
life
,
in
case
the
spirituall
(
yea
or
perhaps
the
temporall
rall
necessity
of
some
men
doe
require
it
(
and
doubtlesse
there
is
the
same
reason
of
all
other
cases
in
this
kind
)
it
grounds
the
equity
and
obligement
of
it
,
upon
the
grace
and
benefit
of
Redemption
by
the
death
of
Iesus
Christ
.
Hereby
have
we
perceived
love
,
that
he
layd
downe
his
life
for
us
:
THEREFORE
wee
ought
also
to
lay
downe
our
lives
for
our
Brethren
.
1
Joh.
3.16
.
So
that
(
in
the
third
place
)
Iesus
Christ
being
universally
free
from
sinne
in
and
from
the
first
instant
of
his
conception
to
his
death
,
and
having
none
(
nor
any
need
of
any
)
to
die
for
his
redemption
,
could
have
no
tie
or
obligation
upon
him
from
the
Morall
Law
,
to
lay
downe
his
life
upon
any
occasion
whatsoever
,
in
asmuch
as
this
Law
in
the
first
institution
and
imposure
of
it
,
requireth
death
of
no
man
upon
no
occasion
but
for
sinne
(
neither
did
it
then
require
this
by
any
way
or
duty
,
but
of
threatning
)
neither
doth
it
now
require
it
of
any
man
,
but
upon
the
supposall
of
sinne
,
and
that
great
deliverance
from
sinne
,
brought
into
the
world
by
another
,
Iesus
Christ
.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
I
answere
yet
further
;
that
no
man
hath
ever
any
calling
from
God
by
vertue
of
the
Morall
Law
,
as
now
it
stands
with
all
the
additions
and
improvements
of
it
,
to
lay
downe
his
life
,
either
for
witnessing
the
truth
,
or
for
the
benefit
of
the
Brethren
,
or
for
any
other
possible
end
or
purpose
,
when
that
end
(
whatsoever
it
be
)
for
which
this
laying
downe
a
mans
life
seemes
to
be
required
,
may
be
aswell
,
that
is
,
as
Lawfully
,
and
as
sufficiently
provided
for
in
another
way
.
For
certainly
neither
doth
the
Morall
Law
,
nor
God
himselfe
by
vertue
of
any
commandement
in
this
Law
,
require
of
men
at
any
time
,
to
die
like
fooles
:
and
what
is
it
but
to
die
like
a
foole
,
when
a
man
shall
give
his
life
for
that
,
which
might
aswell
,
and
as
effectually
bee
procured
by
him
in
another
way
?
If
therefore
it
be
conceived
,
that
Christ
might
be
called
God
by
vertue
of
the
Morall
Law
,
to
lay
downe
his
life
for
witnessing
or
sealing
the
truth
,
I
answere
,
that
Christ
could
have
as
sufficiently
provided
for
the
honour
and
advancement
of
Truth
another
way
,
as
by
his
death
,
viz.
by
the
inward
illumination
and
conviction
of
the
judgementsand
consciences
of
me●
by
his
spirit
.
Therefore
he
had
no
call
by
the
Morall
Law
,
to
die
for
this
end
.
If
it
be
yet
objected
:
but
the
salvation
of
men
his
Brethren
,
could
not
be
provided
for
by
him
in
any
other
way
,
but
by
his
death
only
:
Therefore
in
this
regard
and
for
this
end
,
he
might
be
bound
by
the
Morall
Law
,
to
die
:
To
this
I
answere
(
as
before
in
part
)
that
the
Morall
Law
considered
as
simply
morall
,
i.
as
requiring
only
those
duties
of
a
man
,
which
were
required
of
him
in
his
estate
of
innocencie
,
threateneth
all
sinners
(
without
exception
)
with
death
,
without
giving
the
least
intimation
or
hope
of
any
to
die
for
them
;
so
farre
is
it
from
imposing
it
by
way
of
duty
upon
any
man
whatsoever
,
to
die
for
them
.
Therefore
whatsoever
may
now
be
conceived
to
be
imposed
upon
any
man
by
way
of
duty
in
this
kind
,
doth
not
arise
from
the
originall
and
native
morality
of
the
Law
,
but
from
that
alteration
and
change
which
the
grace
of
redemption
by
Iesus
Christ
,
hath
made
in
the
estate
and
condition
of
men
,
by
reason
whereof
many
generall
principles
and
impressions
of
the
preceptive
or
directive
part
of
the
Law
,
are
improved
,
and
extended
to
many
d●t●es
,
which
were
not
at
first
comprehended
or
intended
in
them
.
From
all
which
duties
it
is
evident
,
that
the
Lord
Christ
,
considered
simply
as
a
man
,
or
as
an
innocent
and
sinlesse
man
,
or
as
having
his
condition
no
waies
altered
or
made
better
by
any
Redemption
by
any
another
,
SECT.
6
was
absolutely
and
universally
exempt
and
free
.
Thus
at
last
we
have
(
I
conceive
)
sufficiently
cleered
and
established
both
the
truth
and
necessity
of
the
distinction
last
propounded
,
viz.
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
into
that
which
is
commonly
called
Active
,
wherein
his
personall
integrity
and
holinesse
is
absolved
,
and
made
perfect
;
and
that
which
is
called
Passive
,
which
is
the
righteousnesse
of
another
Law
differing
from
that
which
is
called
Morall
,
and
was
performed
by
him
,
meerely
in
relation
to
the
justification
,
or
righteous-making
of
others
.
The
truth
and
necessity
of
the
distinction
,
might
be
further
evicted
from
the
Scriptures
,
as
from
these
and
such
like
.
Esa.
53.11
.
2
Cor.
5.21
.
Heb.
7.26
.
Heb.
9.14
.
1
Pet.
3.18
.
&c.
By
all
which
passages
it
is
evident
,
that
Christ
doth
not
justify
others
by
the
morall
righteousnesse
of
his
person
whereby
himselfe
was
made
righteous
,
but
by
that
other
righteousnesse
,
which
we
may
call
mediatorie
,
satisfactorie
,
passive
,
or
meritorious
;
and
yet
with
all
that
this
righteousnesse
it selfe
could
have
done
nothing
this
way
,
but
upon
presupposall
of
,
and
inconsistence
with
the
other
,
(
as
will
hereafter
further
appeare
)
But
because
this
hath
bin
sufficiently
performed
by
others
[
](A85397-e67790-b)(a)
(a)
Pareus
de
Iustic
.
Christi
Act.
et
Pass.
P.
181.
,
and
the
distinction
it selfe
is
granted
and
acknowledged
by
the
learnedest
[
](A85397-e67810-b)(b)
(b)
Bish:
Davenant
De
Iustic
:
Habit.
c.
28.
p.
364.
Argum.
3.
Mr.
Bradshaw
Iustific
.
p.
67.72
.
&c.
Bish.
Downham
Iustific●
c.
1.
c.
2
Section
9.
of
those
that
are
(
or
at
least
,
sometimes
seeme
to
be
)
of
opposite
judgement
in
the
maine
of
the
controversie
depending
,
I
thus
leave
it
.
Onely
I
desire
to
remember
you
of
the
Item
Pareus
gives
[
](A85397-e67880-b)(c)
(c)
De
Iustic
:
Christi
Act
:
et
Pass.
p.
180.
out
of
his
observation
touching
this
Dictinction
;
that
the
neglect
hereof
causeth
much
confusion
,
and
encumbreth
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
with
many
difficulties
and
inconveniences
,
and
renders
it
hardly
defensible
against
the
Papists
and
other
adversaries
to
the
truth
of
it
.
Therefore
in
managing
the
present
Question
about
imputation
,
speciall
care
must
be
had
,
that
we
neither
use
our selves
,
nor
admit
from
others
,
these
words
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
but
with
an
eye
to
this
Distinction
.
A
thing
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
a
man
in
severall
respects
and
considerations
.
First
,
Distinct
.
4
SECT.
7
a
mans
owne
acts
whether
good
or●evill
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
,
when
he
himselfe
and
none
other
,
is
simply
,
and
without
reference
either
to
reward
or
punishment
either
reputed
or
pronounced
the
doer
of
them
.
This
sense
of
imputation
is
not
unproper
,
yet
do
I
not
remember
the
word
any
where
in
the
Scriptures
so
used
.
But
in
this
sense
,
aswell
the
Active
as
Passive
obedience
of
Christ
,
are
by
God
imputed
to
Christ
himselfe
,
and
to
no
other
:
and
the
sinnes
of
beleevers
themselves
,
to
themselves
that
have
committed
them
respectively
,
and
to
none
other
.
Secondly
,
a
mans
doings
whether
good
or
evill
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
,
when
he
is
either
actually
rewarded
,
or
punished
because
of
them
,
or
else
is
look'd
upon
by
the
Judge
,
as
one
that
shall
in
due
time
either
be
rewarded
or
punished
for
such
doings
,
except
some
reasonable
and
just
occasion
,
shall
in
the
meane
time
intervene
,
to
alter
either
of
these
purposes
concerning
him
.
In
this
sense
Shimei
maketh
request
to
David
,
that
he
would
not
impute
folly
to
him
,
that
is
,
that
he
would
not
punish
him
for
that
foolish
act
of
his
reviling
him
.
So
the
sinnes
of
unbelievers
may
be
sayd
to
be
imputed
to
them
,
when
either
they
are
punished
by
God
in
this
world
,
or
else
cast
into
Hell
for
them
.
In
this
sense
also
,
the
sinnes
of
the
elect
themselves
before
they
beleeve
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
,
because
they
are
looked
upon
by
God
,
as
persons
yet
liable
to
condemnation
for
their
sinnes
,
and
that
should
in
time
actually
be
condemned
,
except
by
the
precious
benefit
and
advantage
of
Gods
patience
and
long
sufferance
towards
them
,
they
should
come
truely
to
beleeve
in
Iesus
Christ
before
death
.
Thirdly
,
Another
mans
trespasse
or
offence
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
us
,
when
either
we
are
challenged
or
look'd
upon
as
advisors
,
counsellors
,
or
furtherers
of
him
thereunto
,
or
otherwise
are
hardly
dealt
with
or
punished
,
as
if
we
had
bin
accessary
in
some
such
way
:
And
so
another
mans
vertue
,
learning
,
valor
,
and
well-deserving
in
any
kind
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
him
,
who
is
conceived
or
look'd
upon
,
as
the
chiefe
Author
,
teacher
,
or
incourager
of
the
other
,
in
any
of
these
.
In
this
sense
the
faire
and
hopefull
cariage
of
King
Ioash
towards
the
beginning
of
his
Reigne
,
may
be
imputed
to
Iehojada
the
Priest
.
2
King
.
12.2
.
with
2
Ch.
24.2
.
Thus
the
knowledge
and
courage
which
were
found
in
Peter
and
Iohn
are
(
in
effect
)
imputed
to
Christ
himselfe
by
the
Priests
and
Rulers
.
Act.
4.13
.
In
this
sense
also
the
victory
won
by
the
valor
and
courage
of
the
Souldiers
,
is
oft
imputed
to
the
Generall
or
chiefe
Commander
.
Fourthly
,
one
mans
sinne
(
and
so
his
vertuous
act
)
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
another
,
when
this
other
,
through
ignorance
or
mistake
,
is
look'd
upon
as
the
man
that
had
performed
either
the
one
or
the
other
,
and
is
either
censured
or
punished
,
or
else
honoured
,
or
rewarded
accordingly
.
In
this
sense
King
Porsenna's
hostile
attempt
against
the
Romans
,
may
be
said
to
have
bin
imputed
unto
his
Scribe
or
Officer
by
Scaevola
,
when
upon
a
mistake
he
slew
him
,
supposing
him
to
have
bin
the
King
.
I
do
not
remember
any
instance
for
this
sense
of
the
word
imputation
,
in
the
Scriptures
.
Therefore
Fiftly
,
one
mans
wickednesse
or
ill
deserts
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
others
,
when
they
are
any
waies
punished
,
or
worse
dealt
with
in
consideration
thereof
:
as
on
the
contrary
,
a
mans
worth
,
vertue
or
well-deservings
in
any
kind
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
others
,
as
viz.
his
children
,
kinsfolke
,
friends
,
&c.
when
they
are
considered
,
and
well
dealt
with
in
any
kind
,
because
of
their
relation
unto
such
a
man
.
In
this
sense
David
may
be
said
to
have
imputed
Ionathans
kindnesse
unto
Mephibosheth
his
Sonne
,
when
he
preferred
him
to
honour
,
in
consideration
thereof
:
and
so
the
wicked
act
of
those
that
accused
Daniel
and
caused
him
to
be
cast
into
the
Lyons
Den
,
may
be
said
to
have
bin
imputed
unto
their
wives
and
children
,
by
the
King
,
when
he
caused
them
also
to
be
cast
into
the
Lyons
Den
for
it
.
Dan.
6
24.
So
the
sinne
of
Achan
,
to
his
house
and
Family
.
Ios.
7.
and
the
sinne
of
Dathan
and
Abiram
to
their
wives
and
Children
.
Num.
16.
In
this
sense
likewise
,
Paul
willeth
Philemon
to
impute
to
him
(
for
so
the
word
signifieth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Phil.
ver
.
18.
)
any
wrong
or
injury
that
his
servant
Onesimus
had
done
him
,
meaning
that
he
was
willing
and
ready
to
make
satisfaction
for
it
.
In
this
sense
of
imputation
(
and
in
this
only
)
the
sinnes
of
men
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Christ
,
viz.
because
he
suffered
the
things
which
he
did
suffer
,
in
consideration
of
them
:
and
these
sufferings
of
his
againe
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
us
,
because
we
are
rewarded
,
that
is
,
justified
&
saved
in
consideration
of
them
.
But
that
either
our
sinnes
,
should
be
therefore
said
to
be
imputed
unto
Christ
,
because
he
is
reputed
by
God
to
have
committed
them
,
or
that
his
righteousnesse
,
whether
active
,
or
passive
,
should
be
therefore
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
because
we
are
reputed
by
God
to
have
done
or
suffered
the
one
or
the
other
,
[
](A85397-e68750-b)(a)
(a)
In
this
sense
the
imputation
aswell
of
the
Passive
,
as
Active
obedience
of
Christ
,
are
elswhere
denied
in
this
Treatise
.
See
Part
1.
c.
10
Sect.
4
,
&c.
hath
neither
footing
nor
foundation
either
in
Scripture
or
reason
.
Sixtly
,
taking
the
word
imputation
in
a
large
sense
,
SECT.
8
that
also
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
a
man
,
which
essentially
and
directly
conduceth
either
to
the
benefit
or
punishment
,
which
accrueth
unto
him
,
from
that
which
is
more
properly
and
immediatly
imputed
to
him
.
In
this
sense
,
when
the
wife
or
children
of
a
man
that
hath
well
deserved
of
a
state
or
Family
,
are
any
waies
rewarded
or
well
dealt
with
in
consideration
of
his
desert
,
not
only
the
deserts
themselves
,
but
his
ingenuous
and
liberall
education
,
together
with
his
vertuous
dispositions
,
as
essentially
requisite
to
make
him
a
man
capable
of
such
deservings
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
.
i.
they
have
a
benefit
accrueing
to
them
from
such
education
and
dispositions
of
his
,
though
not
immediately
,
but
by
the
intervening
of
those
worthy
acts
and
services
performed
by
him
.
In
this
sense
not
only
Achans
sinfull
and
sacrilegious
act
of
taking
away
the
wedge
of
gold
and
Babylonish
garment
,
but
the
bitter
roote
it selfe
that
bare
this
cursed
fruit
,
I
meane
his
covetousnesse
,
may
be
said
to
have
bin
imputed
unto
all
those
of
his
house
,
that
were
punished
with
him
for
that
sacrilege
,
In
this
sense
likewise
aswell
the
habituall
holynesse
of
Christs
person
,
as
the
morall
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
his
life
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
those
that
beleeve
in
him
,
because
these
were
essentially
and
directly
requifite
,
to
make
his
death
and
sufferings
,
justification
and
life
and
salvation
to
them
,
as
hath
bin
further
opened
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
.
But
because
this
signification
of
the
word
is
somewhat
remote
and
unusuall
,
and
hath
no
manner
of
counteuance
from
the
Scripture
,
Piscator
,
Paraeus
,
with
other
learned
and
Orthodox
Divines
,
have
simple
denyed
all
imputation
of
the
active
righteousnesse
or
obedience
of
Christ
,
and
(
doubtlesse
)
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
,
as
it
is
layd
downe
in
the
Scriptures
,
would
not
at
all
suffer
,
if
the
expression
were
layd
aside
altogether
.
Seventhly
,
a
thing
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
a
man
when
he
is
looked
upon
or
dealt
with
,
as
if
he
had
some
true
worth
or
qualification
in
him
,
whereunto
there
are
speciall
privileges
belonging
,
when
as
yet
he
hath
not
,
the
worth
or
qualification
indeed
,
but
comes
to
have
right
to
the
privileges
notwithstanding
in
some
other
way
.
In
this
sense
righteousnesse
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
that
beleeveth
,
Rom.
4.6.11
.
&c.
that
is
,
he
that
truely
beleeveth
in
Christ
,
is
looked
upon
by
God
,
and
partly
hath
,
and
partly
shall
have
and
injoy
all
the
privileges
and
blessings
which
do
belong
,
and
are
annexed
by
covenant
or
promise
,
unto
a
perfect
and
compleate
Law-righteousnesse
,
though
there
be
no
such
righteousnesse
found
in
him
,
because
Iesus
Christ
by
his
death
and
sufferings
hath
purchased
a
right
and
title
for
him
to
these
privileges
and
blessings
:
which
title
is
actually
derived
and
settled
upon
him
,
upon
his
beleeving
.
So
that
to
say
,
God
imputeth
righteousnesse
to
a
man
,
is
but
(
in
effect
)
to
say
,
that
God
lookes
upon
him
with
the
same
grace
and
favor
,
wherewith
he
would
looke
upon
him
,
if
he
were
properly
and
legally
righteous
indeed
,
and
had
never
sin'd
,
and
intends
all
the
further
privileges
and
blessings
of
such
a
righteousnesse
unto
him
.
In
such
a
sense
as
this
,
when
a
man
take's
likeing
to
,
and
loves
another
mans
child
,
and
intends
to
settle
his
estate
upon
him
,
he
may
be
said
to
impute
Son-ship
unto
him
,
because
though
he
be
not
his
Son
,
yet
he
confer's
the
rights
and
privileges
of
a
Sonne
upon
him
,
as
viz.
fatherlike
affection
,
and
his
inheritance
.
Eightly
,
SECT.
9
one
thing
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
a
man
,
for
,
or
instead
of
another
,
when
the
rights
and
priviledges
which
originally
and
properly
belong
to
the
one
,
are
yet
exhibited
and
conferr'd
upon
him
,
upon
the
performance
of
the
other
:
or
againe
,
when
upon
the
committing
of
one
offence
,
he
is
charged
with
the
guilt
and
inconveniences
of
another
,
the
guilt
and
evill
consequences
whereof
are
more
notorious
and
manifest
.
Thus
he
that
provideth
not
for
his
owne
,
especially
for
his
houshold
,
hath
the
sinne
of
denying
the
Faith
,
i.
the
Gospell
,
imputed
unto
him
(
1
Tim.
5.8
.
)
because
the
evill
consequences
of
both
sinnes
are
much
the
same
,
but
yet
are
more
readily
acknowledged
,
as
likely
to
arise
from
the
latter
.
In
this
sense
also
the
Faith
of
him
that
beleeveth
,
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
for
righteousnesse
(
Rom.
4.3.5
.
&c.
)
because
the
same
privileges
,
which
originally
and
more
apparantly
did
belong
unto
,
and
were
setled
by
God
upon
a
legall
righteousnesse
,
or
immunity
from
sinne
,
do
now
belong
unto
,
and
are
setled
by
Covenant
and
promise
from
the
same
God
,
upon
beleeving
.
Ninthly
and
lastly
,
any
matter
of
profit
,
benefit
or
advantage
,
which
any
waies
accrueth
,
or
is
coming
towards
a
man
,
whether
by
way
of
due
debt
,
or
of
free
donation
and
grace
,
or
the
like
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
him
accordingly
.
Thus
(
Rom.
4.4
.
)
the
reward
,
viz.
of
justification
and
life
,
is
said
to
be
reckoned
,
or
imputed
to
him
that
worketh
,
(
i.
that
shall
deserve
it
by
a
perfect
observation
of
the
Law
)
of
debt
,
and
not
of
grace
.
The
meaning
is
,
that
if
any
man
should
be
rewarded
by
God
with
life
and
happinesse
,
upon
his
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
such
a
reward
would
be
generally
taken
and
looked
upon
by
men
,
as
no
matter
of
grace
or
favor
from
God
,
but
as
a
matter
of
right
and
due
debt
to
such
a
man
.
There
is
no
word
or
terme
(
to
my
remembrance
)
belonging
to
the
dispute
in
hand
,
or
to
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
in
generall
,
more
incumbred
with
variety
of
significations
then
this
of
Imputation
,
and
consequently
more
obnoxious
to
mistake
and
misunderstanding
.
There
is
scarse
any
proposition
can
be
framed
,
wherein
this
word
is
used
indefinitly
and
without
speciall
limitation
or
explication
,
but
may
both
be
granted
and
denied
,
according
to
a
different
sense
and
acception
thereof
.
As
for
example
,
such
propositions
as
these
.
The
active
obedience
of
Christ
is
imputed
.
The
active
obedience
of
Christ
is
not
imputed
.
The
passive
obedience
of
Christ
is
imputed
,
The
passive
obedience
of
Christ
is
not
imputed
,
&c.
are
either
true
or
false
,
according
as
the
word
imputed
,
is
understood
and
taken
in
them
.
Therefore
speciall
care
must
be
had
how
and
upon
what
termes
this
word
passeth
,
or
be
admitted
in
the
present
Controversie
.
Obedience
to
the
Morall
Law
may
be
said
to
be
required
of
men
two
waies
,
or
in
two
respects
:
Distinct
.
5
SECT.
10
First
,
by
way
of
iustification
,
that
a
man
thereby
may
be
esteemed
perfectly
righteous
by
God
,
and
accordingly
have
all
the
privileges
of
a
compleate
righteousnesse
conferred
upon
him
.
Secondly
,
by
way
of
sanctification
,
that
he
may
testifie
and
expresse
his
subjection
unto
God
,
and
his
unfeigned
desire
of
pleasing
him
in
all
things
.
In
both
respects
this
obedience
was
required
of
man
,
in
his
estate
of
innocencie
,
and
is
still
required
of
the
Holy
Angells
,
yea
and
was
required
also
of
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
himselfe
.
Compare
Mat.
3.16
.
with
Iohn
15.10
.
&c.
But
since
the
fall
of
man
,
it
is
not
nequited
of
him
,
by
way
of
justification
(
in
the
sense
expressed
)
but
only
in
a
way
of
sanctification
.
This
is
evident
by
these
a
consideratios
.
First
,
because
a
man
being
once
touch'd
with
sinne
,
and
failing
in
the
least
point
of
obedience
(
as
all
men
were
,
and
did
in
the
fall
)
is
not
capable
of
any
such
obedience
to
the
La●
,
whereby
it
is
impossible
for
him
to
be
justified
,
no
,
though
he
should
keepe
the
Law
with
all
possible
exactnesse
ever
after
to
the
worlds
end
,
without
the
least
failing
in
the
least
point
of
obedience
thereunto
:
the
condition
of
a
legall
justification
being
,
that
a
man
must
continue
(
à
carcere
ad
metas
,
from
the
very
first
entrance
upon
his
being
,
to
the
last
end
thereof
)
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
so
that
the
least
trip
or
stumbling
throughout
all
his
course
,
wholly
dissolves
and
overthrowes
such
a
justification
.
Secondly
,
because
God
hath
opened
another
way
for
the
justification
of
sinners
,
viz.
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
and
certaine
it
is
,
that
he
never
sets
up
one
way
against
another
,
or
one
ordinance
against
another
,
so
that
what
he
intends
should
be
effected
by
one
,
he
should
intend
to
be
effected
by
another
also
,
as
hath
bin
argued
and
proved
more
at
large
,
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
.
[
](A85397-e69740-b)(a)
(a)
cap.
12.
Sect.
2.
&c.
Therefore
to
affirme
,
that
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
is
required
of
any
man
either
by
himselfe
or
by
another
in
his
stead
,
for
his
justification
is
to
affirme
,
either
that
a
man
that
hath
sin'd
,
hath
not
sin'd
,
or
that
which
God
hath
said
,
he
hath
unsaid
.
Christ
may
be
said
to
have
kept
the
Law
,
Distincti
.
6
SECT.
11
in
reference
to
our
justification
,
two
waies
,
or
in
a
double
sense
:
either
1º
,
for
us
:
or
2º
,
in
our
stead
.
In
the
former
sense
,
it
may
be
admitted
,
that
Christ
kept
the
Law
for
our
justification
,
but
not
in
the
latter
.
The
former
sense
only
imports
,
that
this
obedience
of
his
had
an
influence
into
our
justification
,
and
did
contribute
that
which
was
of
absolute
necessity
thereunto
;
which
hath
bin
explained
,
and
granted
,
and
(
in
part
)
proved
formerly
.
The
latter
sense
imports
,
that
the
keeping
of
the
Law
,
was
primarily
required
of
every
man
for
his
justification
,
since
the
fall
,
and
that
God
,
in
respect
of
the
personall
disabilities
of
men
for
such
performance
in
reference
to
such
an
end
,
sent
his
Sonne
Iesus
Christ
to
performe
it
in
their
roomes
and
places
.
Which
supposition
stands
convict
of
a
manifest
untruth
in
the
former
Distinction
,
and
elswhere
in
this
Treatise
.
[
](A85397-e69930-b)(a)
(a)
Part
1.
cap.
Sect.
Distincti
.
7.
SECT.
12
The
Iustification
of
a
sinner
(
I
meane
Passive
)
though
it
be
but
one
and
the
same
entire
effect
,
yet
may
it
be
ascribed
to
many
(
and
those
very
diff●rent
)
causes
respectively
,
according
to
their
severall
influences
,
and
differing
manner
of
concurrence
thereunto
.
God
may
be
said
to
iustifie
,
Christ
may
be
said
to
iustifie
,
yea
the
Holy
Ghost
in
a
true
and
proper
sense
may
be
said
to
iustifie
,
Faith
may
be
said
to
iustify
,
the
Minister
may
be
said
to
iustifie
,
(
as
well
as
to
save
,
1
Tim.
4.16
.
)
remission
of
sinnes
may
be
said
to
iustifie
,
&c.
Whatsoever
contributeth
any
thing
,
more
or
lesse
,
either
in
a
superior
or
inferior
way
,
towards
the
raising
and
producing
any
effect
,
the
effect
it selfe
may
not
onely
according
to
truth
,
but
in
ordinary
propriety
of
speaking
be
ascribed
unto
it
.
It
is
as
true
to
say
(
and
not
unproper
)
that
the
sling
in
Davids
hand
,
or
the
smooth
stone
which
he
slang
,
or
his
act
of
slinging
,
killed
Goliah
,
as
to
say
,
that
David
himselfe
killed
him
,
though
it
's
true
,
David
was
the
principall
efficient
in
this
action
,
and
the
other
were
but
inferior
and
instrumentall
.
So
that
to
reason
thus
,
Christ
iustifies
,
therefore
Faith
doth
not
iustifie
:
or
thus
,
Christ
is
our
righteousnesse
,
therefore
Faith
is
not
our
righteousnesse
,
or
remission
of
sinnes
is
not
our
righteousnesse
,
&c.
is
as
if
a
man
should
argue
after
this
manner
.
It
is
God
that
maketh
rich
,
therefore
money
maketh
not
rich
,
or
a
diligent
hand
maketh
not
rich
,
which
yet
is
a
truth
,
and
is
affirmed
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
aswell
as
the
other
.
Or
thus
,
It
is
God
that
purifieth
the
heart
:
therefore
man
purifieth
it
not
,
neither
doth
Faith
purifie
it
,
nor
doe
afflictions
purifie
,
&c.
Or
thus
,
The
Physician
recovered
the
sick
:
therefore
his
Physique
did
not
recover
him
.
It
is
a
weake
reasoning
,
à
positione
causae
principalis
,
ad
remotionem
accessorie
.
Christ
may
Justifie
,
and
Faith
may
justifie
,
and
remission
of
sinnes
may
justifie
:
yea
Christ
doth
not
iustifie
without
Faith
,
nor
without
remission
of
sinnes
,
more
then
either
o●
these
iustifie
without
Christ
,
though
it
be
true
,
Christ
iustifieth
after
a
manner
peculiar
to
himselfe
,
and
Faith
and
Remission
of
sinnes
,
each
of
them
after
a
manner
proper
to
it selfe
,
and
the
manner
,
of
Iustification
which
is
proper
to
Christ
,
is
more
excellent
and
of
superior
consideration
,
to
the
manner
wherein
either
Faith
or
Remission
of
sinnes
Iustifie
.
Therefore
the
argument
doth
not
follow
,
from
the
affirmation
of
Iustification
by
Christ
,
to
the
negation
of
the
same
Iustification
by
Faith
,
or
any
other
thing
:
but
it
well
f●llowes
,
from
the
affirmation
of
the
peculiar
manner
of
Iustification
which
is
proper
to
Christ
,
to
the
negation
of
the
same
manner
,
as
belonging
either
to
Faith
,
or
to
Remission
of
sinnes
,
or
any
thing
besides
.
This
arguing
is
substantiall
.
Christ
Justifieth
by
way
of
merit
,
or
satisfaction
,
or
attonement
for
sinne
:
therefore
neither
Faith
,
nor
remission
of
sinnes
,
nor
any
thing
else
iustifieth
,
either
by
way
of
merit
,
satisfaction
,
or
attonement
.
Therefore
care
must
be
had
to
distinguish
the
simple
act
,
from
the
peculiar
manner
,
of
Iustification
.
CAP.
IIII.
Conteyning
a
briefe
Delineation
or
survey
of
the
intire
body
of
Justification
,
in
the
severall
causes
of
it
,
according
to
the
tenour
of
the
Conclusions
and
Distinctions
layd
downe
in
the
two
former
Chapters
.
AS
well
to
give
a
full
and
free
accompt
of
mine
owne
judgement
,
SECT.
1
and
of
what
I
conceive
and
hold
touching
the
great
businesse
of
Iustification
,
and
the
whole
cariage
of
it
in
the
Scriptures
and
counsaile
of
God
,
as
also
to
furnish
my
Reader
with
some
further
and
cleer●r
light
,
whereby
to
comprehend
the
darknesse
,
and
to
discover
the
insufficiency
and
weaknesse
of
those
arguments
,
that
either
are
brought
from
the
Scriptures
,
or
otherwise
framed
,
against
the
maine
Conclusion
defended
in
this
Treatise
:
I
thought
it
not
amisse
to
inlarge
the
Discourse
by
one
Chapter
the
more
,
wherein
to
delineate
and
represent
(
according
to
the
modell
of
my
weake
insight
into
so
great
a
mystery
)
that
faire
piece
or
frame
wherein
the
grace
,
justice
,
and
wisdome
of
God
have
sweetly
conspired
for
the
justification
of
a
poore
sinner
.
And
because
the
perfect
knowledge
hereof
(
I
meane
of
the
gracious
designe
of
God
in
and
about
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
)
depends
upon
the
knowledge
and
right
apprehension
of
the
severall
causes
concurring
and
contributing
thereunto
(
as
indeed
the
true
knowledg
of
all
th●ngs
whatsoever
,
ariseth
from
the
knowledge
of
the
causes
thereof
)
I
desire
leave
to
premise
some
few
generall
rules
touching
the
number
,
nature
,
and
property
of
causes
in
generall
,
but
only
such
,
which
are
generally
acknowledged
and
subscribed
unto
by
sober
men
that
have
had
their
wits
exercised
in
discerning
things
agreeable
to
reason
,
and
who
can
be
no
waies
suspected
as
partiall
,
or
any
waies
engaged
,
either
on
the
right
hand
or
on
the
left
,
in
the
Disputes
agitated
in
this
Discourse
.
The
first
rule
I
lay
downe
concernes
the
number
of
causes
in
generall
,
Rule
1
and
is
this
:
There
are
foure
(
and
but
foure
)
generall
heads
,
fountaines
,
or
kind
of
causes
,
whereunto
and
under
which
,
all
,
and
all
manner
of
causes
,
be
they
never
so
many
or
various
,
which
any
waies
conduce
or
contribute
towards
the
raising
of
any
effect
or
new
being
,
may
be
reduced
and
comprehended
.
These
are
usually
knowne
and
called
by
these
names
:
1º
,
the
efficient
,
2º
,
the
finall
,
3º
,
the
materiall
,
4º
,
the
formall
.
The
sufficiencie
of
which
division
of
causes
in
generall
,
might
easily
be
argued
and
made
good
by
demonstration
,
but
that
it
hath
beene
done
by
many
before
me
,
and
besides
hath
now
for
many
ages
by-gone
,
bin
admitted
by
men
of
reason
and
learning
,
into
the
same
honour
of
unquestionable
truth
,
with
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
i.
their
first
and
most
undoubted
principles
of
Reason
.
Rule
2
My
second
rule
respects
the
different
habitude
or
relation
in
generall
,
SECT.
2
betweene
the
two
former
,
and
the
two
latter
causes
(
as
they
were
named
)
towards
their
effects
,
and
is
this
.
The
efficient
and
finall
causes
do
never
ingredi
compositum
,
i.
are
never
any
part
,
any
thing
of
the
substance
,
of
the
effect
produced
but
are
alwaies
extrinsecall
thereunto
,
and
have
their
beings
distinct
from
it
.
As
on
the
other
hand
,
the
materiall
and
formall
causes
,
are
alwaies
intrinsecall
to
the
effect
,
and
together
make
up
(
as
it
were
)
the
intire
substance
and
essence
of
it
.
As
for
example
:
The
Carpenter
who
is
the
efficient
cause
of
the
House
that
is
built
,
and
so
his
Axe
,
Saw
,
Hammer
,
&c.
are
no
parts
of
the
house
:
neither
is
the
conveniencie
or
accommodation
of
the
dweller
or
owner
,
which
is
the
finall
cause
of
the
House
,
any
part
of
it
;
which
appeares
thus
,
because
the
house
may
stand
,
and
be
the
same
house
that
it
is
,
though
the
Carpenter
that
made
it
be
dead
,
and
though
it
had
neither
dweller
nor
owner
belonging
to
it
.
But
the
tymber
,
Brick
,
stone
,
&c.
which
are
the
materiall
cause
of
it
,
and
the
order
,
or
method
wherein
they
are
contrived
and
wrought
together
in
the
building
by
the
workman
:
which
is
the
formall
cause
,
are
the
essentiall
and
constituting
parts
of
the
house
:
so
that
if
either
of
these
should
be
altered
or
taken
away
,
the
house
it selfe
must
be
altered
,
and
taken
away
with
them
.
My
third
Rule
toucheth
the
absolute
incapacitie
in
every
one
of
these
causes
,
Rule
3
of
any
more
relations
then
one
,
in
respect
of
one
and
the
same
effect
,
and
proceeds
after
this
manner
:
No
one
thing
or
cause
whatsoever
,
can
put
on
more
habitudes
or
relations
of
causalitie
then
one
,
in
respect
of
one
and
the
same
effect
.
As
for
example
,
that
which
is
the
efficient
cause
of
a
thing
,
can
never
be
the
formall
,
nor
the
materiall
,
nor
finall
cause
of
it
.
So
againe
,
that
which
is
the
materiall
cause
of
a
thing
,
cannot
be
the
formall
cause
of
that
whereof
it
is
the
materiall
,
nor
yet
the
efficient
or
finall
:
and
there
is
the
same
consideration
of
them
all
.
Neither
the
Carpenter
,
nor
his
skill
,
nor
his
Ax
,
nor
his
Hammer
(
which
are
all
efficients
)
can
be
the
matter
of
the
house
he
builds
with
them
:
neither
can
the
tymber
or
stones
,
which
are
the
materiall
cause
of
it
,
be
the
efficient
cause
also
.
&c.
It
is
true
,
in
some
cases
,
and
in
an
unproper
and
metaphoricall
sense
,
the
same
person
that
in
one
consideration
is
the
efficient
cause
of
a
thing
,
may
in
another
consideration
be
the
finall
cause
of
it
.
As
when
a
Carpenter
builds
an
house
for
himselfe
to
dwell
in
,
in
a
sense
he
may
be
called
both
the
efficient
and
finall
cause
of
this
house
.
But
this
is
an
unproper
expression
,
and
according
to
Grammaticall
and
expresse
importance
of
the
words
,
not
consonant
to
truth
.
For
if
we
speake
properly
,
the
Carpenter
cannot
in
this
case
be
said
to
be
the
finall
cause
of
his
house
,
because
the
nature
and
propriety
of
the
finall
cause
is
,
to
receive
it's
being
,
by
and
from
that
,
whereof
it
is
the
cause
,
and
not
to
have
a
subsistence
and
being
before
it
,
as
the
Carpenter
hath
before
the
building
of
his
house
.
Therefore
the
finall
cause
of
the
house
under
instance
,
is
the
Carpenters
conveniencie
of
dwelling
,
which
is
a
thing
of
another
nature
,
and
farre
differing
from
his
person
.
The
like
interpretation
must
rule
to
make
exactnesse
of
truth
of
that
common
saying
in
Divinity
,
that
God
is
the
efficient
and
finall
cause
or
end
of
all
things
,
[
](A85397-e71130-b)(a)
(a)
See
sect
.
6
▪
of
this
c.
which
the
Scripture
expresseth
by
calling
him
Alpha
and
Omega
,
Revel
.
1.
But
for
the
rule
it selfe
last
layd
downe
,
if
rightly
understood
,
it
is
universally
and
unquestionably
true
,
that
one
and
the
same
thing
cannot
possibly
stand
in
more
relations
of
causality
then
one
,
to
one
and
the
same
effect
,
no
more
then
one
and
the
same
point
of
Heaven
can
be
both
East
and
West
,
or
North
and
South
,
in
respect
of
the
same
Country
or
place
.
The
4th
and
last
Rule
I
desire
to
lay
downe
,
Rule
4
SECT.
3
concerns
the
multiplicitie
of
divisions
,
whereof
the
4
generall
heads
of
Causes
mentioned
,
are
capable
.
The
rule
I
deliver
in
these
words
.
Though
there
be
but
foure
kindes
,
or
heads
of
causes
in
the
generall
,
yet
under
every
one
of
these
heads
there
are
severall
species
of
causes
comprehended
,
and
though
all
these
under
kindes
or
particular
species
of
causes
,
agree
together
in
that
common
nature
of
causality
,
which
is
expressed
in
that
general
head
,
under
which
they
are
respectively
and
severally
comprehended
,
yet
have
they
speciall
and
particular
differences
,
and
those
very
considerable
one
from
another
,
betweene
themselves
.
To
prosecute
all
the
distinctions
or
divisions
of
causes
,
that
are
found
in
Authors
,
or
otherwise
might
be
thought
upon
,
would
be
to
cast
oyle
upon
the
flames
,
and
make
the
Reader
double
wearier
of
the
length
of
his
discourse
,
then
he
is
already
.
I
shall
therefore
instance
(
and
that
as
briefly
as
may
be
)
in
some
few
,
which
I
conceive
have
speciall
relation
to
the
businesse
in
hand
,
and
without
the
knowledg
whereof
,
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
,
can
hardly
be
thoroughly
and
cleerely
understood
.
The
first
generall
head
of
causes
,
which
we
called
the
Efficient
,
admits
of
more
divisions
and
subdivisions
,
and
conteynes
more
species
of
causes
under
it
(
which
are
yet
all
efficients
)
then
any
of
the
other
,
yea
then
all
the
other
three
together
.
The
truth
is
,
that
there
is
such
an
endlesse
varietie
of
the
kindes
of
efficient
causes
,
●hat
it
is
very
difficult
to
finde
them
all
out
,
or
to
give
fitting
names
to
many
that
may
more
easily
be
found
.
It
shall
suffice
for
our
present
occasion
to
mention
some
few
divisions
of
them
.
First
,
of
efficient
causes
,
some
are
principall
,
SECT.
4
others
lesse
principall
.
The
principall
efficient
cause
,
is
that
which
worketh
independently
and
from
it selfe
(
I
speake
now
in
respect
of
created
causes
only
:
because
otherwise
,
all
causes
whatsoever
have
a
dependance
upon
God
in
their
working
towards
the
effect
,
having
other
efficients
under
it
,
which
worke
likewise
towards
the
same
effect
,
but
depend
upon
it
(
the
principall
cause
)
in
their
working
:
and
these
are
causes
lesse
principall
,
or
instrumentall
.
The
Carpenter
is
the
principall
efficient
cause
of
the
house
,
his
Axe
,
Saw
,
and
Hammer
,
&c.
are
but
instrumentall
efficients
:
because
though
these
conduce
and
contribute
somewhat
towards
the
building
of
it
,
yet
they
are
assum'd
and
ordered
in
their
working
by
the
Carpenter
,
and
would
do
nothing
if
they
were
not
acted
and
moved
by
him
,
whereas
himselfe
worketh
independantly
,
being
acted
and
guided
in
his
worke
by
a
principle
within
himselfe
.
It
is
true
,
in
a
sense
the
Carpenter
may
be
said
to
depend
upon
his
instruments
in
working
,
viz.
as
being
unable
to
worke
or
build
without
them
:
but
in
point
of
causalitie
,
that
only
is
counted
a
dependance
,
when
a
thing
is
either
assumed
,
supported
,
or
directed
by
another
in
it's
efficiencie
:
none
of
which
can
be
verifyed
of
the
Carpenter
in
respect
of
his
instruments
wherewith
he
worketh
.
Againe
,
of
causes
efficient
,
whether
created
or
increated
,
principall
or
lesse
principall
,
some
are
naturall
,
some
artificiall
,
and
some
morall
.
By
the
efficient
naturall
,
I
meane
that
cause
which
hath
it's
efficiencie
,
or
contributes
towards
the
effect
,
by
the
exercising
or
putting
forth●
of
some
power
that
is
naturall
and
essentiall
to
it
.
Thus
the
Sun
is
the
naturall
efficient
cause
of
the
light
in
the
ayre
,
and
of
all
other
sublunarie
effects
which
it
produceth
,
because
it
produceth
them
all
only
by
the
exercise
and
putting
forth
of
such
principles
,
as
of
light
,
motion
,
influence
,
&c.
as
are
naturall
to
it
.
In
this
sense
,
that
kinde
of
efficient
which
otherwise
is
called
voluntary
,
i.
that
workes
freely
and
with
the
knowledge
of
its
owne
working
,
and
is
contradistinguished
to
that
which
is
purely
and
simply
naturall
,
may
sometimes
,
and
in
respect
of
some
effects
,
be
termed
naturall
also
,
as
viz.
when
it
acteth
towards
any
effect
by
any
faculty
,
principle
,
or
power
that
is
naturall
to
it
.
In
this
sense
David
may
be
called
the
naturall
efficient
cause
of
the
motion
of
the
stone
,
wherewith
Goliah
was
slaine
:
Yea
the
increated
efficient
cause
himselfe
(
God
I
meane
,
who
in
other
respects
,
is
termed
the
supernaturall
efficient
)
may
in
this
sense
be
called
the
naturall
efficient
or
producing
cause
of
the
world
,
(
and
so
of
all
other
effects
whatsoever
produced
by
him
)
viz.
as
he
effecteth
them
either
by
that
power
,
or
by
that
authority
which
are
naturall
or
essentiall
to
him
.
Secondly
,
the
efficient
cause
artificiall
,
is
that
which
produceth
its
effect
by
the
exercise
of
some
acquired
or
superadded
principle
or
habit
of
art
.
But
of
this
kinde
of
cause
we
shall
have
no
use
in
the
businesse
of
Iustification
,
therefore
we
passe
by
it
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
the
morall
efficient
cause
,
is
that
which
contributes
towards
an
effect
,
by
inclining
or
moving
the
will
or
desire
of
the
naturall
efficient
cause
(
capable
of
such
motion
)
towards
the
doing
or
effecting
of
any
thing
.
Thus
first
the
wages
for
which
a
workman
contracts
to
build
an
house
or
the
like
,
and
secondly
,
the
hope
he
hath
of
receiving
this
wages
upon
the
performance
of
this
work
,
and
thirdly
the
inward
disposition
which
is
in
the
workman
,
to
undertake
such
a
worke
in
consideration
of
such
wages
(
with
the
like
)
may
all
be
called
morall
efficient
causes
of
that
worke
or
effect
,
whatsoever
it
be
,
that
is
performed
by
him
.
So
the
love
and
kindnesse
which
Ionathan
in
his
life-time
shewed
to
David
,
were
the
morall
e●●●cient
causes
of
that
favour
which
David
shewed
to
Mephibosheth
his
Sonne
.
With
this
kinde
of
causa●ity
,
the
greatnesse
of
the
sinne
of
Sodom
and
Gomorrah
,
together
with
the
severity
which
is
in
the
nature
of
God
▪
against
such
sinnes
and
sinners
,
was
the
cause
of
that
horrible
destruction
that
came
in
fire
and
brimstone
upon
it
,
and
the
sinne
of
Achan
the
cause
both
of
his
owne
ruine
,
and
of
his
whole
Family
,
with
infinite
more
of
like
consideration
.
For
that
likewise
is
to
be
knowne
and
remembred
,
for
our
better
understanding
of
the
businesse
of
Iustification
when
we
come
to
it
,
that
this
impulsive
or
morall
efficient
cause
is
of
two
sorts
or
kinds
:
First
,
that
which
moves
the
naturall
efficient
from
within
himselfe
,
to
doe
such
or
such
a
thing
,
which
Logicians
call
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Secondly
,
that
which
from
without
moves
or
inclines
him
accordingly
,
which
they
call
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
As
for
example
,
when
a
man
upon
the
knowledg
or
sight
of
another
mans
miserie
in
any
kind
,
is
perswaded
to
administer
comfort
or
reliefe
to
him
,
the
miserie
of
the
man
being
knowne
to
him
is
the
latter
kinde
of
cause
of
that
comfort
or
reliefe
which
he
administers
;
and
the
inward
tendernesse
or
compassionatnesse
of
his
nature
towards
those
that
are
in
miserie
,
is
the
former
.
Of
both
these
kinds
of
efficients
,
there
may
be
many
,
in
respect
of
one
and
the
same
effect
,
some
more
principall
,
i.
more
effectually
moving
,
and
some
lesse
;
as
will
cleerely
appeare
in
the
ease
of
Iustification
.
Thirdly
,
SECT.
5
of
the
efficient
causes
,
some
are
more
remote
,
and
mediate
;
others
againe
more
neere
and
immediate
.
The
remote
cause
of
a
thing
,
is
that
which
contributeth
towards
the
effecting
of
it
,
but
yet
doth
not
reach
the
effect
it selfe
,
but
by
the
interposall
and
mediation
of
another
.
The
next
and
immediate
cause
,
is
that
which
produceth
the
effect
,
without
the
interveening
of
any
other
cause
betweene
.
Thus
a
mans
eating
and
drinking
,
are
the
remote
causes
of
his
health
and
strength
,
by
meanes
of
a
good
digestion
,
distribution
,
and
incorporation
of
what
is
so
digested
,
into
the
severall
parts
of
the
body
coming
betweene
,
which
latter
are
the
neerer
and
more
immediate
causes
thereof
.
So
the
capacitie
and
diligence
of
an
Apprentice
in
learning
his
Trade
,
are
remote
causes
of
that
estate
or
subsistence
,
which
afterwards
he
raiseth
by
working
upon
it
:
and
consequently
of
all
that
good
which
he
doth
in
any
kind
,
with
his
estate
so
gotten
.
So
that
abstinence
or
temperance
which
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
;
1
Cor.
9
,
25.
in
him
that
striveth
for
masteries
,
is
the
remote
cause
of
all
those
victories
and
prizes
which
he
obteyneth
and
carrieth
away
,
by
running
,
wrestling
,
&c.
And
generally
whatsoever
prepares
or
qualifies
the
naturall
efficient
for
the
producing
or
accomplishing
of
any
effect
,
may
properly
be
called
a
remote
cause
of
the
same
.
And
in
this
respect
,
the
personall
holinesse
,
and
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
to
the
Law
,
may
be
called
the
efficient
causes
of
Iustification
,
but
causes
remote
,
not
immediate
,
because
they
qualifyed
him
for
such
sufferings
,
whereby
this
great
effect
of
justification
was
procured
,
but
had
no
immediate
influence
thereinto
.
Onely
that
is
briefly
to
be
remembred
concerning
this
division
of
causes
efficient
,
that
as
there
may
be
many
remote
causes
of
one
and
the
same
effect
,
so
there
may
be
many
immediate
and
conjunct
causes
also
,
(
though
some
great
Artists
conceite
otherwise
[
](A85397-e71740-b)(a)
(a)
Keckerman
System
.
Logic.
l.
1.
c.
15.
p.
146.
but
these
must
still
be
of
severall
kindes
.
The
principall
and
instrumentall
causes
are
alike
immediate
,
in
respect
of
the
effect
joyntly
produced
by
them
,
&c.
And
the
first
,
or
increated
cause
,
God
,
is
●like
immediate
in
every
effect
,
with
the
created
cause
that
is
most
immediate
to
it
.
There
are
many
other
Divisions
and
kindes
of
this
first
head
of
causes
,
which
we
call
efficient
,
as
1º
,
there
is
the
efficient
solitarie
,
and
the
efficient
in
consort
or
association
with
other
causes
.
2º
,
the
efficient
which
hath
a
proper
,
naturall
,
and
direct
tendencie
towards
the
effect
,
which
they
call
efficiens
perse
:
and
the
efficient
which
falls
in
on
the
by
,
and
concurr's
towards
the
effect
,
but
accidentally
,
and
besides
any
natural
inclination
it
hath
towards
the
raising
of
the
effect
,
which
they
call
causa
per
accidens
.
3º
,
there
is
a
kinde
of
efficient
which
they
call
subordinata
,
i.
of
an
inferior
order
,
in
respect
of
another
cause
that
is
of
a
superior
;
and
coordinata
,
i.
such
a
cause
,
as
is
of
the
same
ranke
and
order
with
another
,
&c.
besides
divers
others
;
which
I
insist
no
further
upon
,
because
I
conceive
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
may
be
sufficiently
delivered
and
understood
without
the
particular
knowledg
of
them
.
The
second
generall
head
of
causes
mentioned
,
SECT.
6
was
the
finall
cause
,
or
the
end
,
so
called
(
as
it
seem's
)
because
both
the
action
and
intention
of
the
principall
efficient
are
terminated
,
ended
,
and
satisfied
in
the
assecution
or
atteynment
thereof
.
There
are
severall
divisions
and
kinds
of
this
cause
also
:
but
because
there
is
little
,
or
no
dispute
or
question
touching
the
finall
cause
of
Iustification
,
amongst
those
that
are
much
dissenting
in
judgement
about
other
causes
thereof
,
I
shall
passe
over
this
cause
with
the
more
brevity
.
The
finall
cause
or
end
of
an
effect
or
thing
caused
,
or
of
a
thing
to
be
effected
or
caused
,
is
either
that
which
is
called
Finis
perse
,
that
is
,
such
an
end
as
the
effect
is
naturally
and
of
it selfe
apt
to
produce
,
and
raise
:
or
else
that
which
is
called
Finis
per
accidens
,
that
is
,
such
a
thing
and
end
,
which
followes
upon
,
and
may
be
in
some
sort
said
to
be
produced
or
occasioned
by
the
effect
,
but
yet
is
a
thing
of
that
nature
and
importance
,
which
doth
not
answere
the
nature
and
propriety
of
the
effect
by
which
it
was
occasioned
or
produced
.
Thus
the
hardening
of
reprobate
and
wicked
men
,
and
so
the
increasing
of
their
condemnation
&c.
are
accidentall
ends
of
preaching
the
Gospell
,
or
of
the
Gospell
preached
,
because
they
are
oft
occasioned
and
somewaies
caused
and
produced
thereby
,
but
do
not
answere
or
suite
with
the
nature
and
propriety
of
the
Gospell
or
preaching
thereof
,
which
are
sweet
and
gracious
.
As
on
the
contrary
,
the
softening
and
melting
of
the
hearts
of
men
,
and
so
the
furtherance
of
them
in
the
waies
of
salvation
,
&c.
are
ends
pers●
,
or
proper
ends
of
the
preaching
the
Gospell
,
because
they
are
not
only
produced
by
it
,
but
likewise
are
things
that
sympathize
in
nature
and
property
therewith
,
and
sweetly
answere
the
tenor
and
importance
of
such
an
action
.
Againe
secondly
,
of
finall
causes
or
ends
per
se
,
some
are
primarily
such
,
&c.
more
properly
so
called
:
others
againe
are
secondarily
such
,
and
lesse
properly
so
called
.
The
finall
cause
or
end
primarily
and
properly
so
called
,
is
that
which
the
principall
efficient
intends
to
accomplish
and
to
attaine
,
by
meanes
of
such
or
such
an
effect
produced
by
him
.
And
this
againe
is
double
,
or
of
two
kindes
.
First
,
that
which
is
more
principally
so
intended
by
him
;
Secondly
that
which
is
lesse
principally
intended
.
The
end
lesse
principally
intended
,
is
that
which
is
intended
with
reference
and
subordination
to
some
further
end
,
as
viz.
to
that
which
is
more
and
most
principally
intended
:
as
on
the
contrary
,
the
end
more
principally
intended
,
is
that
which
hath
inferior
ends
subservient
to
it
,
and
destinated
to
the
effecting
of
it
.
Thus
the
house
it selfe
which
the
work
man
builds
for
himselfe
to
dwell
in
,
is
the
lesse
principall
end
of
his
labour
in
building
and
his
own
conveniencie
of
dwelling
or
otherwise
,
is
the
more
principall
,
because
the
house
was
intended
chiefly
in
relation
unto
this
.
So
the
sorrow
which
Paul
wrought
in
the
Corinthians
by
his
Epistle
(
1
Cor.
7.9
.
)
was
the
lesse
principall
end
of
his
writing
,
and
their
repentance
the
more
principall
,
because
that
was
intended
by
him
,
as
a
meanes
conducing
unto
this
.
And
that
end
which
is
intended
simply
for
it selfe
,
and
without
any
subordination
or
reference
to
another
end
beyond
it
,
is
the
supreme
,
Sovereigne
,
and
most
principall
end
of
all
,
as
the
glory
of
God
is
to
himselfe
in
all
his
works
,
and
should
be
to
the
creatures
also
in
all
theirs
.
But
secondly
,
the
finall
cause
or
end
lesse
properly
socalled
,
is
that
,
to
which
or
to
whom
,
or
for
whose
good
,
the
end
properly
so
called
,
is
intended
.
Thus
the
patient
or
sick
person
,
is
the
end
of
that
recovery
or
health
,
which
the
Physician
seekes
to
procure
:
and
the
elect
,
the
end
of
the
great
dispensation
of
God
in
Christ
:
and
in
this
sense
God
himselfe
is
sayd
to
be
end
both
of
this
,
and
all
other
his
dispensations
whatsoever
.
The
third
generall
head
or
fountaine
of
causes
,
SECT.
7
was
the
Materiall
.
Now
the
matter
,
or
materiall
cause
of
a
thing
,
is
either
that
which
is
properly
,
or
unproperly
so
called
.
The
matter
or
materiall
cause
properly
so
called
,
is
that
which
in
union
with
the
forme
,
makes
up
a
substantiall
compounded
body
.
So
that
this
kinde
of
matter
(
matter
properly
so
called
)
is
proper
to
,
and
only
found
in
that
kinde
of
nature
or
being
,
which
we
call
a
substance
,
as
the
Heavens
,
the
4
Elements
and
all
things
that
are
compounded
and
made
of
them
,
and
is
it selfe
alwaies
a
substance
.
The
matter
of
a
thing
unproperly
so
called
,
is
that
which
hath
some
kinde
of
analogie
or
proportion
onely
to
that
which
is
matter
properly
.
In
this
sense
,
that
other
nature
or
kinde
of
being
,
which
we
call
accidentall
,
as
actions
,
passions
,
qualities
,
figures
,
relations
,
&c.
may
be
said
to
have
matter
,
as
viz.
either
their
subjects
wherein
they
have
their
existences
and
beings
,
or
their
objects
,
upon
,
and
about
which
they
act
,
worke
,
or
are
exercised
:
or
thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
the
parts
whereof
some
of
them
doe
consist
,
and
are
made
up
.
In
the
first
sense
,
the
wall
may
be
called
the
matter
of
the
whitenesse
that
is
put
upon
it
,
and
the
fire
,
the
matter
of
the
heate
that
is
in
it
,
and
a
man
the
matter
of
the
learning
or
knowledge
that
is
in
him
,
&c.
In
the
second
sense
,
the
wall
is
the
matter
of
that
act
of
the
Painter
or
Plaisterer
,
whereby
he
made
the
wall
white
;
and
so
the
servant
or
slave
of
old
,
was
the
matter
of
that
act
of
manumission
,
whereby
his
Mr.
set
him
at
liberty
,
and
made
him
free
;
and
the
elect
of
God
both
men
and
women
are
the
matter
of
the
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
saves
them
.
In
the
third
and
last
sense
,
the
severall
parts
of
whitenesse
that
are
in
the
wall
,
as
the
whitenesse
that
is
above
,
and
the
whitenesse
that
is
beneath
,
that
which
is
on
the
right
hand
,
and
that
which
is
on
the
left
,
with
that
which
is
in
the
midst
,
are
the
matter
of
that
area
or
whole
extent
of
whitenesse
which
is
in
the
wall
.
In
this
sense
,
the
three
lines
whereof
a
triangle
is
made
,
is
said
to
be
the
matter
of
the
triangle
,
and
letters
and
syllables
to
be
the
matter
of
a
word
,
and
words
the
matter
of
a
sentence
&c.
But
there
is
no
accident
whatsoever
,
that
hath
any
matter
properly
so
called
:
nor
any
action
any
other
matter
properly
or
unproperly
,
or
however
called
,
but
only
the
subject
,
matter
or
object
,
on
which
it
is
acted
,
and
wherein
it
is
terminated
and
received
.
What
hath
been
said
concerning
this
materiall
cause
,
is
dilligently
to
be
remembred
,
and
carried
along
with
us
to
the
businesse
of
Justification
;
because
it
much
concern's
one
veyne
of
the
Question
or
controversie
depending
.
The
fourth
and
last
head
of
causes
,
SECT.
8
was
that
which
is
called
the
Forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
a
thing
.
This
cause
is
divided
or
distinguished
into
that
which
is
properly
,
and
that
which
is
improperly
so
called
.
The
forme
properly
so
called
,
is
that
cause
,
which
together
with
the
matter
properly
so
called
,
constitutes
and
makes
up
a
substantiall
compounded
body
.
This
kinde
of
forme
is
alwaies
it selfe
a
substance
,
and
not
an
accident
:
and
still
the
more
noble
or
principall
part
,
of
that
body
which
it
informeth
.
The
particular
species
of
it
are
not
knowne
,
but
onely
by
the
properties
and
operations
which
flow
from
them
respectively
.
The
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
a
thing
unproperly
so
called
,
(
which
is
that
kinde
of
forme
wherewith
only
we
have
to
doe
in
the
businesse
of
Iustification
)
is
allwaies
a
thing
of
that
inferior
nature
or
being
,
which
we
call
accidentall
or
adjunctive
,
Because
it
is
still
susteyned
in
ir's
being
,
in
some
other
nature
which
is
substantiall
,
and
hath
no
subsistence
in
,
or
by
it selfe
,
yet
hath
not
this
forme
the
denomination
of
a
forme
alwaies
in
regard
of
the
subject
,
wherein
it
hath
it's
being
,
and
to
which
it
gives
a
kinde
of
being
also
,
as
learning
gives
a
man
his
being
learned
,
&c.
but
in
regard
of
that
action
or
motion
whereby
it
is
introduced
into
the
subject
,
and
is
therefore
called
the
forme
of
an
action
,
motion
,
or
alteration
,
not
because
it
gives
any
other
kinde
of
being
to
any
of
these
(
for
it
rather
receives
it's
being
from
them
)
but
only
a
being
knowne
and
distinguished
from
all
other
actions
,
or
motions
whatsoever
.
For
actions
,
or
motions
;
as
calefaction
,
frigefaction
,
and
so
Redemption
,
Iustification
,
salvation
,
&c.
are
severally
knowne
and
distinguished
one
from
another
(
and
so
from
every
other
action
or
motion
whatsoever
besides
,
)
by
that
proper
forme
,
impression
,
or
alteration
which
they
introduce
and
make
in
their
subjects
or
objects
about
which
they
are
exercised
and
acted
respectively
:
as
the
heat
or
warmth
which
is
caused
in
my
hand
by
the
fire
,
maketh
that
action
of
the
fire
by
which
it
is
caused
,
not
simply
to
be
,
but
to
be
known
to
be
that
action
which
we
call
calefaction
or
warming
,
and
none
other
,
i●
bei●g
unpossible
that
such
a
forme
or
impressi●n
as
heate
is
,
should
be
introduced
into
any
subject
,
but
by
such
an
action
,
as
calefaction
or
warming
is
.
In
this
case
the
heate
which
is
caused
in
my
hand
,
may
be
called
the
forme
of
calefaction
,
not
because
it
gives
a
being
unto
it
(
which
is
the
proper
notion
and
consideration
of
a
forme
)
but
rather
because
it
receives
it's
being
from
it
,
and
so
gives
it
a
manifestation
or
distinction
from
other
actions
,
which
is
one
property
of
a
forme
properly
so
called
,
according
to
the
knowne
maxime
in
Logique
,
which
teacheth
us
,
that
the
forme
includes
or
presupposeth
3
things
,
1º
,
the
being
of
a
thing
.
2º
,
the
distinction
of
it
.
3º
,
the
operation
of
it
.
[
](A85397-e72360-b)(a)
(a)
Posita
forma
,
tria
ponuntur
:
1
,
esse
res
2
,
distinctio
rei
.
3
,
operatio
rei
.
And
doubtlesse
the
terme
or
notion
of
a
forme
,
can
in
no
other
respect
(
or
at
least
,
in
none
so
proper
)
be
ascribed
unto
actions
or
motions
,
as
in
this
:
viz.
because
those
qualities
,
impressions
,
alterations
,
relations
,
&c.
which
they
cause
and
produce
in
their
subjects
,
have
this
analogie
or
proportion
with
formes
properly
so
called
,
that
they
give
distinction
unto
them
,
as
these
do
to
those
things
or
natures
which
they
informe
;
though
in
another
respect
they
be
opposite
to
them
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
formes
properly
called
still
giving
a
being
to
the
things
whereof
they
are
formes
,
whereas
these
formes
appropriated
to
actions
,
alwaies
receive
their
beings
from
them
.
So
then
to
aske
or
inquire
concerning
the
forme
of
any
action
,
as
Iustification
,
Redemption
,
or
the
like
,
what
it
is
,
is
but
to
aske
,
what
is
the
name
,
nature
,
property
,
or
condition
,
of
that
effect
,
impression
,
or
alteration
,
which
is
immediately
and
precisely
caused
and
produced
by
it
,
in
that
subject
matter
,
whether
person
or
thing
,
whereon
it
is
acted
.
Thus
to
aske
,
what
is
the
forme
of
that
action
which
we
call
frigefaction
or
cold-making
,
is
but
to
aske
,
what
the
name
and
nature
of
that
impression
or
alteration
is
,
which
is
caused
thereby
in
that
subject
,
whereon
it
worketh
.
And
that
(
happily
)
may
be
one
maine
reason
of
the
difficulty
which
is
apprehended
,
and
of
the
intricatenesse
and
confusion
that
are
found
amongst
many
writers
touching
the
forme
of
Iustification
,
because
the
formes
of
Actions
are
seldome
made
matter
of
Question
or
inquirie
,
either
in
Philosophie
,
or
Divinity
,
or
in
any
other
Art
or
Science
,
as
farre
as
my
weake
learning
and
memory
have
taken
notice
:
neither
do
I
remember
(
for
the
present
)
any
Question
on
foote
at
this
day
,
touching
either
the
matter
,
or
especially
the
forme
of
any
action
,
but
only
this
of
Iustification
:
Nor
have
I
met
with
any
,
which
do
so
much
as
plainely
,
perspicuously
,
and
distinctly
,
declare
and
explicate
,
what
they
meane
by
this
forme
of
Iustification
:
whereby
it
may
(
I
conceive
)
easily
come
to
passe
,
that
Authors
may
be
at
a
losse
one
of
another
,
and
scarce
one
of
many
cleerely
understand
the
minde
and
meaning
either
of
his
fellow
or
his
opposite
,
in
this
point
.
Having
with
what
convenient
brevity
we
could
,
SECT.
9
discoursed
and
layd
downe
the
number
,
nature
,
and
kinds
of
causes
,
so
farre
as
I
conceived
the
knowledge
and
consideration
of
them
necessary
to
a
distinct
explication
and
understanding
of
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
as
it
lies
in
the
veines
of
the
Scriptures
:
Come
we
now
roundly
and
cheerefully
on
,
to
draw
up
the
Doctrine
it selfe
,
according
to
the
direction
and
importance
of
what
hath
bin
delivered
herein
.
I
begin
with
the
efficient
causes
of
Iustification
,
which
are
many
,
and
those
of
very
different
consideration
.
Haply
it
will
not
be
necessary
,
if
possible
,
to
insist
upon
all
,
that
stand
in
this
relation
of
causalitie
unto
it
,
The
Principall
naturall
efficient
cause
(
according
〈◊〉
the
description
of
this
cause
given
)
of
Iustification
,
is
God
himselfe
,
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
,
considered
is
one
and
the
same
simple
and
intire
essence
:
though
this
act
of
justification
(
as
that
of
creation
,
and
some
others
besides
)
is
in
special
manner
appropriated
to
the
first
person
of
the
three
,
the
Father
,
as
other
acts
are
to
the
other
two
persons
,
Redemption
to
the
Son
,
Sanctification
to
the
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
in
both
which
notwithstanding
,
all
the
three
persons
,
being
but
one
and
the
same
int●re
and
undivided
essence
,
must
needs
be
interes●ed
.
Thus
Rom.
8.33
.
where
it
is
said
,
that
it
is
God
that
justifieth
,
it
is
meant
by
way
of
appropriation
of
God
the
Father
,
because
there
is
mention
made
of
Christ
the
second
person
,
immediately
,
it
is
Christ
that
is
dead
,
&c.
Now
that
God
is
that
kinde
of
cause
of
Iustification
,
which
hath
bin
attributed
to
him
,
and
no
other
,
is
evident
from
the
description
of
this
cause
formerly
layd
downe
Sect.
4.
of
this
Chapter
.
For
1º
,
that
he
is
a
cause
of
Iustification
is
the
consent
of
all
men
without
exception
:
besides
the
Scripture
lately
cited
Rom.
8.
is
full
and
pregnant
this
way
,
It
is
God
that
justifieth
.
2º
,
that
he
is
neither
the
matter
,
nor
the
forme
of
Iustification
,
is
sufficiently
evident
of
it selfe
,
neither
did
ever
any
man
affirme
either
the
one
,
or
the
other
of
him
:
and
besides
,
we
shall
cleere
this
further
,
when
we
come
to
inquire
after
these
causes
.
3º
,
that
he
is
not
the
end
or
finall
cause
of
Iustification
,
appeares
from
that
property
or
condition
of
this
cause
,
mentioned
Sect.
3.
viz
,
that
it
is
to
be
atteyned
or
receive
it's
being
,
by
meanes
of
that
thing
whereof
it
is
the
end
:
which
cannot
be
verified
of
God
or
his
being
,
in
respect
of
Iustification
,
inasmuch
as
these
no
way
depend
upon
it
.
This
likewise
will
further
appeare
,
when
we
come
to
lay
downe
the
finall
cause
.
Therefore
4ᵒ
(
and
lastly
)
he
must
of
necessity
be
the
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
,
there
being
no
fift
kinde
of
cause
whereunto
he
should
be
reduced
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
10
that
he
is
the
principall
efficient
cause
,
and
not
instrumentall
,
is
evident
also
:
because
he
is
not
assum'd
acted
,
or
made
use
of
by
any
other
,
in
or
about
the
justification
of
a
sinner
;
but
himselfe
projecteth
the
whole
frame
and
cariage
of
all
things
,
yea
and
manageth
and
maketh
use
of
all
things
instrumentally
concurring
or
belonging
thereunto
.
It
is
God
that
justifieth
the
Gentiles
by
or
through
Faith
.
Gal.
3.8
.
so
Rom.
3.30
,
&c.
God
maketh
use
of
Faith
,
and
so
of
his
word
,
and
of
the
Ministers
of
his
word
,
to
produce
Faith
in
the
hearts
of
men
,
and
consequently
to
justifie
them
:
but
none
of
these
can
be
said
to
act
or
make
use
of
God
,
in
or
about
this
great
effect
.
Thirdly
that
he
is
the
Naturall
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
(
according
to
the
notion
and
description
of
this
cause
given
Sect.
5.
)
is
evident
because
in
the
exercising
or
putting
forth
this
act
of
Iustification
,
he
acteth
and
worketh
out
of
that
authority
and
power
which
are
essentiall
and
connaturall
to
him
,
and
not
out
of
any
superadded
or
acquired
principle
of
art
or
otherwise
,
whereof
he
is
wholly
uncapable
.
It
is
true
,
he
is
moved
to
the
exercise
of
this
act
of
●ustifying
men
,
by
somewhat
that
is
extrinsecall
and
not
essentiall
to
him
,
viz.
the
intercession
of
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
:
yet
the
act
it selfe
in
the
exercise
of
it
,
proceeds
by
vertue
of
that
authority
and
power
,
which
are
estentiall
to
him
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
No
creature
can
be
said
to
justifie
or
forgive
any
man
his
sinnes
no
not
by
Christ
,
but
God
alone
.
Who
can
forgive
sinnes
but
God
onely
?
Mar.
2.7
.
Fourthly
,
SECT.
11
the
Morall
or
internall
impulsive
cause
of
Iustification
,
as
it
is
an
act
of
God
,
is
that
infinite
love
,
goodnesse
,
mercy
,
sweetnesse
,
and
graciousnesse
in
God
himselfe
towards
his
poore
creature
,
Man
,
looked
upon
as
miserable
,
and
lying
under
condemnation
for
sinne
.
This
was
the
moving
and
procuring
cause
of
the
guift
of
Christ
,
and
his
death
and
sufferings
,
from
him
,
and
consequently
of
that
justification
,
which
is
procured
and
purchased
by
Christ
and
his
sufferings
.
So
God
loved
the
world
,
that
hee
gave
his
onely
begotten
Son
,
that
whosoever
beleeveth
in
him
,
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
,
[
viz
by
Iustification
through
him
]
Ioh.
3.16
.
Fiftly
,
the
externall
Morall
or
impulsive
efficient
cause
of
this
act
of
God
,
is
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
himselfe
,
in
,
or
through
his
death
and
sufferings
:
or
(
which
is
the
same
)
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Iesus
Christ
,
God
looking
upon
Christ
as
such
,
and
so
great
a
sufferer
for
the
sinnes
of
men
,
is
thereby
strengthened
and
provoked
,
to
deliver
those
that
beleeve
in
him
from
their
sinnes
and
that
condemnation
which
is
due
unto
them
,
i.
to
justifie
them
.
The
Scripture
is
cleere
in
laying
downe
this
cause
.
Even
as
God
,
for
Christs
sake
,
freely
forgave
you
viz.
your
sinnes
,
i.
justified
you
.
Ephe.
4.32
.
Those
words
for
Christs
sake
,
are
a
plaine
and
perfect
character
,
of
that
kinde
of
cause
we
now
speake
of
.
This
with
the
former
i.
both
internall
and
externall
,
impussive
or
moving
causes
,
are
joyn'd
together
.
Rom.
3.24
.
And
are
justified
freely
by
his
grace
(
here
is
the
inward
impulsive
cause
of
Justification
)
through
the
Redemption
that
is
in
Christ
Iesus
,
viz.
by
meanes
of
his
death
and
sufferings
:
here
is
the
outward
moving
cause
we
speake
of
.
Neither
can
the
Death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
,
with
any
shew
of
reason
,
or
with
any
tolerable
construction
or
congruitie
of
speaking
,
be
referred
to
any
other
cause
in
the
businesse
of
justification
,
but
the
impulsive
only
.
He
that
would
make
Christ
the
instrumentall
cause
of
Iustification
,
[
](A85397-e73440-b)(a)
(a)
Mr.
Walker
Socinian
.
discovered
,
&c.
p.
138.
discovers
himselfe
to
be
no
great
Gamaliel
in
this
learning
,
and
had
need
thrust
his
Faith
out
of
doores
(
as
he
doth
in
many
places
)
and
not
suffer
it
to
have
any
thing
at
all
to
doe
about
his
Iustification
,
least
his
Christ
and
his
Faith
should
be
corrivalls
,
and
contend
for
preheminence
therein
.
And
yet
more
repugnant
to
reason
is
it
,
to
make
either
Christ
himselfe
,
or
any
righteousnesse
of
his
whatsoever
,
either
the
matter
,
or
materiall
cause
of
Justification
(
which
yet
the
Socinian
Discoverer
doth
[
](A85397-e73550-b)(b)
(b)
Ibid.
p.
139
)
or
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
thereof
,
which
is
done
by
some
others
.
But
that
is
a
streyne
of
unreasonablenesse
above
all
the
rest
,
to
make
either
Christ
or
his
righteousnesse
,
both
the
formall
and
materiall
cause
too
,
of
this
great
act
of
God
we
speake
of
,
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
,
these
causes
being
of
so
opposite
a
nature
,
and
different
consideration
(
as
hath
bin
described
)
and
yet
even
this
conceit
also
hath
found
enterteynment
with
some
.
To
this
kinde
of
cause
we
now
speake
of
must
be
reduced
also
the
active
or
personall
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
as
farre
as
it
hath
any
influence
into
,
or
any
waies
operates
towards
the
justification
of
a
siner
.
For
though
it
be
not
satisfactory
simply
and
directly
in
it selfe
,
nor
contributing
any
thing
immediatly
by
way
of
merit
,
towards
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
(
the
reasons
whereof
have
bin
former●y
given
)
So
that
God
is
not
thereby
provoked
or
mov'd
to
justify
any
man
:
yet
falling
in
conjunction
with
that
other
righteousnesse
of
Christ
which
we
call
passive
,
and
making
his
blood
to
be
the
blood
of
a
Lamb
undefiled
,
and
without
spot
(
1
Pet.
1.19
.
)
it
cannot
be
denied
,
but
that
here
and
in
this
consideration
it
hath
some
kinde
of
an
impulsive
and
moving
efficiencie
towards
Iustification
,
qualifying
(
in
part
)
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
for
that
fullnesse
and
height
of
acceptation
with
God
.
The
great
misery
of
the
poore
creature
,
man
,
lying
under
condemnation
for
sinne
,
cannot
properly
be
conceived
or
call'd
any
cause
of
his
justification
:
yet
is
it
somewaies
reducible
to
this
externall
impulsive
cause
in
hand
,
inasmuch
as
that
goodnesse
and
graciousnesse
of
God
we
spake
of
,
was
hereby
occasioned
and
moved
to
take
some
course
for
it's
Iustification
and
salvation
.
Concerning
Faith
,
SECT.
12
the
generall
and
uniforme
Doctrine
of
Reformed
Authors
gives
it
for
an
instrumentall
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
(
which
is
the
sixt
and
last
kinde
of
efficient
we
shall
insist
upon
)
and
so
it
hath
bin
more
then
once
represented
in
this
Treatise
:
yet
we
meet
with
many
expressions
concerning
Faith
even
in
the
best
and
most
approved
writers
,
which
doe
not
so
much
sympathize
with
the
instrumentall
,
as
the
impulsive
efficient
.
Thus
Musculus
speaking
of
Abraham
,
[
](A85397-e73870-b)(a)
(a)
Ob
eam
●dem
(
s●
.
qua
promittenti
Deo
sirmiter
credidit
)
justus
est
a
Deo
reputatus
,
Musc.
in
Gen.
15.
ver.
6.
saith
,
that
he
was
reputed
righteous
by
God
,
FOR
that
Faith
,
whereby
he
firmly
beleeved
God
promising
.
Aretius
thus
,
[
](A85397-e73930-b)(b)
(b)
Imputavit
ei
justitiam
,
quod
est
fidem
gratam
habuit
,
adeo
ut
justum
eum
haberet
justitia
imputativa
.
Aret.
ad
Rom.
4.
God
imputed
righteousnesse
to
Abraham
,
that
is
,
accepted
his
Faith
:
and
againe
:
a
Faith
so
firme
and
pious
,
was
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
:
In
all
which
expressions
,
with
many
others
both
in
these
and
other
Authors
,
of
like
importance
,
there
seemes
rather
an
impulsive
or
perswasive
,
then
an
instrumentall
efficiencie
,
ascribed
unto
Faith
.
The
Scriptures
themselves
also
,
in
respect
of
other
favors
blessings
,
and
deliverances
,
vouchsafed
by
God
unto
Beleevers
,
seeme
(
at
least
in
many
places
)
to
ascribe
rather
an
impulsive
,
then
instrumentall
efficiencie
unto
Faith
,
in
the
procuring
of
them
.
So
Daniel
was
brought
out
of
the
Denne
,
and
no
manner
of
hurt
was
found
upon
him
,
BECAUSE
he
beleeved
in
God
.
Dan.
6.23
.
In
like
manner
the
Prophet
Hanani
to
King
Asa
:
The
Ethiopians
and
the
Lubims
,
were
they
not
a
great
host
with
Charets
and
horsemen
exceeding
many
?
yet
BECAUSE
then
didst
rest
upon
the
Lord
,
he
delivered
them
into
thine
hand
.
2
Chr.
16.8
.
See
Jer.
39.18.2
Chr
31.18
.
&c.
14
11.
with
many
others
.
Notwithstanding
elsewhere
,
this
Faith
of
Beleevers
,
the
Holy
Ghost
makes
rather
instrumentall
,
then
impulsive
,
and
that
in
respect
of
such
favors
also
.
M●ny
instances
whereof
are
found
in
that
one
Chapter
,
Heb.
11.
By
Faith
they
passed
through
the
Red
Sea
.
ver.
29.
By
Faith
the
walls
of
Iericho
fell
downe
,
39.
Againe
,
ver.
33.
it
is
sayd
concerning
,
Gideon
,
Barak
,
Sampson
,
&c.
that
through
Faith
they
subdued
Kingdomes
,
wrought
righteousnesse
,
stopped
the
mouthes
of
Lyons
,
quenched
the
violence
of
fire
,
&c.
For
reconciling
this
seeming
difference
in
the
Scriptures
,
it
may
be
said
,
that
the
instrumentall
and
impulsive
efficients
are
not
so
opposite
,
but
that
sometimes
,
and
in
some
cases
,
the
instrumentall
cause
may
put
on
the
consideration
of
an
impulsive
also
,
and
aswell
move
a
man
to
doe
a
thing
as
assist
him
,
or
be
made
use
of
by
him
,
in
the
doing
it
.
Thus
a
competent
strength
of
men
,
may
aswell
move
a
King
to
give
battaile
to
an
enemy
,
as
assist
him
in
the
battaile
,
and
obteyning
the
victory
.
So
a
Carpenter
or
other
artificer
,
having
tooles
or
instruments
thereafter
,
may
be
perswaded
or
moved
by
them
(
in
part
)
to
undertake
some
piece
of
worke
,
which
otherwise
they
would
not
.
And
thus
Faith
(
I
conceive
)
may
in
different
respects
,
be
look'd
upon
,
either
as
an
instrumentall
,
or
as
an
impulsive
cause
in
Iustification
.
As
it
is
a
ground
or
reason
,
why
God
justifieth
one
man
,
when
he
justifieth
not
another
(
for
the
beleever
is
alwaies
iustifyed
,
and
that
because
he
is
a
beleever
,
and
the
unbeleever
not
)
so
it
hath
the
nature
of
an
impulsive
cause
:
againe
,
as
it
is
subservient
to
the
counsell
or
decree
of
God
concerning
Iustification
,
and
is
accordingly
made
use
of
by
him
in
the
act
of
Iustification
(
for
he
is
said
to
iustify
men
by
and
through
Faith
,
Rom.
3
,
30
,
&c.
)
it
puts
on
the
nature
and
consideration
of
an
instrumentall
cause
properly
so
called
.
True
it
is
,
Faith
is
not
an
impulsive
or
moving
cause
in
Iustification
of
the
same
kinde
,
nor
after
the
same
manner
that
Christ
and
his
sufferings
are
:
these
are
impulsive
and
moving
in
a
superior
way
,
by
way
of
merit
,
and
consequently
of
Iustification
simply
,
and
therefore
are
at
no
hand
to
be
reckoned
amongst
the
instrumentall
causes
thereof
,
whereas
Faith
moveth
only
in
an
inferior
and
under
way
,
and
by
such
a
motion
,
wherewith
causes
properly
instrumentall
sometimes
move
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
and
therefore
mooveth
,
not
properly
to
Iustification
,
or
to
Iustification
simply
,
but
comparatiuely
,
that
is
,
to
the
Iustification
of
such
and
such
men
,
viz
that
doe
beleeve
.
Other
causes
there
are
instrumentally
inservient
unto
Iustification
,
as
viz.
the
word
of
God
that
is
preached
,
the
preaching
it selfe
of
this
word
,
the
Minister
by
whom
this
word
is
preached
,
the
sight
apprehending
or
understanding
of
this
word
,
the
operation
or
worke
of
the
Holy
Ghost
by
which
this
word
is
made
effectuall
in
the
heart
and
soule
of
a
beleever
:
and
generally
whatsoever
tendeth
or
contributeth
towards
the
worke
of
Faith
in
the
soule
,
may
be
called
instrumentall
,
in
or
about
Iustification
,
according
to
the
importance
of
the
old
maxime
,
Quod
est
causa
causae
,
est
etiam
causa
causat●
.
But
how
the
Sacraments
should
become
instrumentall
causes
or
meanes
of
Iustification
,
must
be
knowne
by
inquiring
at
the
Oracle
at
Rome
:
for
neither
the
Scriptures
,
nor
the
Reformed
Religion
have
any
of
this
learning
in
them
.
This
briefly
for
the
efficient
c●uses
of
Iustification
,
which
is
the
first
generall
head
of
causes
,
among
the
foure
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
13
concerning
the
finall
causes
of
Justification
,
all
parties
,
as
farre
as
I
know
,
are
(
upon
the
matter
)
agreed
also
:
For
though
one
may
discover
,
and
put
upon
accompt
,
more
intermediate
or
subordinate
ends
or
finall
causes
hereof
,
then
another
:
yet
no
man
denieth
(
at
least
can
with
reason
deny
)
but
that
the
Glory
of
God
,
which
is
the
generall
,
great
,
and
sovereigne
end
of
all
things
whatsoever
,
hath
the
preheminence
also
amongst
and
above
all
the
ends
of
Iustification
,
that
can
be
named
,
or
enter
into
the
heart
of
man
to
conceive
.
The
great
subordinate
end
,
and
which
lies
fairest
and
fullest
in
view
to
the
sight
of
all
men
,
is
the
advancement
of
the
creature
,
or
persons
iustifyed
,
to
that
exceeding
height
of
glory
,
and
endlesse
happinesse
,
in
the
intire
and
satisfying
injoyment
of
God
,
which
himselfe
was
graciously
pleased
to
ordeyne
them
unto
from
the
beginning
,
and
to
prepare
and
make
them
meet
for
,
in
time
.
Besides
these
two
,
there
might
be
diverse
other
more
appropriate
and
particular
ends
,
both
in
respect
of
God
,
the
Iustifier
,
and
the
elect
of
God
,
the
Iustified
,
assigned
,
as
in
respect
of
God
,
the
manifestation
of
his
abundant
pardoning
grace
or
mercie
tempered
with
justice
,
&c.
in
respect
of
the
creature
Iustifyed
,
deliverance
from
wrath
or
punishment
due
to
sinne
,
a
way
making
unto
Adoption
,
and
fatherlike
grace
and
acceptation
with
God
,
with
all
the
sweet
privileges
and
blessings
depending
hereon
,
&c.
but
because
there
is
no
question
or
controversie
stirring
about
these
,
and
the
Doctrine
of
Justification
may
be
competently
knowne
and
understood
without
a
particular
enumeration
of
them
,
I
forbeare
to
make
it
matter
of
further
labour
to
the
Reader
,
to
insist
upon
them
.
The
chiefe
contention
and
dispute
amongst
Reformed
Divines
in
the
businesse
of
Iustification
,
SECT.
14
is
about
the
two
causes
that
are
yet
behinde
,
viz.
the
materiall
,
and
the
formall
,
but
especially
about
the
latter
.
Therefore
Thirdly
,
Mr.
Walker
Socinianisme
discovered
,
&c.
p.
139.
concerning
the
matter
or
materiall
cause
of
Justification
;
the
Socinian
Diseoverer
,
with
some
others
,
conceive
they
cast
a
spirit
of
honour
upon
the
righteousnesse
and
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
by
setling
this
relation
of
causalitie
in
respect
of
Iustification
,
upon
them
:
but
doubtlesse
much
upon
the
like
terms
of
mistake
,
with
those
mentioned
by
our
Saviour
Ioh.
16.2
.
who
should
thinke
that
they
did
God
service
,
when
they
killed
his
best
servants
.
For
First
,
by
making
these
the
matter
,
See
Part
1.
c.
17.
Sect.
1.2
.
&c.
or
materiall
cause
of
Iustification
,
they
devest
and
spoyle
them
of
the
honour
of
that
causalitie
,
which
is
proper
and
peculiar
to
them
,
and
7
times
more
honourable
,
then
that
which
is
this
way
attributed
to
them
,
viz.
of
that
causalitie
,
which
we
call
,
meritorious
.
This
is
evident
by
the
tenour
of
the
third
Rule
formerly
laid
downe
in
the
second
section
of
this
Chapter
,
whereby
it
appeares
,
that
no
one
cause
whatsoever
can
put
on
more
habitudes
or
relations
of
causality
then
one
,
in
respect
of
one
and
the
same
effect
.
So
that
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
meritorious
and
impulsive
cause
of
Iustification
(
which
is
granted
on
all
hands
without
exception
;
even
by
the
men
against
whom
we
reason
)
it
can
at
no
hand
be
deemed
the
materiall
cause
also
.
Because
the
meritorious
and
impulsive
cause
,
is
a
kinde
of
efficient
,
as
both
hath
bin
lately
proved
,
and
besides
,
is
generally
so
notioned
and
acknowledged
by
all
:
neither
can
it
be
reduced
to
any
of
the
other
4
heads
of
causes
,
with
any
tolerable
congruitie
or
colour
of
reason
.
It
was
never
heard
of
to
this
day
,
that
any
efficient
cause
was
the
matter
of
the
effect
produced
by
it
.
Secondly
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
whether
Active
or
Passive
,
or
both
,
cannot
be
the
matter
of
Iustification
,
because
the
matter
of
a
thing
is
alwaies
En●
incompletum
,
an
incompleate
and
imperfect
entitie
or
being
,
untill
the
introduction
and
union
of
the
forme
with
it
,
which
still
gives
perfection
of
being
and
existence
to
it
.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
take
it
in
what
otion
,
or
under
what
consideration
you
please
,
hath
an
intire
,
perfect
,
and
compleate
being
;
neither
can
it
fall
under
imagination
,
what
forme
it
should
be
capable
of
,
that
by
union
with
it
should
adde
beauty
and
perfection
to
it
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
matter
of
Iustification
,
it
must
be
either
matter
properly
,
or
unproperly
so
called
.
Matter
properly
so
called
,
which
they
call
materia
ex
quâ
,
it
cannot
be
,
because
this
kinde
of
matter
,
1ᵒ
is
proper
to
substantiall
natures
or
beings
onely
.
2º
,
is
it selfe
alwaies
a
substance
.
3º
,
is
alwaies
a
part
of
that
nature
or
thing
whereof
it
is
the
matter
.
4º
,
(
and
lastly
)
is
still
the
inferior
,
weaker
,
and
viler
part
thereof
.
Whereas
Iustification
(
in
the
first
place
)
being
an
act
,
hath
only
an
accidentall
,
not
a
substantiall
being
:
and
consequently
is
not
capable
of
matter
properly
so
called
,
as
no
act
or
action
whatsoever
besides
is
.
Secondly
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
was
never
conceived
to
be
in
praedicamento
substantiae
,
to
be
a
substantiall
nature
,
but
an
accidentall
forme
or
quality
:
and
therefore
cannot
be
matter
(
properly
so
called
)
of
any
thing
.
Thirdly
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
a
part
of
Iustification
,
because
Iustification
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
is
an
action
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
a
forme
or
qualitie
:
and
most
certaine
it
is
that
one
predicamentall
nature
or
being
,
cannot
be
a
part
of
another
.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
this
matter
of
Iustification
we
now
speake
of
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
it
is
furthest
of
all
from
all
colour
or
appearance
of
truth
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
in
what
composition
or
union
soever
it
shall
be
found
,
should
be
the
weaker
and
lesse
worthy
part
thereof
,
being
of
that
infinit
perfection
and
worth
,
which
we
all
acknowledg
,
and
ascribe
unto
it
:
Therefore
certainly
it
is
no
matter
of
Iustification
properly
so
called
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
15
that
neither
is
it
any
matter
hereof
unproperly
so
called
,
may
be
thus
demonstrated
.
Matter
unproperly
so
called
,
is
either
that
which
Logicians
call
,
materia
in
qua
,
or
materia
circa
quam
.
Matter
in
the
former
notion
,
imports
only
the
subject
of
a
thing
,
that
is
,
a
substantiall
nature
,
as
supporting
some
accidentall
forme
or
being
in
it
.
In
this
sense
fire
is
sayd
to
be
the
matter
of
the
heate
that
is
in
it
,
and
a
man
to
be
the
matter
of
the
learning
or
knowledge
which
he
hath
,
&c.
But
this
is
most
unproper
and
least
used
sense
or
signification
,
of
the
word
MATTER
,
of
all
other
.
In
the
latter
notion
,
the
matter
of
a
thing
,
is
the
object
,
or
that
thing
,
upon
which
any
thing
acteth
,
or
about
which
it
is
conversant
or
exercised
.
In
this
sense
,
wood
or
tymber
may
be
said
to
be
the
matter
of
the
Carpenters
art
or
imployment
,
and
his
Scholars
the
matter
of
the
Masters
instruction
,
&c.
This
kinde
of
matter
is
most
commonly
and
properly
attributed
to
acts
that
are
transient
,
and
with
motion
and
alteration
:
though
it
may
be
ascribed
to
that
other
kinde
of
act
also
,
which
is
without
alteration
,
and
is
called
immanent
,
in
which
sense
,
bookes
or
the
knowledge
of
things
conteyned
in
them
,
may
be
said
to
be
the
matter
of
the
Schollers
industrie
or
studie
,
and
the
persons
predestinated
to
be
the
matter
of
that
immanent
act
of
God
,
which
we
call
Predestination
,
&c.
Now
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
cannot
in
either
of
these
notions
or
significations
of
the
word
matter
,
be
the
matter
of
justification
,
it
is
evident
.
First
,
not
in
the
former
,
because
Iustification
,
is
not
the
subject
wherein
this
righteousnesse
inhereth
,
or
whereby
it
is
supported
in
being
:
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
hath
no
dependance
at
all
,
in
respect
of
the
being
of
it
,
upon
Iustification
.
Not
in
the
latter
,
because
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifieth
a
sinner
,
is
not
acted
or
exercised
,
upon
or
about
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
nor
terminated
in
this
,
neither
is
there
any
change
or
alteration
made
in
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
by
that
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
justifieth
a
sinner
;
which
yet
must
be
,
if
it
were
that
matter
we
now
speake
of
,
that
is
,
the
object
of
Justification
.
Because
Iustification
being
a
transient
act
in
God
,
it
must
of
necessitie
make
some
change
or
alteration
in
that
upon
which
it
falleth
or
is
acted
,
whatsoever
it
be
:
the
truth
is
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
being
(
as
hath
bin
proved
)
the
efficient
impulsive
cause
of
Iustification
,
rather
acteth
and
worketh
upon
God
,
then
he
upon
it
,
when
he
iustifieth
any
man
.
Therefore
doubtlesse
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
can
in
no
sense
,
agreeable
to
truth
and
ordinary
construction
of
speech
,
be
called
the
matter
of
Iustification
.
Wherefore
(
in
the
last
place
)
concerning
the
matter
of
,
or
materiall
cause
of
Iustification
,
SECT.
16
it
can
be
none
other
,
but
either
the
subject
,
or
the
object
of
●ustification
,
that
is
either
God
himselfe
,
or
the
person
that
is
to
be
iustified
.
For
as
for
that
kinde
of
matter
,
which
we
called
ex
qua
,
matter
properly
so
called
,
Iustification
,
being
an
act
,
or
action
,
is
altogether
uncapable
of
it
,
as
hath
bin
already
said
.
Neither
hath
any
action
whatsoever
any
materiall
cause
at
all
,
in
this
sense
.
It
remaineth
therefore
,
that
the
matter
of
Justification
,
must
be
of
that
kinde
of
matter
,
which
is
lesse
properly
so
called
,
whereof
there
are
but
these
two
species
,
or
sorts
,
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
the
matter
in
qua
,
and
the
matter
circa
quam
,
i.
the
the
subject
,
and
the
object
.
If
we
take
the
subject
of
Iustification
,
or
him
on
whom
the
act
it selfe
of
Iustification
,
in
respect
of
the
production
and
being
of
it
dependeth
,
and
will
call
that
the
matter
of
it
,
then
God
himselfe
must
be
the
matter
we
inquire
after
:
because
the
act
of
Iustification
,
in
respect
of
the
raising
and
bringing
forth
of
it
,
dependeth
only
upon
him
.
But
this
(
I
confesse
)
is
a
very
uncouth
and
proper
expression
,
to
call
God
the
matter
of
justification
;
neither
hath
the
tongue
or
pen
of
any
man
(
I
conceive
)
ever
taken
any
pleasure
in
it
.
Or
if
by
the
subject
of
Iustification
,
we
understand
the
subjectum
recipie●s
,
that
is
,
the
subject
receiving
,
and
wherein
the
act
of
Iustification
is
terminated
(
which
is
as
proper
a
signification
of
the
word
,
as
the
other
the
old
tried
rule
being
,
that
actio
est
in
patiente
tanquam
in
subjecto
)
then
the
subject
and
the
object
will
prove
but
one
and
the
same
,
viz
the
person
that
is
to
be
iustified
,
that
is
,
the
beleeving
sinner
.
Thus
it
is
in
all
other
actions
likewise
;
the
subject
receiving
the
action
or
impression
of
the
Agent
,
and
the
object
upon
which
the
Agent
acteth
or
worketh
,
are
still
the
same
.
And
for
any
other
matter
of
Iustification
,
besides
that
which
hath
bin
now
assign'd
,
viz.
the
sinner
who
beleeveth
,
I
verily
beleeve
there
is
none
to
be
found
:
who
though
he
be
,
both
the
object
and
subject
(
in
the
sense
given
)
of
Iustification
,
yet
may
he
more
properly
be
called
the
matter
of
Iustification
,
as
he
is
the
object
,
then
as
the
subject
thereof
,
because
the
notion
of
matter
,
better
agreeth
(
of
the
two
)
to
that
which
is
called
circà
quam
,
or
the
object
,
then
to
the
other
,
which
is
the
subject
.
And
this
for
the
matter
or
materiall
cause
of
Iustification
,
the
person
to
be
iustified
,
or
beleeving
sinner
.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
to
make
forward
towards
the
consideration
and
inquirie
of
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
SECT.
17
about
which
the
tongues
and
pens
of
men
are
turn'd
into
the
sharpest
swords
.
First
,
for
the
Popish
opinion
,
which
(
as
Bellarmine
describes
it
from
the
Counsell
of
Trent
,
subscribing
himselfe
also
with
both
hands
unto
it
)
[
](A85397-e76110-b)(a)
(a)
Certe
concilium
causam
formalem
justificatio●●
,
in
ipsi
us
justitie
infusione
constituit
,
&c.
Bellarm.
De
Iustific
.
lib.
2.
c.
2.
versus
sinem
.
placeth
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
in
the
infusion
of
inherent
righteousnesse
,
I
shall
not
make
it
matter
of
long
confutation
.
The
opinion
is
built
upon
another
opinion
,
as
rotten
as
it
,
viz.
perfection
of
inherent
righteousnesse
:
for
if
this
be
found
to
be
imperfect
(
and
it
will
never
be
found
other
,
till
this
mortall
hath
put
on
immortalitie
)
the
credit
of
that
other
opinion
is
lost
,
and
that
by
consent
of
their
owne
principles
:
who
teach
that
in
Iustification
men
are
made
perfectly
and
compleately
righteous
.
So
that
any
one
sinne
,
little
or
great
,
veniall
or
mortall
,
proceeding
from
any
one
of
their
iustified
ones
,
utterly
overthrowes
the
opinion
of
their
Church
touching
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
It
stands
them
in
hand
,
if
they
desire
to
build
up
this
determination
of
their
Councell
with
authority
and
honour
,
to
raise
the
levell
of
another
enterprize
of
theirs
,
and
to
prove
,
not
only
a
possibilitie
,
but
a
necessity
also
of
a
perfect
observation
of
the
Law
of
God
,
by
those
that
are
iustified
and
regenerate
.
When
they
have
quitted
themselves
like
men
in
this
,
and
have
layd
the
foundations
of
such
a
necessitie
firme
and
strong
,
we
shall
(
haply
)
then
consider
further
of
their
Doctrine
touching
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
:
in
the
meane
time
we
shall
be
at
libertie
to
make
inquirie
after
a
better
.
Yet
Secondly
,
SECT.
18
I
conceive
the
Doctrine
of
the
late
Socinian
Discoverer
touching
the
same
businesse
,
to
be
no
whit
better
,
but
rather
at
a
farre
deeper
defiance
both
with
reason
and
truth
.
The
formall
cause
of
Justification
(
saith
he
)
[
](A85397-e76320-b)(a)
(a)
Mr.
George
Walker
Socinian
.
Discovered
.
p.
139.
is
that
communion
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
and
that
reciprocall
imputation
of
our
sinnes
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
righteousnesse
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
he
is
derived
to
us
)
doth
make
us
one
spirituall
body
with
Christ
;
and
workes
in
us
Faith
,
and
all
holy
graces
and
affections
,
by
which
we
adhere
and
cleave
to
Christ
,
and
apply
and
inioy
his
righteousnesse
,
&c.
Doubtlesse
here
is
a
great
deale
too
much
matter
to
make
a
good
forme
.
The
essentiall
character
of
a
forme
or
formall
cause
is
to
be
a
single
simple
and
uncompounded
being
:
whereas
that
which
is
here
presented
to
us
,
for
the
forme
of
Justification
,
is
rudis
indigestaque
moles
,
an
indigested
heape
of
compositions
.
Surely
this
forme
is
so
deformed
,
that
the
Author
need
nor
feare
any
corrivall
or
competitor
with
him
for
it
.
Quin
sine
rivali
,
seque
et
sua
solus
amabit
.
For
1º
,
if
the
Iustification
we
speake
of
,
or
the
forme
of
it
,
stands
in
that
communion
which
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
then
Christ
himselfe
is
iustified
with
the
same
Iustification
,
wherewith
sinners
are
iustified
and
consequently
hath
sinnes
forgiven
him
,
aswell
as
they
.
Because
that
communion
which
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
who
beleeve
,
is
but
one
and
the
same
Communion
,
and
wherein
Christ
partakes
aswell
as
we
.
Therefore
if
the
same
forme
of
Iustification
be
found
in
him
,
which
is
in
us
,
the
same
Iustification
must
be
found
in
him
,
or
on
him
likewise
.
2º
,
That
communion
which
is
betweene
Christ
and
those
that
beleeve
,
cannot
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
because
it
is
no
righteousnesse
,
nor
conformity
with
any
Law
,
either
directly
or
indirectly
,
either
properly
and
precisely
,
or
by
way
of
equivalencie
,
and
interpretatively
:
himselfe
likewise
affirming
(
p.
138
)
that
in
the
act
of
iustification
God
makes
men
righteous
by
the
perfect
righteousnesse
and
full
satisfaction
of
Christ
)
expressing
hereby
(
if
be
expresseth
any
thing
)
the
formall
cause
(
at
least
.
according
to
his
owne
apprehension
)
of
Iustification
.
So
then
the
communion
which
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
being
a
farre
differing
thing
from
the
righteousnesse
and
full
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
it
followes
,
as
well
agreeably
to
his
owne
pen
,
as
to
the
truth
it selfe
,
that
the
Communion
he
speakes
of
is
not
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
3º
,
The
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
SECT.
19
must
needs
be
(
as
we
shall
hereafter
further
demonstrate
)
the
proper
impression
or
effect
of
the
act
of
Iustification
,
and
consequently
the
effect
of
God
who
justifieth
or
exerciseth
that
act
,
that
is
,
of
God
the
Father
(
as
himselfe
rightly
supposeth
p.
137.
)
whereas
that
Communion
betweene
Christ
and
us
(
which
hee
speakes
of
)
ariseth
and
floweth
(
as
himselfe
also
acknowledgeth
in
the
passage
cited
)
from
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Therefore
unpossible
it
is
that
this
Communion
should
bee
theformall
cause
of
Iustification
.
4º
,
This
Communion
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
is
a
consequent
of
our
Iustification
,
and
taketh
not
place
,
hath
no
being
,
till
after
we
be
fully
and
compleately
iustified
.
This
himselfe
likewise
(
upon
the
matter
)
acknowledgeth
in
the
words
cited
,
affirming
,
that
it
ariseth
and
floweth
from
the
Spirit
which
God
sheds
on
us
through
Christ
,
&c.
Now
that
the
Spirit
is
not
shed
upon
us
till
after
,
or
upon
our
beleeving
(
and
consequently
till
after
we
be
iustified
,
for
Iustification
followeth
Faith
as
close
as
imagination
it selfe
can
imagine
)
is
evident
from
those
and
many
the
like
Scriptures
.
This
spake
he
of
the
Spirit
which
they
that
believed
in
him
,
should
receive
,
&c.
John
7.39
.
And
God
which
knoweth
the
heart
gave
them
witnesse
(
viz.
that
they
truly
beleeved
,
as
appeares
from
the
former
verse
)
in
giving
unto
them
the
Holy
Ghost
,
even
as
he
did
unto
us
.
Act.
15.8
.
Then
Peter
said
unto
them
,
Amend
your
lives
and
be
Baptized
every
one
of
you
,
in
the
Name
of
Iesus
Christ
for
the
Remission
of
sinnes
,
and
yee
shall
receive
the
guift
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
(
Act.
2.38
.
)
They
were
to
beleeve
before
they
were
Baptized
:
but
the
receiving
of
the
Holy
Ghost
is
promised
after
.
See
further
to
this
purpose
,
Act.
6.5
.
Act.
8.15.16
.
Act.
11.17
.
with
the
15.
Act.
19.2
.
&c.
So
then
,
the
Communion
that
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
flowing
from
the
Spirit
which
God
sheds
on
us
through
Christ
,
and
this
act
of
sheding
being
still
performed
by
God
after
or
upon
our
beleeving
,
and
consequently
after
or
upon
our
compleate
Iustification
,
it
undeniably
followes
,
that
this
Communion
cannot
be
the
formall
cause
of
our
JUSTIFICATION
because
this
is
accomplished
(
and
accomplished
it
cannot
be
without
the
formall
part
or
cause
of
it
in
being
)
before
the
other
receives
it's
being
.
5º
,
SECT.
20
If
the
communion
that
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
were
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
Christ
himselfe
might
be
truly
said
to
be
iustified
,
by
the
same
act
of
Iustification
with
us
.
This
is
evident
,
because
the
Communion
spoken
of
relates
aswell
to
him
as
to
us
,
and
is
inherent
in
him
,
as
much
as
in
us
:
and
whatsoever
partakes
of
the
same
forme
,
or
formall
cause
with
another
,
is
(
doubtlesse
)
in
respect
of
this
form
capable
of
the
same
denominatiō
with
it
.
If
the
forme
of
that
Iustification
be
as
well
,
or
as
much
in
Christ
,
as
it
is
in
us
,
Christ
may
as
wel
be
said
to
be
iustified
thereby
as
we
.
But
to
say
that
Christ
should
be
iustified
by
that
communion
which
is
betweene
him
and
us
,
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
hard
;
saying
to
the
tender
cares
of
Christians
.
Therefore
certainly
,
though
that
Communion
which
is
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
be
a
sweete
and
precious
thing
,
yet
is
it
not
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
no
more
then
Samuel
was
therefore
Isaak
Abrahams
Son
,
because
he
was
a
good
Sonne
like
him
.
And
6ᵒ.
If
the
Communion
betweene
Christ
and
us
,
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustificatton
,
then
is
not
the
reciprocall
imputation
of
our
sinnes
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
righteousnesse
and
full
satisfaction
to
us
,
this
cause
also
;
which
is
yet
affirmed
by
the
same
Author
and
with
the
same
breath
.
This
consequence
is
pregnant
and
conquering
:
because
this
reciprocall
imputation
,
is
an
act
of
God
the
Father
(
and
so
supposed
by
the
Author
himselfe
,
and
if
rightly
understood
,
not
with
any
variation
from
the
truth
)
whereas
the
Communion
mentioned
,
floweth
from
the
Holy
Ghost
,
(
as
hath
bin
already
observed
,
and
is
here
likewise
expressely
affirmed
.
)
Now
unpossible
it
is
that
two
acts
really
differing
the
one
from
the
other
,
should
ever
so
combine
or
incorporate
,
as
to
make
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
any
thing
,
(
which
as
hath
bin
said
)
is
alwaies
a
single
and
simple
being
,
and
voyd
of
composition
.
This
reason
stands
in
force
,
though
we
take
his
reciprocall
imputation
,
which
he
joynes
with
his
communion
,
to
make
up
the
forme
of
Iustification
,
in
a
passive
sense
,
viz.
for
the
effect
of
that
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
maketh
that
reciprocall
imputation
.
For
neither
can
two
effects
really
differing
,
ever
so
complie
or
consent
together
to
simplisie
one
the
other
,
as
to
raise
a
third
thing
or
being
betweene
them
of
simplicitie
enough
,
to
make
the
formall
being
of
any
thing
.
7º
,
Neither
can
this
reciprocall
imputation
,
taken
by
it selfe
,
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
because
1º
,
it
comprehends
and
includes
two
severall
and
distinct
acts
of
God
,
or
two
distinct
and
severall
effects
of
two
such
acts
of
his
,
The
imputation
of
our
sinnes
to
Christ
,
is
an
act
or
effect
,
really
differing
from
the
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
and
satisfaction
unto
us
.
This
is
evident
:
because
as
the
rendring
Christ
obnoxious
unto
death
,
is
a
thing
really
differing
,
and
of
opposite
consideration
,
from
the
making
of
us
righteous
,
and
capable
of
life
;
so
the
acts
by
which
these
are
effected
,
must
needs
be
really
differing
also
the
one
from
the
other
.
Now
(
as
hath
bin
already
argued
)
it
is
unpossible
that
any
forme
,
or
formall
cause
,
should
be
made
of
any
pluralitie
of
ingredients
,
or
be
a
composition
made
of
severall
things
really
differing
the
one
from
the
other
.
2ᵒ
It
is
impossible
that
this
reciprocall
imputation
should
be
the
forme
we
inquire
after
,
because
,
only
the
beleeving
sinner
(
as
hath
bin
fully
proved
Sect.
16.
is
the
matter
of
Iustification
.
Now
the
forme
of
a
thing
(
at
least
the
accidentall
forme
,
which
is
the
kinde
of
forme
under
inquirie
)
is
alwaies
found
in
conjunction
and
union
with
the
matter
proper
to
it
,
and
never
in
any
other
.
Christ
therefore
being
no
beleeving
sinner
,
and
consequently
,
no
fitting
or
possible
matter
for
the
forme
of
that
Iustification
(
whereof
we
speake
)
to
be
coupled
with
,
it
cannot
be
that
the
imputation
of
our
sinnes
to
him
,
should
either
be
this
forme
it selfe
,
or
any
part
of
it
.
3º
,
No
imputation
whatsoever
,
nor
of
whatsoever
,
can
be
the
forme
of
Iustification
;
1º
,
because
it
is
no
righteousnesse
,
either
in
one
kinde
or
other
,
neither
a
righteousnesse
literally
or
properly
so
called
,
nor
yet
a
righteousnesse
by
way
of
interpretation
:
whereas
the
forme
of
Iustification
(
whatsoever
it
be
)
must
of
necessity
be
a
righteousnesse
,
either
of
the
one
kinde
or
of
the
other
.
It
is
true
,
a
righteousnesse
imputed
,
(
supposing
such
imputation
)
is
a
righteousnesse
:
but
the
imputation
of
this
righteousnesse
,
can
be
noe
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
no
imputation
whatsoever
can
be
the
forme
of
Iustification
.
2º
,
Every
forme
,
or
formall
cause
gives
according
to
the
nature
of
it
,
a
sutable
denomination
to
the
subject
,
whereunto
it
is
united
;
as
heat
gives
the
denomination
of
hot
,
to
the
fire
,
and
learning
,
the
denomination
of
learned
,
to
the
man
endued
with
it
,
&c.
But
no
imputation
gives
any
sutable
denomination
to
the
persons
to
whom
it
is
made
,
or
in
whom
it
inheres
;
men
are
not
said
to
be
imputed
this
or
that
,
for
any
imputation
made
.
Therefore
imputation
is
noe
forme
at
all
;
and
consequently
not
the
forme
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
8º
,
The
Author
himselfe
within
a
very
few
lines
after
the
words
lately
cited
from
him
,
falls
off
from
his
reciprocall
imputation
,
and
affirmes
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
it selfe
,
to
be
this
formall
cause
of
Justification
calling
it
,
our
formall
righteousnesse
.
But
this
is
but
one
drope
of
that
powreing
shower
of
contradictions
,
which
hath
fallen
from
his
pen
upon
that
discourse
,
and
stands
in
swamps
and
plashes
all
over
it
.
9º
,
SECT.
21
(
and
lastly
)
in
all
this
voluminous
and
multiformed
description
of
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
there
is
not
the
least
mention
to
be
found
of
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
as
neither
within
the
whole
compasse
of
that
draught
of
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
,
which
in
severall
pages
together
of
the
discourse
mentioned
,
he
presents
unto
the
world
;
as
if
Iustification
and
remission
of
sinnes
,
were
like
Samaritan
and
Iew
,
which
have
no
dealings
one
with
another
.
[
](A85397-e77900-b)(a)
(a)
Ioh.
4.9
.
Whereas
Reformed
Divines
generally
,
(
and
I
thinke
)
I
may
say
,
without
exception
,
never
handle
the
Doctrine
of
Iustification
,
especially
never
professe
to
assigne
or
explicate
the
formall
cause
thereof
,
without
mention
making
of
remission
or
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
conceiving
them
to
be
things
of
the
most
arct
and
neerest
affinitie
that
may
be
,
as
indeed
they
are
.
The
opinion
and
description
last
cited
,
touching
the
formall
cause
of
justification
,
containes
matter
of
more
particular
grievances
,
then
have
yet
bin
touch'd
or
complained
of
.
But
because
I
conceive
the
unreasonablenesse
of
it
,
a
sufficient
caution
and
securitie
against
the
infection
and
propagation
of
it
,
and
that
no
man
will
ever
be
so
hard
put
to
it
for
a
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
as
to
take
up
that
,
I
shall
therefore
for
the
present
,
with
that
chastisement
and
correction
which
it
hath
already
received
,
let
it
goe
.
But
thirdly
,
Neither
can
that
opinion
stand
,
which
maketh
the
imputation
or
application
of
the
righteonsnesse
of
Christ
,
SECT.
22
the
formall
cause
of
Justification
.
(a)
We
teach
,
that
Christs
righteousnesse
,
both
habituall
and
actuall
,
by
which
he
was
formally
just
,
is
the
matter
;
and
the
imputation
thereof
●s
the
fo●me
of
Iustification
.
Bish.
Downham
.
Tre.
of
Iustifi
.
lib.
1
:
c.
5.
Sect.
2.
See
more
to
this
purpose
immediatly
following
,
where
he
citeth
also
the
Magdeburgenses
&
Scharpius
,
as
being
of
the
same
judgement
with
him
.
Against
this
opinion
we
argued
in
the
latter
part
of
our
refutation
of
the
former
:
where
we
evictingly
proved
,
that
no
imputation
whatsoever
,
or
of
whatsoever
,
could
possibly
be
the
forme
of
Iustification
.
The
plea
is
at
hand
,
in
the
last
Section
,
save
one
;
therefore
I
repeate
nothing
thereof
.
Only
I
adde
as
of
further
consideration
,
against
this
opinion
,
10
,
that
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
matter
of
Iustification
(
which
the
opinion
maintaineth
)
and
the
imputation
hereof
the
forme
,
then
one
righteousnesse
must
be
the
forme
of
another
righteousnesse
:
because
the
forme
of
Justification
(
as
hath
bin
often
said
)
must
needs
be
a
righteousnesse
(
and
so
is
acknowledged
,
and
termed
by
the
Author
himselfe
)
[
](A85397-e78250-b)(b)
(b)
Fo●
the
righteousnesse
wherby
a
man
is
formally
just
,
is
inherent
in
himselfe
,
&c.
Bish.
Downham
,
Vbi
supra
.
So
that
if
the
matter
hereof
be
a
righteousnesse
,
and
the
forme
a
righteousnesse
also
,
one
righteousnesse
must
informe
another
,
which
is
(
I
conceive
)
a
greater
burthen
of
absurdity
,
then
the
reason
of
any
considering
man
can
beare
.
Secondly
,
if
imputation
be
the
forme
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
the
matter
of
Iustification
,
then
that
which
is
lesse
perfect
and
of
an
inferior
being
,
shall
be
the
complement
and
perfection
of
that
which
is
more
perfect
,
and
of
a
superior
being
:
it
being
a
generall
and
knowne
maxime
,
that
the
forme
still
actuateth
the
matter
,
and
adds
a
further
degree
of
being
and
perfection
unto
it
.
Now
this
imputation
we
speake
of
,
being
(
and
that
by
the
full
consent
and
acknowledgment
of
the
Authors
of
the
opinion
)
somewhat
inherent
in
the
person
justified
,
and
intrinsecall
to
him
,
[
](A85397-e78390-b)(a)
(a)
For
the
righteousnesse
wherby
a
man
is
formally
just
,
is
inherent
in
himselfe
:
for
what
is
more
intrinsecall
then
the
forme
?
Bishop
Downham
,
Iusti
.
lib.
1.
c.
5.
Sect.
●
.
must
needs
be
of
inferior
worth
and
value
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Neither
indeed
can
it
well
be
conceived
,
how
any
thing
at
all
should
be
for
mall
,
or
of
a
perfecting
or
actuating
nature
,
in
respect
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Thirdly
,
neither
doe
the
Scriptures
any
way
favour
this
opinion
,
or
complie
with
it
in
any
expression
found
in
them
:
nor
doe
I
finde
the
Authors
themselves
so
much
as
pretending
any
Scripture
approbation
of
their
judgment
in
this
kinde
.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
if
the
judgement
of
the
late
Bishop
of
Sarisburie
(
a
learned
man
,
doubtlesse
,
though
a
Bishop
)
be
of
any
authoritie
,
he
is
absolutely
declared
against
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
and
pleades
for
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
imputed
as
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
The
most
perefect
obedience
(
saith
he
)
[
](A85397-e78560-b)(b)
(b)
Christi
Mediatoris
in
nobis
habitantu
,
atque
per
spiritum
sese
nobu
unientis
persectissima
obedientia
,
est
formalu
causae
justificationu
nostrae
.
Bishop
Davenant
,
De
Iustic
.
Habit.
c.
22.
p.
313.
of
Christ
the
Mediator
,
dwelling
in
us
,
and
uniting
himselfe
by
his
Spirit
to
us
,
is
the
formall
cause
of
our
Iustification
,
&c.
And
if
his
testimony
be
of
any
value
,
Reformed
Authors
generally
are
of
a
concurrent
judgement
with
him
herein
.
[
](A85397-e78620-b)(c)
(c)
Haec
communis
est
nostrorum
omnium
sententia
,
Christi
obedientiam
&
justitiam
nobis
imputatam
,
esse
formalem
causam
Iustificatiopis
.
Idem
ubi
supra
.
p.
312.
Notwithstanding
.
Fourthly
,
that
neither
is
this
opinion
,
which
maketh
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
of
any
such
intire
consistencie
with
the
truth
(
besides
the
counterpoyse
of
the
authorities
and
judgements
of
the
Authors
standing
up
for
the
former
opinion
)
may
be
evidenced
upon
these
grounds
.
First
:
that
which
is
an
efficient
cause
of
Justification
,
cannot
be
the
formall
cause
also
.
This
is
cleere
by
the
tenor
of
that
generall
rule
,
laid
downe
Sect.
SECT.
23
of
this
Chapter
,
concerning
the
incapacitie
that
is
found
in
every
one
of
the
4
causes
respectively
,
of
putting
on
more
relations
of
causalitie
then
one
in
respect
of
one
and
the
same
effect
.
But
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
an
efficient
cause
of
Iustification
,
hath
bin
already
proved
;
and
besides
,
is
(
upon
the
matter
)
so
acknowledged
by
the
Authors
themselves
of
this
opinion
,
who
generally
grant
it
to
be
the
meritorious
or
impulsive
cause
thereof
.
Secondly
,
they
who
maintaine
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
be
the
formall
cause
of
Justification
,
must
of
necessitie
hold
,
the
beleeving
sinner
,
or
the
person
to
be
justified
,
to
be
the
materiall
cause
thereof
,
upon
which
supposition
,
I
thus
reason
:
No
one
and
the
same
individuall
forme
,
or
formall
cause
,
can
possibly
informe
two
severall
subjects
,
really
distinguished
the
one
from
the
other
.
But
Christ
himselfe
,
and
the
beleeving
sinner
,
are
two
severall
subjects
,
really
distinguished
the
one
from
the
other
.
Therefore
the
same
individuall
forme
of
righteousnes
cannot
informe
them
both
.
Neither
can
it
be
here
said
:
that
Christ
and
the
beleever
are
in
this
case
considered
as
one
and
the
same
body
or
subject
,
and
so
one
and
the
same
forme
of
righteousnesse
may
informe
them
both
.
For
to
this
I
answere
1º
,
that
that
though
Christ
and
the
beleever
be
one
and
the
same
mysticall
body
,
yet
are
they
not
one
and
the
same
naturall
body
,
and
therefore
are
not
capable
of
one
and
the
same
naturall
forme
.
As
though
man
and
wife
be
one
flesh
(
as
the
Scripture
speakes
)
and
so
one
body
,
viz.
in
a
civill
sense
or
consideration
;
it
doth
not
therefore
follow
,
that
this
one
body
is
capable
in
both
the
parts
or
members
of
it
,
of
one
and
the
same
individuall
naturall
qualitie
or
forme
:
because
though
they
be
one
civilly
,
yet
they
are
two
distinct
persons
or
subjects
naturally
.
The
wife
is
not
not
wise
by
the
wisdome
,
or
strong
by
the
strength
of
her
Husband
,
she
may
be
both
simple
and
weake
,
notwithstanding
the
contrarie
perfections
in
her
Husband
.
Yea
in
the
naturall
body
it selfe
,
though
all
the
members
,
be
but
one
body
(
as
the
Apostle
speaketh
)
yet
the
properties
or
qualities
that
are
found
in
one
member
:
as
for
instance
,
the
organicall
facultie
of
seeing
in
the
eye
,
are
not
found
in
others
,
as
in
the
hand
,
foote
,
or
the
like
.
And
2º
,
SECT.
24
if
one
and
the
same
forme
of
righteousnesse
did
informe
both
Christ
and
the
beleever
,
because
they
are
one
body
,
then
one
and
the
same
sinfullnesse
or
corruption
of
nature
might
informe
them
also
,
upon
the
same
ground
:
&
so
Christ
should
be
sinful
&
corrupt
with
the
same
sinfulnesse
&
corruption
of
nature
which
are
found
in
the
beleever
.
Therefore
the
objection
laid
in
,
is
of
no
value
.
Thirdly
,
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
formal
cause
of
Justification
,
then
the
meritorious
cause
of
a
thing
,
may
be
the
formal
cause
of
it
also
.
For
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
as
hath
bin
often
said
,
&
once
sufficiently
proved
,
&
generally
is
confessed
)
is
the
meritorious
cause
of
Iustification
.
But
that
that
meritorious
cause
of
a
thing
,
can
never
be
the
formall
cause
also
of
the
same
,
is
fully
evident
from
hence
;
because
the
formall
cause
is
alwaies
intrinsecall
(
what
is
more
intrinsecall
then
the
forme
?
saith
Bishop
Downeham
,
as
we
heard
before
)
and
contrarily
the
meritorious
cause
,
alwaies
extrinsecall
.
Now
as
it
is
impossible
,
See
Sect.
2.
of
this
Chap.
that
he
that
is
alwaies
without
the
dores
,
should
at
any
time
be
within
:
so
is
it
unpossible
also
,
that
that
cause
,
whose
essentiall
charactar
and
propertie
it
is
,
to
be
alwaies
extrinsecall
,
should
be
intrinsecall
at
any
time
,
or
in
any
case
whatsoever
.
Fourthly
,
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
then
is
a
Beleever
to
be
reputed
righteous
with
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
This
Proposition
is
evident
,
it
being
proper
to
every
forme
,
to
give
a
suteable
denomination
to
the
subject
.
But
that
a
Beleever
is
at
no
hand
to
be
reputed
righteous
with
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
or
with
the
same
righteousnesse
wherewith
Christ
is
righteous
,
I
thus
demonstrate
and
prove
:
He
that
may
lawfully
be
reputed
righteous
,
with
the
same
righteousnesse
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
may
lawfully
be
reputed
never
to
have
sinned
.
The
reason
of
this
Proposition
is
,
because
that
righteousnesse
which
either
supposeth
or
admitteth
sinne
in
the
same
subject
with
it
,
can
be
none
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
;
the
essentiall
property
whereof
was
to
bee
his
righteousnesse
who
never
sinned
.
But
that
it
should
be
lawfull
to
repute
any
justified
person
under
Heaven
never
to
have
sinned
,
is
so
notorions
an
untruth
,
that
men
need
no
further
light
(
I
conceive
)
to
comprehend
the
darknesse
of
it
.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
,
is
not
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Fiftly
,
SECT.
25
if
men
be
formally
righteous
with
that
righteousnesse
where
with
Christ
himselfe
was
righteous
,
then
are
they
righteous
with
a
meritorious
righteousnesse
.
For
themselves
grant
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
to
be
meritorious
.
But
that
men
are
not
formally
righteous
with
a
meritorious
righteousnesse
,
I
thus
demonstrate
.
He
that
is
formally
righteous
with
a
meritorious
righteousnesse
,
may
lawfully
have
the
merit
of
such
righteousnesse
ascribed
unto
him
,
and
be
himselfe
reputed
the
meritor
of
whatsoever
is
due
upon
just
account
to
such
a
righteousnesse
.
But
the
merit
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
lawfully
be
ascribed
unto
any
man
,
nor
any
justified
person
lawfully
reputed
the
meritor
of
all
that
is
due
to
that
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
no
man
is
formally
righteous
with
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
The
assumption
in
this
argument
is
unquestionable
,
and
hath
our
Adversaries
themselves
friends
to
it
:
certainly
no
man
is
to
be
esteemed
or
reputed
one
that
hath
merited
or
contributed
any
thing
by
way
of
merit
towards
the
salvation
of
the
world
,
which
is
that
which
is
due
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
at
least
in
the
judgement
of
those
who
oppose
in
the
present
controversie
)
The
reason
of
the
former
proposition
,
is
that
old
approved
maxime
in
Logique
.
Dansformam
,
dat
consequentia
formam
.
i.
hee
that
gives
the
forme
of
a
thing
,
gives
all
such
things
with
it
,
which
do
accompany
and
follow
this
forme
.
Now
the
Redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
,
is
that
which
accompanieth
and
followeth
,
and
which
still
belongeth
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Therefore
he
that
gives
this
forme
to
any
man
in
the
formalitie
of
it
,
gives
the
redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
to
him
with
it
.
If
it
be
here
objected
and
said
:
its
true
,
the
Redemption
and
salvation
of
the
world
,
follow
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
as
it
was
performed
by
him
,
and
personally
inherent
in
him
,
not
as
it
is
imputed
to
men
that
beleeve
.
I
answere
,
1º
,
that
in
this
objection
,
the
Question
is
begg'd
,
and
that
supposed
,
which
is
the
maine
hinge
of
the
controversie
,
viz.
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
in
the
formalitie
of
it
:
a
Position
that
stands
convicted
(
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
)
of
manifest
untruth
,
by
the
testimonies
of
many
witnesses
,
both
Divine
and
humane
.
2●
,
I
answere
yet
further
,
that
the
meritoriousnesse
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
supposing
such
a
propertie
in
it
)
must
needs
be
essential
to
it
and
inseparable
from
it
.
It
is
not
an
adventitious
or
contingent
propertie
,
but
connaturall
to
it
,
seated
and
rooted
in
the
very
intrinsecall
and
constituting
principles
of
it
.
So
that
whatsoever
be
done
with
it
,
whatsoever
becomes
of
it
,
to
whomsoever
it
be
imputed
,
this
meritoriousnesse
of
it
goeth
along
with
it
,
and
may
be
ascribed
to
whomsoever
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
may
be
ascribed
.
Yea
,
supposing
this
propertie
we
speake
of
,
this
meritoriousnesse
,
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
we
must
consequently
suppose
it
to
be
so
essentiall
and
intrinsecall
to
it
,
that
the
righteousnesse
it selfe
must
needs
be
destroyed
and
turn'd
into
another
righteousnesse
of
an
inferior
kind
and
importance
,
if
that
be
separated
from
it
.
As
suppose
a
piece
of
gold
to
be
of
such
a
value
,
as
(
for
example
)
worth
ten
shillings
(
or
the
like
,
)
to
whomsoever
this
piece
shall
be
given
,
there
must
of
necessitie
the
value
or
worth
also
of
ten
shillings
,
bee
given
therewith
unto
him
,
the
just
value
and
worth
of
a
thing
being
inseparable
from
the
thing
it selfe
,
at
least
the
thing
it selfe
inseparable
from
it
.
3o
,
It
would
be
knowne
by
what
warrant
either
of
Scripture
or
good
reason
,
men
should
make
this
a
point
of
their
Faith
,
that
God
,
when
he
imputes
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
men
,
should
strip
it
naked
of
the
meritoriousnesse
of
it
;
and
so
make
it
a
righteousnesse
more
worth-lesse
and
vile
,
then
any
positive
righteousnesse
whatsoever
,
consisting
of
workes
,
can
be
.
For
it
is
essentiall
to
every
such
righteousnesse
,
whether
perform'd
by
men
or
Angells
,
or
by
whomsoever
to
be
meritorious
,
at
least
of
the
justification
of
the
person
in
whom
it
is
found
.
This
lyeth
full
and
faire
in
that
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
4.4
.
To
him
that
worketh
i.
that
perfectly
observeth
the
Law
,
the
wages
is
not
counted
by
faver
,
but
of
debt
.
Therefore
i●
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
when
it
is
imputed
to
beleevers
,
be
devested
of
that
which
is
the
glory
of
it
,
above
all
other
righteousnesse
,
I
meane
the
meritoriousnesse
of
it
,
it
suffers
losse
and
disadvantage
,
and
is
not
at
all
exalted
or
magnified
,
by
imputation
.
This
for
the
objection
.
Sixtly
,
SECT.
26
if
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
the
formall
cause
of
justification
,
this
must
be
verified
either
of
the
morall
righteousnesse
of
Christ
alone
,
or
of
his
Ceremoniall
righteousnesse
alone
or
of
his
Mediatory
righteousnesse
alone
or
of
all
,
or
some
two
of
these
together
.
But
neither
the
morall
righteousnesse
of
Christ
alone
,
nor
his
ceremoniall
righteousnesse
alone
,
nor
his
mediatorie
righteousnesse
alone
,
nor
all
,
nor
any
two
of
these
righteousnesses
together
,
can
be
the
formall
cause
of
Justification
:
therefore
no
righteousnesse
of
Christ
whatsoever
is
to
be
look'd
upon
in
any
such
relation
of
causalitie
,
in
respect
of
justification
.
The
proposition
in
this
syllogisme
(
I
conceive
)
carrieth
the
light
of
it
's
owne
truth
with
it
,
The
enumeration
of
the
severall
species
or
kinds
of
righteousnesse
in
Christ
,
is
sufficient
.
As
for
his
originall
,
and
habituall
righteousnesse
,
I
comprehend
them
both
under
his
morall
.
Therefore
if
the
conclusion
stick
's
,
the
assumption
is
to
be
blam'd
for
it
.
But
that
this
also
is
blamelesse
,
I
thus
demonstrate
,
by
the
severall
parts
of
it
.
First
,
that
his
Ceremoniall
righteousnesse
alone
should
be
formall
in
justification
,
never
as
yet
(
I
conceive
)
entered
into
any
mans
head
or
heart
,
to
conceive
.
Therefore
(
I
presume
)
we
may
spare
the
arguing
of
this
member
,
without
any
prejudice
at
al
to
our
cause
.
Secondly
that
his
mediatorie
righteousnesse
alone
(
which
consists
in
his
passives
)
should
be
the
cause
inquired
after
,
is
not
(
to
my
knowledge
)
affirm'd
by
any
of
that
judgement
we
oppose
in
the
depending
controversie
.
But
howsoever
,
the
truth
of
it
thus
appeares
:
because
the
formall
cause
alwaies
gives
a
sutable
denomination
to
the
subject
.
But
no
justified
person
can
be
called
mediatorily
righteous
:
therefore
a
mediatorie
righteousnesse
is
not
the
formall
cause
of
justification
.
Thirdly
,
by
the
same
argument
,
it
is
as
manifest
as
heart
can
wish
,
that
neither
can
both
these
righteousnesses
together
,
be
that
formall
cause
we
speake
of
:
nor
hath
any
man
every
et
adventured
either
his
credit
or
his
conscience
upon
this
opinion
.
Therefore
here
also
we
will
borrow
confidence
:
and
make
restitution
,
when
an
adversarie
shall
reasonably
demand
it
.
Fourthly
,
See
cap.
18.
Sect.
3.
of
the
first
part
.
that
his
morall
righteousnesse
alone
as
distinguished
and
separated
from
his
Ceremoniall
,
cannot
be
this
formall
cause
,
is
evident
:
because
then
the
beleeving
Iewes
,
who
liv'd
before
Christs
coming
in
the
flesh
,
and
the
beleeving
Gentiles
since
,
should
not
be
iustified
with
one
and
the
same
righteousnesse
from
Christ
.
For
the
Iewes
,
who
liv'd
before
the
dissolution
of
the
Mosaical
oeconomie
by
the
sufferings
of
Christ
,
were
aswell
bound
to
the
observation
of
the
Law
Ceremoniall
,
as
Morall
:
and
therefore
could
not
be
justified
by
the
imputation
of
a
morall
righteousnesse
only
.
Againe
on
the
other
hand
,
those
that
have
lived
since
the
promulgation
of
the
said
dissolution
made
by
Christ
,
were
not
only
free
and
not
bound
to
the
Law
Ceremoniall
,
but
were
strictly
bound
from
it
,
and
from
the
observation
of
the
rites
and
usages
therein
commanded
.
Therefore
for
these
to
have
the
observation
of
Mosaicall
rites
and
Ceremonies
imputed
to
them
,
is
to
have
rather
sinne
,
then
righteousnesse
,
imputed
to
them
.
Fiftly
,
by
this
last
consideration
also
it
appeareth
,
that
the
two
last
named
righteousnesses
of
Christ
,
Ceremoniall
and
Morall
,
cannot
be
so
cast
or
run
into
one
,
or
so
conspire
together
,
as
to
make
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
we
seeke
after
.
The
beleeving
Gentiles
since
the
promulgation
of
that
Gospell
,
must
have
no
Ceremoniall
threds
woven
into
the
piece
of
righteousnesse
,
whereby
they
must
stand
iustified
in
the
fight
of
God
.
Lastly
,
that
neither
can
his
morall
and
mediatorie
righteousnesse
so
comport
or
complie
together
,
as
to
raise
a
third
kinde
of
righteousnesse
betweene
them
,
that
should
make
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
so
much
questioned
and
contended
about
,
may
be
sufficiently
apprehended
by
what
hath
bin
already
delivered
.
For
that
righteousnesse
which
shall
be
supposed
to
be
compounded
of
these
two
,
must
necessarily
be
conceived
to
be
a
Mediatorie
righteousnesse
at
the
least
.
For
there
must
be
nothing
lost
of
the
vigor
,
strength
,
or
perfection
of
either
,
in
the
composition
.
But
that
no
Mediatorie
righteousnesse
can
possibly
be
formall
in
justification
,
was
fully
evinced
and
concluded
in
the
fift
argument
.
Seventhly
(
and
lastly
,
SECT.
27
for
this
opinion
)
it
is
the
confession
or
profession
,
which
you
will
,
of
some
of
the
learnedest
abettors
themselves
of
that
way
of
imputation
which
hath
bin
opposed
in
this
Treatise
,
that
the
generall
current
of
Reformed
Divines
runns
with
an
opposite
streame
to
this
opinion
,
and
with
one
mouth
deny
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Who
ever
of
our
writers
(
saith
Doctor
Prideaux
[
](A85397-e80390-b)a
a
Quis
unquam
è
nostru
,
nos
per
justitiam
Christi
imputatam
,
formaliter
justificari
asservit
?
Dr.
Prideaux
,
Lect.
5.
p.
163.
)
affirmed
,
that
we
are
formally
iustified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
?
And
Bishop
Downham
a
great
hyperaspistes
also
of
imputation
,
chargeth
it
upon
his
adversaries
as
a
depravation
of
their
Doctrine
[
](A85397-e80470-b)(a)
(a)
lib.
1.
of
Iustifi
.
p.
39.
Sect.
1.2
.
(
he
meanes
his
owne
,
and
other
Protestant
Divines
)
that
they
will
needs
,
with
the
Papists
,
make
them
hold
,
that
we
are
formally
righteous
by
that
righteousnesse
,
which
is
not
in
us
,
but
out
of
us
in
Christ
,
which
is
absur'd
.
And
a
little
after
,
marveiles
at
them
,
how
they
could
be
so
absurd
,
as
to
conceive
so
absurdly
of
them
(
himselfe
and
other
Reformed
Divines
he
had
spoken
of
)
as
if
they
held
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
it selfe
should
be
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Now
that
both
these
testimonies
are
so
farre
true
,
as
they
avouch
the
more
generall
opinion
of
Protestant
Divines
,
to
stand
against
formall
Iustification
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
,
will
further
appeare
by
the
explication
of
the
fift
and
last
opinion
touching
the
cause
under
dispute
,
which
now
followeth
:
Therefore
Fiftly
(
and
lastly
)
there
remaines
yet
another
opinion
to
be
considered
of
,
SECT.
28
which
looketh
upon
remission
or
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
The
Authors
judgment
touching
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
as
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
And
that
this
opinion
hath
both
the
fairest
and
largest
quarter
in
the
judgements
and
writings
of
Protestant
Divines
,
as
also
most
agree-ablenesse
with
the
truth
,
we
shall
(
I
trust
)
make
evident
,
without
much
wearisomnesse
of
Discourse
.
For
the
former
of
these
,
the
more
generall
consent
of
Reformed
Authors
,
(
besides
what
hath
bin
already
delivered
for
the
Iustification
hereof
from
many
of
the
Authors
themselves
,
in
the
first
and
fift
Chapters
of
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
)
I
shall
satisfie
my selfe
(
and
I
hope
my
Reader
also
will
take
part
with
me
in
this
satisfaction
)
with
the
testimonies
only
of
two
of
eminent
note
amongst
them
,
both
(
I
conceive
)
without
exception
,
and
of
sufficient
learning
and
integritie
to
be
beleeved
in
a
matter
of
as
great
importance
as
this
;
the
one
of
them
a
forreiner
,
the
other
an
English
Divine
,
the
one
being
of
the
same
judgement
himselfe
,
the
other
(
in
part
)
dissenting
;
the
one
dead
,
the
other
yet
living
.
The
former
of
the
two
is
David
Paraeus
,
sometimes
chiefe
Professor
of
Divinty
in
the
Vniversity
of
Heidelburgh
:
who
in
his
tract
concerning
the
Active
and
Passive
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
having
laid
downe
his
judgement
(
in
the
controversie
depending
)
thus
(
p.
176
)
[
](A85397-e80720-b)a
a
Superest
Quarta
sententia
&c.
quod
justificatio
tota
sit
,
remissio
peccatorum
propter
hanc
satisfactionem
nobis
imputatam
.
Hanc
sententiam
,
ut
veriorem
,
simpliciorem
,
a●
tutiorem
amplects
me
profiteor
&c.
Parens
De
Iustit
.
Christi
Act.
et
Pass.
p.
176.
177.
Possem
huc
affer
re
Authoritates
Patrum
&c.
Possem
quoque
afferre
cōsensum
Lutheri
,
Melancthonis
&c.
p.
178.
that
remission
of
sinnes
for
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
is
our
whole
and
intire
Justification
,
and
argued
accordingly
(
p.
177
)
in
the
following
page
,
addeth
as
followeth
.
I
might
here
produce
the
Authorities
of
the
Fathers
,
who
likewise
place
our
righteousnesse
(
meaning
,
in
Justification
)
in
the
alone
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
for
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
accordingly
cites
severall
testimonies
out
of
Austin
,
Occumenius
,
and
Ambrose
.
And
immediatly
after
these
testimonies
,
thus
:
I
might
also
alledge
the
consent
of
Luther
,
Melancthon
,
Zuinglius
,
Oecolampadius
,
Bullinger
,
Calvin
,
Martyr
,
Musculus
,
Hyperius
,
Vrsine
,
Olevian
,
&c.
from
whose
Doctrine
in
the
point
of
Iustificatiou
,
I
doe
not
varie
a
nailes
breadth
.
So
that
the
light
of
this
mans
reading
and
judgement
together
,
could
discover
no
other
opinion
touching
the
formall
cause
of
Justification
,
either
in
the
Fathers
,
or
any
the
chiefe
Protestant
writers
in
his
time
,
but
that
it
should
stand
only
in
Remission
of
sinnes
.
The
latter
of
the
two
mentioned
,
is
Mr.
Thomas
Gataker
,
a
man
of
approved
learning
and
integritie
amongst
us
:
who
in
Mr.
A.
Wottons
Defence
against
Mr.
Walkers
Charge
,
lately
published
in
Print
by
him
,
acknowledgeth
(
p.
58
)
that
howsoever
for
his
part
hee
deemeth
it
erronious
(
and
so
doe
I
too
,
taking
the
word
Iustification
,
in
that
large
sense
which
it
seemeth
he
doth
,
where
he
argueth
against
the
opinion
,
as
viz.
in
his
Animadversions
upon
the
disputes
betweene
Piscator
and
Lucius
,
p.
9.
besides
sundry
other
places
in
his
writings
)
to
hold
that
Iustification
consisteth
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
yet
that
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Olevian
,
Vrsine
,
Zanchie
,
Piscator
,
Pareus
,
Musculus
,
Bullinger
,
Fox
,
and
divers
others
of
great
note
and
name
,
yea
whole
Synods
of
ours
are
found
so
to
say
:
adding
further
,
and
yet
were
these
men
never
yet
,
that
I
ever
heard
or
read
,
for
so
saying
,
condemned
as
Heretiques
,
much
lesse
as
blasphemous
.
Heretiques
,
but
had
in
high
esteeme
,
as
their
worth
,
parts
and
workes
well
deserved
,
by
those
that
therein
dissented
from
them
.
To
this
I
might
(
if
need
were
)
adde
Mr.
Authony
Wotton
,
a
man
of
much
labour
,
diligence
,
and
dexterity
in
searching
out
the
judgements
and
opinions
of
Protestant
writers
touching
the
great
Point
of
Iustification
(
as
appeares
by
that
learned
piece
of
his
,
intit'led
,
de
Reconciliatione
peccatoris
,
&c.
)
who
in
the
3
,
4
,
5
,
and
6
Chapters
of
the
second
booke
of
the
first
part
of
this
worke
,
hath
mustered
together
a
greater
troupe
of
Reformed
Authors
then
either
of
the
other
,
and
from
their
owne
pens
respectively
,
hath
made
them
all
speake
distinctly
and
plainely
,
the
same
things
touching
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
which
the
two
former
Authors
(
as
we
heard
)
ascribed
unto
some
of
them
.
Now
for
the
declaration
and
proofe-making
of
this
opinion
,
SECT.
29
because
for
the
present
(
I
conceive
it
most
agreeable
to
the
truth
)
some
things
would
briefly
be
premiz'd
.
As
1º
,
That
Iustification
,
being
an
action
,
hath
no
forme
,
or
formall
cause
at
all
properly
so
called
,
that
is
,
hath
no
substantiall
forme
,
nor
yet
any
forme
that
is
properly
a
part
of
it
,
because
this
is
proper
only
to
substantiall
natures
and
beings
.
See
Sect.
8.
of
this
Chapter
.
2º
,
That
there
can
in
no
other
respect
or
consideration
be
ascribed
any
forme
or
formal
cause
unto
Iustification
,
but
only
as
it
mak's
an
alteration
in
the
person
,
or
rather
in
the
condition
of
the
person
justified
.
See
this
also
further
explained
in
the
forenamed
Section
of
this
Chapter
.
3º
,
That
that
alteration
,
or
change
,
which
is
made
in
the
condition
of
the
person
justified
by
his
Iustification
,
that
is
,
that
which
the
immediate
,
proper
,
and
precise
effect
,
of
that
act
of
God
whereby
hee
iustifieth
,
in
or
about
the
person
justified
,
is
,
and
nothing
else
but
this
is
,
or
can
with
any
coulor
of
reason
and
congruitie
of
speaking
,
be
called
,
the
forme
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Of
this
also
you
have
some
further
accompt
in
the
8
Section
of
this
Chapter
.
4º
,
That
is
especially
to
be
remembred
,
that
wee
doe
not
in
this
inquirie
,
seeke
after
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
simply
,
or
of
Justification
largely
taken
,
but
of
that
particular
and
speciall
kinde
of
Iustification
,
whereby
a
beleeving
sinner
is
justified
by
God
through
the
redemption
which
is
in
Christ
Iesus
.
For
if
we
take
Iustification
in
a
large
sense
,
it
is
evident
,
that
remission
of
sinnes
cannot
be
the
formall
cause
of
it
.
Because
in
such
a
sense
of
the
word
Iustification
,
a
man
may
be
said
to
be
iustified
that
is
,
acquitted
and
cleered
,
who
hath
noe
sinnes
,
or
sinne
at
all
forgiven
him
,
viz.
in
case
hee
hath
bin
falsely
accused
.
And
so
on
the
other
hand
,
a
man
may
have
his
offence
or
offences
remitted
and
forgiven
,
and
yet
not
be
justified
,
I
meane
with
any
such
kinde
of
Iustification
,
as
we
now
speake
of
,
viz.
that
is
built
upon
a
just
and
plenary
satisfaction
for
the
offence
given
.
But
otherwise
,
any
remission
of
an
offence
upon
what
termes
soever
,
may
(
in
a
large
sense
)
be
called
,
a
Justification
,
viz.
See
more
of
this
Cap.
3.
Sect.
1.
of
this
second
part
.
as
the
word
connoteth
,
and
many
times
(
even
in
the
Scriptures
themselves
)
signifieth
a
discharge
or
absolution
from
punishment
.
5º
,
(
and
lastly
)
whereas
there
may
be
a
double
or
or
twofold
Iustification
ascribed
unto
God
,
the
one
we
may
call
Declarative
or
Pronunciative
,
the
other
,
Constitutive
,
it
is
the
formall
cause
of
the
latter
,
rather
then
of
the
former
,
which
we
inquire
after
.
The
difference
betweene
these
two
Iustifications
,
may
be
thus
conceived
:
that
which
I
call
Constitutive
,
hath
a
precedencie
in
the
order
of
nature
(
and
for
the
most
part
,
of
time
also
)
before
the
other
,
and
is
some
kinde
of
cause
thereof
.
When
God
is
said
to
justifie
the
sinner
or
ungodly
,
(
as
Rom.
4.5
.
)
it
is
meant
of
his
Constitutive
Iustification
,
not
of
his
Declarative
:
For
God
never
declareth
or
pronounceth
a
sinner
righteous
,
till
hee
hath
made
him
righteous
,
which
is
the
proper
act
of
that
which
I
call
,
Constitutive
Iustification
.
Againe
,
when
Christ
saith
,
by
thy
words
thou
shalt
be
iustified
.
Mat.
12.13
.
and
Iames
concerning
Abraham
,
that
he
was
iustified
through
workes
;
these
and
such
like
passages
speake
of
a
declarative
Iustification
.
The
formall
cause
of
Gods
declarative
Iustification
,
cannot
be
conceiv'd
to
stand
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
because
remission
of
sinnes
is
alwaies
precedaneous
to
it
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
the
effect
of
it
,
and
so
not
the
formall
cause
thereof
,
according
to
the
2
and
3
grounds
premised
.
The
formall
cause
of
this
kinde
of
Iustification
,
is
rather
the
knowledge
in
those
to
whom
such
declaration
is
made
(
whether
it
be
the
person
himselfe
that
is
iustified
,
or
some
other
)
of
remission
of
sinnes
granted
unto
him
,
concerning
whom
such
declaration
is
made
.
Onely
(
to
prevent
cavilling
)
that
is
acknowledged
,
that
even
that
which
I
call
Constitutive
Justification
,
may
in
this
sense
be
called
declarative
also
,
viz.
as
the
grounds
,
terms
,
and
conditions
upon
which
it
proceeds
,
are
declared
and
made
knowne
by
God
in
his
Gospell
.
But
by
declarative
Iustification
,
I
meane
onely
such
an
act
or
expression
of
God
,
whereby
he
declares
the
actuall
Justification
of
those
or
any
of
those
that
have
their
sinnes
forgiven
them
.
These
things
remembred
,
SECT.
30
I
proceed
to
demonstrate
the
truth
of
the
opinion
mentioned
,
and
undertaken
for
,
which
was
,
that
Remission
of
sins
is
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
First
,
if
Remission
of
sinnes
be
the
first
,
immediate
,
and
precise
effect
of
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifieth
a
sinner
,
in
or
upon
the
sinner
so
justified
,
then
is
Remission
of
sinnes
the
proper
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
This
consequence
is
built
cleere
and
strong
upon
the
third
particular
premised
.
Therefore
I
assume
:
But
remission
of
sinnes
is
the
first
,
immediate
and
precise
effect
of
that
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
justifieth
a
sinner
,
in
or
about
the
sinner
so
iustified
.
Ergo
&c.
The
reason
of
this
latter
proposition
is
,
because
there
is
no
other
imaginable
effect
,
that
should
interveene
,
betweene
such
an
act
,
and
the
effect
specified
.
The
Scriptures
themselves
make
an
immediate
connection
betweene
Gods
act
of
Justification
,
and
the
sinners
exemption
,
or
absolution
from
his
sinnes
,
that
is
,
from
the
guilt
and
punishment
due
unto
his
sinnes
,
when
they
call
Iustification
,
a
Iustification
from
sinne
.
Be
it
knowne
unto
you
,
men
and
Brethren
(
saith
Paul
.
Act.
13.38
.
)
that
through
this
man
is
preached
unto
you
remission
of
sinnes
;
and
by
him
,
all
that
beleeve
,
are
justified
from
all
things
,
from
which
yee
could
not
be
iustified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
Where
we
see
that
Iustification
is
immediatly
and
directly
,
from
sinne
,
i.
from
the
guilt
or
condemnatorie
power
of
sinne
.
The
like
expression
you
have
Rom.
6
,
7.
He
that
is
dead
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
iustified
from
sinne
.
So
that
this
is
the
first
priviledge
or
blessing
,
that
comes
upon
a
sinner
by
meanes
of
his
Iustification
,
or
of
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifieth
him
,
the
remission
of
his
sinnes
:
and
consequently
must
needs
be
the
forme
of
his
Iustification
.
Secondly
,
that
which
gives
the
denomination
of
justified
,
to
those
that
are
justified
,
must
needs
be
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
The
reason
of
this
proposition
,
is
apparant
:
it
is
still
proper
to
every
forme
,
to
give
a
sutable
denomination
to
the
subject
.
Sutable
I
meane
,
not
only
to
the
forme
it selfe
,
but
to
the
action
or
motion
also
,
whereby
this
forme
was
introduced
into
the
subject
.
As
for
example
:
whitenesse
in
a
wall
that
was
made
white
out
of
some
other
colour
,
gives
the
denomination
of
whited
,
unto
the
wall
:
which
doth
not
answere
the
forme
it selfe
onely
,
which
is
whitenesse
,
but
that
action
also
of
the
Plaisterer
or
Painter
,
which
wee
call
,
whitening
.
Therefore
it
is
evident
,
that
the
forme
or
formall
cause
of
this
act
of
whitening
,
is
the
whitenesse
,
or
whitednesse
of
the
wall
.
Thus
farre
then
the
ground
is
firme
under
us
.
Let
us
therefore
goe
forward
,
and
assume
:
But
remission
of
sinnes
gives
the
denomination
of
iustified
,
to
those
that
are
iustified
.
Therefore
remission
of
sinnes
is
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
The
assumption
I
thus
further
demonstrate
.
If
a
sinner
be
therefore
and
thereby
iustified
,
because
he
hath
his
sinnes
remitted
unto
him
,
then
remission
of
sinnes
gives
the
denomination
of
iustified
,
unto
him
.
This
consequence
is
pregnant
,
because
that
alwaies
gives
the
denomination
,
by
the
meanes
or
reason
whereof
,
the
subject
is
so
,
or
so
denominated
.
I
assume
:
But
a
sinner
is
therefore
and
thereby
iustified
,
because
,
or
in
that
he
hath
his
sinnes
forgiven
him
.
Ergo.
The
reason
of
the
latter
proposition
is
,
because
that
Iustification
we
speake
of
,
being
still
opposed
to
condemnation
(
as
hath
bin
formerly
observed
from
the
Scriptures
)
must
needs
stand
in
a
vindication
or
exemption
from
punishment
,
which
being
interpreted
,
is
nothing
else
,
but
the
having
of
a
mans
sinnes
forgiven
.
For
there
is
no
exemption
from
punishment
at
the
hand
of
an
infinite
Judge
for
him
that
is
guilty
,
but
by
having
his
sinnes
forgiven
:
as
on
the
other
hand
,
the
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
is
a
full
exemption
in
this
kind
.
Thirdly
,
SECT.
31
that
alteration
or
change
in
the
condition
of
the
person
justified
which
is
caused
therein
by
that
act
whereby
God
justifieth
him
,
must
of
necessitie
be
the
forme
,
or
formall
cause
of
his
justification
.
The
third
particular
premised
,
is
a
sufficient
light
wherby
to
see
the
truth
of
this
proposition
,
Therefore
I
assume
:
But
remission
of
sinnes
,
or
absolution
and
acquitting
from
punishment
(
which
are
interpretatively
the
same
)
is
that
alteration
or
change
which
is
made
in
the
condition
of
a
person
justified
by
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifieth
him
.
Ergo
this
alteration
or
change
is
the
formall
cause
of
justification
.
The
reason
of
the
latter
proposition
is
this
.
Iustification
being
(
as
I
suppose
is
confessed
on
alhands
)
a
civil
or
politique
act
,
as
all
actions
of
Iudicature
are
,
must
needs
produce
a
civil
or
politique
effect
answerable
to
it
.
Al
acts
&
actions
beget
only
in
their
own
similitude
&
likenesse
.
A
natural
action
cannot
produce
a
morall
effect
:
nor
a
morall
action
,
a
naturall
effect
.
Neither
can
a
civill
or
politique
action
,
produce
either
a
naturall
or
morall
,
but
only
a
civill
or
politique
effect
.
When
a
Judge
acquits
(
and
so
when
he
condemn's
)
a
man
from
a
crime
or
accusation
brought
in
against
him
,
this
makes
neither
any
naturall
nor
morall
change
in
the
person
of
him
that
is
so
acquitted
,
except
it
be
occasionally
&
by
accident
,
as
when
by
such
a
sentence
of
absolution
a
man
is
recovered
out
of
those
feares
,
which
were
prejudiciall
to
his
health
whilst
he
lay
under
danger
of
the
sentence
of
the
Law
,
or
the
like
:
but
properly
and
directly
such
an
act
produceth
a
civill
or
politique
change
in
his
condition
.
For
whereas
he
was
before
in
danger
of
the
Law
,
and
obnoxious
unto
punishment
,
he
is
now
at
liberty
and
free
therefrom
.
So
when
a
beleeving
sinner
is
justified
by
God
,
the
effect
of
this
act
of
God
,
is
not
any
naturall
or
morall
change
made
upon
him
,
but
a
change
in
his
estate
and
condition
.
Now
there
is
no
other
change
that
can
be
imagined
should
be
made
in
the
spirituall
estate
or
condition
of
a
man
,
by
the
act
of
Gods
Iustification
falling
on
him
,
but
onely
his
acquitting
from
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
and
punishment
due
unto
the
same
.
Before
this
act
of
God
passed
upon
him
,
he
was
under
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
and
obnoxious
to
the
wrath
of
God
:
but
by
the
coming
of
this
upon
him
,
he
is
absolutly
free
and
exempt
from
danger
that
way
.
Fourthly
,
SECT.
32
that
which
makes
a
justified
person
,
formally
and
compleatly
just
or
righteous
before
God
,
is
(
questionlesse
)
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
This
proposition
is
greater
then
exception
,
nor
will
(
I
conceive
)
be
denied
by
our
keenest
adversaries
in
the
maine
.
I
assume
therefore
:
But
remission
of
sinnes
is
that
which
makes
a
iustified
person
formally
and
compleatly
righteous
before
God
.
Therefore
this
is
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
The
reason
and
ground
of
the
assumption
is
this
:
because
he
that
stands
as
cleere
,
and
as
free
from
sinne
,
or
the
guilt
of
sin
,
in
the
sight
of
God
,
as
he
that
having
liv'd
a
1000
yeeres
,
should
alwaies
have
observ'd
the
Law
,
and
never
transgressed
in
the
least
point
,
is
(
doubtlesse
)
formally
&
compleatly
righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Now
that
remission
of
sins
gives
this
privilege
to
him
that
hath
received
it
,
in
as
ful
&
amplea
manner
,
as
the
exemplified
observation
of
the
Law
,
or
any
other
of
the
longest
continuance
that
is
imaginable
can
do
,
hath
bin
more
then
once
demonstrated
in
this
Treatise
,
especially
in
the
fift
Conclusion
layd
down
in
the
second
Chap.
of
this
second
Part.
Sect.
6.
p.
8.
Fiftly
,
If
remission
of
sinnes
be
a
perfect
and
complete
righteousnesse
,
then
is
it
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
This
proposition
is
much
of
the
same
spinning
with
the
Major
in
the
former
argument
,
and
so
partaker
of
like
evidence
of
truth
with
it
.
Neve●-the-lesse
(
once
to
light
up
a
candle
wherby
to
see
the
Sunne
)
the
reason
of
it
,
is
briefly
this
:
be-because
no
perfect
or
compleate
righteousnesse
can
be
found
in
any
man
that
hath
sin'd
,
but
that
which
is
given
and
conferr'd
by
God
upon
him
in
his
Justification
:
and
that
which
is
in
this
way
conferr'd
upon
him
,
is
(
without
contradiction
)
the
formall
cause
thereof
.
Therefore
let
us
make
forward
:
But
remission
of
sinnes
is
a
perfect
and
compleate
righteousnesse
:
therefore
(
doubtlesse
)
the
formall
cause
also
of
Iustification
.
The
minor
proposition
hath
oft
already
bin
exalted
upon
the
Throne
of
evidence
and
unquestionablenesse
of
truth
:
yet
if
you
desire
a
little
of
what
is
more
then
enough
,
take
this
for
a
further
demonstration
of
it
.
That
righteousnesse
which
needeth
not
feare
the
presence
o●
most
district
Judgement
of
God
,
is
(
doubtlesse
)
a
compleate
and
perfect
righteousnesse
.
But
remission
of
sinnes
is
a
righteousnesse
that
needeth
not
to
feare
the
presence
or
districtest
judgement
of
God
.
Therefore
it
is
a
perfect
and
compleate
righteousnesse
.
The
Sunne
at
noone
day
shineth
no
cleerer
light
,
then
both
these
propositions
do
truth
.
For
the
former
,
I
make
no
question
but
contradiction
it selfe
will
be
ashamed
to
oppose
it
.
Peccata
sola
separant
inter
hominem
et
Deum
,
quae
solvuntur
Christi
gratia
,
per
quem
mediatorem
reconciliamur
,
cum
justificat
impium
.
Aug
De
Pecc
.
Merit
.
et
Rem
:
l.
1.
c
,
20.
That
righteousnesse
which
will
hold
out
waight
and
measure
,
by
the
standerd
of
Heaven
,
no
man
(
I
presume
)
will
call
defective
or
imperfect
.
And
for
the
latter
,
who
can
with
any
reason
lift
up
a
thought
of
heart
against
it
?
For
what
cause
hath
any
man
to
feare
any
displeasure
or
hard
sentence
from
God
,
who
hath
all
his
sinnes
fully
pardoned
?
There
is
nothing
can
separate
betweene
God
and
his
,
creature
,
but
only
sinne
:
and
when
this
is
taken
away
,
what
shall
hinder
,
but
that
there
should
immediatly
ensue
a
perfect
union
of
love
and
peace
betweene
them
?
Sixtly
,
SECT.
33
If
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
be
the
righteousnesse
which
God
imputes
in
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
,
then
is
it
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
But
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
is
the
righteousnesse
imputed
by
God
in
the
Iustification
of
a
sinner
.
Ergo.
The
ground
of
the
sequell
in
the
first
proposition
is
this
,
because
the
righteousnesse
which
God
imputes
in
Iustification
,
must
needs
be
the
formall
cause
thereof
,
otherwise
it
must
be
said
,
either
a
man
is
formally
just
by
some
righteousnesse
of
his
own
,
or
which
he
hath
not
received
from
God
:
or
else
that
he
is
not
made
righteous
in
or
by
his
Iustification
,
but
afterwards
.
The
minor
,
is
the
assertion
of
the
Holy
Ghost
(
almost
)
in
terminis
,
Rom.
4.
For
that
which
ver.
6.
is
called
,
Gods
imputing
righteousnesse
,
ver.
7.
is
interpreted
to
be
,
his
forgiving
iniquities
,
and
covering
sinne
.
Seventhly
,
If
remission
of
sinnes
reacheth
home
unto
and
be
given
unto
men
by
God
for
their
Iustification
,
then
is
it
the
formall
cause
thereof
.
This
is
evident
:
because
by
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
we
meane
nothing
else
(
as
hath
bin
often
said
)
but
Iustification
passive
,
or
that
guift
which
by
God
is
given
unto
men
(
and
by
them
received
accordingly
)
in
and
by
that
act
of
his
whereby
he
iustifieth
them
.
So
that
if
remission
of
sinnes
be
that
which
is
given
unto
sinners
by
God
,
for
,
or
unto
their
Iustification
,
it
must
of
necessitie
be
conceived
to
be
the
formall
cause
thereof
.
Therefore
I
assume
:
but
remission
of
sinnes
is
given
by
God
unto
men
for
their
Iustification
,
and
reacheth
home
unto
it
:
Therefore
it
must
needs
be
the
formall
cause
thereof
.
This
latter
proposition
againe
,
is
(
in
effect
,
and
well
nigh
in
terms
)
nothing
but
what
the
Holy
Ghost
himselfe
affirmeth
,
Rom.
5.16
.
And
not
as
it
was
by
one
that
sinned
,
so
is
the
guift
:
for
the
iudgment
was
by
one
unto
condemnation
:
but
the
free
guift
is
of
many
offences
unto
Justification
.
that
is
,
God
by
the
free
guift
,
that
is
,
by
the
free
forgivenesse
of
mens
sinnes
,
doth
fully
justify
them
.
The
free
guift
of
offences
,
or
the
forgivenesse
of
sins
,
could
not
be
said
to
be
unto
Iustification
,
except
a
man
were
fully
and
entirely
justifyed
thereby
.
Lastly
,
if
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
the
non-imputing
of
sinne
to
those
that
have
sinned
,
be
expressions
of
one
and
the
same
importance
,
and
signifie
the
same
privilege
,
estate
,
or
condition
,
of
a
person
iustified
,
then
is
remission
of
sinnes
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
The
strength
of
this
consequence
lieth
in
this
,
that
the
Holy
Ghost
describeth
or
interpreteth
the
righteousnesse
which
God
imputeth
in
Iustification
,
by
the
non-imputation
of
sinne
.
This
is
evident
by
comparing
Rom.
4.6
.
with
ver.
8.
And
it
was
proo●ed
before
(
in
the
sixt
argument
)
that
the
righteousnesse
imputed
by
God
in
Iustification
,
must
of
necessity
be
the
formall
cause
thereof
.
Therefore
it
undeniably
followes
,
that
if
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
the
non-imputing
of
sinne
,
be
expressions
of
one
and
the
same
condition
,
that
remission
of
sinnes
is
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
.
Now
that
the
importance
of
these
two
expressions
is
but
one
and
the
same
,
is
apparant
enough
without
proofe
.
For
what
doth
God
more
,
or
otherwise
,
in
remitting
sinne
,
then
he
doth
in
not
imputing
it
?
or
what
doth
he
more
or
otherwise
in
the
not-imputing
of
sinne
,
then
he
doth
in
remitting
it
?
Not
to
impute
sinne
to
him
that
hath
sinned
,
can
implie
nothing
else
,
but
not
to
charge
the
demerit
or
guilt
thereof
upon
him
:
and
what
doth
remission
of
sinnes
import
either
more
or
lesse
?
And
hence
(
doubtlesse
)
it
is
,
that
David
sets
the
same
Crowne
of
the
same
blessednesse
upon
the
head
of
the
one
and
the
other
.
Blessed
is
he
whose
transgression
is
forgiven
,
whose
sinne
is
covered
Blessed
is
the
man
,
to
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
not
iniquitie
,
&c.
Psal.
32.1.2
.
Rom.
4.7.8
.
Much
might
be
further
argued
both
from
the
Scriptures
and
otherwise
,
SECT.
34
for
the
cleering
and
countenancing
of
this
opinion
,
which
placeth
formall
justification
in
Remission
of
sinnes
:
but
inasmuch
as
this
tasque
hath
bin
learnedly
and
throughly
performed
by
another
[
](A85397-e83110-b)(a)
(a)
Mr.
Wotton
,
De
Reconciltat
.
Part
1
,
lib.
2.
c.
3.4.5.6.7.8
.
(
though
in
another
languag
)
and
to
ease
the
present
discourse
of
length
and
tediousnesse
what
we
may
without
any
sensible
de
r●ment
to
the
cause
undertaken
,
I
forbeare
.
And
the
rather
,
because
whatsoever
I
am
able
to
conceive
may
possibly
with
any
colour
or
pretext
of
reason
be
objected
against
the
opinion
,
hath
(
for
the
most
part
)
bin
already
answered
or
cleered
,
or
else
will
be
found
answered
in
the
two
following
Chapters
.
As
First
,
Object
.
1
That
Remission
of
sinnes
,
is
no
true
or
compleate
righteousnesse
:
ou
shall
finde
satisfaction
touching
this
,
in
the
second
Chap.
of
this
latter
part
,
in
the
4
Conclusion
.
Sect.
4.
Secondly
,
Object
.
2
That
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
to
be
joyned
with
remission
of
sinnes
,
to
make
the
compleate
forme
of
Iustification
.
See
this
cleered
at
large
Cap.
11.
of
the
first
part
.
Thirdly
,
Object
.
3
That
Remission
of
sinnes
is
the
consequent
or
effect
of
Iustification
,
and
therefore
not
the
formall
cause
.
See
whereof
to
make
a
sufficient
answere
to
this
,
Sect.
8.
and
Sect.
29.
of
this
Chapter
,
where
it
is
fully
prooved
,
that
the
formall
cause
of
Iustification
,
must
needs
be
the
consequent
of
Iustification
,
that
is
,
of
that
act
of
God
whereby
he
justifieth
.
Fourthly
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
,
is
this
formall
cause
,
Object
.
4
you
shall
finde
this
counter-argued
,
Sect.
23
,
24
,
25
,
26
,
27.
of
this
Chapter
.
Fiftly
,
Object
.
5
that
the
imputation
of
this
righteousnesse
is
the
formall
cause
.
The
inconsistencie
of
this
with
the
truth
,
is
evicted
,
Sect.
22.
of
this
Chapter
.
Sixtly
,
Object
.
6
That
the
communion
that
is
betweene
Christ
and
beleevers
,
is
this
formall
cause
.
How
little
communion
this
hath
with
the
truth
,
hath
bin
shewed
at
large
,
Section
18
,
19
,
20
,
21.
of
this
Chapter
.
Seventhly
,
That
Iustification
may
be
,
Object
.
7
where
there
is
no
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
remission
of
sinnes
,
where
there
is
no
justification
.
See
the
opinion
set
cleere
of
this
objection
,
in
the
latter
end
of
Sect.
1.
of
the
3
Chap.
of
this
second
part
,
as
also
Sect.
29.
of
this
present
Chapter
.
What
further
may
be
objected
,
I
doe
not
(
for
the
present
)
apprehend
:
but
ready
and
willing
I
am
to
take
any
thing
into
a
serious
and
unpartiall
consideration
that
shall
be
tendred
unto
me
as
matter
of
further
question
,
or
difficultie
in
the
businesse
:
In
the
meane
time
,
out
of
all
that
which
hath
bin
reasoned
at
large
in
this
Chapter
concerning
justification
and
the
severall
causes
thereof
,
some
such
description
of
it
as
this
may
be
framed
,
wherein
the
attentive
Reader
may
observe
,
either
all
or
the
greatest
part
of
the
causes
insisted
upon
,
briefly
comprehended
.
Justification
is
an
act
of
God
,
whereby
having
out
of
his
owne
unspeakable
free
grace
and
goodnesse
towards
poore
miserable
sinners
,
given
his
only
begotten
Sonne
Jesus
Christ
to
make
attonement
,
or
satisfaction
for
them
by
his
death
,
in
consideration
of
this
attonement
,
freely
pardoneth
and
remitteth
the
sinnes
of
all
those
that
beleeve
in
him
through
Jesus
Christ
preached
,
or
otherwise
revealed
by
the
Holy
Ghost
unto
them
.
CAP.
V.
Where
in
the
Scriptures
alledged
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
in
Justification
,
are
cleered
and
answered
,
and
the
true
sense
and
interpretation
of
them
respectively
established
,
according
to
the
judgment
of
the
best
Expositors
of
the
Protestant
party
.
ALL
errour
and
mistake
in
matters
of
Christian
Religion
,
SECT.
1
is
occasioned
either
in
the
conception
,
or
continuance
,
or
both
,
by
somwhat
which
God
in
the
Scriptures
hath
well
said
,
but
is
by
men
not
well
understood
.
And
as
Gregory
long
since
well
observ'd
it
in
matter
of
practise
,
[
](A85397-e83660-b)(a)
(a)
Cum
vitium
virtus
putatur
,
culpa
fine
me●n
cumulatur
.
Greg
Do
Paster
.
Cur.
l
3.
c.
1.
that
when
men
conceive
of
sinne
under
the
notion
of
a
duty
,
there
it
is
committed
with
an
high
hand
,
and
without
measure
;
the
reason
whereof
is
,
because
conscience
and
concupiscence
are
then
in
conjunction
,
which
(
for
the
most
part
)
are
in
opposition
about
the
committing
of
sin
,
whereby
the
course
of
it
is
somwhat
broken
and
impaired
:
so
it
is
likewise
in
point
of
judgement
,
when
men
conceive
of
their
by-thoughts
and
misapprehensions
,
as
countenanced
from
Heaven
in
the
Scriptures
,
their
confidence
lifts
up
it selfe
very
high
;
and
the
mildest
contradiction
,
is
little
lesse
then
an
abhomination
unto
them
.
The
reason
whereof
I
conceive
to
be
this
:
the
opinion
in
this
case
being
their
owne
,
must
needs
have
a
strong
and
perfect
sympathie
with
all
the
powers
of
nature
yet
unsanctified
,
and
so
must
needs
engage
these
:
and
then
againe
,
being
look'd
upon
as
a
truth
of
a
divine
parentage
,
and
issuing
from
God
,
by
means
of
this
apprehension
,
it
engageth
all
the
powers
of
Grace
,
and
of
the
new
man
also
to
contend
for
it
.
And
thus
,
what
by
the
nature
and
substance
of
it
on
the
one
hand
,
being
erronious
and
sinfull
;
and
what
by
the
appearance
and
shew
of
it
on
the
other
hand
,
being
as
if
it
were
indeed
spirituall
and
divine
,
it
is
apt
to
transport
a
man
with
an
extasie
of
zeale
even
above
himselfe
for
the
maintenance
of
it
,
and
to
inspire
him
with
resolutions
of
sacrificeing
credit
,
Name
,
estate
,
friends
,
himselfe
upon
the
honour
and
service
of
it
,
in
case
it
be
opposed
.
Now
amongst
many
signes
that
might
be
given
of
an
opinion
of
that
very
frame
and
constitution
we
speak
of
,
darknesse
for
substance
,
and
light
in
appearance
,
this
is
one
of
frequent
observation
;
when
the
maintainers
of
it
are
ambitious
to
heap
up
citations
of
Scripture
proofes
,
without
end
,
and
to
overwhelm
their
adversaries
with
Divine
testimonies
.
For
as
the
saying
is
,
Nusquam
est
,
qui
ubique
est
,
he
that
is
every
where
,
is
no
where
:
so
it
is
much
to
be
suspected
,
that
such
an
opinion
is
no where
in
the
Scriptures
,
which
is
pretended
to
be
every
where
.
When
men
sharke
about
for
Scriptures
,
and
cannot
find
those
that
willingly
and
freely
offer
themselves
in
the
service
of
an
opinion
,
but
labour
and
toyle
(
as
it
were
)
in
the
fire
,
to
redeem
the
defect
of
full
and
pregnant
proofes
,
with
multitudes
and
numbers
of
such
as
they
can
find
,
it
is
a
ground
of
much
suspicion
,
that
the
opinion
is
not
of
God
,
but
of
men
.
The
Scriptures
are
many
,
which
are
mustered
up
by
the
Masters
of
that
way
of
Imputation
which
we
oppose
,
for
the
service
of
their
opinion
:
but
amongst
them
all
there
is
not
one
that
comes
roundly
on
,
or
that
speaketh
plainly
or
directly
to
the
businesse
in
hand
:
which
is
a
plaine
signe
that
it
is
not
indeed
they
that
speak
at
all
,
but
the
spirit
of
the
men
that
speaketh
in
them
,
whatsoever
they
seem
to
speake
in
this
kind
.
I
make
no
question
but
I
shall
be
able
to
give
a
thorough
and
perfect
accompt
of
what
I
now
affirme
,
by
a
particular
examination
of
the
Scriptures
themselves
alledged
in
that
behalfe
.
The
greatest
part
of
them
(
I
conceive
)
have
bin
occasionally
touch'd
already
,
and
in
part
cleered
,
in
this
discourse
.
But
because
a
true
and
solid
understanding
of
them
,
carryes
the
maine
stroke
in
the
Question
and
controversie
depending
,
I
thought
good
to
assigne
an
intire
Chapter
for
the
interpretation
and
solution
of
them
:
so
that
the
Reader
may
more
readily
know
where
to
find
,
and
whither
to
repaire
for
explication
of
them
al
together
.
I
begin
with
those
usually
alledged
from
the
old
Testament
,
which
are
not
many
.
The
first
place
is
Psal.
SECT.
2
32.1
.
Blessed
is
the
man
whose
transgression
is
forgiven
,
Psal.
32.1
,
2.
Answered
.
whose
sinne
is
covered
:
Blessed
is
the
man
,
unto
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
not
transgression
,
&c.
The
covering
of
sin
,
mentioned
in
the
middle
clause
,
is
by
some
conceived
to
be
the
righteousnes
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
which
God
imputing
to
beleevers
,
covereth
all
their
sinnes
therewith
:
To
this
I
Answer
:
1.
That
some
of
our
best
Expositors
conceive
all
the
three
expressions
here
mentioned
to
be
but
synonymous
,
i.
of
one
and
the
same
signification
and
importance
;
and
yet
with
all
conceive
this
variety
to
be
emphaticall
,
and
to
note
that
abundance
of
Grace
in
God
,
whereby
our
sins
are
forgiven
.
Doctor
Ames
in
his
sixt
Document
upon
this
Psalme
,
carryes
the
tenour
of
these
passages
thus
[
](A85397-e83950-b)(a)
(a)
Mag●a
est
Dei
gratia
qua
peccata
nostra
remittuntur
,
Hoc
eo
ipso
innuitur
,
quod
tam
emphatica
repetitione
et
quasi
congerie
verborum
declara●ar
:
quia
rei
tantae
nulla
sufflcis
Orationis
forma
.
Amesius
in
Psal.
32.
Document
.
6.
Et
●ex
Gratia
Dei
abundans
est
ad
●mnia
[
peccata
]
tollenda
,
levat
,
tegit
,
et
non
imputat
.
.
And
Luther
in
his
Summarie
of
the
Psalme
is
not
farre
from
it
.
[
](A85397-e84000-b)(b)
(b)
Iustitia
nostra
propriè
est
remissio
peccatorum
,
seu
(
ut
loquitur
Psalmus
)
peccata
non
imputare
,
peccata
regere
.
Luther
.
in
Summ.
Ps.
32.
Peccatorum
remissionem
tribus
loquendi
generibus
exprimit
,
quae
tamen
omnia
in
idem
cadunt
.
S●ph
.
Fabrit
.
in
Psal.
32.
Parcus
likewise
,
on
Rom.
47.
is
of
the
same
judgement
,
and
cites
Ambrose
with
him
.
2.
For
those
two
expressions
,
not-imputing
of
sin
,
and
covering
of
sinne
,
Calvin
holds
them
to
be
the
same
in
sence
and
signification
,
and
that
they
are
of
the
same
importance
with
those
other
Scripture
phrases
,
where
God
is
said
not
to
remember
sinne
,
to
blot
it
out
,
to
cast
it
behind
his
backe
,
or
into
the
depths
of
the
Sea
,
and
the
like
:
and
moreover
cites
Augustine
,
as
his
Predecessour
in
this
Interpretation
.
[
](A85397-e84130-b)(c)
(c)
Peccatorum
non
recordari
,
est
ea
non
postulare
ad
poenam
.
Id
ipsum
alibi
dicitur
,
proij
ere
post
tergum
,
delere
in
star
nubu
,
demergere
in
profundum
maris
,
non
imputare
,
tectumque
habere
.
Certè
si
punit
Deus
peccata
imputat
:
Si
vindicat
,
recordatur
;
si
ad
judicium
vocat
,
tecta
non
habet
,
&c.
Atque
in
hune
modu●
interpretatur
Augustin
.
claru
verbis
,
&c.
Calvin
.
Inst.
lib.
3
,
c
,
4.
So
that
none
of
all
these
(
with
twen●y
more
that
might
be
put
to
them
)
never
dreamt
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
lying
so
close
under
this
covering
of
sin
.
3.
Neither
can
sinne
be
said
to
be
covered
with
the
righteousnes
,
i.
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
since
,
according
to
the
grounds
and
principles
of
that
very
opinion
against
which
we
argue
,
sinne
is
wholly
dissolved
and
taken
away
by
the
imputation
of
his
death
,
or
passive
obedience
;
and
this
before
the
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
be
made
unto
us
.
See
for
this
cap.
5.
Sect.
2.
of
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
.
Now
that
which
is
wholly
dissolv'd
and
taken
away
,
needs
no
further
covering
in
respect
of
God
,
nor
indeed
is
capable
of
any
.
4.
The
righteousnes
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
is
so
farre
from
being
a
covering
of
sinne
,
that
it
is
rather
a
means
of
the
discovery
of
it
,
and
by
the
light
and
absolute
purity
and
perfection
thereof
,
sets
off
sinne
with
the
greater
sinfullnesse
,
even
as
the
Law
it selfe
doth
.
Therfore
5.
(
and
lastly
)
if
it
be
conceiv'd
necessary
to
place
any
emphaticall
difference
in
this
expression
of
covering
of
sinnes
,
from
the
other
two
,
of
forgivenes
of
sin
,
and
not
imputing
sinne
,
I
conceive
it
most
agreeable
to
Scripture
notion
,
to
assigne
this
peculiarity
of
importance
to
it
:
that
by
covering
of
sinne
,
is
meant
Gods
gracious
expressing
himselfe
to
a
man
that
hath
sin'd
,
especially
in
a
way
of
outward
prosperity
and
peace
.
It
is
most
probable
,
that
by
covering
of
sinne
,
somwhat
should
be
meant
,
which
is
contrary
to
that
which
the
Scripture
expresseth
by
a
discoverie
of
sinne
.
Now
it
is
evident
from
these
(
and
many
like
places
more
)
Ezek.
16.57
.
Ezek.
23.10.29
.
Job
.
20.27
.
Esa.
57.12
,
&c.
that
by
discovering
of
sinne
,
is
meant
the
executing
of
judgements
,
or
inflicting
of
punishments
upon
sinners
answerable
to
their
sinnes
;
which
may
wel
be
called
a
discovering
of
sin
and
wickednes
,
because
neither
the
sinners
themselves
,
nor
yet
others
,
are
ordinarily
capable
of
any
knowledge
or
apprehension
to
purpose
of
the
demerit
and
vilenesse
of
sinne
,
but
by
meanes
of
the
severity
of
God
expressing
it selfe
in
visible
judgements
upon
those
that
have
sinned
.
Therfore
by
covering
of
sinne
,
both
here
and
elsewhere
,
is
meant
nothing
else
(
doubtlesse
)
but
Gods
expressing
of
himselfe
to
persons
that
have
sinn'd
,
upon
their
Repentance
,
in
waies
of
Grace
,
favour
and
love
,
as
if
they
had
not
sinned
,
nor
provoked
him
.
To
this
purpose
when
he
shews
any
outward
favour
or
countenance
to
men
,
as
by
protecting
them
from
dangers
,
or
delivering
them
out
of
trouble
,
or
the
like
,
he
is
said
to
justifie
them
:
Iustifying
the
righteous
,
to
give
him
(
or
,
by
giving
him
)
according
to
his
righteousnes
,
1
King
.
8.32
.
compare
herewith
2
Chron.
6.23
.
So
that
here
is
no
shelter
or
covering
for
the
Doctrine
of
Imputation
in
this
Scripture
.
Againe
,
SECT.
3
those
parallell
Scriptures
,
Ier.
23.6
.
and
33.16
.
are
alledged
.
And
this
is
his
Name
whereby
he
shall
be
called
,
the
Lord
our
righteousnesse
.
I
answere
that
neither
is
there
any
colour
in
these
words
for
the
pretended
imputation
.
Ier.
23.6
.
and
c.
33.16
.
cleered
.
For
First
,
it
is
not
here
said
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Lord
,
shall
be
our
righteousnesse
,
nor
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Lord
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousnesse
,
no
;
here
is
altum
silentium
,
profound
silence
as
concerning
any
imputation
.
Secondly
,
it
is
wholly
repugnant
both
to
the
Grammaticall
and
Rhetoricall
importance
of
the
expression
and
words
,
as
likewise
disagreeing
from
the
Scripture
phrase
,
and
manner
of
speaking
in
the
like
cases
,
to
put
such
a
sense
or
interpretation
upon
them
as
this
.
Christ
is
our
righteousnesse
,
by
imputation
,
Christ
can
in
no
tolerable
construction
of
speech
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
(
the
imputation
of
a
person
was
never
heard
of
)
therefore
cannot
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
our
righteousnesse
.
But
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
the
plaine
and
direct
meaning
of
the
place
,
is
this
.
This
is
his
Name
whereby
he
shall
be
called
,
The
Lord
our
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
He
shall
be
generally
acknowledged
and
celebrated
by
his
people
the
Jewes
(
for
the
Prophet
speak's
particularly
of
these
,
as
is
evident
in
the
context
)
as
the
Greate
Author
and
procurer
of
that
righteousnesse
or
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
(
for
righteousnesse
is
very
usually
put
for
justification
,
as
was
noted
.
cap.
3.
Sect.
3.
of
this
second
part
.
)
upon
which
abundance
of
outward
glory
,
peace
,
and
prosperitie
should
be
cast
upon
them
.
This
interpretation
is
agreable
to
the
Scripture
phrase
,
and
manner
of
speaking
in
the
like
cases
.
For
First
,
the
attributing
or
imposition
of
a
Name
upon
either
thing
or
person
,
often
notes
the
quality
or
property
in
either
,
or
some
benefit
redounding
from
either
,
answerable
thereunto
[
](A85397-e84870-b)(a)
(a)
Schema
est
propheticū
,
quo
,
nominu
quasi
peoprij
impositione
,
rei
aut
personae
,
de
qua
agitur
,
qualitas
aut
fatum
indicetur
.
Med.
●
.
Apocalyps
.
p.
84.
Solet
Scriptura
dicererem
quampiam
vel
personam
,
hoc
vel
illo
nomine
vocatum
iri
,
non
quod
habitura
sit
illud
nomen
,
aut
tali
nomine
vulgo
appellanda
sit
,
sed
quod
vere
ac
plane
habitura
sit
rem
tal●
nomine
significatam
.
Perer.
in
Gen.
p.
848.
Sect.
30.
(
His
name
shall
be
called
,
wonderfull
,
Counsellor
,
&c.
(
Esa
9.6
.
)
that
is
,
he
shall
be
acknowledged
and
looked
upon
by
men
,
as
an
actor
and
doer
of
things
very
strange
and
excellent
,
as
one
that
is
able
and
ready
to
give
the
best
advice
and
counsell
to
those
that
shall
repaire
unto
him
in
difficult
cases
,
&c.
See
of
like
importance
and
expression
Ezek.
48.35
.
Mat.
1.21.23
.
Apoc.
8.10
.
with
many
others
.
Secondly
,
There
is
no
phrase
or
expression
more
familiar
in
Scriptures
,
quàm
effectum
praedicare
de
cansa
in
resto
,
that
is
,
then
to
attribute
an
effect
to
its
cause
or
Author
,
by
a
verb
substantive
only
,
or
to
affirme
the
effect
of
the
cause
directly
.
Thus
Christ
is
said
to
be
our
hope
.
1
Tim.
1.1
.
To
be
our
life
.
Col.
3.4
.
To
be
the
resurrection
.
Joh.
11.25
.
To
be
our
peace
.
Ephes.
2.14
.
To
be
the
glorie
of
his
people
.
Luk
2.32
.
with
many
the
like
:
meaning
that
he
is
Author
,
purchaser
,
or
Procurer
of
all
these
.
So
when
he
is
said
to
be
our
righteousnesse
,
there
can
no
other
construction
be
made
of
it
but
this
,
that
he
is
the
Author
or
procurer
of
our
righteousnesse
.
Calvin
is
expresse
for
this
interpretation
of
this
passage
.
All
these
expressions
(
saith
hee
)
[
](A85397-e85060-b)(b)
(b)
Omnes
ist●●
locutiones
peraeque
valent
,
justificari
nos
Dei
gratia
,
Christum
esse
justitiam
nostram
,
justitiam
morte
ac
resurrectione
Christi
nobu
acquisitam
.
Calvin
,
in
Gal.
3.6
.
carrie
the
same
sense
and
meaning
,
that
we
are
iustified
by
the
grace
of
God
,
that
Christ
is
our
righteousnesse
,
that
righteousnesse
is
procured
for
us
by
the
death
and
resurrection
of
Christ
,
&c.
See
more
of
this
interpretation
before
,
Cap.
3.
Sect.
2.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
that
by
righteousnesse
in
this
place
,
is
meant
that
Iustification
which
stands
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
that
by
Christs
being
called
,
the
Lord
their
righteousnesse
,
is
only
meant
,
that
through
him
God
would
be
reconciled
to
them
and
pacified
with
them
as
concerning
all
their
provocations
,
appeares
from
the
like
tenor
of
other
Scripture
passages
.
For
usually
,
when
God
promiseth
deliverance
,
and
outward
prosperity
to
this
people
,
after
long
and
sore
afflictions
(
a●
he
doth
in
the
former
part
of
this
verse
,
and
in
the
two
verses
following
)
he
maketh
mention
of
his
grace
and
favour
towards
them
in
the
free
pardon
of
their
sinnes
,
and
of
his
being
pacified
towards
them
,
these
notwithstanding
.
Which
grace
and
favour
of
his
in
being
reconciled
unto
them
,
expressing
it selfe
in
abundance
of
outward
peace
and
glory
,
is
oft
called
his
righteousnesse
,
because
he
confers
it
upon
them
:
and
sometimes
their
righteousnesse
,
because
they
receive
it
from
him
.
Compare
Esa
45.8.24.25
.
Esa
46.13
.
Esa
48.18
.
Esa
51.5.6.8
.
Esa
54.17
.
Ier.
50.20.19
.
Jer.
51.10
.
&c.
with
many
others
.
Some
have
digg'd
for
the
treasure
of
imputation
in
the
field
of
that
Scripture
,
Esay
45.24
.
SECT.
4
Surely
shall
one
say
,
in
the
Lord
have
I
righteousnesse
and
strength
.
But
First
(
to
omit
the
severall
readings
,
Esa.
45.24
.
answered
.
and
interpretations
accordingly
of
this
Scripture
,
which
shew
that
it
is
no
pregnant
foundation
to
build
so
disputable
a
point
of
Faith
upon
)
I
answere
,
that
neither
is
here
the
least
ayre
or
breathing
of
that
imputation
so
much
wondred
after
:
nor
do
I
finde
any
intimation
given
of
any
such
businesse
here
by
any
Expositors
I
can
meet
with
.
Secondly
,
the
plaine
and
direct
meaning
of
the
place
is
(
doubtlesse
)
this
,
to
shew
that
when
God
should
communicate
the
knowledge
of
himselfe
in
his
Sonne
Iesus
Christ
unto
the
world
(
whereof
he
spake
in
the
words
immediatly
precedent
)
they
should
generally
have
this
resentment
of
the
meanes
of
their
salvation
and
peace
,
viz.
that
they
receive
them
of
the
free
grace
and
donation
of
God
by
Iesus
Christ
,
and
not
of
themselves
,
or
by
the
merit
of
their
own
righteousnesse
:
which
was
a
veyne
of
leven
,
where
with
the
greatest
part
of
the
Jewish
lump
was
(
for
the
present
)
levened
.
So
that
for
a
man
to
say
,
In
the
Lord
I
have
righteousnesse
,
imports
only
a
profession
made
by
him
of
his
free
Iustification
and
salvation
by
God
,
in
,
and
through
Christ
:
As
it
followeth
ver.
25.
In
the
Lord
shall
all
the
seed
of
Israel
be
justified
;
And
this
also
is
(
upon
the
matter
,
)
Calvins
Exposition
upon
the
place
,
who
writeth
thus
:
Because
righteousnesse
and
strength
are
the
two
maine
points
of
our
salvation
,
the
faithfull
acknowledge
God
to
be
the
Author
of
both
in
them
,
&c.
The
last
Scripture
that
I
know
produced
from
the
old
Testament
,
SECT.
5
with
any
face
or
colour
of
reason
at
all
for
the
imputation
contended
for
,
and
against
,
is
that
Esa
61.10
.
I
will
greatly
reioyce
in
the
Lord
,
my
soule
shall
be
ioyfull
in
my
God
:
for
he
hath
cloathed
me
with
the
garments
of
salvation
,
he
hath
covered
me
with
the
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
Esa
61.10
.
opened
and
ceared
.
&c.
These
garments
of
salvation
,
and
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
are
conceived
to
be
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
beleevers
,
and
as
a
robe
or
garment
put
upon
them
,
wherein
and
whereby
they
stand
iustifyed
in
the
sight
of
God
.
But
I
answere
;
First
,
that
this
cloathing
with
the
garments
of
salvation
,
and
covering
with
the
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
are
expressions
concerning
chiefly
(
if
not
solely
)
the
Church
of
the
Jewes
in
their
restauration
and
deliverance
from
the
captivity
of
Babylon
(
if
not
from
that
greater
captivity
under
which
they
lie
at
this
day
)
as
the
whole
cariage
of
the
Chapter
from
the
begining
to
the
end
,
Suscipit
inse
vates
personam
Ecclesiae
Sionu
Babylone
liberata
,
&c.
Muscu
.
in
Esa
61.10
.
maketh
it
fully
manifest
.
And
so
Musculus
with
other
learned
Expositors
,
carrie
the
interpretation
of
this
verse
with
the
particulars
contained
in
it
.
The
Prophet
(
saith
he
)
taketh
upon
him
the
person
of
the
Church
of
Sion
delivered
from
Babylon
,
&c.
And
a
little
after
,
coming
to
expound
those
metaphoricall
clauses
mentioned
,
he
hath
(
or
,
as
he
rendreth
it
,
when
he
shall
have
)
cloathed
me
with
the
garments
of
salvation
,
and
covered
we
with
the
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
he
writeth
as
followeth
:
The
meaning
is
,
Sensus
est
;
cum
servaverit
et
,
redemos
it
me
,
justitiamque
suam
,
id
est
,
singularem
probitatem
et
bonitatem
erga
me
declaraverit
,
&c.
ibid.
when
he
shall
save
and
redeeme
,
and
declare
his
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
his
faithfulnesse
and
goodnesse
towards
me
,
&c.
So
that
by
cleathing
with
garments
of
salvation
,
and
covering
with
a
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
is
not
meant
any
inward
or
spirituall
blessing
or
privilege
,
wherewith
God
should
gratifie
or
inrich
his
Church
,
as
Iustification
by
Christ
is
,
but
an
externall
and
temporall
.
Neither
by
the
robe
of
righteousnesse
,
are
we
to
understand
,
the
whole
and
entire
obedience
of
Christ
to
the
morall
Law
(
there
being
neither
word
,
syllable
,
letter
,
or
tittle
any
waies
leading
or
inducing
to
such
an
interpretation
)
but
the
effect
of
the
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
of
the
truth
and
faithfulnesse
,
or
else
of
the
goodnesse
and
graciousnesse
of
God
(
both
which
are
usually
expressed
in
the
Scriptures
,
by
the
word
righteousnesse
as
was
before
observed
.
cap.
3.
Sect.
2.
)
viz.
their
deliverance
from
their
captivitie
,
together
with
their
peace
and
safety
,
and
many
other
sweet
and
comfortable
priviledges
thereupon
.
Secondly
,
if
we
carrie
these
metaphors
of
garments
and
robe
,
in
a
spirituall
way
,
and
understand
them
of
Iustification
by
Christ
,
the
promise
that
is
supposed
to
be
conteyned
in
them
(
and
a
promise
doubtlesse
there
is
,
though
conceived
in
the
common
propheticall
streyne
of
the
time
past
,
to
shew
the
certainty
of
it
to
be
equall
to
things
that
are
already
done
)
and
to
be
made
unto
the
Church
,
will
not
be
sutable
or
proper
thereunto
.
Because
the
Church
of
Christ
,
is
already
,
and
at
all
times
cloathed
with
the
robe
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
such
a
sense
)
that
is
,
is
in
a
justifyed
condition
by
him
.
Yea
,
her
Iustification
by
Christ
,
is
that
which
gives
her
,
her
very
being
,
as
she
is
his
Church
.
Therefore
for
God
to
promise
unto
those
,
that
are
already
justified
by
Christ
,
a
robe
of
righteousnesse
by
which
they
should
be
justified
,
is
as
if
he
should
promise
Heaven
to
his
elect
Angells
,
who
are
already
fully
possessed
thereof
and
confirmed
in
their
possession
,
or
promise
reasonable
soules
to
men
,
who
cannot
be
men
without
them
.
So
that
(
doubtlesse
)
it
is
no
spirituall
privilege
(
at
least
not
Iustification
by
Christ
of
all
other
)
that
is
here
promised
to
the
Church
of
God
.
But
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
if
we
understand
the
passage
now
under
consideration
of
an
externall
deliverance
(
as
we
heard
Musculus
and
other
Interpreters
doe
)
the
metaphor
will
be
found
sweet
and
lively
,
SECT.
6
and
very
emphaticall
,
yea
and
consonant
to
the
speech
and
language
of
the
Scripture
elsewhere
.
We
know
it
was
a
custome
among
the
Jewes
(
and
there
are
few
Nations
,
I
conceive
,
but
have
somewhat
of
it
,
more
or
lesse
)
to
attire
,
habit
,
and
cloath
themselves
sutably
to
their
present
conditions
.
They
had
sackcloath
to
weare
in
times
of
mourning
,
and
they
had
garments
too
,
proper
for
times
of
joy
and
gladnesse
.
I
forbeare
to
cite
Scriptures
for
the
confirmation
of
this
,
because
they
are
obvious
.
Now
then
when
God
promiseth
to
cloath
his
Church
being
yet
in
bondage
and
miserie
,
with
the
garments
of
salvation
,
he
implieth
that
for
the
present
,
they
were
cloathed
like
exiles
and
prisoners
and
captives
,
that
is
,
that
they
were
in
these
conditions
,
and
so
subject
to
all
the
inconveniences
and
miseries
incident
to
them
.
But
he
will
change
their
garments
,
that
is
,
alter
their
estates
and
conditions
;
of
servants
,
he
will
make
them
free
;
of
banished
,
he
will
make
them
possessors
of
their
own
land
:
of
poore
,
he
will
make
them
rich
,
of
vile
and
contemptible
,
he
will
make
them
honourable
,
&c.
The
full
and
entire
happinesse
of
which
new
condition
,
the
Prophet
by
the
figure
synecdoche
,
expresseth
by
the
change
of
their
garments
according
to
the
usuall
manner
of
the
Scripture
,
which
often
signifieth
the
estate
or
condition
,
by
the
garments
proper
to
it
.
As
Junius
hath
well
observed
in
his
annotations
upon
Esay
22.17
.
[
](A85397-e86050-b)(a)
(a)
Dignitas
,
ut
ab
insignibus
vestimentis
cognoscitur
,
ita
Synecdochic●egrave
;
in
Scripturis
designatur
vestirnentorum
appellatione
.
Iunius
.
Annot.
in
Esa
.
22.17
.
As
ominencie
of
place
or
office
(
saith
he
)
is
known
by
garments
sutable
and
proper
to
it
,
so
is
it
in
the
Scriptures
,
by
a
synecdoche
,
often
signified
and
expressed
thereby
.
As
when
GOD
threatened
Shebna
with
the
losse
of
his
great
Place
,
and
with
Captivity
,
and
that
he
would
put
his
servant
Eliakim
into
it
,
he
expresseth
this
investiture
of
Eliakim
into
this
new
condition
or
office
,
thus
:
And
I
will
cloath
him
with
thy
Robe
,
and
strengthen
him
with
thy
Girdle
.
Esa
22.21
.
To
passe
by
all
other
Scriptures
,
wherein
the
observation
of
Iunius
mentioned
,
might
be
exemplified
;
the
Booke
of
the
Revelation
represents
unto
us
,
both
the
dignitie
of
Christ
himselfe
,
and
likewise
of
his
Saints
,
after
the
same
manner
,
by
robes
and
garments
,
and
that
more
then
once
or
twice
.
And
in
the
midst
of
the
7
Candlesticks
,
one
like
unto
the
Sonne
of
man
,
cloathed
with
a
garment
down
unto
the
feet
.
Revel.
1.13
.
This
represents
the
great
dignitie
of
Christ
.
In
like
manner
the
honour
of
his
Saints
and
faithfull
ones
is
thus
expressed
,
cap.
3
,
4
,
5.
And
they
shall
walke
with
me
in
white
:
for
they
are
worthy
.
He
that
overcommeth
,
shall
be
cloathed
in
white
array
,
&c.
So
the
dignitie
of
the
24
Elders
is
represented
by
their
cloathing
in
white
rayment
.
cap.
4.4
.
Againe
,
the
whole
multitude
of
Saints
out
of
all
Nations
are
said
to
stand
before
the
Lamb
cloathed
with
long
white
robes
(
robes
I
conceive
of
the
same
importance
with
these
robes
of
salvation
in
Esa
)
and
Palmes
in
their
hands
,
cap.
7.9
.
●o
also
cap.
19
14.
where
it
is
said
,
that
it
was
granted
to
the
Lambs
wife
(
the
Church
)
that
she
should
be
arrayed
with
pure
white
linnen
and
shineing
,
which
is
said
to
be
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Saints
,
cap.
Revel.
19.7
,
8.
cleered
and
answered
by
the
way
.
19.7.8
.
it
is
evident
that
nothing
is
spoken
or
meant
concerning
Iustification
by
Christ
,
or
his
righteousnesse
,
but
only
that
great
honour
and
reward
is
hereby
signified
,
which
Christ
was
now
pleased
to
conferre
upon
his
Church
and
Saints
,
who
were
justified
by
him
long
before
.
The
pure
,
fine
,
and
shining
linnen
,
is
said
to
be
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Saints
,
to
shew
that
the
greate
glory
,
honour
,
and
dignitie
which
Christ
now
conferreth
upon
his
Church
,
is
the
gracious
and
bountifull
reward
of
her
Husband
,
by
him
given
unto
her
,
in
consideration
and
remembrance
of
her
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
her
holinesse
,
faithfulnesse
,
zeale
,
constancie
,
&c.
under
the
persecution
of
the
Beast
,
and
great
Apostacie
of
the
Christian
world
.
It
is
an
usuall
manner
of
speech
in
Scripture
,
to
expresse
the
reward
of
a
thing
,
by
the
Name
of
the
thing
it selfe
,
whereof
it
is
a
reward
.
Thus
Numb
.
22.7
.
the
Elders
of
Midian
and
Moab
,
are
said
to
have
departed
,
having
Divinations
(
for
so
it
is
in
the
originall
)
in
their
hand
,
that
is
,
the
money
or
reward
of
Divinations
.
So
2
Sam.
4.10
.
Good
tidings
,
is
put
for
the
reward
of
good
tidings
.
Againe
,
Revel.
13.10
.
Here
is
the
patience
and
Faith
of
the
Saints
,
that
is
,
the
reward
and
recompence
of
the
patience
and
faithfull
cleaving
of
the
Saints
unto
Christ
,
when
they
shall
see
vengeance
executed
upon
their
enemies
,
and
themselves
made
Actors
in
it
.
Many
other
instances
in
this
kinde
have
(
I
remember
)
bin
else
where
in
this
Treatise
[
](A85397-e86460-b)(a)
(a)
Part
1.
c.
1.
Sect.
4.
drawne
together
.
So
the
pure
and
shining
linnen
(
that
is
,
the
bright
glory
wherewith
the
Church
is
now
invested
)
is
said
to
be
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Saints
,
because
it
is
the
reward
of
it
.
This
to
be
the
plaine
and
direct
meaning
of
the
place
,
might
be
further
argued
from
that
ratiocinative
particle
,
FOR
:
For
the
linnen
is
the
righteousnesse
,
&c.
In
which
words
it
is
evident
that
there
is
a
reason
given
of
the
grant
made
to
the
Church
mentioned
in
the
former
part
of
the
verse
,
viz.
that
she
should
be
so
arrayed
or
cloathed
,
that
is
,
dignified
:
this
reason
is
said
to
be
,
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Saints
.
It
is
as
if
it
had
bin
said
;
that
the
Lamb's
wife
should
be
thus
gloriously
recompenced
,
is
nothing
but
that
which
well
agreeth
with
the
righteousnesse
and
bounty
of
God
,
who
thus
liberally
and
bountifully
rewardeth
and
returneth
his
righteousnesse
into
his
bosome
,
as
he
had
promised
.
This
place
(
doubtlesse
)
parallel's
with
that
,
cap.
3.4
.
These
shall
walke
with
me
in
white
:
for
they
are
worthy
.
The
worthinesse
of
the
one
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
the
other
,
are
but
the
same
,
and
both
are
assign'd
as
the
reason
of
the
honour
done
unto
them
.
The
riches
j●llitie
,
and
prosperous
condition
(
whilst
it
lasted
)
of
Babylon
or
Rome
,
is
likewise
expressed
by
the
metaphor
of
garments
.
And
that
great
Citie
that
was
cloathed
in
fine
linnen
,
and
purple
and
scarlet
,
&c.
Revel
.
18.16
.
By
all
which
Scriptures
diligently
compared
(
with
many
more
of
like
expression
that
might
be
added
)
it
is
more
then
manifest
,
that
by
those
metaphors
of
garments
and
robes
in
Esa
,
there
is
nothing
meant
touching
the
inward
and
spirituall
condition
of
the
Church
,
much
lesse
his
Iustification
by
the
active
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
.
And
indeed
it
may
seeme
very
strange
to
build
a
dogmaticall
point
of
Faith
upon
figurative
and
metaphoricall
expressions
,
there
being
no
plaine
or
to
pregnant
Scripture
confirme
or
warrant
it
As
for
those
expressions
in
Paul
,
of
putting
on
Christ
,
Induere
Christum
,
hic
significat
,
virtute
spiritus
ejus
vndique
nos
muniri
qua
idonei
ad
omnes
sanctitatis
partes
reddamur
.
Calvin
.
in
Rom.
13.14
.
Quemadmodum
quotquot
circūciduntur
,
Mosē
induunt
,
hoc
est
,
Mosis
se
profitentur
esse
discipulos
,
ut
secūdū
illius
institutionem
ambulent
:
ita
qui
baptizantur
,
Christum
induunt
,
profitentes
se
illius
discipulos
,
&c.
Musculus
in
Gal.
3.27
.
Rom.
13.14
.
Gal.
3.27
.
&c.
there
is
neither
of
them
speaks
of
Justification
;
but
the
former
of
sanctification
,
and
the
latter
of
profession
:
both
which
,
if
they
were
not
apparant
enough
unto
any
man
,
that
shall
but
a
little
consider
the
context
in
either
place
,
might
further
have
bin
prooved
without
much
labour
.
Let
Calvin
,
Musculus
,
and
other
Protestant
Interpreters
be
consulted
with
about
them
.
We
have
found
nothing
in
those
Scriptures
of
the
old
Testament
,
which
are
look'd
upon
with
an
eye
of
the
greatest
confidence
,
for
the
building
up
of
that
imputation
,
which
we
endeavour
to
cast
downe
.
Let
us
passe
from
Prophets
to
Apostles
,
and
consider
,
whether
they
also
be
not
made
to
speake
the
mindes
of
other
men
,
and
not
their
own
,
when
they
are
made
to
speake
for
this
imputation
.
The
farre
greatest
part
of
testimonies
brought
against
us
out
of
the
new
Testament
,
are
lodg'd
within
the
compasse
of
that
one
Epistle
to
the
Romans
:
the
rest
are
but
few
.
The
first
place
alledged
by
some
is
that
,
Rom.
3.21.22
.
But
now
is
the
righteousnesse
of
God
made
manifest
without
the
Law
,
having
witnesse
of
the
Law
and
of
the
Prophets
,
Even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
the
Faith
of
Iesus
Christ
.
&c.
By
the
righteousnesse
of
God
(
say
they
)
is
here
meant
,
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
who
is
God
,
imputed
to
all
that
beleeve
,
&c.
I
answere
,
Rom.
3.21
.
cleared
.
First
,
this
Scripture
hath
bin
already
fully
opened
,
in
the
first
part
of
this
Treatise
,
cap.
4.
throughout
,
where
upon
due
examination
,
it
was
found
to
speake
plainly
for
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
but
no
waies
for
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
for
any
such
purpose
.
Secondly
,
Some
by
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
this
place
,
understand
the
truth
and
faithfulnesse
of
God
in
keeping
promise
.
This
was
the
exposition
of
Ambrose
long
since
.
And
that
this
faithfulnesse
of
God
is
frequently
in
Scripture
called
his
righteousnes
,
hath
bin
already
observed
,
3.
cap.
Sect.
2.
p.
93.
Thirdly
,
(
and
lastly
)
by
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
these
Scriptures
,
is
meant
(
doubtlesse
)
either
that
way
,
method
,
or
meanes
which
God
himselfe
hath
found
out
to
justifie
or
make
men
righteous
,
(
See
cap.
3.
Sect.
2.
p.
40.
of
this
second
part
)
or
else
(
which
comes
to
the
same
)
that
very
righteousnesse
by
which
we
stand
justified
or
righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
.
This
is
the
generall
interpretation
of
the
best
Protestant
Expositots
,
as
Calvin
,
[
](A85397-e87180-b)(a)
(a)
Iustitiam
Dei
accipi
pre
ea
,
qu●
Deo
pr●batur
,
notum
esse
debuerat
elementariis
.
Calvin
Instit.
l.
3.
c.
11.
Sect.
9.
Dubium
est
,
qua
ratione
Dei
justiciam
appellet
,
quam
per
sidem
obtinemus
:
ideone
,
quia
sola
coram
Deo
consistit
,
an
quod
eam
nobis
Dominus
sua
miscericordia
largiatur
?
Calv.
in
Rom.
3.21
.
Musculus
,
[
](A85397-e87220-b)(b)
(b)
Exponi
patestde
ea
justicia
,
qua
nos
coram
Deo
justificamur
,
&c.
Musculu
in
Rom.
3.21
Beza
,
[
](A85397-e87250-b)(c)
(c)
Posita
est
omnis
justificatio
inremissione
peccaterum
:
et
idea
justicia
haec
in
imputatione
posita
justitia
Dei
vocatur
.
Beza
.
De
Coena
Dom.
Iusticia
Dei
,
id
est
,
salus
vel
redemptio
,
quam
Deus
praestat
.
Cam
Myroth
.
p.
178.
Iusticia
imputata
rectè
dicitur
justicia
Christi
,
quia
Christus
eam
sua
obedientia
nobis
acquisivit
.
Sicut
etiam
dicitur
justicia
Dei
,
Juia
Deus
propter
Christi
meritum
,
eam
nobis
imputat
.
Pareus
de
Iusti
.
l.
2.
c.
2.
p.
388.
Sect.
8.
Ro.
3.31
.
cleered
.
&c.
Neither
have
I
met
with
any
that
understands
it
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
:
nor
is
there
the
least
appearance
in
the
context
of
any
necessitie
so
to
take
it
.
Againe
,
the
last
verse
in
the
same
Chapter
is
layd
hold
on
by
some
as
a
favorer
of
their
Imputation
.
Do
we
then
make
the
Law
of
none
effect
through
Faith
?
God
forbid
:
yea
,
we
establish
the
Law
.
They
conceive
,
that
the
Law
cannot
be
said
to
be
established
by
Faith
,
or
by
the
Doctrine
of
Faith
,
but
only
by
imputation
of
Christs
fulfilling
it
,
unto
Beleevers
.
I
answere
,
I
that
there
is
no
necessity
,
that
by
Law
in
this
place
,
should
be
meant
precisely
the
Morall
Law
.
Calvin
understands
it
aswell
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
as
of
the
Morall
;
and
explaines
,
how
aswell
the
one
,
as
the
other
,
may
be
said
to
be
established
by
Faith
[
](A85397-e87410-b)(d)
(d)
Quare
hanc
Pauli
excusationem
,
uequae
de
ceremoniis
seorsim
neque
de
mandatis
(
ut
vocant
)
moralibus
,
sed
in
universum
de
tota
lege
accipio
.
Calvin
.
In
Rom.
3.31
.
.
Therfore
he
is
farre
from
conceiving
,
that
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
should
be
established
by
Pauls
affirming
the
Law
to
be
established
by
faith
.
Ambrose
likewise
long
before
him
,
conceived
the
same
things
of
this
Scripture
.
2.
It
is
much
more
probable
that
(
of
the
two
)
Paul
should
here
assert
the
establishing
rather
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
then
of
the
Morall
.
1.
because
the
Jewes
,
to
whom
he
addresseth
himselfe
in
this
excusation
,
seeking
to
ease
and
qualifie
their
spirits
touching
the
Doctrine
of
Faith
,
were
more
tender
and
jealous
over
the
Ceremoniall
part
of
their
Law
,
then
over
the
Morall
,
placing
the
far
greatest
part
of
their
hope
(
if
not
the
whole
)
of
their
justification
and
salvation
in
the
observation
hereof
,
as
appeares
from
Act.
15.1
.
Except
ye
be
circumcised
after
the
manner
of
Moses
,
yecannot
be
saved
,
&c.
So
from
Gal.
5.
v.
2.
compared
with
the
4.
as
also
from
diverse
other
places
,
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
.
Now
it
is
no
waies
like
,
that
the
Apostle
should
seek
to
prevent
the
lesser
and
lighter
offence
in
this
people
,
and
wholly
neglect
them
under
the
greater
.
2.
because
the
Doctrine
of
faith
,
and
justification
by
Christ
taught
by
the
Apostle
,
did
not
carry
any
such
colour
or
appearance
of
opposition
to
the
morall
part
of
their
Law
,
as
it
did
to
the
Ceremoniall
.
The
Gospell
buildeth
up
moralities
,
and
that
with
an
high
hand
:
but
it
abrogateth
and
casteth
downe
Ceremonialls
altogether
;
that
is
,
it
calls
men
off
from
the
further
use
and
practise
of
them
,
though
it
confirmes
(
indeed
)
their
precedent
use
,
benefit
and
authority
,
and
so
establisheth
them
.
Now
it
is
but
a
weake
conceit
to
think
,
that
Paul
should
goe
about
to
vindicate
or
purge
either
himselfe
or
his
Doctrine
,
from
a
lighter
and
weaker
suspicion
,
and
leave
both
obnoxious
to
a
greater
.
But
3.
Suppose
that
the
Apostle
here
speaks
precisely
and
determinately
of
the
Morall
Law
,
yet
is
there
no
necessity
gain'd
from
hence
,
that
this
should
be
said
to
be
established
by
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
For
1.
both
Austin
and
Chrysostome
affirme
,
that
the
Law
is
therfore
said
to
be
established
by
faith
,
because
faith
compasseth
and
attaines
that
righteousnesse
,
which
the
Law
sought
after
and
could
not
attaine
.
Chrysostom's
expression
is
,
[
](A85397-e87680-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Chrysost.
in
Ro.
Homil.
7.
that
faith
establisheth
the
will
of
the
Law
,
by
bringing
that
to
perfection
,
which
the
Law
would
have
done
.
2.
The
Morall
Law
may
in
this
sence
also
be
said
to
be
established
by
faith
,
because
faith
purgeth
the
hearts
of
those
that
beleeve
,
and
works
out
those
corruptions
and
sinfull
inclinations
,
which
disable
men
from
doing
the
things
therein
required
,
and
so
promotes
the
observation
and
keeping
of
it
.
This
(
upon
the
matter
)
is
the
interpretation
of
Musculus
[
](A85397-e87750-b)(*)
(*)
Fides
verò
,
quoniam
justificat
credentes
,
&
corda
credentium
purgat
,
quod
neque
Lex
apud
Iudaos
,
neque
Philosophia
apud
Gentes
,
neque
doctrina
bonorum
operum
apud
Christianes
praestare
potest
,
ram
non
adversatur
bonorum
operum
Doctrinae
,
ut
illam
magis
stabiliat
.
Musculus
ad
Rom.
3.
ult.
upon
the
place
.
Pareus
likewise
admits
of
it
,
and
cites
Austin
for
it
also
.
But
4.
The
Law
may
be
said
to
be
established
by
the
Doctrine
of
faith
,
inasmuch
as
the
comminations
and
threatnings
of
the
Law
,
as
,
In
the
day
thou
●atest
therof
,
thou
shalt
die
the
death
:
and
againe
,
Cursed
be
he
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
&c.
are
by
the
Doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
,
declared
not
to
be
in
vaine
.
The
sufferings
of
Christ
wherby
we
are
justified
through
faith
,
are
a
full
confirmation
of
the
force
,
efficacie
,
and
authority
of
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
being
the
price
of
the
Redemption
of
those
that
beleeve
from
it
.
Yet
5.
(
and
lastly
)
I
conceive
the
better
Interpretation
of
the
place
to
be
,
that
by
Law
the
Apostle
should
meane
,
that
part
of
the
Old
Testament
,
which
comprehendeth
the
writings
of
Moses
,
with
those
other
Books
,
which
together
with
the
writings
of
the
Prophets
,
make
up
the
intire
body
thereof
.
For
in
this
sence
he
had
used
the
word
,
v.
21.
where
he
affirmed
,
the
righteousnesse
of
God
to
have
testimonie
of
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
.
The
word
is
elswhere
,
(
and
that
somewhat
frequently
)
taken
in
this
signification
.
Now
the
Law
in
this
sence
may
(
most
properly
)
be
said
to
be
established
by
Paul
,
●eaching
the
Doctrine
of
faith
,
because
this
Doctrine
is
fully
consonant
and
agreeable
to
those
things
that
are
written
therein
,
as
he
sheweth
at
large
in
the
following
Chapter
,
arguing
and
insisting
upon
two
pregnant
testimonies
to
this
purpose
,
the
one
from
Moses
,
the
other
from
David
.
Origen
of
old
made
use
of
this
Interpretation
:
[
](A85397-e87960-b)(b)
(b)
Fides
confirmas
legem
,
quia
Christus
inquit
,
Moses
de
me
scripsit
.
Qui
ergo
credit
Christo
,
confirmat
Legem
,
quiae
credit
in
Christum
.
Origen
.
and
Hierome
was
not
far
from
it
.
[
](A85397-e87990-b)(c)
(c)
Fide
lex
stabilitur
,
quia
fide
probamus
verum
esse
quod
lex
dicit
,
Testamentum
testamento
legem
legi
,
circumcisionem
circumcisions
successuram
.
Hierony
.
Piscator
of
later
times
likewise
adhereth
to
it
,
in
his
Disputes
with
Ludovicus
Lucius
.
[
](A85397-e88030-b)(d)
(d)
See
Mr.
Gatakers
Animadversions
upon
these
Disputes
.
p.
42.
The
next
Scripture
sometimes
managed
for
the
imputation
we
oppose
,
is
Rom.
4.6
.
Even
as
David
declareth
the
blessednesse
of
the
man
to
whom
God
imputeth
righteousnesse
without
works
.
That
righteousnesse
which
God
is
here
said
to
impute
to
a
man
,
can
be
no
other
(
as
is
pretended
)
but
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
To
this
I
answere
,
First
,
SECT.
9
that
this
Scripture
and
expression
of
Gods
imputing
righteousnesse
,
Rom.
4.6
.
opened
.
is
fully
opened
and
cleered
in
my
Answere
to
Mr.
Walker
p.
41.
whither
the
reader
is
desired
to
repaire
for
satisfaction
,
if
he
desires
it
.
Secondly
,
that
of
the
two
(
if
we
will
needs
here
understand
a
positive
legall
righteousnesse
)
it
is
much
more
probable
the
Apostle
should
meane
a
righteousnesse
consisting
of
such
works
,
or
of
such
an
obedience
to
the
Law
,
as
hath
an
absolute
and
perfect
agreeablenesse
to
every
mans
condition
and
calling
respectively
,
then
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
hath
no
such
property
in
it
,
hath
bin
already
represented
in
this
Discourse
.
[
](A85397-e88240-b)(a)
(a)
Cap.
2.
Sect.
5.
p.
7.
Thirdly
,
that
righteousnesse
which
God
is
said
here
to
impute
,
is
by
the
best
Expositors
placed
in
Remission
of
sins
.
Righteousnesse
imputed
(
saith
Paraeus
)
[
](A85397-e88310-b)(b)
(b)
Iustitia
imputata
consistis
in
gratuita
remissione
,
tectione
,
non
imputatione
peccatorum
.
Pareus
ad
Rom
,
4.7
.
p.
371.
Hoc
sensu
justitia
imputata
dicitur
justicia
Christi
,
meritorie
seu
effective
,
quia
Christi
merito
nobisest
parta
,
non
subjective
,
quia
&
Christo
inhaereat
.
Idem
,
ibidem
.
consists
in
a
free
remission
,
covering
,
or
non-imputation
of
sinne
.
And
a
little
after
,
shewing
in
what
sense
the
righteousnesse
which
is
imputed
by
God
unto
beleevers
,
may
be
called
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
he
expresseth
himselfe
thus
.
In
this
sense
imputed
righteousnesse
is
called
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
viz.
by
way
of
merit
or
effect
,
because
it
is
procured
for
us
by
the
merit
of
Christ
,
not
because
it
is
subjectively
or
inherently
in
Christ
:
many
testimonies
have
bin
formerly
cited
from
divers
other
good
Authors
of
concurrent
judgement
with
him
herein
.
We
are
taught
(
saith
Calvin
upon
the
place
)
[
](A85397-e88450-b)(c)
(c)
Postremo
[
do●emur
]
hanc
quoque
remissionem
gratuitam
esse
,
quia
sine
operibus
imputatur
;
quod
et
remissionis
nomen
indicat
Calvin
.
in
Rom.
4.6
.
Quarto
autem
capite
ad
Romanos
primum
appellat
justitia
imputationem
:
nec
eam
dubitat
in
remissione
peccatorum
c●llocare
,
idem
.
Instit.
l.
3.
c.
11.
Sect.
4.
that
Remission
of
sinnes
is
free
,
because
it
is
imputed
without
workes
.
But
Fourthly
,
the
phrase
of
imputing
righteousnesse
,
may
(
I
conceive
)
be
best
interpreted
and
understood
by
the
contrary
expression
,
of
imputing
sinne
.
Opposita
juxtase
posita
magis
elucescunt
.
To
impute
sin
signifieth
only
,
either
to
looke
upon
a
person
as
justly
liable
to
punishment
,
or
to
inflict
punishment
upon
a
person
peccati
nomine
,
for
,
or
in
consideration
of
sin
.
This
latter
signification
I
finde
more
frequent
of
the
two
,
in
Authors
of
best
esteeme
.
God
imputes
sin
(
saith
Paraeus
[
](A85397-e88550-b)(a)
(a)
Imputat
Deus
peccatium
,
cum
punit
:
non
imputat
,
cum
non
punit
,
sed
condonat
et
tegit
,
quasi
non
esset
.
Pareus
ad
Rom.
4.7
.
)
when
he
punisheth
:
and
he
doth
not
impute
it
,
when
he
doth
not
punish
,
but
pardoneth
,
&c.
So
Calvin
,
[
](A85397-e88590-b)(b)
(b)
Ergo
et
peccatorum
non
recordari
,
est
ea
non
postulare
all
poenam
.
Idipsum
alibidicitur
proijcere
post
tergum
,
delere
instar
nubis
,
&c.
non
imputare
,
tectumque
habere
,
&c.
Calvin
.
Instit.
l.
3.
c.
4.
Sect.
29.
vi
.
etiam
in
Rom.
5.13
.
maketh
the
non-imputation
of
sinne
,
and
the
not-punishing
of
sinne
,
of
one
and
the
same
signification
and
importance
.
If
therefore
to
impute
sinne
,
signifieth
only
,
either
to
hold
a
man
liable
to
punishment
for
sinne
,
or
to
execute
and
inflict
punishment
upon
him
for
sinne
,
doubtlesse
to
imputerighteousnesse
,
importeth
nothing
else
,
but
either
to
looke
upon
a
man
as
a
righteous
person
,
or
to
conferre
upon
him
and
actually
invest
him
with
the
precious
priviledges
that
belong
to
persons
truely
righteous
.
But
however
,
Fiftly
(
and
lastly
)
here
is
neither
peere
nor
peepe
of
the
least
ground
or
reason
to
conceive
,
that
by
righteousnesse
in
this
Scripture
,
should
be
meant
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
SECT.
10
The
next
Scripture
mis-us'd
for
the
imputation
aforesaid
,
is
that
Rom.
5.19
.
For
as
by
one
mans
disobedience
many
were
made
sinners
,
Rom.
5.19
.
cleered
.
so
by
the
obedience
of
one
shal
many
be
made
righteous
.
Hence
it
is
argued
,
that
as
by
the
imputation
of
Adams
disobedience
,
men
are
made
formally
sinners
;
in
like
manner
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
men
are
made
formally
righteous
.
To
this
I
answere
,
First
,
that
somewhat
hath
bin
already
delivered
in
this
Discourse
,
touching
the
sense
and
meaning
of
this
Scripture
,
as
likewise
touching
the
includencie
and
insufficiencie
,
of
this
argument
.
See
Part
1.
c.
21.
Sect.
2.3
.
&c.
Secondly
,
it
is
not
here
said
,
that
by
the
imputation
of
Adams
disobedience
,
men
are
made
formally
sinners
,
but
simply
sinners
;
that
is
,
either
obnoxious
to
death
and
condemnation
(
as
Bishop
Davenant
[
](A85397-e88840-b)(c)
(c)
Certum
est
,
illam
ipsamactualem
inobedientiam
nobis
imputari
,
ita
ut
per
eam
stemus
damnati
,
&c.
Bish.
Daven
.
de
Iusti
.
Act.
&c.
p.
363.
with
some
others
interpret
)
and
as
the
word
sinner
is
often
used
in
Scriptures
[
](A85397-e88900-b)d
d
1
Kin.
1.21
.
Pro.
6.29
.
Psal.
109.7
.
&c.
,
or
else
,
sinners
by
propagation
(
not
imputation
)
as
Augustine
[
](A85397-e88930-b)e
e
Proinde
Apostolus
,
cum
illud
peccatum
ac
mortem
commemoraret
,
quae
ab
uno
in
omnes
propagatione
transissent
,
eum
Principemposuit
,
à
quo
propagatio
generis
humani
sumpsit
exordium
.
August
.
de
Peccat
.
Mer.
&
Rem
.
l.
1.
c.
9.
vi
:
etiam
c.
13.
&c.
c.
15.
Apostolus
opponit
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Christi
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Adami
,
non
ut
actionem
actioni
,
sed
ut
satisfactionem
culpae
,
ut
remedium
morbo
.
Pareus
de
Iustic
.
Christi
Act
●et
Pass
.
p.
173.
of
old
,
and
Peter
Martyr
and
Musculus
of
late
,
with
divers
others
,
as
may
be
seene
at
large
in
their
Commentaries
upon
this
Scripture
.
So
that
according
to
either
of
these
interpretations
of
the
word
,
sinners
,
here
is
neither
little
nor
much
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
so
much
urged
and
contended
for
.
Thirdly
,
neither
doth
the
Apostle
here
oppose
unto
,
or
compare
the
obedience
of
Christ
with
the
disobedience
of
Adam
as
one
act
,
unto
,
or
with
another
,
but
as
satisfaction
to
and
with
the
provocation
,
or
the
remedie
to
and
with
the
disease
.
Otherwise
he
should
make
sinnes
of
omission
,
to
be
no
disobedience
,
because
omissions
,
are
no
acts
.
And
Adams
transgression
did
not
only
stand
in
the
commission
of
evill
,
but
in
the
omission
of
that
which
was
good
also
.
Therefore
Fourthly
,
by
that
obedience
of
Christ
,
whereby
it
is
here
said
that
many
are
(
or
,
shall
be
)
made
righteous
,
that
is
,
justified
,
we
cannot
understand
,
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
which
consists
only
in
his
obedience
to
the
morall
Law
,
but
that
satisfactorie
righteousnesse
or
obedience
which
he
performed
to
that
peculiar
Law
of
Mediation
,
which
was
imposed
upon
him
,
and
which
chiefly
consisted
in
his
sufferings
.
See
for
this
what
hath
bin
already
laid
down
cap.
3.
of
this
latter
part
.
Sect.
4.
p.
45.
And
for
this
Exposition
of
the
word
obedience
,
in
this
place
,
there
is
as
great
a
vote
and
voyce
of
Interpreters
,
both
ancient
and
moderne
,
as
for
any
one
Scripture
I
know
,
which
hath
the
least
degree
of
difficultie
in
it
.
And
(
for
the
most
part
)
they
compare
this
place
,
with
that
Philip.
2.8
.
where
it
is
said
of
Christ
,
that
he
humbled
himselfe
,
and
became
obedient
unto
death
,
&c.
making
both
Scriptures
to
speake
but
of
one
and
the
same
obedience
.
Theophylact
,
[
](A85397-e89180-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theop.
in
Rom.
5.19
.
Peter
Martyr
,
[
](A85397-e89210-b)(b)
(b)
Docat
quodnam
fuerat
illud
bonum
,
quod
per
unum
Christum
Iesum
salutem
hominibus
recuperavit
.
Illud
autem
ait
fuisse
Christo
obedientiam
,
de
qua
scribens
ad
Philippenses
&c.
P.
Mart.
ad
Rom.
5.19
.
And
a
little
after
:
Quae
verba
docet
,
id
quod
Apostolus
ait
,
per
obedientiam
Christi
,
qua
nostracausa
mortem
subiit
,
&c.
Calvin
,
[
](A85397-e89250-b)(c)
(c)
Quum
pronunciat
no
:
Christi
obedientia
constitui
justos
,
hinc
colligimus
Christum
,
eo
quod
Patri
satisfecerit
,
justitiam
nobis
comparasse
.
Calv.
ad
Rom.
5.19
.
Musculus
,
[
](A85397-e89280-b)(d)
(d)
His
verbis
aperit
de
qua
justitia
Christi
loquatur
.
videlicet
de
illius
obedientia
,
de
qua
legis
Philip.
2
,
Musculus
ad
Rom.
5
,
19
,
Eadem
fere
habent
Pareus
,
Piscator
,
&
Gualterus
in
locum
.
Pareus
,
Piscator
,
Gualter
,
and
of
our
own
,
Mr.
Gataker
,
[
](A85397-e89330-b)(e)
(e)
Vterque
locus
(
Rom
,
5
,
19
,
Philip.
3.8
,
)
intelligendus
est
de
obedientia
,
quam
mediationis
legi
peculiari
,
Christus
exhibuit
,
&c.
Mr
,
Gatak
,
in
Elench
,
Gomar
,
p.
49.
are
men
of
this
interpretation
.
Amongst
whom
,
Pareus
gives
two
reasons
of
this
his
Exposition
.
The
first
is
,
the
antithesis
or
opposition
which
the
Apostle
makes
betweene
the
disobedience
of
Adam
,
and
the
obedience
of
Christ
:
which
(
saith
he
)
will
not
constare
if
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
we
understand
vniversalem
ejus
conformitatem
cum
lege
,
that
is
,
his
universall
conformitie
with
the
Law
,
the
disobedience
of
Adam
being
but
singularis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
singular
and
particular
transgression
.
But
his
latter
and
greater
reason
is
,
the
effect
which
is
here
attributed
to
this
obedience
of
Christ
,
viz.
the
justification
,
or
righteous-making
of
many
,
which
(
saith
he
)
the
Apostle
hitherto
hath
constantly
vindicated
or
appropriated
to
the
death
and
blood
of
Christ
,
yea
and
the
whole
Scripture
throughout
teacheth
our
Faith
to
seeke
its
righteousnesse
in
this
obedience
of
his
.
So
that
all
this
while
here
is
nothing
at
all
appeares
for
the
countenancing
of
that
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
which
takes
so
deeply
with
the
thoughts
of
many
.
5.
Suppose
,
that
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
we
should
here
,
contrary
to
the
generall
current
,
aswell
of
Interpreters
as
the
Scriptures
themselves
,
understand
that
active
righteousnesse
or
obedience
which
he
performed
to
the
Morall
Law
,
yet
will
it
not
follow
from
hence
,
that
therfore
men
must
be
justified
,
or
made
righteous
by
it
in
such
a
way
of
imputation
as
is
contended
for
.
For
certaine
it
is
,
that
that
justification
,
or
righteous-making
,
which
the
Apostle
speaks
of
in
this
19.
verse
,
is
the
same
with
that
which
he
had
spoken
of
,
v.
16
,
17
,
18.
Now
that
righteousnesse
(
as
he
calls
it
,
v.
17.
)
is
described
v.
16.
to
be
the
guift
(
i.
the
forgivenesse
)
of
many
offences
,
i.
of
all
the
offences
whereof
a
man
either
doth
,
or
shall
stand
guilty
before
God
,
unto
justification
:
and
evident
it
is
,
that
that
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
which
stands
in
the
guift
(
or
forgivenesse
)
of
offences
or
sinnes
,
cannot
stand
in
the
imputation
of
an
observation
or
fulfilling
of
the
Law
.
6.
(
and
lastly
)
it
is
but
a
loose
and
very
unsavourie
kind
of
arguing
,
to
reason
from
a
thing
simply
done
,
to
a
determinate
manner
of
doing
it
.
If
a
man
should
argue
thus
,
Peter
was
slaine
with
death
:
therfore
he
was
slaine
by
a
Beast
,
or
therfore
he
was
slaine
with
a
Dagger
,
were
there
the
least
shaddow
or
appearance
of
the
certainty
of
the
Couclusion
,
in
the
premises
?
So
when
the
Apostle
simply
and
barely
affirmes
,
that
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
men
are
made
righteous
,
to
inferre
and
conclude
a
particular
and
determinate
manner
of
rigteous-making
from
hence
,
as
viz.
by
imputation
of
this
obedience
,
there
being
other
waies
or
manners
of
righteous-making
,
(
as
hath
bin
proved
)
hath
no
power
nor
authority
at
all
of
an
Argument
in
it
.
Another
text
imployed
in
the
service
aforesaid
,
SECT.
11
is
found
Rom.
8.4
.
That
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
might
be
fullfilled
in
us
,
who
walke
not
after
the
flesh
,
but
after
the
spirit
.
From
the
former
clause
it
is
argued
,
that
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
,
can
in
no
sence
be
said
to
be
fullfilled
in
us
,
but
only
by
the
righteousnes
or
obedience
of
Christ
unto
the
Law
,
imputed
to
us
.
But
to
this
also
I
Answere
.
1.
That
some
both
learned
and
Orthodox
,
Rom.
4.8
.
cleared
.
understand
this
clause
of
sanctification
,
rather
then
of
justification
:
and
by
the
fullfilling
of
the
righteousnes
of
the
Law
,
that
Euangelicall
obedience
to
the
Precepts
thereof
,
which
all
those
that
truly
beleeve
in
Christ
doe
in
part
performe
,
and
desire
and
strive
to
performe
more
perfectly
.
This
was
the
exposition
of
Ambrose
of
old
:
and
seems
to
be
the
judgement
of
Peter
Martyr
[
](A85397-e89990-b)(a)
(a)
Quomodo
autem
praecepta
legis
in
nobis
impleantur
per
communionem
cum
Christo
,
qui
pro
nobis
mortuus
est
,
ita
potest
declarari
:
quod
illis
qui
credunt
in
eum
spiritus
conceditur
,
quo
vires
corum
instaurantur
,
us
obedientiam
legis
praestare
possint
,
non
quidem
perfectam
et
absolutam
,
&c.
P.
Marty
.
ad
Rom.
8.4
.
upon
the
place
.
Nor
is
this
exposition
rejected
by
Musculus
,
though
he
inclines
more
to
another
,
in
which
propension
I
shall
willingly
give
him
the
right
hand
of
fellowship
.
So
that
however
,
this
place
is
not
so
cleere
or
demonstrative
for
the
pretended
Imputation
.
But
2.
That
by
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
which
is
here
said
to
be
fullfilled
in
those
that
beleeve
,
cannot
be
meant
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
imputed
,
is
evident
from
hence
,
because
it
must
of
necessity
be
such
a
righteousnesse
,
and
such
a
fulfilling
in
beleevers
,
which
may
be
apprehended
as
a
proper
and
sutable
effect
,
of
Christs
condemning
sinne
in
the
flesh
,
immediately
preceding
in
the
end
of
v.
3.
The
very
purport
and
frame
of
the
context
,
plainly
sheweth
this
relation
between
them
,
and
that
the
latter
was
intended
by
God
as
a
fruit
or
end
of
the
former
.
For
what
the
Law
could
not
doe
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
in
that
it
was
weake
through
the
flesh
,
God
sending
his
own
Sonne
in
the
likenesse
of
sinnefull
of
flesh
,
and
for
sinne
,
condemned
sinne
in
the
flesh
;
That
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
might
be
fullfilled
,
&c.
That
ratiocinative
particle
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
,
imports
the
fulfilling
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
in
those
that
beleeve
,
to
be
a
naturall
and
direct
effect
of
,
or
thing
intended
by
God
in
Christs
condemning
sinne
in
the
flesh
.
Now
unpossible
it
is
,
that
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
or
the
imputation
of
it
,
should
be
any
proper
effect
,
of
his
condemning
sinne
in
the
flesh
.
For
by
this
expression
,
of
condemning
sin
in
the
flesh
,
Interpreters
generally
agree
(
and
besides
it
is
a
thing
evident
in
it selfe
)
that
the
Apostle
meanes
the
abolishing
or
taking
away
the
guilt
,
or
the
accusing
and
condemning
power
of
sinne
,
by
the
death
of
Christ
:
The
phrase
of
condemning
sinne
(
to
note
this
by
the
way
)
is
metonymicall
,
the
antecedent
put
for
the
consequent
,
condemning
for
,
disabling
to
accuse
,
or
being
a
means
of
the
condemnation
of
another
;
which
(
we
know
)
are
the
consequents
or
effects
of
any
mans
being
condemned
,
in
course
of
Law
.
The
testimony
of
a
condemn'd
person
,
against
any
man
,
is
of
no
force
in
Law
.
But
to
our
purpose
;
how
the
abolishing
or
taking
away
the
guilt
and
condemning
power
of
sinne
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
should
be
a
means
of
the
Imputation
of
the
righteousnes
of
his
life
,
I
am
no
wayes
able
to
conceive
or
comprehend
;
no
more
then
I
am
,
how
the
present
fullnesse
of
the
stomacke
should
be
a
means
to
make
a
man
stand
in
need
of
a
second
dinner
immediately
.
For
certaine
it
is
,
See
the
first
and
fourth
Conclusions
in
the
second
chapter
of
this
latter
part
.
p.
3.5
.
&c.
(
as
hath
bin
reasoned
home
elsewhere
in
this
discourse
)
that
he
that
hath
the
guilt
of
his
sinne
purged
and
taken
away
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
needs
no
other
righteousnesse
,
nor
imputation
whatsoever
,
for
his
justification
or
acceptation
in
the
sight
of
God
,
no
more
then
he
that
is
full
,
needeth
the
honey-combe
.
3.
It
is
a
very
uncouth
and
hard
expression
,
SECT.
12
to
call
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
to
beleevers
,
a
fulfilling
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
in
them
.
For
that
clause
,
in
them
,
still
notes
either
a
subjective
inhesion
of
some
thing
in
persons
,
or
else
some
kind
of
efficiencie
.
Now
the
Friends
themselvs
of
that
Imputation
which
we
oppose
,
unanimously
and
constantly
affirme
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
to
be
subjectively
and
inherently
in
himselfe
only
,
and
to
become
ours
onely
by
imputation
;
which
they
still
make
a
modification
contradistinguished
against
subjective
inhesion
.
So
that
in
this
sense
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
cannot
be
said
to
be
fulfilled
in
them
.
Nor
can
they
say
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
or
of
Christ
,
is
fulfilled
in
them
,
in
a
way
of
efficiencie
:
for
they
are
not
the
workers
of
this
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
an
imputed
righteousnesse
can
in
no
tolerable
construction
of
speech
,
be
said
to
be
fulfilled
in
men
.
4.
If
by
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
we
understand
that
entire
and
compleate
obedience
,
which
every
beleever
,
according
to
the
great
varietie
of
their
severall
conditions
,
callings
,
and
relations
,
stands
bound
to
performe
,
it
can
with
no
agreeablenesse
to
truth
,
be
said
to
be
fulfilled
in
them
,
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
unto
them
.
Because
(
as
hath
bin
largely
proved
in
the
former
part
of
the
Discourse
)
there
is
scarce
any
beleever
(
if
any
at
all
)
but
stands
bound
in
a
way
of
duty
to
God
and
his
Law
,
to
the
performance
of
many
particular
acts
,
yea
of
many
kindes
of
acts
of
obedience
,
which
are
not
to
be
found
(
nor
can
it
without
sinne
be
conceived
,
that
they
should
be
found
)
in
all
that
golden
catalogue
of
workes
of
righteousnesse
performed
by
Christ
.
Therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
in
the
sense
declared
(
which
is
the
sense
stood
upon
by
our
adversaries
)
cannot
be
said
to
be
fulfilled
in
those
that
beleeve
only
by
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
imputed
to
them
.
5.
Neither
doth
the
originall
word
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
here
translated
,
righteousnesse
,
signifie
,
obedience
unto
,
or
conformity
with
the
Law
,
but
rather
that
justification
,
which
was
the
end
,
and
intent
of
the
Law
,
but
that
it
was
disabled
through
the
weaknesse
,
that
is
,
the
sinfulnesse
,
of
the
flesh
,
to
ataine
it
,
ver.
3.
And
so
Calvin
,
Piscator
,
Musculus
,
with
divers
other
learned
Interpreters
,
and
Tremellius
out
of
the
Syriaque
,
render
the
Greeke
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
by
the
Latine
word
justitia
,
justice
or
righteousnesse
,
but
justificatio
,
justification
:
Beza
by
himselfe
,
(
and
perhaps
more
agreeable
to
the
Apostles
minde
then
the
rest
)
translates
it
,
jus
,
the
right
or
Law
(
as
it
were
)
of
the
Law
;
And
so
both
Chrysostom
,
[
](A85397-e90920-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Chrysost.
ad
Ro.
8.
●
.
Serm.
13.
and
Theophylact
[
](A85397-e90950-b)b
b
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theophyl
.
in
Rom.
8.4
.
of
old
,
expound
the
word
not
of
any
obedience
of
to
the
Law
,
but
of
the
end
,
scope
,
or
intent
of
the
Law
,
viz.
justification
.
Paraus
following
Bezas
translation
of
the
word
,
conceives
that
the
Apostle
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
jus
legis
,
meanes
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
damnatorie
sentence
of
the
Law
against
sinners
,
mentioned
cap.
5.16
.
in
which
signification
of
the
word
,
that
right
or
power
which
God
hath
to
condemne
sinners
unto
death
,
is
called
cap.
1.32
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
where
our
English
render
it
,
the
iudgement
of
God
:
the
former
translation
had
it
,
the
Law
of
God
.
This
exposition
of
the
word
,
though
it
seemes
contrary
to
that
given
by
Calvin
and
others
mentioned
,
yet
will
it
give
out
one
and
the
same
sense
and
importance
of
the
place
with
it
,
as
will
presently
appeare
.
So
that
if
this
place
were
translated
with
exactnesse
to
the
originall
,
the
argument
that
is
now
drawne
from
it
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
would
wholly
disappeare
.
6.
Neither
is
it
by
ten
degrees
as
cleere
as
the
Sun
,
that
by
the
word
Law
in
this
Scripture
,
we
must
of
necessitie
,
and
with
all
precisenesse
,
understand
,
the
Morall
Law
.
We
know
there
are
many
other
acceptions
of
the
word
in
the
writings
of
this
Apostle
.
And
that
it
cannot
be
here
meant
precisely
of
the
Morall
Law
,
is
evident
:
1º
,
because
that
impossibility
of
iustifying
men
thorugh
the
weaknesse
of
the
flesh
,
spoken
of
ver.
3.
is
not
confin'd
to
this
Law
alone
,
but
extends
aswell
to
the
other
two
,
Ceremoniall
and
Judiciall
:
except
we
shall
say
,
that
though
the
Morall
Law
was
weake
through
the
flesh
,
and
could
not
iustifie
,
yet
the
Ceremoniall
and
Judiciall
had
a
sufficiencie
of
strength
hereunto
;
which
is
manifestly
untrue
.
2º
,
because
the
Jewes
,
to
whom
especially
he
addresseth
himselfe
in
all
his
disputations
concerning
the
Law
,
and
Iustification
thereby
,
built
asmuch
or
more
upon
the
observation
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
for
their
Iustification
,
then
of
the
Morall
,
(
as
was
formerly
observed
Sect.
8.
of
this
Chapter
.
)
Now
its
certaine
that
the
Apostle
here
takes
the
word
Law
,
in
the
same
sense
and
latitude
,
wherein
the
Jewes
meant
it
,
when
they
contended
and
argued
for
Iustification
by
it
:
otherwise
he
should
not
argue
with
them
ad
idem
,
nor
reach
their
apprehensions
or
meaning
.
3º
,
because
the
Morall
Law
,
suppose
it
had
not
bin
made
weake
,
nor
disadvantag'd
by
the
flesh
,
yet
could
it
not
by
the
most
exact
observation
of
it
,
have
justified
men
,
at
least
not
all
men
,
and
by
name
not
the
Jewes
,
who
were
bound
to
the
observation
of
the
other
two
,
aswell
as
of
it
,
and
had
bin
found
sinners
,
had
they
faild
in
any
point
of
either
of
these
,
though
they
had
bin
absolute
in
the
other
.
Now
it
is
evident
,
that
by
the
righteousnesse
(
or
Iustification
)
of
the
Law
in
this
place
,
the
Apostle
meanes
the
righteousnesse
(
or
Iustification
)
of
such
a
Law
,
which
in
it selfe
was
able
to
iustifie
,
had
it
met
with
a
sufficiencie
of
strength
in
men
answerable
to
it
.
Therefore
he
cannot
be
conceiv'd
to
speake
here
determinatly
of
the
Morall
Law
,
which
had
no
such
abilitie
in
respect
of
the
Jewes
.
4º
,
and
lastly
,
because
the
Jewes
had
bin
never
the
neerer
a
Iustification
,
by
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Morall
Law
imputed
from
Christ
unto
them
(
supposing
such
an
imputation
)
being
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
under
the
transgression
of
other
Lawes
.
So
then
this
consideration
also
,
that
by
the
word
Law
in
this
●cripture
,
cannot
be
meant
the
Morall
Law
,
gives
an
utter
defeat
to
the
attempt
that
is
made
upon
it
,
for
the
establishing
of
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
But
7.
SECT.
14
and
lastly
,
the
cleare
meaning
of
the
place
seem's
to
be
this
:
God
sending
his
owne
Sonne
,
&c.
condemned
sinne
in
the
flesh
,
that
the
righteousnesse
(
or
Justification
)
of
the
Law
might
be
fulfilled
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
or
upon
us
&c.
that
is
,
that
that
Iustification
,
or
way
of
making
men
righteous
,
which
the
Law
,
that
is
,
the
writings
of
Moses
,
held
forth
and
prophecied
of
unto
the
world
long
since
,
viz.
by
Faith
in
the
Messia
that
was
then
to
come
,
and
to
make
attonemement
for
sinne
by
his
blood
,
might
be
fulfilled
in
us
,
or
upon
us
,
that
is
,
might
be
accomplished
,
made
good
,
and
fully
manifested
,
in
us
,
or
upon
us
,
viz.
in
our
Iustification
,
who
by
our
walking
not
after
the
flesh
,
but
after
the
Spirit
,
that
is
,
by
an
eminencie
of
holinesse
in
our
lives
above
the
straine
and
pitch
of
men
under
the
Law
,
give
testimony
unto
the
world
,
that
the
Messia
,
or
Great
Iustifier
of
men
,
foretold
by
Moses
,
is
indeed
come
into
the
world
,
and
having
suffered
for
sinne
and
overcome
death
,
hath
powred
out
the
Spirit
of
Grace
abundantly
upon
those
that
beleeve
in
him
.
This
interpretation
(
especially
as
farre
as
concern's
the
clause
in
question
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
might
be
fulfilled
in
us
)
is
confirmed
aswell
by
the
sweet
proportion
and
sutablenesse
betweene
such
a
fulfilling
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
in
those
that
beleeve
and
live
accordingly
as
the
effect
,
and
that
sending
of
Christ
in
the
similitude
of
sinfull
flesh
to
condemne
sinne
in
the
flesh
,
laid
downe
in
the
former
verse
,
as
the
meanes
or
cause
thereof
.
Secondly
,
in
this
interpretation
,
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
fulfilled
,
hath
its
proper
and
genuine
force
and
signification
,
which
is
wholly
lost
in
that
exposition
,
which
laboureth
to
finde
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
this
place
.
For
to
be
fulfilled
,
in
the
Scripture
,
properly
signifieth
the
accomplishment
,
making
good
,
or
full
manifestation
of
a
thing
,
which
before
was
under
promise
or
prediction
only
,
and
as
it
were
in
the
darke
.
Thirdly
,
that
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
,
which
is
here
called
,
the
righteousnesse
(
or
Justification
)
of
the
Law
,
is
(
questionlesse
)
the
same
righteousnesse
,
which
Rom.
3.21
.
is
said
to
be
witnessed
by
the
Law
,
that
is
,
by
the
writings
of
Moses
,
and
by
the
preaching
whereof
the
Law
it selfe
is
said
to
be
established
,
ver
,
31.
of
that
Chapter
.
So
that
in
this
respect
it
may
very
well
be
called
the
righteousnesse
(
or
Justification
)
of
the
Law
.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
according
to
the
tenor
of
this
interpretation
,
this
passage
of
Scripture
is
of
perfect
sympathie
and
accordance
with
those
,
Rom.
3.21.22.25
.
whereas
as
the
other
interpretation
leadeth
it
,
it
can
neither
fi●de
friend
nor
fellow
in
all
the
Scripture
.
In
the
former
of
these
last
cited
Scriptures
,
the
Apostle
expresseth
himselfe
thus
:
But
now
the
righteousnesse
of
God
without
the
Law
,
is
manifested
,
being
witnessed
,
by
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
,
even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
which
is
by
the
Faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
&c.
In
the
latter
,
thus
:
Whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
Faith
in
his
blood
,
to
declare
his
righteousnesse
,
for
(
or
,
concerning
)
remission
of
sinnes
that
are
past
,
&c.
It
plainly
appeares
,
from
these
Scriptures
,
compared
together
,
First
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
that
is
,
the
way
,
meanes
,
or
course
which
God
holds
for
the
Justification
of
men
,
stands
in
remission
,
or
forgivenesse
,
of
sinnes
.
Secondly
,
that
this
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
of
his
,
is
witnessed
,
that
is
,
asserted
and
vindicated
by
the
Law
,
that
is
,
the
writings
of
Moses
,
and
consequently
may
well
be
called
,
the
righteousnesse
,
or
Iustification
,
of
the
Law
.
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
that
this
righteousnesse
of
God
testified
and
asserted
by
the
Law
(
in
the
sense
given
)
and
exercised
by
him
under
the
Law
,
in
the
forgivenesse
of
the
sinnes
of
those
that
then
beleeved
,
was
not
manifested
,
or
declared
,
or
(
as
our
other
Scripture
had
it
)
fulfilled
,
that
is
,
fully
revealed
and
discovered
to
the
roote
,
bottome
,
and
foundations
of
it
,
till
the
coming
of
Christ
into
the
world
,
and
his
dying
for
sinne
,
which
in
that
other
place
,
is
called
,
his
condemning
sinne
in
the
flesh
.
This
for
answere
in
full
to
this
Scripture
.
The
next
place
,
SECT.
15
which
I
understand
hath
bin
of
late
taken
hold
of
by
some
,
to
supply
that
which
(
it
seemes
)
is
wanting
in
others
,
for
the
defence
of
that
imputation
which
we
oppose
,
is
Rom.
9.31.32
.
But
Israel
which
followed
after
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
hath
not
attained
to
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
.
Wherefore
?
because
they
sought
it
not
by
Faith
,
but
as
it
were
by
the
workes
of
the
Law
,
&c.
From
hence
it
is
thus
argued
,
that
had
Israel
,
that
is
,
the
Jewes
,
who
followed
after
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
beleeved
in
Christ
,
they
had
attained
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
should
have
had
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
performed
by
Christ
,
imputed
unto
them
.
But
,
to
this
also
I
Answere
,
1.
that
by
the
Law
of
righteousnes
,
Rom.
9.31.32
.
answered
.
which
the
Jewes
are
here
said
to
have
sought
after
,
but
could
not
attain
,
is
not
meant
the
Moral
Law
,
nor
indeed
any
Law
properly
so
called
,
either
Morall
,
Ceremoniall
,
or
Judicial
,
for
God
had
prevēted
them
with
the
guift
of
all
these
Laws
,
so
that
they
need
not
have
sought
after
them
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
their
studie
&
endeavor
of
keeping
the
Law
,
which
they
had
,
may
be
called
,
a
seeking
or
following
after
the
Law
:
I
answere
,
be
it
so
:
yet
this
studie
and
endeavor
of
theirs
,
could
be
no
cause
of
their
coming
short
of
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
,
which
yet
is
ascribed
to
that
seeking
or
following
after
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
here
mentioned
.
As
Christians
are
never
the
further
off
from
being
justified
,
by
living
holily
and
keeping
the
commandements
of
God
:
So
neither
was
the
care
and
endeavor
of
the
Jewes
to
observe
the
precepts
of
that
Law
,
which
God
had
given
them
,
any
cause
of
their
miscariage
in
point
of
Iustification
.
Abraham
and
those
that
were
justifyed
by
Faith
in
Christ
,
as
he
was
,
were
as
conscientious
and
careful
observers
of
al
Gods
Lawes
,
as
any
of
those
were
,
who
stumbling
at
the
stumbling
stone
,
were
never
justified
.
Therefore
by
the
Law
of
righteousnes
in
this
Scripture
,
is
not
meant
any
Law
properly
so
called
,
much
les
definitively
,
the
Morall
Law
.
Secondly
,
in
this
expression
,
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
in
the
former
clause
of
the
verse
,
Calvin
findes
an
hypallage
,
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
put
for
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
[
](A85397-e92320-b)(a)
(a)
Iam
priere
loco
legem
justiciae
,
per
hypallagen
posuisse
mihi
videtur
pro
justicia
legis
:
in
repetitione
secundi
membri
,
alio
sensu
sic
vocasse
justi●iae
formam
seu
regulam
.
Calvin
.
in
Rom.
9
,
1.
Nam
illud
,
sectand●
legem
justiciae
,
simpliciter
esse
dictum
de
legis
justitia
,
i.
ea
,
quae
ex
operibus
legu
est
,
patebit
infra
,
&c.
Mus.
in
Rom.
9.31
.
:
in
the
latter
clause
,
he
takes
it
in
somewhat
a
different
signification
,
for
a
forme
or
rule
of
righteousnesse
.
Musculus
dissents
little
(
if
any
thing
at
all
)
from
this
interpretation
,
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
understanding
that
righteousnesse
which
stands
in
the
works
of
the
Lawb.
So
that
neither
of
these
Authors
(
nor
any
other
that
I
have
yet
met
with
)
restreyne
the
word
Law
,
in
these
phrases
,
determinatly
to
the
Morall
Law
.
Thirdly
,
neither
is
there
any
reason
,
nor
colour
of
reason
,
to
limit
the
Apostles
expressions
(
in
this
place
)
of
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
to
the
Morall
Law
only
,
and
the
righteousnesse
thereof
:
because
it
is
notoriously
knowne
(
and
hath
bin
more
then
once
observed
formerly
)
that
the
Jewes
never
hoped
for
,
nor
sought
after
righteousnesse
,
SECT.
16
or
Iustification
,
by
the
Morall
Law
only
,
or
the
works
thereof
alone
,
but
by
the
Ceremoniall
Law
also
,
and
the
observances
hereof
;
yea
&
principally
by
these
,
as
hath
bin
els
where
in
this
Treatise
prooved
from
the
Scriptures
.
So
that
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
whereof
they
miscaried
by
not
seeking
it
by
Faith
,
cannot
be
ment
determinatly
the
Moral
Law
,
or
the
righteousnes
therof
,
because
they
never
travaild
of
this
,
upon
such
termes
,
they
never
had
thought
or
hope
of
being
iustified
or
made
righteous
,
by
the
Morall
Law
or
righteousnesse
thereof
only
.
And
so
Paraeus
,
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
in
this
place
,
understands
aswell
the
Ceremoniall
,
as
the
Morall
Law
.
[
](A85397-e92560-b)(a)
(a)
Iudaeos
ait
sectatos
legem
justiciae
,
quae
praescribit
justiciam
operibus
perfectam
;
hoc
est
,
conatos
esse
,
tum
ceremoniarum
observatione
,
tum
moralium
operum
meritu
justificari
coram
Deo
.
Pateus
in
Rom.
9.31
.
4.
Neither
would
the
righteousnes
of
the
Moral
Law
alone
,
suppose
they
should
have
attained
it
by
beleeving
,
have
stood
the
Jewes
in
any
stead
for
their
justification
,
being
aswell
bound
to
the
observation
of
the
ceremoniall
law
,
as
of
it
.
Therfore
it
was
not
this
law
or
the
righteousues
of
it
,
which
should
have
bin
imputed
to
them
,
in
case
they
had
trruly
beleeved
:
&
consequently
no
imputation
of
any
law
righteousnes
whatsoever
from
Christ
,
can
be
concluded
from
this
place
.
But
5.
(
&
lastly
,
)
to
give
the
cleere
sence
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
this
Scripture
)
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
which
Israel
is
said
to
have
followed
after
,
but
not
to
have
attained
,
because
he
sought
it
not
by
Faith
,
&c.
can
be
meant
nothing
else
but
justification
it selfe
,
or
righteousnesse
simply
and
indefinitely
taken
(
in
which
acception
it
is
oft
put
for
justification
,
as
was
observed
cap.
3.
Sect
,
and
elsewhere
)
which
the
Jewes
,
seeking
to
attaine
it
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
that
is
,
by
themselves
and
the
merit
of
their
own
doings
,
and
not
by
faith
in
Iesus
Christ
,
were
never
able
to
attain
,
but
lost
the
favour
of
God
,
&
perished
in
their
sinnes
.
That
this
is
the
direct
and
expresse
meaning
of
the
place
,
may
be
several
waies
confirm'd
.
1.
To
call
righteousnesse
simply
(
that
is
,
SECT.
17
justification
)
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
is
agreeable
to
this
Apostles
dialect
elswhere
.
For
Rom.
7.23
.
&
25.
by
the
Law
of
sinne
,
he
means
nothing
else
but
sinne
it selfe
.
So
Rom.
3.27
.
By
the
Law
of
Faith
,
faith
it selfe
:
and
againe
Rom.
8.2
.
by
the
Law
of
sinne
and
death
,
he
means
sinne
and
death
simply
.
For
none
of
these
have
any
Law
properly
so
called
:
onely
the
word
,
Law
,
added
to
them
,
seems
to
represent
them
under
a
more
emphaticall
,
and
weighty
consideration
.
2.
When
this
Apostle
speaks
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
elsewhere
,
he
never
useth
this
hypallage
,
to
call
it
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
but
still
in
plaine
and
direct
language
,
The
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
.
See
Rom.
2.26
.
Rom.
8.4
.
3.
This
exposition
makes
the
double
antithesis
or
opposition
,
which
the
Apostle
apparently
makes
,
between
the
Gentiles
,
v.
30.
and
the
Jewes
,
v.
31.
pregnant
,
cleere
,
and
full
,
wheras
any
other
interpretation
,
dissolves
the
strength
,
and
darkens
the
light
of
them
.
The
Gentiles
(
saith
he
,
v.
30
)
followed
not
after
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
had
no
thoughts
of
,
took
no
care
or
course
for
any
justification
before
God
.
But
Israel
(
v.
31.
)
sought
after
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
propounded
unto
themselves
,
as
a
busines
of
maine
importance
,
a
righteousnesse
or
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
and
ran
a
course
of
means
,
such
as
it
was
,
to
obteyne
it
.
Againe
,
The
Gentiles
(
saith
he
,
v.
30.
)
attained
unto
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
unto
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
:
many
of
them
have
bin
justified
and
saved
.
But
Israel
could
not
attaine
unto
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
(
v.
31.
)
that
is
,
could
not
compasse
a
justification
of
themselves
in
the
sight
of
God
,
as
the
Gentiles
did
.
The
strict
Law
of
opposition
enforceth
this
or
the
like
interpretation
.
4.
(
And
lastly
)
that
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
which
Israel
could
not
attaine
unto
,
he
meanes
righteousnes
simply
,
or
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
appeares
from
the
latter
reason
,
or
latter
part
of
the
reason
,
which
he
renders
v.
3●
.
of
Israels
miscarriage
and
falling
short
in
this
kind
.
Wherfore
(
saith
he
)
could
not
Israel
attaine
unto
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
which
he
followed
after
?
because
they
sought
it
not
by
Faith
,
but
as
it
were
by
the
works
of
the
Law
.
If
by
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
which
Israel
is
said
to
have
sought
after
,
we
understand
,
the
righteousnesse
or
obedience
of
the
Law
,
the
reason
which
is
here
assigned
by
the
Holy
Ghost
(
at
least
in
part
)
why
they
could
not
atain
it
,
viz.
because
they
sought
it
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
will
be
very
incongruous
and
absurd
.
For
what
savour
either
of
reason
or
truth
is
there
in
it
,
to
say
,
that
a
man
therfore
cannot
attaine
the
righteousnesse
or
obedience
of
the
Law
,
because
he
seeks
to
attaine
it
by
the
works
of
the
Law
?
But
to
say
that
a
man
cannot
attaine
unto
righteousnesse
or
justification
before
God
,
if
,
or
because
he
seeks
it
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
hath
perfect
consistence
with
both
,
I
mean
both
with
reason
and
truth
.
Lastly
,
I
might
further
strengthen
this
exposition
,
with
the
Authority
of
Theophylact
(
if
need
were
)
who
expounds
that
clause
.
v.
31.
they
could
not
attaine
unto
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
of
a
simple
and
plaine
non-justification
.
[
](A85397-e93320-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theophyl
.
in
Rom.
9.31
.
The
next
Scripture
proofe
(
and
last
out
of
this
Epistle
to
the
Romans
)
which
is
frequently
alledged
for
the
supposed
Imputation
,
is
Rom.
10.4
.
The
words
,
these
,
For
Christ
is
the
end
of
the
Law
for
righteousnes
,
to
every
one
that
beleeveth
.
Therfore
(
say
the
Masters
of
that
way
of
Imputation
,
which
we
desire
to
hedge
up
with
thorns
)
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
,
or
the
obedience
performed
by
him
to
the
Morall
Law
,
is
imputed
to
those
that
beleeve
,
for
their
righteousnes
.
But
neither
doth
this
Scripture
know
any
such
imputation
,
more
then
its
fellows
.
For
1.
Rom.
10.4
.
answered
.
There
is
not
the
least
resemblance
or
colour
of
reason
,
that
by
the
Law
in
this
place
,
should
be
meant
precisely
and
determinately
,
the
Morall
Law
,
because
(
as
was
both
lately
and
formerly
observed
)
the
Jews
,
with
whom
chiefly
the
Apostle
grapples
in
this
place
,
(
as
is
evident
from
the
beginning
of
the
chapter
)
never
so
much
as
dreamt
of
justification
by
the
Moral
Law
only
,
but
chiefly
by
the
Ceremoniall
.
Neither
doth
Calvin
,
or
any
other
Interpreter
that
yet
I
have
met
with
,
understand
the
place
of
the
Morall
Law
.
Besides
,
it
is
evident
from
that
which
immediately
follows
v.
5.
that
he
doth
not
speake
here
of
the
Morall
Law
:
for
there
,
he
citeth
that
description
,
which
Moses
giveth
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
;
not
out
of
any
part
or
passage
of
the
Morall
Law
,
but
out
of
the
heart
and
midd'st
(
as
it
were
)
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
.
Those
words
,
the
man
which
doth
these
things
shall
live
by
them
,
wherein
he
placeth
Moses's
description
of
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
the
Law
,
are
taken
from
Levit.
18.5
.
and
are
in
speciall
manner
spoken
of
the
Ceremonialls
and
Judicialls
.
For
thus
the
words
lye
:
ye
shall
therfore
keep
my
Statutes
and
my
Judgements
,
which
if
a
man
doe
,
he
shall
live
in
them
.
Therfore
(
doubtlesse
)
the
Apostle
doth
not
speake
here
of
the
Morall
Law
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
19
neither
is
it
any
waies
agreeable
to
truth
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
beleevers
(
suppose
such
an
imputation
were
simply
granted
)
should
be
called
the
end
of
the
Morall
Law
For
(
doubtlesse
)
no
Law
whatsoever
considered
simply
as
a
Law
,
is
any
cause
or
meanes
of
justifying
a
person
,
in
any
other
way
,
or
by
any
other
meanes
,
then
by
the
observation
of
it selfe
:
and
consequently
,
Iustification
by
Christ
cannot
be
conceived
to
be
the
end
of
the
Morall
Law
.
For
nothing
can
properly
be
said
to
be
the
intent
or
end
of
a
thing
,
but
only
that
,
which
in
reason
and
likelyhood
may
be
procured
and
obtained
by
it
.
Now
there
is
an
utter
and
evident
impossibilitie
,
that
Justification
by
Christ
should
be
procured
or
attained
by
the
Morall
Law
.
Neither
obedience
nor
disobedience
thereunto
,
hath
any
relation
of
causalitie
to
such
an
effect
,
a
man
being
never
the
neerer
Justification
by
Christ
,
either
for
the
one
,
or
for
the
other
.
It
may
be
said
with
farre
a
more
favourable
aspect
both
upon
reason
and
truth
,
that
Christ
is
the
end
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
:
and
yet
not
of
this
neither
,
considered
simply
,
as
a
Law
,
but
as
comprehending
in
it
such
and
such
usages
or
rites
,
wherein
Christ
and
Iustification
by
his
blood
were
typified
and
resembled
,
and
which
were
to
expire
and
to
lose
the
binding
power
of
a
Law
,
which
it
had
before
,
upon
Christs
coming
.
As
for
the
observation
or
transgression
of
this
Law
,
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
contributed
any
thing
more
towards
any
mans
Iustification
by
Christ
,
then
the
observation
or
transgression
of
the
Morall
Law
did
,
or
doth
.
Nay
the
observation
both
of
the
one
and
the
other
(
though
very
unperfect
and
lame
)
have
bin
a
stumbling
block
in
the
way
of
many
,
and
cast
them
quite
off
from
Iustification
by
Christ
,
as
the
Apostle
implieth
,
ver.
3.
Therefore
Thirdly
,
the
Greek
Expositors
,
as
Chrysostom
,
[
](A85397-e93790-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
Chrysost.
Hom.
17.
in
Rom.
Theophylact
,
[
](A85397-e93820-b)b
b
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theophyl
.
in
Rom.
10.4
.
[
Sect.
20
]
and
Theodoret
,
make
Christ
in
this
sense
to
be
called
by
the
Apostle
,
the
end
of
the
Law
for
righteousnesse
unto
those
that
beleeve
,
viz.
because
hee
performed
or
exhibited
unto
them
,
that
,
which
the
Law
propounded
to
it selfe
as
its
end
,
and
would
have
performed
,
but
could
not
,
viz.
their
Iustification
.
But
Fourthly
,
some
Interpreters
conceive
,
that
Christ
in
this
sense
is
said
to
be
the
end
of
the
Law
for
righteousnesse
to
him
that
beleeveth
,
because
the
Law
by
convincing
men
of
sinne
,
and
exacting
of
them
a
righteousnesse
which
it
doth
not
enable
them
to
performe
,
and
againe
by
threatning
and
condemning
them
for
the
want
of
it
,
it
doth
as
good
as
lead
them
by
the
hand
unto
Christ
,
by
whom
they
are
freely
justified
.
This
Exposition
calls
Musculus
Master
,
[
](A85397-e93960-b)(a)
(a)
Nam
finis
Legis
est
Christus
.
Intelligendum
est
,
quod
Lex
ad
Christum
ducit
.
Dum
enim
peccatum
revelar
,
arguit
ac
damnat
,
justiciamque
exigit
quamnon
praestat
,
nihil
aliud
agit
quam
quod
ad
Christum
ducit
,
per
quem
justificemur
gratis
.
Musc.
in
Rom.
10.4
.
and
Calvin
in
one
touch
upon
the
place
,
is
not
farre
from
it
.
[
](A85397-e93990-b)(b)
(b)
Id
autem
fieri
nequit
,
quin
omni
justicia
spoliats
,
peccati
agnitione
confusi
,
ab
ipso
justiciam
gratuitam
petamus
.
Calvin
.
in
Rom.
10.4
.
But
neither
doth
this
seem
to
be
the
meaning
of
the
place
:
however
,
because
it
maketh
not
at
all
against
us
in
the
present
controversie
,
we
shall
not
(
at
present
)
insist
upon
any
refutation
of
it
.
Fiftly
,
some
think
,
Christ
is
therefore
called
the
end
of
the
Law
,
because
by
his
coming
in
the
flesh
,
and
by
his
sacrifice
of
himselfe
,
he
put
an
end
to
the
Law
and
Mosaicall
dispensation
.
Both
Musculus
and
Parous
mention
this
exposition
,
but
name
not
the
Author
.
This
exposition
is
a
truth
,
but
(
doubtlesse
)
not
a
true
exposition
.
Therefore
Sixtly
(
and
lastly
)
the
plaine
and
direct
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
this
Scripture
seemes
to
be
this
.
Christ
is
the
end
of
the
Law
for
righteousnesse
to
every
one
that
beleeveth
.
that
is
,
the
Law
,
meaning
the
whole
Mosaicall
Oeconomie
or
dispensation
(
which
is
the
frequent
signification
of
the
word
,
Law
,
in
the
writings
of
this
Apostle
,
as
was
formerly
observed
and
exemplified
)
was
therefore
,
and
for
that
end
and
purpose
given
by
God
unto
the
Jewes
his
people
,
that
whilst
it
did
continue
,
it
might
instruct
and
teach
them
concerning
the
Messiah
,
who
was
yet
to
come
,
and
by
his
death
to
make
attonement
for
their
sinnes
,
that
so
they
might
beleeve
in
him
accordingly
,
and
be
justified
;
and
further
,
that
in
time
,
that
people
and
Nation
might
be
trained
up
,
nurtured
,
and
prepared
for
the
Messia
himselfe
,
and
that
oeconomie
and
perfection
of
the
worship
and
service
of
God
,
which
he
should
bring
with
him
,
and
establisheth
in
the
world
at
his
coming
.
This
interpretation
,
including
the
whole
Mosaicall
administration
within
the
meaning
of
the
word
,
Law
,
was
both
Chrysostoms
of
old
,
[
](A85397-e94160-b)c
c
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Chrysost.
in
Rom.
10.4
.
and
is
Mr.
Gatakers
[
](A85397-e94190-b)d
d
Verum
ego
potius
,
Christum
finem
legu
ea
ratione
simpliciter
dictum
existimo
,
quia
Lex
revera
Dei
populo
lata
est
,
quae
ad
Messiam
illu
viam
pramuniret
;
quod
erat
ministerij
Mosaici
munus
pracipuum
.
Gatak
.
Elench
Gomar
.
p.
53.
yet
living
amongst
us
:
and
Parcus
likewise
is
large
in
the
vindication
and
explication
of
it
:
and
Calvin
himselfe
[
](A85397-e94230-b)a
a
Indicat
e●am
legis
praposterum
Interpretem
esse
,
qui
per
cjus
opera
justificari
quaerit
quaniam
in
hoc
lexdata
est
,
quo
nos
ad
a●●ara
justitiam
manuduceret
.
Imo
quicquid
doceat
Lex
,
●uicquid
pracipiat
,
quiequid
promittaet
,
semper
Christum
habet
pro
scepo
;
ergo
●n
ipsum
dirigendae
sunt
omnes
Partes
,
&c
Cal.
in
Ro.
10.4
.
in
his
commentary
upon
the
place
seemes
very
inclineable
to
it
.
This
interpretation
might
be
further
confirmed
.
First
,
from
the
cariage
and
tenor
of
the
context
it selfe
.
For
doubtlesse
the
Apostles
meaning
is
,
that
Christ
should
be
the
end
of
that
Law
for
righteousnesse
,
by
the
observation
whereof
,
as
being
their
own
righteousnesse
,
ver.
3
the
Jewes
,
against
whom
he
here
reasons
,
sought
to
be
justified
.
Now
it
hath
bin
often
said
,
and
once
(
at
least
)
sufficiently
prooved
,
that
the
Jewes
sought
righteousnesse
and
selfe
Iustification
afwell
from
the
observation
of
the
Ceremoniall
,
as
of
the
Morall
Law
.
Secondly
from
the
full
consent
and
entire
sympathy
of
other
Scriptures
of
like
propension
and
phrase
.
2
Cor.
3.13
.
It
is
said
,
that
the
Children
of
Israel
could
not
stedfastly
looke
to
the
end
of
that
which
is
abolished
,
that
is
,
of
the
whole
ministerie
or
dispensation
of
Moses
,
as
is
evident
from
the
cariage
of
the
whole
Chapter
.
Now
what
was
the
end
of
this
dispensation
,
but
CHRIST
and
Iustification
by
him
?
So
Gal.
3.24
.
Wherefore
the
Law
was
our
Schoolemaster
unto
Christ
,
that
we
might
be
justified
by
Faith
.
By
the
Law
in
this
place
,
cannot
be
meant
the
Morall
Law
;
the
whole
series
of
the
context
from
ver.
13
,
to
25.
riseth
up
against
such
an
interpretation
;
neither
is
there
any
Expositor
I
know
,
that
so
understands
it
,
but
by
the
Law
,
which
is
here
said
to
be
our
Schoolemaster
unto
Christ
,
is
unquestionably
meant
,
the
whole
frame
or
body
of
the
administration
of
Moses
,
yet
with
a
more
peculiar
reference
to
the
Ceremoniall
part
of
it
.
See
Mr.
Gatakers
judgement
touching
this
Scripture
,
in
his
little
Tract
against
Gomarus
,
p.
54.54
.
and
againe
in
his
Scripta
adversaria
(
as
he
call's
them
)
p.
43.
of
the
first
part
,
and
p.
96.
of
the
second
:
together
with
Mr.
Perkins
upon
the
place
.
Thus
at
last
we
have
(
I
suppose
)
abundantly
vindicated
the
Non-imputation
of
the
Active
obedience
of
Christ
in
the
sense
controverted
,
out
of
the
hand
of
all
those
reasonings
and
pleadings
,
that
are
usually
(
or
that
readily
I
thinke
can
be
)
build
upon
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
:
wherein
notwithstanding
the
greatest
part
of
the
strength
and
confidence
of
our
Adversaries
lyeth
:
And
therefore
I
shall
make
bold
to
accōmodate
the
Reader
with
more
brevity
ingiving
answere
to
those
other
Scriptures
,
which
yet
remain
.
The
next
of
which
,
SECT.
22
is
that
,
1
Cor.
1.30
.
But
yee
are
of
him
in
Christ
Iesus
,
who
of
God
is
made
unto
us
wisdome
,
anarighteousnesse
,
and
sanctification
,
and
Redemption
.
Because
Christ
is
heresaid
to
be
made
righteousnesse
unto
us
by
God
,
it
is
argued
,
that
therefore
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
imputed
us
.
But
to
this
I
answer
,
that
here
is
a
little
or
lesse
colour
for
the
deemed
imputation
,
then
in
any
of
the
former
Scriptures
.
For
First
,
1
Cor.
1.30
.
answered
.
Christ
is
here
no
otherwise
,
nor
after
any
other
manner
affirmed
to
be
,
or
to
be
made
righteousnes
unto
us
,
then
he
is
to
be
made
wisdome
or
sanctification
unto
us
.
Therefore
there
is
no
more
ground
to
conclude
from
hence
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
for
our
righteousnesse
,
then
of
his
wisdome
for
our
wisdome
,
or
his
sanctification
for
our
sanctification
.
And
if
it
be
a
weake
and
unsavourie
inference
from
this
place
,
to
conclude
that
we
are
wise
with
the
same
wisdome
,
wherewith
Christ
was
wise
,
being
imputed
unto
us
;
it
must
needs
be
a
bird
of
the
same
feather
,
to
infer
,
that
we
are
righteous
with
the
same
righteousnesse
,
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
being
imputed
to
us
.
Here
is
no
more
mention
or
intimation
of
the
imputation
of
the
one
,
then
of
the
other
.
Suppose
Christ
were
made
righteousnesse
unto
us
,
by
the
imputation
of
that
righteousnesse
of
his
,
which
men
so
much
contend
for
;
yet
there
is
nothing
more
evident
,
then
that
this
speciall
manner
of
his
being
made
righteousnesse
,
must
be
made
good
otherwise
,
and
from
other
Scriptures
,
and
cannot
at
all
be
prooved
from
this
place
.
As
because
a
rich
man
hath
silver
and
gold
and
jewells
in
his
possession
or
keeping
,
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
therefore
he
hath
silver
in
one
Chest
,
and
gold
in
another
,
or
jewells
in
a
third
,
because
he
may
possibly
have
them
al
in
one
&
the
same
.
From
generall
expressions
,
particular
modifications
of
things
can
never
be
prooved
.
Therefore
Secondly
,
when
Christ
is
said
to
be
made
righteousnesse
unto
us
,
the
meaning
only
is
,
that
he
is
made
or
ordained
by
God
to
be
the
Author
or
sole
meanes
,
by
way
of
merit
,
of
our
Iustification
,
purchased
and
procured
for
us
by
his
death
and
sufferings
.
This
Exposition
is
strengthened
,
First
,
the
word
,
righteousnesse
,
SECT.
23
is
very
frequently
used
by
this
Apostle
for
Iustification
,
as
hath
bin
often
observ'd
.
See
particularly
the
third
Chap.
of
this
second
part
,
Sect.
2.
Secondly
,
that
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
which
beleevers
have
in
,
or
by
Christ
,
is
still
attributed
in
the
Scriptures
to
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
,
(
as
hath
bin
formerly
observed
[
](A85397-e94980-b)(a)
(a)
See
cap.
2.
of
this
latter
part
.
Sect.
7.
p.
9.10
.
)
and
never
to
his
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
.
3.
Neither
is
it
true
according
to
the
principles
of
the
men
themselves
,
who
professe
enmity
to
us
in
the
point
depending
,
that
Christ
by
his
active
obedience
only
should
be
made
righteousnesse
or
justification
unto
us
.
Therfore
they
forsake
their
own
guides
,
when
they
seek
for
the
imputation
of
this
righteousnesse
unto
us
out
of
this
place
.
4.
And
lastly
,
the
interpretation
given
hath
the
concurrent
judgement
of
many
sound
and
able
Expositors
for
it
,
who
by
Christs
being
made
righteousnes
unto
us
,
understand
nothing
else
but
our
justification
or
righteous-making
by
him
;
some
placeing
this
justification
in
the
forgivenesse
of
our
sinnes
,
some
ascribeing
it
to
the
satisfaction
,
that
is
,
the
sufferings
of
Christ
;
none
of
them
either
ascribeing
the
purchase
of
it
to
his
active
obedience
,
or
placing
it
in
the
imputation
of
this
unto
us
.
Let
Chrysostome
[
](A85397-e95190-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
Chrysost
Hom.
5.
in
1.
ad
Corin.
and
Theophylact
[
](A85397-e95220-b)b
b
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Et
mox
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theophyl
.
in
1
Cor.
1.30
.
be
consulted
with
upon
the
place
:
and
of
later
times
,
Pomeranus
[
](A85397-e95260-b)(c)
(c)
Quierg●
in
nobis
peccatores
sumus
,
in
ipso
et
per
ipsum
,
justi
sumus
,
non
imputate
propter
ipsum
nobis
peccate
.
Pomeran
.
and
Piscator
.
[
](A85397-e95290-b)(d)
(d)
Iusticia
:
id
est
,
cujus
satisfactions
nobu
donata
,
atque
imputata
,
justi
sumus
.
Piscator
in
1
Cor.
1.30
.
Mr.
Gataker
likewise
p.
47.
of
his
little
Tract
against
Gomarus
,
rejects
that
interpretation
,
as
wanting
aswell
colour
as
substance
of
truth
,
which
seeketh
to
establish
the
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
upon
this
Scripture
.
Bernard
(
as
he
is
cited
by
a
Great
Master
of
the
way
of
Imputation
,
though
against
[
](A85397-e95380-b)(e)
(e)
Bishop
Downham
.
Tract
,
of
Iustific
.
p.
223.
Sect.
4.
[
SECT
24.
]
himselfe
)
is
expresse
and
full
over
and
over
for
that
sence
of
the
place
which
we
maintain
.
Christ
(
saith
he
,
as
Bishop
Downham
translates
him
(
was
made
unto
us
wisdome
in
preaching
;
justice
(
or
righteousnesse
,
in
absolution
of
sins
,
&c.
Againe
:
enlighten
mine
eyes
,
that
I
may
be
wise
:
remember
not
the
sinnes
of
my
youth
and
my
ignorances
,
and
I
am
just
.
Yet
againe
:
He
was
made
unto
us
of
God
,
wisdome
,
teaching
prudence
;
justice
,
forgiving
sins
,
&c.
They
only
are
wise
,
who
are
instructed
by
his
Doctrine
;
they
onely
just
,
who
of
his
mercy
have
obtained
parden
of
sinne
.
In
all
this
variety
of
expression
,
it
is
observable
,
that
he
still
placeth
that
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
which
Christ
is
made
unto
us
,
in
the
remission
or
pardon
of
our
sins
.
Which
with
the
premisses
upon
this
Scripture
duly
considered
,
I
presume
no
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
will
be
any
more
urged
or
contended
for
from
hence
.
The
next
Scripture
that
is
much
sollicited
by
some
,
to
speake
a
good
word
in
the
cause
of
the
aforesaid
imputation
,
is
2
Cor.
5.21
.
For
he
hath
made
him
to
be
sinne
for
us
,
who
knew
no
sinne
,
that
we
might
be
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
.
From
hence
they
inferre
,
that
as
our
sins
are
imputed
unto
Christ
,
so
Christs
righteousnesse
,
meaning
his
active
obedience
(
or
else
they
doe
not
hold
to
the
point
)
is
imputed
unto
us
.
Of
all
the
Scriptures
which
men
take
up
for
the
plea
of
the
imputation
opposed
,
Mr.
Gataker
hath
well
observ'd
,
this
is
most
pregnant
and
cleere
against
themselves
.
[
](A85397-e95740-b)(a)
(a)
Quid
ser●
clarius
contiase
producere
poterat
,
quam
illud
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
Gataker
in
Elench
contra
Gomar
.
p.
48
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
cleared
.
But
for
Answere
.
1.
There
is
no
footing
in
this
Scripture
,
for
the
inference
drawn
from
it
:
here
is
nothing
said
touching
any
imputation
of
our
sinnes
to
Christ
:
and
consequently
,
here
can
be
nothing
to
build
a
reciprocall
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
unto
us
upon
.
As
for
that
expression
,
of
Christs
being
made
sinne
for
us
,
it
imports
no
such
imputation
,
as
men
suppose
,
as
will
appeare
presently
.
2.
Some
of
the
most
judicious
and
learned
assistants
of
the
way
of
this
Imputation
,
absolutely
reject
this
equality
or
reciprocation
of
Imputation
,
between
the
sinnes
of
beleevers
unto
Christ
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
them
.
There
is
not
the
same
force
or
power
(
saith
Bishop
Davenant
)
[
](A85397-e95890-b)(b)
(b)
Non
est
eadem
vi●
nostra
injustietae
,
ad
efficiendum
Christum
injustum
&
iniquum
,
qua
est
obedientiae
ejus
et
justiciae
,
ad
constituendos
fideles
,
justos
et
innocentes
.
Bishop
Dauenaut
.
De
Iust.
Habit.
&c.
p.
332.
Christus
ita
volute
peccata
in
se
suscipcre
,
ut
non
inde
peccater
,
sed
hostia
pro
peccato
constitueretur
.
ibidem
.
p.
333.
of
our
unrighteousnesse
,
to
make
Christ
unrighteous
,
which
is
of
his
righteousnes
,
to
make
those
that
beleeve
righteous
and
innocent
.
See
more
to
this
purpose
in
the
second
Chapter
of
this
Discourse
,
Sect.
19.
p.
26.
So
that
(
according
to
their
own
principles
)
if
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
be
no
otherwise
imputed
unto
us
,
then
our
sinnes
are
imputed
unto
him
,
we
are
not
made
formally
righteous
by
such
an
imputation
.
3.
Neither
is
there
so
much
as
the
face
or
appearance
in
this
place
of
any
comparison
made
,
between
Christs
being
made
sinne
for
us
(
whatsoever
be
meant
by
it
)
and
our
being
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
,
but
only
the
latter
is
affirmed
as
the
end
,
consequent
,
or
effect
of
the
former
.
4.
that
the
weight
and
importance
of
that
particle
,
in
him
,
should
be
,
by
the
imputation
of
his
active
obedience
unto
us
,
there
is
neither
instance
or
paralell
expression
in
Scripture
,
nor
rule
in
Grammar
,
nor
figure
in
Rhetorique
,
to
make
probable
in
the
lowest
or
lightest
degree
.
Therefore
5.
(
and
lastly
)
the
direct
and
cleere
meaning
of
the
place
,
is
this
:
that
God
for
that
end
made
Christ
sinne
,
that
is
,
an
offering
or
sacrifice
for
sinne
,
for
us
,
that
we
might
be
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
,
that
is
,
that
we
might
be
justified
,
or
made
a
society
or
remnant
of
righteous
ones
,
after
that
peculiar
manner
of
Iustification
or
righteous-making
which
GOD
hath
contrived
and
established
through
that
sacrifice
or
offering
of
his
Sonne
.
This
interpretation
is
justifiable
upon
these
and
the
like
considerations
.
1.
SECT.
25
It
is
a
frequent
Scripture
expression
,
to
call
the
sin-offering
,
or
the
sacrifice
for
sinne
,
by
the
name
of
sinne
simply
.
See
for
this
Exod.
29.14
.
Exod.
30.10
.
Levit.
5
,
6
,
16
,
18
,
19.
Levit.
7.1
,
2
,
7.
Levit.
9.7
.
Ezek.
44.27
.
Ezek.
45.19.23
.
Hos.
4.8
.
besides
other
places
,
This
is
generally
acknowledged
by
Interpreters
,
yea
by
the
choycest
Adversaries
themselves
which
we
have
in
the
present
controversie
.
[
](A85397-e96280-b)(a)
(a)
See
Bish.
Downham
Trea.
of
Iustifi
.
p.
226.
&c.
and
Bish.
Davenant
.
de
Iustic
.
Hab.
p.
333.
2.
To
expresse
a
number
or
companie
of
justified
or
righteous
persons
by
the
abstract
terme
of
righteousnesse
,
is
very
agreeable
likewise
with
the
Scripture
dialect
in
many
other
places
.
It
is
an
expression
of
like
stamp
and
figure
with
those
,
poverty
,
for
poore
men
,
captivity
for
captives
,
&c.
Of
which
kinde
you
please
to
see
many
instances
in
the
third
Chap.
of
this
latter
part
,
Sect.
3.
in
the
latter
end
,
p.
45.
3.
That
addition
,
of
God
,
(
the
righteousnesse
of
God
)
imports
,
that
that
righteousnesse
or
justification
which
beleevers
obtaine
by
the
sacrifice
or
death
of
Christ
,
is
not
only
a
righteousnesse
of
Gods
free
donation
and
guift
,
but
of
his
speciall
wonderfull
and
profound
contrivement
for
them
.
4.
By
the
Grammaticall
construction
and
dependance
of
the
latter
Clause
,
our
being
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
Christ
,
upon
the
former
,
viz.
his
being
made
sinne
for
us
,
it
is
evident
,
that
in
the
latter
,
such
an
effect
must
of
necessity
be
signified
and
meant
,
which
may
answere
and
suite
with
that
cause
,
which
is
mentioned
in
the
former
,
viz.
the
death
of
Christ
for
us
.
Now
the
proper
and
direct
effect
of
the
sacrifice
or
death
of
Christ
,
is
deliverance
from
the
guilt
and
punishment
of
sinne
,
not
the
imputation
of
his
active
obedience
unto
men
.
Christ
did
not
die
for
men
,
that
they
might
be
justified
or
made
righteous
by
the
righteousnesse
of
his
life
.
[
](A85397-e96500-b)(a)
(a)
Quis
enim
sic
argumentaretur
,
mentis
●ompos
:
Christus
factus
est
pro
nobu
peccatum
,
i.
sacrificium
peccati
expiatoriū
,
quo
nos
justi
constitueremur
:
●●r
go
obedientia
Christi
in
vita
praestita
,
non
autem
morte
sive
sacrificio
Christi
,
justi
constituimur
?
Gatak
.
Elench.
Gom
p.
48.
5.
The
Scriptures
,
when
they
speake
of
the
death
or
sufferings
of
Christ
under
the
consideration
of
that
efficiencie
or
causality
which
is
in
them
in
respect
of
Iustification
,
never
ascribe
any
other
effect
unto
them
,
but
only
,
either
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
deliverance
from
wrath
,
redemption
,
or
the
like
.
Christ
hath
redeemed
us
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
being
made
a
curse
for
us
.
Gal.
3.13
.
6.
(
and
lastly
)
the
Interpretation
given
,
as
touching
the
substance
and
maine
importance
of
it
,
is
the
exposition
of
Interpreters
(
almost
)
without
number
,
as
of
Chrysostom
,
Theophylact
,
Occumenius
,
Calvin
,
Musculus
,
Piscator
,
&c.
I
forbeare
the
citation
of
passages
from
them
,
partly
because
the
exposition
hath
bin
(
I
conceive
)
abundantly
cleared
and
confirmed
already
,
partly
because
it
is
(
upon
the
matter
)
acknowledged
by
the
chiefe
opponents
we
have
in
the
businesse
in
hand
;
partly
because
the
Authors
themselves
(
if
any
man
doubt
or
be
unsatisfied
)
may
readily
be
consulted
withall
,
and
partly
likewise
to
save
the
Reader
an
unnecessary
labour
,
as
I
conceive
.
I
shall
only
insist
upon
one
Scripture
more
,
SECT.
26
and
that
with
somewhat
the
more
brevity
,
because
the
argument
or
proofe
that
is
drawne
from
it
,
is
more
ridiculous
and
importune
,
then
any
of
the
former
.
One
copie
of
this
Scripture
is
found
,
Gal.
3.10
.
For
it
is
written
,
Cursed
is
every
one
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
which
are
written
in
the
Booke
of
the
Law
to
doe
them
.
Out
of
this
Scripture
hath
of
late
bin
hewen
(
as
I
heare
)
this
worthy
pillar
to
support
the
tottering
and
ruinous
building
of
the
premised
Imputation
.
If
every
one
be
cursed
,
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
then
can
no
man
be
iustified
,
but
remaines
accursed
,
who
hath
not
the
perfect
observation
of
the
Law
imputed
from
Christ
unto
him
:
The
reason
is
,
because
no
man
is
able
to
obtaine
any
such
personall
observation
thereof
.
The
argument
is
not
of
any
eminent
desert
,
to
have
an
answere
bestowed
upon
it
:
yet
let
us
not
envie
it
this
honour
.
If
the
man
of
this
argument
,
whoever
he
be
,
be
in
good
earnest
with
it
,
doubtlesse
,
he
is
confederate
with
Stapleton
the
Papist
(
at
least
in
part
)
who
maintaines
against
Calvin
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
are
not
two
,
but
one
and
the
same
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
First
,
Gal.
3.10
.
Answered
.
if
there
be
no
other
meanes
to
dissolve
the
Curse
denounced
against
all
non-continuers
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
but
a
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
Law
by
Christ
imputed
unto
them
,
woe
and
woe
a
thousand
times
to
the
world
,
yea
to
the
whole
world
of
men
and
women
without
exception
.
For
certaine
it
is
,
1.
that
there
is
no
such
perfect
fulfilling
of
Law
imputed
from
Christ
unto
any
man
,
(
as
hath
been
prov'd
at
large
throughout
the
first
part
of
this
discourse
)
and
2.
that
were
there
any
such
imputation
,
yet
this
would
not
reach
the
dissolution
of
that
curse
:
this
cleaves
faster
to
the
whole
generation
of
Adams
posterity
,
then
to
be
dissolved
or
loosed
from
any
of
them
by
any
other
meanes
,
then
by
the
blood
of
Jesus
Christ
.
It
is
not
said
,
that
without
keeping
the
Law
,
but
,
that
without
shedding
of
blood
,
there
is
no
remission
.
Heb.
9.22
.
Christ
might
have
kept
the
Law
a
1000
yeeres
for
us
;
and
yet
never
have
found
Justification
or
redemption
from
the
Curse
of
the
Law
for
us
,
had
he
not
bin
made
a
curse
for
us
,
by
his
death
and
sufferings
.
Gal.
3.13
.
Secondly
,
SECT.
27
he
that
is
fully
discharg'd
and
acquitted
from
all
his
non-continuances
in
the
things
of
the
Law
,
I
meane
from
the
guilt
of
all
his
sins
committed
against
the
Law
,
is
doubtlesse
out
of
the
danger
and
reach
of
the
curse
of
the
Law
.
Now
it
is
fully
consistent
with
the
principles
of
that
opinion
it selfe
which
we
oppose
,
to
ascribe
a
perfect
forgivenesse
of
all
sinnes
to
the
passive
obedience
or
death
of
Christ
imputed
,
without
the
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
with
it
for
that
end
.
Yea
I
never
yet
heard
of
any
of
that
way
and
judgement
,
who
pleaded
the
necessity
of
Christs
active
obedience
imputed
,
for
the
bringing
men
off
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
but
only
to
bring
them
under
the
blessing
or
promise
of
the
Law
,
Doe
this
and
live
.
Therefore
the
argument
in
hand
,
is
no
more
a
friend
to
that
opinion
it selfe
which
it
seekes
to
establish
,
then
it
is
to
the
truth
it selfe
.
Falsum
,
nunc
vero
,
nunc
falso
est
con●●arium
.
Thirdly
,
the
imputation
of
a
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
Law
from
another
,
were
it
granted
,
cannot
make
him
a
continuer
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
who
offends
daily
in
many
things
:
and
consequently
,
will
leave
him
in
as
bad
a
case
,
in
respect
of
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
as
it
finds
him
.
All
the
imputations
under
Heaven
,
of
whatsoever
,
from
whomsoever
,
cannot
make
him
,
who
hath
not
continued
in
all
things
of
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
to
have
continued
in
them
.
It
is
well
that
this
argument
is
weake
:
for
otherwise
it
is
of
a
most
bloody
and
unmercifull
Spirit
,
and
would
beare
downe
all
the
world
before
it
into
Hell
.
If
there
be
no
other
way
or
meanes
for
poore
sinfull
men
to
come
off
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
but
by
continuing
in
all
things
that
are
written
therein
to
doe
them
.
Doubtlesse
they
must
all
fall
under
this
curse
,
and
never
rise
againe
:
Therefore
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
the
direct
intent
and
meaning
of
this
passage
of
Scripture
,
is
this
,
Cursed
be
every
one
that
continueth
not
,
&c.
that
is
,
every
one
that
expecteth
Justification
and
salvation
by
the
Law
;
woe
be
to
every
such
person
,
man
or
woman
,
if
they
continue
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
:
the
curse
of
the
Law
will
fall
heavy
and
terrible
upon
them
.
That
this
is
the
plaine
and
expresse
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
this
place
,
and
that
,
that
clause
of
universalitie
,
Cursed
be
every
one
,
&c.
is
to
be
limited
to
the
universality
of
those
only
,
who
depend
upon
the
Law
for
Iustification
,
is
evident
.
First
,
SECT.
28
As
it
is
true
,
that
whatsoever
the
Law
speaketh
,
it
speaketh
to
those
(
that
is
,
to
all
those
)
that
are
under
the
Law
,
Rom.
3.19
.
so
is
it
as
true
also
,
that
whatsoever
the
Law
speaketh
,
it
speaketh
only
unto
those
that
are
under
it
,
and
to
none
other
.
Now
those
that
expect
and
looke
for
Iustification
by
Faith
in
Iesus
Christ
,
and
not
by
the
Law
,
are
not
under
the
Law
,
but
under
grace
,
Rom.
6.14
.
See
also
Rom.
7.1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
Therefore
the
Cursings
and
threatning●
of
the
Law
doe
no
waies
concerne
or
touch
any
of
these
.
So
Gal.
5.23
.
speaking
of
those
that
were
Christs
,
that
is
,
that
were
dead
to
the
Law
,
as
touching
all
hope
and
dependance
upon
it
for
Iustification
,
and
had
cast
themselves
upon
him
for
that
blessing
,
affirmeth
,
that
against
such
there
was
no
Law
,
meaning
no
Law
to
judge
or
condemne
them
.
And
1
Tim.
1.9
.
He
denieth
that
the
Law
is
given
to
a
righteous
man
,
but
unto
the
lawlesse
and
disobedient
,
&c.
meaning
,
that
the
Law
,
as
touching
the
curse
and
penalty
of
it
,
was
never
intended
by
God
for
men
that
are
holy
and
righteous
,
that
is
,
that
are
true
beleevers
in
Iesus
Christ
,
from
whom
all
holinesse
and
righteousnesse
proceed
.
But
Secondly
,
the
context
it selfe
apparantly
leades
us
to
this
limitation
and
interpretation
.
For
1º
,
the
words
immediatly
preceding
in
the
beginning
of
the
verse
are
these
.
For
as
many
as
are
of
the
works
of
the
Law
(
that
is
,
that
seeke
to
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
as
Calvin
,
Musculus
,
and
all
Protestant
writers
generally
interpret
)
are
under
the
Curse
.
To
proove
this
,
he
alledgeth
that
testimony
of
the
Law
mentioned
:
For
it
is
written
,
Cursed
is
every
one
that
continueth
not
,
&c.
So
that
this
clause
,
and
the
curse
contained
in
it
,
have
only
reference
to
those
that
are
of
the
works
of
the
Law
,
that
is
,
that
seeke
to
be
justified
by
the
Law
,
and
not
by
Christ
.
Againe
,
2º
,
the
interpretation
given
is
confirmed
from
the
words
of
ver.
9.
immediatly
foregoing
:
Here
he
had
pronounced
those
that
were
of
Faith
,
that
is
,
that
sought
Justification
by
Faith
in
Christ
,
Blessed
with
faithfull
Abraham
.
Now
to
prove
that
these
were
the
blessed
ones
of
God
,
and
not
those
that
would
be
justified
by
the
Law
(
which
was
the
Spirit
that
now
began
to
work
among
these
Galathians
)
he
affirm's
that
all
these
are
under
the
curse
,
and
consequently
farre
from
being
blessed
.
And
to
prove
this
,
he
cites
the
passage
in
hand
from
the
Law
it selfe
:
Cursed
be
every
one
that
continueth
not
,
&c.
So
that
it
is
evident
from
hence
also
,
that
that
continuance
in
all
things
which
are
written
in
the
Law
to
do
them
,
is
only
required
of
those
,
either
for
the
removall
of
the
Curse
threatned
,
or
for
the
obteyning
of
the
blessing
promised
,
who
seeke
to
be
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
and
not
of
those
that
beleeve
with
Abraham
,
and
depend
upon
Christ
for
justification
.
3º
,
(
and
lastly
)
the
tenor
of
the
verse
immediatly
following
,
is
as
the
light
of
the
Sunne
,
to
cleere
and
vindicate
this
interpretation
.
For
here
the
Apostle
goeth
on
with
the
further
proofe
of
his
last
conclusion
,
viz.
that
those
that
are
of
the
works
of
the
Law
,
are
under
the
Curse
,
thus
.
And
that
no
man
is
justified
(
and
then
,
not
blessed
,
and
consequently
accursed
)
by
the
Law
is
evident
:
for
the
just
shall
live
(
that
is
,
be
justified
,
and
so
live
,
and
be
blessed
)
by
Faith
,
when
he
saith
,
that
no
man
is
justified
by
the
Law
;
he
supposeth
that
no
man
can
be
said
to
continue
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
:
for
he
of
whom
this
may
be
truly
affirmed
,
may
very
properly
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
Law
.
The
truth
is
,
there
is
no
other
way
or
meanes
of
Iustification
by
the
Law
imaginable
but
only
this
.
Therefore
that
Iustification
which
we
have
by
Faith
in
Christ
,
cannot
be
said
to
be
by
a
continuance
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
doe
them
,
because
this
is
nothing
else
but
Iustification
it selfe
by
the
Law
.
And
whereas
it
might
be
objected
:
SECT.
29
but
may
not
a
man
be
justified
by
Faith
and
by
the
Law
,
or
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
together
;
may
not
a
man
be
entit'led
to
,
or
invested
with
a
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
,
in
and
by
his
Faith
?
To
this
the
Apostle
answers
(
by
a
preoccupation
)
in
the
words
immediatly
following
.
ver.
12.
And
the
Law
is
not
of
Faith
:
that
is
,
a
man
doth
not
observe
the
Law
in
one
kind
or
other
by
beleeving
,
he
cannot
be
said
to
have
a
legall
righteousnesse
put
upon
him
by
his
Faith
.
This
he
proveth
from
the
expresse
tenor
and
condition
of
the
Law
it selfe
,
which
requires
a
personall
observation
of
the
things
contained
therein
by
every
man
that
shall
live
,
that
is
,
that
shall
be
justified
thereby
:
But
the
man
that
doth
them
,
shall
live
in
them
:
the
full
importance
of
which
clause
▪
you
shall
finde
opened
in
the
8.
Chapter
of
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
.
By
all
that
we
have
reasoned
upon
the
passage
of
Scripture
in
hand
,
it
is
more
then
double
evident
,
that
here
is
no
refuge
or
sanctuary
for
the
pretended
imputation
,
but
rather
an
high
hand
of
Heaven
against
it
to
overthrow
it
.
Some
further
plead
that
of
the
same
Apostle
,
Phil.
3
9.
That
I
may
be
found
in
him
,
not
having
mine
owne
righteousnesse
,
&c.
but
we
have
elswhere
[
](A85397-e97640-b)(a)
(a)
In
the
first
part
of
the
Dis.
course
.
cap.
6.
upon
a
diligent
search
and
inquirie
,
found
this
Scripture
looking
a
quite
contrary
way
.
Other
Scriptures
then
these
alledged
with
any
face
or
colour
of
reason
in
the
cause
of
that
Imputation
which
I
disclaime
,
I
verily
know
none
:
If
I
did
I
would
not
favor
my selfe
,
or
the
cause
I
maintain
in
the
least
,
by
dissembling
or
suppressing
any
of
them
.
As
for
those
that
are
considēt
,
that
they
see
that
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnes
which
we
oppose
,
in
that
and
the
like
Scriptures
,
Deliver
me
from
blood
guiltinesse
ô
God
,
Lob.
41
,
27.
and
my
tongue
shall
sing
of
thy
righteousnesse
Psal.
51.14
.
and
againe
in
that
,
Do
this
and
live
,
Luk.
10.28
.
I
leave
them
and
their
confidence
to
the
convictions
of
miracles
and
signes
from
heaven
.
For
(
doubtlesse
)
as
for
texts
and
interpretations
,
they
are
turned
into
Stubble
with
them
,
and
reasons
&
demonstrations
are
esteemed
by
them
but
as
Leviathan
esteemeth
yron
and
brasse
,
that
is
,
as
straw
and
rotten
wood
.
Iob.
41.27
.
CAP.
VI.
Wherin
the
Arguments
against
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
:
(
in
the
sense
stated
in
the
beginning
of
the
Discourse
)
are
propounded
and
answered
.
THere
have
bin
two
opinions
,
the
one
affirmative
,
the
other
negative
,
hitherto
promiscuously
argued
,
and
maintained
in
this
Discourse
.
The
former
pleads
the
Imputation
of
Faith
(
in
a
proper
sense
)
for
righteousnesse
,
in
an
unproper
;
as
was
declared
in
the
beginning
.
The
latter
denyeth
the
imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
,
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
it
,
in
Iustification
:
which
expressions
likewise
have
long
since
bin
interpreted
,
and
cleered
from
all
ambiguitie
.
We
shall
now
towards
the
close
of
our
worke
,
distinguish
them
,
and
answere
the
arguments
or
objections
against
the
one
and
the
other
apart
by
themselves
.
I
begin
with
the
reasons
or
arguments
urged
against
the
affirmative
.
SECT.
1
The
first
and
great
argument
or
objection
against
the
Imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
taken
)
usually
presents
it selfe
in
this
or
the
like
shape
.
That
which
impeacheth
the
truth
or
justice
of
God
,
Object
.
1
can
have
no
consistence
or
agreement
with
the
truth
.
But
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
declared
)
impeacheth
,
or
trencheth
upon
the
truth
and
justice
of
God
.
Ergo
The
reason
of
the
assumption
(
which
is
only
questionable
)
is
rendred
thus
;
because
if
God
should
impute
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
he
should
account
that
to
be
a
righteousnesse
which
is
none
;
and
therein
should
be
untrue
or
unjust
.
The
major
proposition
in
this
syllogisme
,
is
an
anoynted
truth
,
and
not
to
be
touch'd
:
but
it
is
unequally
yok'd
,
the
minor
being
of
a
contrary
Spirit
,
and
therefore
to
be
denied
.
And
to
the
proofe
or
confirmation
of
it
I
answere
.
First
,
that
this
was
(
in
effect
)
the
plea
and
argument
of
that
fanatique
Spirit
of
Suencfeldius
,
(
as
it
stands
upon
record
in
Zanshie
[
](A85397-e98060-b)(a)
(a)
Dei
tribunal
est
multo
justius
,
quam
Iureconsultorum
,
ubi
impii
non
absolvuntur
.
Ergo
in
Theologia
verbum
justificandi
non
juridic●
pro
absolutione
est
accipiendum
,
sed
pro
justum
,
integrum
,
gratum
Deo
reddere
.
Zanch.
in
Epist.
l.
1.
p.
215.
)
and
likewise
of
the
Counsell
of
Trent
(
as
Calvin
hath
observ'd
[
](A85397-e98100-b)(b)
(b)
Iterum
enim
affirmant
,
nos
verè
justos
esse
,
non
tantum
reputari
.
Ego
contrà
&c
,
Calvi
.
Antidos
.
ad
sess.
6.
p.
324.
)
to
prove
,
that
the
word
Iustification
in
the
Scripture
,
was
not
to
be
taken
in
a
juridicall
sense
,
viz.
for
absolution
,
but
in
a
physicall
or
morall
sense
,
for
the
making
or
constituting
of
a
man
properly
and
compleatly
just
or
righteous
,
and
is
the
common
argument
of
the
Papists
,
for
their
Justification
by
inherent
grace
and
works
[
](A85397-e98180-b)(c)
(c)
Bellarminus
dicit
,
verbo
imputandi
,
non
significari
nudam
existimationem
,
sed
existimationem
cui
veritas
in
reipsa
respondear
.
Chamier
.
t.
3.
l.
21.
c.
13.
p.
886.
.
This
notwithstanding
,
I
conceive
it
very
unjust
,
to
charge
those
that
use
it
,
either
with
Swenchfeldianisme
or
Popery
.
But
Secondly
,
neither
doth
it
follow
,
that
God
should
account
that
for
righteousnesse
,
which
is
no
righteousnesse
,
though
he
should
count
Faith
for
righteousnesse
For
any
obedience
,
or
action
conformable
to
a
righteous
Law
,
or
rule
,
may
truly
(
and
oft
in
Scripture
,
is
)
be
called
,
righteousnesse
.
Then
stood
up
Phineas
,
and
executed
judgement
,
&c.
and
it
was
counted
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
&c.
Psal.
106
,
30.
By
righteousnesse
in
this
place
,
cannot
be
meant
a
conformity
or
obedience
to
the
whole
Law
:
one
particular
act
,
(
as
this
was
)
whatsoever
it
were
,
cannot
beare
the
appellation
of
righteousnesse
in
such
a
sense
.
Therefore
it
signifies
only
a
conformity
with
some
particular
and
speciall
precept
or
rule
.
See
the
word
used
much
in
a
like
sense
,
Gen.
30.33
.
2
Cor.
9.9.10
.
Hebr.
11.33
.
&c.
)
Now
then
Faith
,
or
beleeving
,
being
a
subjection
or
obedience
to
a
speciall
commandement
of
God
,
(
1
Iohn
3.23
.
2
Pet.
2.21
.
Rom.
1.5
,
&c.
)
it
may
both
with
truth
,
and
in
sufficient
proprietie
of
speech
,
be
called
,
righteousnesse
:
yea
the
weakest
or
most
imperfect
believing
,
looke
what
degree
of
sincerity
and
truth
there
is
in
it
,
so
farre
it
may
truly
be
called
and
counted
righteousnesse
:
yet
by
righteousnesse
in
that
clause
,
where
God
is
said
to
impute
the
Faith
of
him
that
beleeveth
for
righteousnesse
,
SECT.
2
Non
hoc
dicitur●
Deum
apud
se
judicare
illos
,
pro
qu●um
peocatis
universis
Christus
satisfocit
,
nihil
mali
unquam
commisisse
,
aut
boni
debiti
omisisse
,
sed
eodem
haber●
loco
,
quoad
mortu
reatum
,
et
jus
ad
vitam
aeternum
,
acsi
nihil
vel
m●li
ad
misissent
,
vel
boni
deb●ti
admisissent
,
Gat.
Elench.
p.
35.36
.
S●e
also
my
answere
to
Mr.
Walker
,
p.
24.
25.
&c.
I
do
not
conceive
is
meant
an
act
of
obedience
or
conformity
to
any
speciall
or
particular
precept
of
God
.
Therefore
Thirdly
,
when
with
the
Scriptures
we
affirme
,
that
God
imputeth
or
accounteth
any
mans
Faith
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
,
we
do
not
meane
that
God
only
accounteth
such
a
beleeving
for
a
righteous
act
unto
him
:
much
lesse
do
we
meane
,
that
he
esteemeth
it
a
perfect
,
literall
,
and
compleate
observation
or
fulfilling
of
the
whole
Morall
Law
:
but
that
which
we
meane
,
is
this
,
that
God
lookes
upon
a
man
who
truly
beleeveth
,
with
as
much
grace
and
favor
,
and
intends
to
doe
as
graciously
and
bountifully
by
him
,
as
if
he
were
a
man
of
perfect
righteousnesse
,
and
had
entirely
kept
and
fulfilled
the
whole
Law
.
In
this
sense
to
account
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
hath
not
the
least
colour
or
appearance
either
of
injustice
or
repugnancie
with
the
truth
.
The
Reader
may
please
to
see
the
substance
of
this
answer
further
opened
and
confirmed
in
the
former
part
of
this
Discourse
,
Cap.
19.
Sect.
6
and
7.
Fourthly
(
and
lastly
)
there
is
scarce
any
thing
affirmed
more
frequently
,
or
familiarly
by
the
best
reformed
writers
,
then
that
God
esteemes
or
accounts
those
just
,
or
perfectly
just
,
who
properly
and
in
exactnesse
and
strictnesse
of
speech
are
not
such
,
but
only
have
their
sinnes
forgiven
.
Therefore
they
apprehended
no
matter
of
unjustice
or
contrarietie
unto
truth
in
that
,
which
the
objection
impeacheth
of
both
.
From
hence
we
gather
(
saith
Calvin
[
](A85397-e98630-b)(a)
(a)
In
Rom.
4.3
.
)
that
Pauls
dispute
is
,
not
what
men
are
in
themselves
,
sed
quo
loco
Deus
ipsos
censeat
,
that
is
,
but
in
what
place
or
condition
God
is
pleased
to
account
them
.
And
elsewhere
[
](A85397-e98670-b)(b)
(b)
De
vera
Lo●es
.
Refor
,
ratione
.
p.
368.
:
It
followes
then
that
we
are
just
or
righteous
,
(
and
consequently
may
justly
and
righteously
be
so
accounted
by
God
)
quia
nobis
peccata
non
imputantur
,
because
our
sinnes
are
not
imputed
to
us
.
Therefore
we
stand
just
or
righteous
before
God
(
saith
Mr.
Fox
[
](A85397-e98720-b)(c)
(c)
De
Christo
gratu
Iustine
.
l
3.
p.
280.
)
because
our
sinnes
are
forgiven
us
.
(
We
have
Remission
of
sinnes
(
saith
Melancthon
[
](A85397-e98750-b)(d)
(d)
In
Exam.
Theol.
de
Iustific
.
p.
529.
)
for
and
through
Christ
:
which
having
obteyned
,
justi
sumus
coram
Deo
,
we
are
righteous
before
God
.
Paul
(
saith
Calvin
)
estimates
the
blessednesse
of
a
man
from
hence
,
quia
hoc
modo
justus
est
non
reipsà
,
sed
imputatione
,
that
is
because
he
is
after
this
manner
righteous
,
not
in
very
deed
,
but
by
imputation
And
a
little
after
going
on
,
with
his
confutation
of
Osiander
,
he
must
grant
(
saith
he
)
at
least
,
that
as
farre
as
that
imputation
of
his
extendeth
,
justos
conseri
qui
reipsa
non
sunt
,
that
is
,
that
they
are
accounted
(
meaning
by
God
)
righteous
,
who
yet
are
not
righteous
indeed
.
It
were
easy
to
wea●●e
the
Reader
over
[
](A85397-e98850-b)(e)
(e)
Instit.
l.
3.
c.
11.
Sect.
11.
Gratu●ta
Dei
acceptatio
subrogatur
in
locum
justiciae
.
idem
.
Non
magu
ve
,
ritati
,
screutiae
,
justeque
Dei
judicio
repugnat
,
eos
,
pro
quorum
peccat●●
tam
commissionus
quam
omnissionis
satisfastio
per
Christi
mortem
plenissime
est
prastita
,
tales
judicare
,
qui
nihil
mali
commiserint
,
nihilque
boni
omiserent
,
quam
eos
perfecte
justos
judicare
,
ut
pote
qui
perfectam
legi
obedientiam
prassi
teriut
,
cum
id
ipsi
tamè
noutiquam
fecerint
,
pro
quibus
Christus
tandem
pr●stitisse
perhibetur
:
Gatak
.
Elench.
Gomar
.
p.
35.
vi
:
seqq
.
and
over
with
heaping
up
such
expressions
as
these
out
of
these
and
other
Authors
of
like
Authentique
Name
with
them
.
But
the
objection
was
(
at
least
)
as
much
as
answered
before
:
therefore
proceed
we
to
doe
as
much
for
another
.
A
second
objection
rais'd
by
some
against
the
Imputation
of
Faith
(
in
a
proper
sense
)
for
righteousnesse
,
SECT.
3
Object
.
2
is
this
.
If
Faith
(
in
such
a
sense
)
should
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
then
should
justification
be
by
works
,
or
by
somewhat
in
our selves
.
But
the
Scripture
every
where
rejecteth
works
,
and
all
things
in
our selves
from
having
any
thing
to
doe
in
Iustification
.
Ergo.
I
answere
to
both
propositions
,
and
first
to
the
major
,
by
distinguishing
the
consequent
therein
.
That
justification
should
be
by
works
,
or
by
somewhat
in
our selves
,
may
be
understood
two
waies
.
Either
1ᵒ.
by
way
of
merit
,
so
that
by
works
,
should
signifie
,
by
the
merit
of
works
,
which
is
still
the
Scripture
sense
;
or
else
2ᵒ.
by
way
of
simple
performance
.
If
the
Proposition
be
taken
in
the
former
sense
,
it
is
altogether
false
,
and
the
consequence
thereof
denied
.
Faith
may
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
oft
declared
)
and
yet
no
man
justified
by
the
merit
of
any
work
or
works
in
himselfe
.
If
it
be
taken
in
the
latter
sense
,
so
the
minor
Proposition
is
false
(
to
touch
upon
this
in
the
second
place
)
For
the
Scripture
no
where
rejecteth
every
thing
that
may
goe
under
the
name
of
a
worke
,
or
that
may
be
said
to
be
done
by
us
,
in
respect
of
a
simple
performance
from
having
to
doe
in
the
matter
of
justification
.
Nay
it
expressely
requireth
of
us
,
and
enjoyneth
that
as
of
absolute
necessitie
to
justification
,
yea
and
attributeth
Justification
to
it
from
place
to
place
,
which
it selfe
calleth
a
work
.
This
is
the
worke
of
God
(
saith
our
Saviour
to
the
Jewes
)
that
yee
beleeve
in
him
whom
he
hath
sent
.
And
when
Paul
exhorts
the
Philippians
to
worke
out
their
salvation
with
feare
and
trembling
,
doubtlesse
he
doth
not
exclude
their
Faith
or
beleeving
in
Christ
.
Now
that
beleeving
in
Christ
is
required
as
of
absolute
necessitie
aswell
to
Iustification
as
salvation
(
at
least
of
those
that
are
adulti
,
and
of
yeares
of
discretion
)
is
a
thing
(
I
conceive
)
so
well
knowne
and
of
that
universall
confession
,
that
I
may
forbeare
the
citation
of
Scripturs
without
prejudice
to
the
truth
of
it
.
Thus
our
best
and
soundest
writers
,
without
scruple
,
call
that
beleeving
by
which
we
are
justified
,
a
work
,
or
the
doing
of
something
.
Faith
(
saith
Calvin
[
](A85397-e99260-b)(a)
(a)
Fides
praec●puum
opus
est
,
quod
a
nobis
Deus
exigit
.
Calvin
.
in
Iac.
1.22
.
)
is
the
chiefe
work
that
God
requireth
of
us
.
And
what
did
Abraham
(
saith
Musculus
[
](A85397-e99320-b)(b)
(b)
Quid
enim
feeit
Abraham
,
quod
imputaretur
,
&c.
Musc.
in
Gal.
3.6
.
)
that
should
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
but
only
beleeve
God
?
The
Reader
may
please
to
see
more
to
this
purpose
in
my
Answere
to
Mr.
Walker
,
p.
67
,
&c.
So
that
the
treasure
of
this
objection
is
but
coales
also
.
A
third
Objection
is
this
.
Object
.
3
That
which
maketh
Justification
not
to
be
of
grace
,
or
of
free
grace
,
SECT.
4
cannot
stand
with
the
truth
of
the
Gospell
.
But
the
Imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
in
the
sense
now
contended
for
,
makes
Iustification
not
to
be
of
Grace
.
Ergo.
Reverencing
the
innocencie
of
the
major
Proposition
,
I
come
with
a
rod
unto
the
minor
,
Answere
.
charging
this
with
untruth
,
and
that
upon
this
ground
and
evidence
;
because
the
Scripture
still
makes
or
acknowledgeth
a
perfect
and
entire
consistence
of
grace
,
or
free
grace
,
with
the
condition
of
Faith
,
in
Iustification
.
For
by
Grace
yee
are
saved
through
Faith
.
Ephes.
2.8
.
And
are
freely
justified
by
his
Grace
,
&c.
Rom.
3.24
.
through
Faith
in
his
blood
,
&c.
ver.
25.
Nay
the
truth
is
,
that
the
worke
of
beleeving
(
as
our
Saviour
called
it
)
is
so
farre
from
carrying
any
opposition
in
it
to
the
freenesse
of
Gods
grace
in
Justification
,
that
it
is
purposely
required
of
men
(
and
it
only
)
by
him
,
that
the
freenesse
of
his
grace
in
their
Iustification
might
take
place
and
be
established
thereby
.
Rom.
4.16
.
Therefore
it
is
by
Faith
,
that
it
might
be
by
Grace
.
And
in
reason
,
how
can
a
guift
be
conceived
to
be
more
freely
given
,
then
when
nothing
more
is
required
of
him
to
whom
it
is
given
then
that
he
receives
it
?
Now
beleeving
,
is
nothing
else
(
being
interpreted
)
but
a
receiving
,
of
that
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
which
God
giveth
in
and
with
his
Sonne
Iesus
Christ
.
As
many
as
received
him
,
&c.
Joh.
1.12
.
that
is
(
as
it
is
explained
in
the
end
of
the
verse
)
as
many
as
beleeved
in
his
Name
.
So
that
in
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
so
oft
explained
)
there
is
not
the
least
appearance
of
any
prejudice
at
all
to
the
freenesse
of
grace
in
Iustification
.
And
thus
we
are
fairly
delivered
out
of
the
hand
of
this
objection
also
.
A
fourth
is
this
.
Object
.
4
That
which
ministreth
occasion
to
the
flesh
of
boasting
in
it selfe
,
SECT.
5
is
no
waies
consonant
to
the
tenor
and
truth
of
the
Gospell
.
But
the
Imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
claimed
,
ministreth
this
occasion
of
boasting
unto
the
flesh
.
Ergo.
This
syllogisme
also
,
as
touching
the
matter
of
it
,
halts
right
downe
on
the
minor
proposition
.
For
certaine
it
is
,
that
there
is
no
occasion
,
nor
(
indeed
)
colour
of
occasion
of
boasting
ministred
to
the
flesh
,
by
that
opinion
,
which
maintaines
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
avouched
.
For
First
,
suppose
the
worke
or
act
of
beleeving
,
which
is
so
imputed
for
righteousnesse
,
be
a
mans
own
work
or
act
(
which
is
all
the
colour
that
can
be
pretended
why
the
imputation
of
it
for
righteousnesse
,
should
be
an
occasion
of
boasting
to
the
flesh
)
yet
it
is
so
by
guift
,
and
by
the
meere
grace
and
donation
of
another
,
viz.
God
.
This
the
Apostle
determines
in
expresse
words
.
Ephes.
2.8
.
By
grace
ye
are
saved
through
Faith
:
and
that
not
of
your selves
:
it
is
the
guift
of
God
,
that
is
,
that
Faith
by
which
ye
are
saved
is
the
guift
of
God
.
See
likewise
Philip.
1.29
.
1
Cor.
2.12
.
1
Cor.
3.6
.
with
many
other
places
of
like
importance
.
Now
then
,
since
a
man
hath
nothing
,
doth
nothing
in
beleeving
,
but
what
he
receiveth
from
another
,
all
occasion
or
pretence
of
boasting
,
is
cut
off
by
this
,
even
according
to
the
Apostles
own
rule
and
reasoning
.
1
Cor.
4.7
.
What
hast
thou
,
that
thou
hast
not
received
?
and
if
thou
hast
received
it
,
why
gloriest
or
boastest
thou
as
though
thou
hadst
not
received
:
evidently
implying
,
that
no
man
hath
any
just
cause
or
pretence
of
boasting
(
I
meane
in
,
or
of
himselfe
)
for
any
thing
,
but
only
of
that
which
he
hath
of
his
own
,
and
from
himselfe
.
Let
the
thing
be
never
so
glorious
and
excellent
,
if
he
hath
received
it
,
from
another
,
hee
hath
cause
onely
to
boast
and
glorie
in
him
from
whom
he
hath
received
it
,
but
not
at
all
in
himselfe
.
If
God
miracluosly
should
raise
up
Children
unto
Abraham
of
the
stones
of
the
Earth
,
had
these
stones
,
being
now
made
men
,
and
men
of
the
greatest
worth
and
excellencie
,
any
cause
or
pretence
of
glorying
in
themselves
concerning
that
dignity
and
honour
which
is
now
come
upon
them
?
No
more
hath
any
flesh
the
least
cause
or
colour
of
boasting
in
it selfe
,
how
great
or
excellent
soever
the
act
of
Faith
may
be
conceived
to
be
,
or
how
great
and
rich
soever
the
privileges
may
be
which
depend
upon
it
,
because
it
is
given
unto
them
by
another
:
it
is
the
glory
of
the
giver
,
and
the
comfort
only
or
blessednesse
of
the
receiver
.
But
Secondly
,
SECT.
5
suppose
the
act
of
believing
were
from
a
mans
selfe
,
or
in
part
from
a
mans
selfe
,
yet
hath
he
no
cause
to
boast
in
himselfe
,
that
God
should
be
pleased
to
impute
it
unto
him
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
we
embrace
.
Because
that
weight
of
glory
,
those
high
and
excellent
things
which
attend
upon
Faith
,
and
are
given
to
it
,
are
not
given
to
it
for
any
worth
or
dignity
that
is
found
in
it
(
as
we
have
heretofore
cleerely
demonstrated
)
but
by
the
most
free
,
gracious
,
and
good
pleasure
of
God
.
If
a
King
for
taking
a
pin
of
a
mans
sleeve
,
should
raise
his
House
,
and
make
him
honourable
in
the
State
,
and
give
him
thousands
to
maintaine
it
,
were
it
not
a
ridiculous
thing
for
such
a
man
to
goe
up
and
down
and
bragg
of
the
pin
of
his
sleeve
?
Alasse
,
for
all
this
honour
and
greatnesse
that
he
is
come
unto
,
he
is
beholding
to
the
grace
and
bounty
of
his
Prince
,
and
nothing
at
all
to
the
pin
in
his
sleeve
.
He
might
have
had
twenty
pins
in
his
sleeve
;
and
yet
never
have
bin
worth
twenty
pence
,
had
he
not
met
with
such
a
royall
and
magnificent
disposition
in
him
that
so
rewarded
him
.
This
is
the
case
of
Faith
,
in
respect
of
those
great
things
which
depend
upon
it
:
though
a
Beleever
hath
the
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
,
and
the
love
and
favor
of
God
given
him
upon
it
,
and
right
and
title
to
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
,
&c.
yet
all
this
is
no
ground
or
pretence
at
all
why
any
man
should
boast
of
himselfe
or
of
his
Faith
,
though
it
were
from
himselfe
(
which
yet
we
absolutly
deny
)
because
if
this
Faith
had
not
met
with
a
God
of
infinite
,
grace
,
bounty
and
magnificence
,
we
might
have
bin
miserable
and
accursed
for
all
our
Faith
and
beleeving
whatsoever
.
Yea
by
the
Apostles
own
rule
,
when
God
is
pleased
to
chuse
weake
and
foolish
things
to
confound
the
mighty
,
all
occasion
of
boasting
is
cut
off
from
the
flesh
.
Indeed
if
men
had
fulfilled
the
Law
,
and
bin
justified
that
way
,
there
had
bin
some
pretence
for
boasting
or
glorying
in
themselves
.
First
,
because
such
a
righteousnesse
had
held
some
proportion
(
at
least
)
with
the
reward
that
should
have
bin
given
to
it
.
Rom.
4.4
.
To
him
that
worketh
(
saith
Paul
)
that
is
,
that
keepeth
the
Law
,
the
wages
,
or
reward
is
counted
,
not
by
favor
,
but
of
debt
:
God
should
have
given
them
no
more
,
then
what
they
had
(
at
least
in
some
sort
)
deserved
.
Secondly
,
because
if
they
had
made
out
their
happinesse
that
way
,
they
had
done
it
out
of
themselves
,
that
is
,
out
of
the
strength
of
those
abilities
which
were
essentiall
to
their
natures
,
and
in
the
strictest
and
most
proper
sense
that
can
be
spoken
of
,
or
applied
to
,
a
creature
,
their
owne
.
Both
which
being
apparantly
wanting
in
Faith
,
or
in
the
Act
of
beleeving
,
there
can
be
no
colour
or
pretence
of
boasting
for
the
flesh
,
though
it
be
imputed
by
God
for
righteousnesse
,
as
hath
bin
explained
.
So
that
this
objection
also
vanisheth
into
nothing
.
Fiftly
,
SECT.
6
I
have
somewhere
met
with
such
a
reasoning
as
this
,
against
the
point
in
hand
.
Object
.
If
Faith
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
,
then
are
we
justified
by
that
which
is
unperfect
,
and
which
it selfe
needs
a
justification
,
for
no
mans
Faith
is
perfect
in
this
life
.
But
there
is
no
justification
to
be
looked
for
before
God
by
that
which
is
unperfect
,
but
only
by
that
which
is
perfect
,
&c.
Ergo.
To
the
Major
Proposition
I
answere
,
Answere
by
distinguishing
that
clause
in
the
consequent
or
latter
part
of
it
,
then
are
we
justified
by
that
which
is
unperfect
,
&c.
These
words
may
have
a
double
sense
or
meaning
;
as
either
that
we
are
justified
without
the
concurrence
of
any
thing
that
is
simply
perfect
,
to
our
justification
:
or
that
somewhat
that
is
comparatively
weake
and
unperfect
,
may
somewaies
concurre
and
contribute
towards
our
Iustification
.
If
the
former
sense
be
intended
,
the
proposition
is
absolutly
false
,
and
the
consequence
to
be
denied
:
it
doth
not
follow
,
If
Faith
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
given
,
then
is
there
nothing
that
is
perfect
required
as
necessary
unto
Iustification
,
this
inconsequence
is
notorious
.
Yea
the
truth
is
,
that
the
imputing
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
of
the
discourse
,
presupposteth
somewhat
(
if
not
more
things
then
one
)
that
is
absolutly
perfect
,
as
absolutly
necessary
unto
Iustification
.
Had
not
the
Lord
Christ
,
who
is
perfect
himselfe
,
even
as
perfect
as
perfection
it selfe
could
make
him
,
made
a
perfect
attonement
for
sinne
,
there
had
bin
no
place
for
the
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
:
yea
there
had
bin
no
place
so
much
as
for
the
being
either
of
such
a
Faith
,
or
of
any
righteousnesse
or
Iustification
at
all
for
men
.
For
it
is
thorough
the
attonement
made
by
Christ
for
us
,
that
either
we
beleeve
in
him
,
or
in
God
through
him
:
and
it
is
through
the
same
attonement
also
,
that
God
iustifieth
us
,
upon
our
beleeving
,
that
is
,
imputes
our
Faith
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
,
in
the
sense
argued
.
If
the
said
clause
be
meant
in
the
latter
sense
,
viz.
that
somwhat
that
is
weake
and
unperfect
,
may
somtimes
concurre
or
conduce
towards
Iustification
,
so
the
Proposition
is
granted
;
but
then
the
Minor
goes
to
wreck
.
For
Justification
before
God
may
be
expected
and
looked
for
,
though
that
Faith
whereby
we
beleeve
,
yea
and
that
Minister
of
the
Gospell
by
whom
we
beleeve
,
be
both
weake
and
unperfect
,
and
yet
both
these
(
we
know
)
are
somewaies
contributorie
towards
Iustification
.
Except
yee
beleeve
that
I
am
hee
,
you
shall
die
in
your
sinnes
,
&c.
(
Joh.
8.24
.
)
and
consequently
never
be
iustified
.
We
have
beleeved
in
Christ
Iesus
,
that
we
might
be
iustified
,
&c.
Gal.
2.16
.
And
that
the
Minister
of
the
Gospell
,
hath
(
or
at
least
may
have
)
his
part
or
hand
in
our
Iustification
,
is
evident
,
How
shall
they
beleeve
in
him
,
of
whom
they
have
not
heard
?
and
how
shall
they
heare
without
a
Preacher
?
Rom.
10.14
.
He
that
hath
any
influence
into
our
Faith
,
or
the
working
and
raising
that
in
the
soule
,
is
somewaies
instrumentall
and
helpfull
towards
our
Iustification
.
But
neither
doth
our
Iustification
before
God
,
depend
upon
the
perfection
of
our
Faith
,
but
upon
the
truth
of
it
:
neither
doth
the
truth
of
our
Faith
depend
upon
the
perfection
of
him
,
by
whom
we
beleeve
,
but
upon
the
truth
of
what
he
teacheth
and
delivereth
unto
us
for
that
end
.
So
that
the
light
of
this
truth
shines
on
every
hand
,
that
men
may
be
iustified
,
ministerially
and
instrumentally
,
by
things
that
are
weake
and
unperfect
.
Therefore
this
objection
also
is
no
better
then
his
fellowes
.
Sixtly
,
Object
.
6
Some
have
opposed
the
imputation
of
Faith
which
we
pleade
for
,
with
this
reason
.
SECT.
8
If
Faith
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
expressed
,
then
God
should
rather
receive
a
righteousnesse
from
us
,
then
we
from
him
,
in
our
Iustification
.
But
God
doth
not
receive
a
righteousnesse
from
us
,
but
we
from
him
,
in
Iustification
.
Ergo.
I
answere
,
that
in
this
syllogisme
,
Answere
.
the
Major
Proposition
is
guilty
of
the
error
and
falshood
in
the
conclusion
.
For
it
no
waies
followes
upon
that
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
,
which
we
defend
,
that
God
should
either
receive
a
righteousnesse
from
us
,
or
that
we
should
receive
none
from
him
,
in
our
Iustification
Because
First
,
Gods
imputing
Faith
for
righteousnesse
unto
us
,
in
the
sense
which
hitherto
we
have
aided
,
doth
no
waies
imply
or
import
,
that
Faith
is
a
righteousnesse
,
properly
so
called
,
but
only
that
God
by
the
meanes
thereof
,
and
upon
the
tender
of
it
,
looks
upon
us
as
righteous
,
yet
not
as
made
either
meritoriously
,
or
formally
righteous
,
by
it
,
but
as
having
fulfilled
and
performed
that
condition
or
covenant
,
upon
the
fulfilling
and
performance
whereof
,
hee
hath
covenanted
and
promised
,
to
make
us
righteous
,
meritoriously
by
the
death
and
sufferings
of
his
own
Sonne
:
formally
,
with
the
pardon
and
remission
of
all
our
sinnes
.
Secondly
,
Suppose
such
a
position
or
inference
as
this
,
lay
in
the
bowells
of
what
we
hold
,
that
Faith
were
a
proper
righteousnesse
,
yet
neither
would
this
argue
,
that
therefore
God
should
receive
a
righteousnesse
from
us
,
in
our
Iustification
.
For
we
rather
receive
our
Faith
from
God
(
as
was
layd
down
in
Answere
to
the
fourth
objection
)
for
our
Iustification
,
then
God
from
us
,
in
our
Iustification
:
though
I
grant
,
that
in
a
sense
a
farre
off
,
and
with
much
adoe
,
it
may
(
haply
)
be
made
a
truth
,
that
God
receives
our
Faith
from
us
in
Iustification
.
But
Thirdly
(
and
lastly
)
that
that
imputation
of
Faith
for
righteousnesse
which
is
protected
by
us
,
supposeth
a
righteousnesse
given
unto
,
and
received
by
men
from
God
in
Iustification
(
and
consequently
,
is
farre
from
denying
it
)
is
evident
from
hence
,
because
it
could
not
be
truly
said
,
that
God
doth
impute
Faith
for
righteousnesse
unto
any
man
,
exc●pt
he
should
make
him
righteous
upon
his
beleeving
.
Now
as
it
is
impossible
possible
that
a
man
should
be
made
righteous
without
a
righteousnesse
in
one
kinde
or
other
;
so
is
it
unpossible
also
,
that
that
righteousnesse
,
wherewith
a
man
is
made
righteous
in
Iustification
,
should
be
given
,
or
be
derived
upon
him
from
any
other
,
but
from
God
alone
.
For
this
righteousnesse
(
as
hath
bin
already
proov'd
at
large
)
can
be
none
other
,
but
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
:
and
who
can
forgive
sinnes
but
God
alone
?
And
by
this
time
the
fire
of
this
objection
also
(
I
conceive
)
is
turn'd
into
smoke
.
Some
other
exceptions
(
I
confesse
)
there
are
against
this
Imputation
we
hold
forth
,
SECT.
9
of
lighter
consideration
,
but
some
of
these
(
if
not
the
whole
thripp
of
them
)
I
have
Answered
at
large
in
my
Answere
to
Mr.
Walker
,
now
Printed
by
some
(
as
it
seemes
)
at
the
unreasonable
importunity
of
my
Antagonists
Socinianisme
Discovered
,
&c.
which
called
for
it
(
and
for
7
times
more
)
with
open
mouth
,
and
with
multiplicitie
of
requests
made
of
forged
cavillations
and
ragged
raylings
.
But
complaints
(
I
consider
)
are
here
but
impertinencies
.
If
the
Reader
please
to
set
in
about
pag
32
of
that
Discourse
,
and
read
on
,
hee
shall
finde
severall
objections
more
,
such
as
they
are
,
against
the
Imputation
in
hand
,
attended
with
their
Answeres
like
mad-men
with
sober
,
for
feare
of
doing
harme
.
Aud
as
for
those
viperous
and
malignant
imputations
rather
then
objections
,
of
Socinianisme
,
Arminianisme
,
&c.
against
the
Doctrine
mainteyned
in
this
Discourse
,
they
are
fully
and
at
large
taken
off
in
that
[
](A85397-e101310-b)(a)
(a)
pag.
6.7
,
8
,
9
,
10.
&c.
:
and
the
contrary
opinion
arrested
upon
strong
and
vehement
suspicion
of
confederacie
indeed
with
the
uncleane
Spirit
of
those
errors
.
Yea
it
hath
bin
more
then
once
in
this
Treatise
affirmed
,
(
and
once
at
least
,
if
not
twice
[
](A85397-e101330-b)(b)
(b)
Part
1.
●c
.
23.
Part.
2.
cap.
2.
Sect.
8.
sufficiently
proved
,
aswell
by
evidence
of
reason
,
as
by
the
Authority
of
able
,
learned
,
and
understanding
men
,
that
such
an
imputation
of
the
Active
obedience
of
Christ
,
as
Mr.
Walker
with
some
others
maintain
,
and
which
hath
bin
impugned
hitherto
,
doth
absolutly
cancell
and
make
voyde
the
necessity
of
Christs
satisfaction
by
his
death
;
which
is
the
Spirit
and
soule
or
Socinian
Heresie
.
See
the
testimonies
cited
from
Paraeus
and
Piscator
,
to
this
purpose
,
cap.
2.
Sect.
8.
of
this
second
Part
,
whereunto
I
shall
here
adde
a
passage
or
two
from
Mr.
Gataker
,
in
his
little
Tract
against
Gomarus
.
Be
it
granted
(
saith
hee
pag
7.
[
](A85397-e101420-b)(c)
(c)
Detur
,
h●
minem
etiam
paenu
ex
lege
violata
debit●●
,
non
obnoxium
tantum
,
sed
constrictum
etiam
,
ad
obedientiam
nihilominus
exhibendam
teneri
:
ut
nullus
dices
,
nec
quod
evincat
qui●quā
omnine
comparet
isthic
,
hominem
qui
ebedientiam
legi
a●solutissiman
pr●●st●●erit
,
etiam
ad
poenas
de
pendendas
nihilom●nus
tenert
.
At
qui
hac
ratione
pugaant
illi
,
quos
tu
impetu
non
fuisse
necesse
,
ut
Christus
,
cum
legem
pro
nobis
ad
extremum
apicem
obseruasset
,
ad
poenas
insuper
pro
iisdem
subeundas
adigetur
:
ut
ista
,
saltē
hac
ratione
,
supervacanes
fuerint
.
Gatak
.
Elench.
Gomor
.
p.
7.8
.
Si
enim
Christi
obedientia
,
quam
Legi
loco
nostro
Prastitit
,
nobis
ad
justitiam
imputatur
,
imputationis
hujus●e
beneficio
justi
plane
constituimur
:
ac
proinde
sub
legu
maledectione
non
su●us
amplius
cōstituti
,
nec
propterea
Christi
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
redimi
ab
ea
,
quae
nos
obnoxies
non
habet
,
opus
habemus
.
Idem
.
p.
19.
Si
fideles
,
Christi
obedientia
activa
sibi
a
Deo
imputata
,
perfecte
justi
constituuntur
,
nihil
illis
amplius
opus
est
m●rte
Christi
,
quam
pro
injustis
,
non
pro
justu
ille
oppetebat
.
Idem
.
p.
37.
)
that
a
man
that
is
liable
to
punishment
,
yea
and
that
actually
lieth
under
punishment
for
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
is
notwithstanding
still
bound
to
the
keeping
of
the
Law
;
yet
surely
you
will
not
say
,
neither
is
there
any
thing
in
what
you
write
,
which
any
waies
proves
,
that
that
man
,
who
perfectly
fulfills
the
Law
,
is
yet
bound
to
suffer
punishment
.
And
this
is
the
plea
of
those
,
whom
you
oppose
,
that
there
was
no
necessity
,
that
Christ
,
having
kept
the
Law
for
us
to
the
utmost
jot
and
title
thereof
,
should
further
be
put
upon
it
to
suffer
punishment
for
us
also
:
So
that
,
in
this
respect
at
least
,
that
punishment
or
sufferings
of
his
,
must
be
superfluous
and
needlesse
.
Againe
,
afterwards
in
the
same
Tract
.
p.
19.
If
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
which
he
performed
to
the
Law
in
our
stead
,
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
,
we
must
needs
be
made
perfectly
righteous
,
by
the
benefit
of
such
an
imputation
,
and
so
we
are
no
more
under
the
curse
of
the
Law
:
nor
was
there
any
need
that
we
should
be
redeemed
from
that
,
by
the
blood
of
Christ
,
which
had
no
power
over
us
.
Yet
once
more
in
the
same
Treatise
,
p.
37.
he
frames
the
argument
of
those
,
with
whom
himselfe
joynes
against
Gomarus
in
the
point
in
hand
,
after
this
manner
:
If
Beleevers
are
made
perfectly
righteous
with
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
imputed
by
God
unto
them
,
then
have
they
no
need
at
all
of
the
death
of
Christ
for
them
;
which
death
he
suffered
,
not
for
the
righteous
,
but
for
the
unrighteous
.
So
that
if
men
were
not
partiall
in
themselves
,
but
would
please
so
farre
to
dispence
with
their
prejudice
,
as
to
judge
righteous
judgement
betweene
the
Doctrine
laid
downe
and
defended
in
this
Discourse
,
and
that
which
opposeth
it
,
it
would
cleerely
appeare
,
that
this
were
the
right
Horse
to
set
the
Saddle
of
Socinianisme
and
Arminianisme
upon
,
and
not
the
other
.
And
as
the
equity
of
this
decision
touching
the
imputation
,
and
non-imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
,
fully
appeares
by
what
hath
bin
now
and
formerly
said
in
this
discourse
,
SECT.
10
so
as
touching
the
imputation
and
non
imputation
of
Faith
in
a
proper
sense
,
it
appeares
as
fully
also
in
those
passages
lately
related
unto
,
in
that
other
discourse
mentioned
.
But
howsoever
we
have
abundantly
vindicated
the
Doctrine
asserted
in
this
Treatise
,
from
all
imputations
either
of
Socinianisme
,
Arminianisme
,
Popery
,
or
the
like
:
so
that
we
need
make
no
more
bridles
to
put
into
the
lips
of
these
uncleane
Spirits
,
yet
give
me
leave
to
suggest
this
for
a
close
of
this
Chapter
;
that
if
every
Doctrine
,
which
either
Socinians
,
Arminians
,
or
Papists
,
hold
and
maintain
,
should
suffer
the
reproach
and
infamie
either
of
heresie
,
error
or
untruth
,
because
they
are
found
in
their
writings
,
there
are
very
few
Doctrines
in
that
Reformed
Religion
which
we
professe
,
but
will
be
found
Matters
of
that
calculation
.
Especially
all
those
fundamentall
Articles
or
Doctrines
comprehended
in
that
Breviate
or
Summarie
of
Christian
Religion
,
called
the
Apostles
Creed
which
(
as
farre
as
I
understand
)
is
generally
received
and
subscribed
unto
by
all
Reformed
Churches
without
exception
,
must
lie
under
the
ignominie
,
either
of
Socinianisme
,
Arminianisme
,
Popery
or
the
like
;
it
being
certaine
that
there
is
none
of
them
but
is
professed
and
maintained
by
one
or
other
,
or
by
all
of
these
stigmatique
Factions
.
So
that
it
is
the
most
ridiculous
and
trifling
argument
that
can
be
against
an
opinion
,
unworthy
either
men
or
learning
,
to
make
an
out-crie
against
it
of
Heresie
,
Blasphemy
,
Socinianisme
,
Arminianisme
,
Popery
,
and
the
like
,
when
in
the
meane
time
,
men
are
able
to
produce
nothing
from
the
Scriptures
to
purpose
,
nor
yet
to
evince
by
any
solid
or
substantiall
reason
,
that
it
is
so
much
as
an
untruth
.
Such
passionate
arguments
as
these
may
(
haply
)
ravish
the
simplicity
and
weaknesse
of
women
and
Children
,
and
carie
away
a
great
captivity
of
these
,
and
indeed
they
are
exactly
calculated
for
the
meridian
of
their
tempers
:
but
men
of
understanding
are
little
affected
with
them
,
except
it
be
,
as
they
are
arguments
of
the
weaknesse
and
insufficiencie
of
those
that
so
use
them
.
CAP.
VII
.
Wherin
the
chiefe
grounds
and
Arguments
for
imputation
of
Christs
Active
obedience
(
in
the
sense
hitherto
opposed
)
are
proposed
and
Answered
.
IN
the
former
part
of
this
discourse
,
many
things
have
bin
debated
and
argued
(
and
somewhat
also
in
this
latter
)
against
that
imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
or
righteousnesse
,
in
Iustification
,
which
makes
it
either
the
formall
cause
thereof
,
whether
in
whole
or
in
part
,
or
the
right
and
title
of
beleevers
to
eternall
life
.
It
now
only
remaines
,
that
we
heare
patiently
,
and
consider
unpartially
,
and
Answere
distinctly
those
arguments
and
reasons
,
which
str●ngthen
the
hands
of
men
of
opposite
judgement
to
us
,
to
contend
and
pleade
for
it
.
Meete
and
equall
it
is
,
that
men
who
pleade
reason
,
that
is
,
any
thing
that
is
like
unto
equity
or
truth
,
should
either
obtaine
the
cause
they
pleade
and
be
assented
unto
,
or
else
receive
a
valuable
consideration
to
the
full
in
their
own
coyne
,
I
meane
in
reason
,
by
way
of
Answere
.
But
inasmuch
as
some
of
these
arguments
have
bin
already
answered
upon
occasion
in
some
former
passages
of
the
Discourse
,
I
presume
I
may
so
farre
entrust
my
Reader
with
the
concernments
of
the
cause
in
hand
(
being
in
part
his
own
)
without
danger
,
as
the
accepting
of
Answers
els-where
given
,
in
case
they
be
sufficient
,
doth
amount
unto
,
only
with
reference
without
repetition
.
The
first
argument
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
in
the
sense
refused
,
SECT.
2
is
thus
framed
.
If
there
be
no
standing
in
judgment
before
God
,
unlesse
we
be
endued
with
perfect
righteousnesse
,
then
must
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
be
imputed
to
us
,
in
our
Iustification
.
But
there
is
no
standing
for
us
in
judgment
before
God
,
unlesse
we
be
endu'd
and
furnished
with
a
perfect
righteousnesse
.
Ergo.
I
Answere
by
denying
the
consequence
in
the
former
proposition
:
Answere
.
there
may
be
no
standing
in
judgment
before
God
without
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
and
yet
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
(
in
the
sense
controverted
)
not
be
imputed
.
The
reason
is
,
because
remission
of
sinnes
,
which
is
the
purchase
and
procurement
of
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
for
us
,
(
as
our
Adversaries
themselves
acknowledg
)
is
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
and
every
waies
able
to
support
and
beare
us
out
in
judgement
before
God
,
as
hath
bin
abundantly
proved
in
the
five
first
conclusions
,
laid
down
and
proved
in
the
second
Chapter
of
this
latter
part
of
the
Discourse
,
p.
3
,
4
,
&c.
Yea
and
our
best
Reformed
Divines
,
finde
a
sufficient
strength
of
confidence
for
beleevers
in
the
presence
of
God
,
in
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
alone
.
Calvin
[
](A85397-e102000-b)(a)
(a)
Instie
.
l.
2.
c.
17.
Sect.
9.
having
mentioned
that
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
3.24
.
&c
Being
justified
freely
by
his
grace
,
through
the
Redemption
that
is
in
Iesus
Christ
,
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
Faith
in
his
blood
,
addeth
as
followeth
:
Paul
commendeth
the
grace
of
God
in
this
,
that
he
hath
given
the
price
of
our
redemption
in
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
then
willeth
us
to
betake
our selves
unto
his
blood
,
that
so
obteyning
righteousnesse
we
may
stand
secure
before
the
judgement
of
God
.
And
elsewhere
[
](A85397-e102100-b)(b)
(b)
Instit.
l.
3.
c.
11.
Sect.
9.
interpreting
that
clause
against
Osiander
,
that
we
might
be
made
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
2
Cor.
5.21
.
he
first
delivereth
himselfe
thus
,
Osiander
here
triumpheth
as
if
he
descried
the
spectrum
,
or
image
of
his
essentiall
righteousnesse
,
when
as
the
words
sound
quite
another
way
,
viz.
that
we
are
righteous
by
the
expiation
or
attonement
made
by
Christ
for
us
.
And
a
little
after
,
somewhat
more
fully
to
our
purpose
,
thus
:
sed
hoc
loco
,
&c.
that
is
,
but
in
this
place
,
readers
that
have
but
their
wits
about
them
,
though
I
should
say
nothing
,
cannot
but
acknowledge
that
nothing
else
is
meant
,
quam
nos
mortis
Christi
piaculo
suffultos
apud
Dei
tribunal
stare
,
that
is
,
then
that
we
stand
at
Gods
judgement
seat
underpropt
or
borne
up
with
the
expiation
or
attonement
of
Christs
death
.
If
God
will
judge
thee
(
said
Anselme
long
before
him
)
say
,
Lord
,
Si
Deus
voluerit
te
judicare
,
dic
,
Domine
,
mortem
Domini
nostri
Iesu
Christi
obijcio
●nter
〈◊〉
et
te
,
et
judicium
tuum
,
al●ter
tecum
non
conte●do
.
Anselm
.
I
interpose
the
death
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
betweene
me
and
thee
and
thy
judgement
,
otherwise
I
strive
not
with
thee
.
And
Ambrose
before
him
,
to
the
like
effect
,
though
not
altogether
so
plainly
:
Gloriabor
,
non
quia
vacuus
peccati
sum
,
&c.
that
is
,
I
will
glory
,
not
that
I
am
void
of
all
sinne
,
but
that
my
sinnes
are
forgiven
.
So
that
evident
it
is
(
as
hath
bin
formerly
signified
)
that
a
man
needs
not
take
care
or
thought
for
any
other
righteousnesse
in
the
presence
of
God
,
then
only
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sinnes
,
which
he
is
confidently
to
expect
in
and
through
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
.
Againe
secondly
,
the
Imputation
we
oppose
,
SECT.
3
is
by
some
protected
with
the
shield
and
Buckler
of
this
Argument
.
He
that
is
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
,
Argum.
2
and
not
by
his
owne
,
must
needs
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
.
The
reason
is
,
because
there
is
no
righteousnesse
to
be
found
in
any
other
fit
for
the
justification
of
any
man
,
but
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
alone
.
But
every
man
that
is
justified
,
is
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
,
and
not
by
his
owne
.
Ergo.
I
Answere
First
,
Answere
.
to
the
major
proposition
,
by
denying
it
,
and
oppose
this
contradictory
for
a
truth
against
it
:
A
man
may
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
and
not
his
own
,
and
yet
no
necessitie
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
of
his
active
obedience
(
for
of
this
only
the
question
is
)
to
be
imputed
unto
him
.
The
reason
hereof
is
more
then
manifest
out
of
what
hath
bin
already
delivered
:
viz.
because
the
passive
obedience
of
Christ
,
is
the
righteousnesse
of
another
,
and
men
may
be
and
are
,
fully
and
throughly
justified
by
the
merit
hereof
communicated
unto
them
in
the
free
pardon
of
their
sinnes
,
without
any
further
righteousnesse
derived
upon
them
,
either
from
him
or
from
any
other
,
in
a
way
of
imputation
,
or
however
.
To
make
this
good
,
there
needs
nothing
be
added
to
what
the
Reader
may
please
to
finde
in
the
4th
and
fift
Conclusions
premis'd
in
the
second
Chap.
of
this
latter
part
.
Sect.
4.
and
5.
p.
567.
To
the
minor
proposition
,
Answere
2
I
answere
likewise
,
by
distinguishing
the
predicaeum
,
or
latter
clause
of
it
.
A
man
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
and
not
by
his
owne
,
in
a
double
sense
,
either
1º
,
by
way
of
merit
,
or
2º
,
by
way
of
forme
.
In
the
first
sense
the
proposition
is
admitted
:
whosoever
is
justified
,
is
justifyed
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
and
not
by
his
owne
,
that
is
,
is
justified
by
the
merit
of
the
righteousnesse
of
another
,
and
not
by
the
merit
of
his
owne
.
But
this
sense
maketh
nothing
to
the
point
in
hand
.
In
the
latter
sense
.
it
is
altogether
untrue
:
for
that
righteousnesse
,
wherewith
a
man
is
formally
justified
or
made
righteous
,
is
alwaies
a
mans
owne
,
I
meane
by
donation
and
possession
,
and
not
anothers
,
except
only
in
respect
either
of
procurement
,
and
so
it
is
Christs
;
or
of
collation
,
and
so
it
is
Gods
.
Remission
of
sinnes
,
whereby
a
beleever
is
formally
justified
(
as
hath
bin
often
said
,
and
once
at
least
largely
proved
[
](A85397-e102690-b)(a)
(a)
part
2.
c.
4.
Sect.
30
,
31.32.33
.
)
is
a
mans
owne
righteousnesse
in
such
a
sense
,
as
his
Repentance
or
Faith
is
his
own
,
being
all
given
unto
him
by
God
or
Christ
.
Him
hath
God
lift
up
with
his
right
hand
to
be
a
Prince
and
a
Saviour
,
to
give
Repentance
unto
Israel
,
and
remission
of
sinnes
.
Act.
5.31
.
Now
that
which
is
given
unto
a
man
by
God
,
may
truly
and
properly
be
called
his
owne
.
There
is
no
merit
indeed
in
remission
of
sins
,
but
there
is
proprietie
in
it
to
him
that
receiveth
it
.
A
third
Argument
of
Soveraigne
esteeme
(
as
I
have
perceived
)
with
some
,
SECT.
4
Argum.
3
to
establish
the
imputation
hitherto
gain-said
,
is
this
.
Jf
Beleevers
have
a
true
and
reall
communion
with
Christ
,
then
is
his
righteousnesse
theirs
by
imputation
.
But
certaine
it
is
,
that
Beleevers
have
a
true
and
reall
communion
with
Christ
.
Ergo.
I
Answere
.
The
Major
proposition
in
this
syllogisme
wants
two
things
(
at
least
)
which
a
good
proposition
should
have
,
Answere
.
viz.
reason
,
and
truth
.
First
,
it
wants
truth
,
because
a
true
and
reall
communion
with
Christ
may
stand
,
without
his
active
obedience
being
made
theirs
by
imputation
.
They
that
please
may
see
abundance
of
truth
in
this
,
by
those
lights
which
we
have
already
set
up
,
partly
chap.
10.
Sect.
4.
and
5
of
the
former
part
,
partly
againe
,
chap.
2.
Sect.
9
and
10.
of
this
second
part
.
There
is
a
reall
union
and
communion
betweene
the
head
and
the
feet
in
the
same
naturall
body
,
yet
is
not
the
braine
,
or
the
proper
functions
and
operations
of
the
head
,
made
the
braine
,
or
functions
of
the
feet
by
imputation
.
So
there
is
a
reall
union
and
communion
betweene
the
Husband
and
the
wife
in
mariage
,
yet
is
not
the
holinesse
,
strength
,
or
wisdome
of
the
Husband
,
made
the
holinesse
,
strength
,
or
wisdom
of
the
wife
,
by
imputation
.
Againe
2º
,
as
it
wants
truth
,
so
(
that
which
is
a
want
more
worthy
of
blame
)
it
wants
reason
also
.
It
hath
neither
colour
nor
appearance
of
truth
in
it
,
that
that
union
and
communion
which
beleevers
have
with
Christ
,
should
of
necessitie
implie
or
draw
after
it
,
the
appropriation
of
his
active
obedience
unto
them
by
way
of
imputation
;
at
least
of
such
an
imputation
,
as
is
the
golden
apple
for
which
our
Adversaries
in
the
present
question
,
so
eagerly
contend
,
that
is
,
so
that
this
obedience
of
his
must
become
their
formall
righteousnesse
,
either
in
whole
,
or
in
part
,
in
justification
.
For
what
possible
ground
of
difference
can
there
be
found
or
assigned
out
of
that
union
and
communion
which
interced's
betweene
Christ
and
the
beleever
,
why
rather
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
,
then
the
wisdome
,
or
power
,
or
glory
of
Christ
,
should
be
made
the
Beleevers
,
by
imputation
?
A
Fourth
Foundation
or
ground
upon
which
I
finde
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
as
aforesaid
)
built
by
some
,
SECT.
5
Argum.
4
is
this
:
If
there
be
no
other
end
,
reason
,
or
necessity
,
why
Christ
should
fulfill
the
Law
,
but
only
that
his
obedience
thereunto
might
be
imputed
unto
us
for
righteousnesse
in
our
justification
,
then
is
not
the
imputation
thereof
to
be
denied
.
But
no
other
end
,
reason
or
necessitie
can
be
given
,
why
Christ
should
fulfill
the
Law
,
but
only
that
his
obedience
unto
it
might
be
imputed
for
righteousnesse
unto
those
that
beleeve
,
in
their
Iustification
.
Ergo.
To
this
latter
proposition
I
answere
,
Answere
.
that
it
is
unsound
,
rush
and
branch
,
head
and
tayle
;
and
that
there
are
diverse
other
ends
,
reasons
,
and
necessities
that
may
be
assigned
of
Christs
obedience
to
the
Law
,
and
that
which
is
there
assigned
,
is
but
supposititious
,
and
inconsistent
with
the
truth
.
If
the
former
of
these
be
demonstrated
,
viz.
that
there
are
other
ends
and
reasons
,
and
those
very
considerable
,
why
Christ
should
fulfill
the
Law
,
the
proposition
is
disabled
and
broken
in
judgement
;
as
for
the
latter
,
that
the
imputation
of
Christs
fulfilling
the
Law
for
righteousnesse
unto
those
that
beleeve
,
is
but
an
imaginarie
and
meerely-presumed
end
of
his
fulfilling
it
,
it
hath
bin
(
in
effect
)
the
grand
conclusion
argued
and
established
throughout
the
Discourse
.
First
therefore
,
one
reason
or
end
of
Christs
obedience
to
the
Law
,
might
be
,
to
procure
the
greater
authority
and
deeper
reverence
to
the
Doctrine
which
he
taught
,
whilst
he
yet
conversed
with
men
on
Earth
.
It
is
said
,
Mat.
7.28
,
that
the
people
were
astonied
at
his
Doctrine
,
because
he
taught
,
as
one
having
authoritie
,
and
not
as
the
Scribes
.
Some
make
this
the
ground
of
the
difference
,
because
Christ
did
to
the
uttermost
what
he
taught
,
which
the
Scribes
did
not
,
and
therefore
were
more
obnoxious
to
neglect
and
contempt
in
their
teaching
.
But
however
it
is
a
truth
of
generall
acknowledgment
,
and
not
necessary
now
to
be
argued
,
that
the
holinesse
,
uprightnesse
,
and
unblameablenesse
of
the
lifes
of
the
teachers
,
have
a
powerfull
influence
into
the
consciences
of
men
,
to
render
them
more
observant
,
and
and
awfull
in
their
attention
to
the
things
which
are
taught
by
them
,
yea
and
to
make
those
the
more
inexcuseable
,
that
shall
despise
their
teaching
.
Let
these
and
the
like
Scriptures
be
laid
together
,
and
considered
of
to
this
purpose
,
Mat.
21.32
.
Ioh.
5.35
.
Ioh.
8.46
.
1
Tim.
4.12
.
2
Tim.
3.14
.
&c.
Secondly
,
SECT.
6
this
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
christ
unto
the
law
,
was
serviceable
to
that
same
great
end
,
whereunto
our
righteousnesse
and
our
obedience
(
such
as
they
are
)
are
subservient
also
,
viz.
the
glorie
of
god
,
and
the
advancement
of
his
kingdome
.
being
fill'd
with
the
fruites
of
righteousnesse
(
saith
paul
)
which
are
by
iesus
christ
unto
the
glory
and
praise
of
god
.
phil.
1.11
.
if
other
mens
righteousnesnes
come
to
be
well
conditioned
and
so
sanctified
(
as
it
were
)
by
the
meanes
of
iesus
christ
,
that
they
are
hereby
made
fit
matter
for
the
praise
and
glory
of
god
:
much
more
must
it
needs
be
conceived
,
that
his
owne
personall
righteousnesse
partakes
abundantly
of
the
same
condition
,
and
makes
for
the
exaltation
of
god
,
farre
above
the
line
and
measure
of
other
men
.
his
owne
words
,
ioh.
8.49
.
fully
understood
,
import
no
lesse
.
iesus
answered
,
I
have
not
a
devill
,
but
I
honour
my
father
,
and
yee
dishonour
me
.
and
againe
,
ioh.
7.18
.
he
that
seeketh
his
glory
that
sent
him
(
speaking
of
himselfe
in
respect
of
god
his
father
)
the
same
is
true
,
and
no
unrighteousnesse
is
in
him
.
wherein
,
or
how
,
or
by
what
meanes
did
christ
honour
his
father
,
or
seeke
his
glory
,
that
is
,
labour
and
endeavor
to
procure
glory
to
him
from
the
world
?
doubtlesse
by
a
full
and
faithfull
discharge
of
all
things
that
he
required
of
him
,
aswell
in
that
generall
and
common
Law
of
his
(
which
we
call
Morall
)
whereunto
all
other
men
are
debtors
of
obedience
,
aswell
as
hee
;
as
like
wise
in
that
peculiar
Law
of
Mediation
,
which
was
imposed
upon
himselfe
alone
.
In
respect
of
his
absolute
,
intire
,
and
uncontrollable
obedience
and
condescension
(
or
ascension
rather
,
if
you
will
)
to
both
these
Lawes
,
he
is
(
I
conceive
)
styled
Heb.
1.3
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
the
resplendencie
or
brightnesse
of
his
Fathers
glory
,
that
is
,
a
perfect
meanes
of
discovering
and
making
knowne
unto
the
world
,
how
excellent
and
glorious
above
measure
God
is
in
holinesse
,
righteousnesse
,
goodnesse
,
wisdome
,
truth
,
mercy
,
&c.
and
that
he
is
so
light
,
or
such
a
light
,
in
whom
there
is
no
darknesse
at
all
.
1
Joh.
1.5
.
And
in
this
sense
,
the
light
of
the
knowledge
of
God
is
said
to
be
given
(
by
the
ministers
of
the
Gospell
)
in
the
face
of
Iesus
Christ
.
2
Cor.
4.6
.
meaning
,
that
those
who
truly
and
effectually
preach
Iesus
Christ
unto
men
,
and
hold
him
forth
in
all
the
glory
and
excellencie
of
all
that
he
both
did
and
suffered
in
the
world
,
as
they
are
left
upon
record
by
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
Gospell
,
doe
with
one
and
the
same
labour
certify
&
informe
the
world
,
what
manner
of
essence
and
being
,
in
respect
of
h●linesse
,
grace
,
love
,
sweetnesse
,
mercy
,
goodnesse
,
bounty
,
&c.
the
true
God
is
,
with
whom
they
have
to
doe
.
All
these
excellencies
being
apparantly
extant
and
visible
,
and
that
in
the
full
transcendencie
and
height
of
their
severall
perfections
,
in
that
obedience
which
Christ
exhibited
in
the
flesh
unto
God
,
it
cannot
with
any
colour
or
pretence
of
reason
be
imagined
,
but
that
that
God
from
whom
he
came
forth
,
and
whose
servant
hee
was
in
all
this
great
administration
,
and
from
whom
he
must
of
necessitie
receive
and
be
furnished
with
all
that
strength
and
power
of
grace
,
whereby
he
was
enabled
to
do
all
these
great
things
,
must
needs
be
a
God
supereminently
glorious
in
all
the
same
and
like
perfections
.
So
that
we
see
here
is
another
end
(
and
that
of
maine
consequence
)
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
besides
imputation
.
Thirdly
,
SECT.
7
another
end
of
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
we
speake
of
,
is
the
exemplarinesse
of
it
:
it
is
the
patterne
in
the
Mount
for
all
Adams
posteritie
to
work
by
.
It
is
true
,
the
Law
it selfe
is
as
absolute
and
perfect
a
rule
or
patterne
of
righteousnesse
,
as
the
conformity
or
obedience
of
Christ
himselfe
to
it
,
is
,
but
it
is
not
so
plaine
and
distinct
a
rule
in
some
cases
,
as
the
obedience
of
Christ
to
it
.
And
therefore
the
Holy
Ghost
sometimes
briefly
mentioning
the
letter
or
rule
of
the
Law
,
maketh
use
of
the
exemplarinesse
of
the
obedience
of
Christ
as
it
were
,
to
illustrate
and
interpret
it
.
And
walke
in
love
,
even
as
Christ
hath
lovedus
,
and
hath
given
himselfe
for
us
,
&c.
Ephes.
5.2
.
with
many
the
like
.
Fourthly
,
the
intire
obedience
and
subjection
of
Christ
to
the
Morall
Law
,
is
of
excellent
importance
,
and
hath
a
Spirit
of
provocation
in
it
,
to
draw
all
the
world
after
it
in
imitation
of
it
:
it
is
a
tempting
righteousneste
,
or
an
holy
,
strong
and
blessed
temptation
to
the
world
to
worke
righteousnesse
,
the
force
and
power
whereof
,
no
man
can
withstand
,
but
with
an
high
hand
of
desperate
wickednesse
,
and
to
the
deepe
shame
and
reproach
of
his
person
.
This
end
likewise
is
oft
mentioned
or
insinuated
in
the
Scriptures
.
Take
my
yoke
upon
you
,
and
learne
of
me
(
saith
our
Saviour
himselfe
Mat.
11.29
.
)
for
I
am
meeke
and
lowly
in
heart
,
&c.
implying
,
that
there
was
in
his
meeknesse
,
not
only
a
patterne
or
example
to
follow
,
but
a
provocation
also
to
make
them
willing
and
desirous
to
follow
.
See
Ephes.
5.24.25
.
1
Pet.
4.1
.
with
many
others
.
Fiftly
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
now
under
consideration
,
was
a
meanes
of
continuing
his
person
in
the
love
and
complacencie
of
his
Father
:
which
was
a
thing
of
absolute
necessit●e
for
the
carrying
through
and
accomplishing
that
great
worse
of
Redemption
,
which
he
had
undertaken
.
For
if
the
mediator
himselfe
,
upon
whose
favor
and
interest
with
God
,
the
favor
,
peace
,
and
salvation
of
the
whole
world
depended
,
should
have
but
once
miscarried
and
displeased
him
,
who
should
have
mediated
for
him
,
or
made
an
attonement
or
reconciliation
for
him
?
If
salt
hath
lost
the
savor
,
there
is
nothing
to
season
it
againe
withall
,
because
all
things
are
to
be
seasoned
by
it
.
This
end
of
his
obedience
and
subjection
to
his
Father
,
himselfe
plainly
expresseth
,
Joh.
15.10
.
If
yee
keepe
my
commandements
,
you
shall
abide
in
my
love
:
even
as
I
have
kept
my
Fathers
commandements
,
and
abide
in
his
love
.
See
also
Joh.
8.29
.
Sixtly
,
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
we
speake
of
,
SECT.
8
was
of
absolute
necessitie
to
qualifie
and
fit
the
sacrifice
for
the
Altar
,
I
meane
to
render
him
a
person
meet
by
his
death
and
sacrifice
of
himselfe
,
to
make
attonement
for
the
world
,
and
to
purge
and
take
away
the
sinne
of
it
.
It
is
true
,
the
infinitnesse
of
the
value
and
considerablenesse
of
his
death
,
sprang
from
the
God-head
or
Divine
nature
with
which
the
humanitie
of
Christ
had
personall
union
:
yet
was
the
absolute
holinesse
and
righteousnesse
of
the
humanitie
it selfe
,
of
neces●ary
concurrence
also
thereunto
,
and
that
in
two
respects
.
First
,
there
is
no
capacity
in
any
part
or
parcell
of
the
humane
nature
of
personall
union
with
the
Divine
,
except
it
be
absolutely
free
from
all
touch
and
tincture
and
spot
of
sinne
:
otherwise
this
proposition
might
be
verified
,
that
God
is
sinfull
;
a
sound
which
neither
the
eares
nor
consciences
of
men
are
able
to
beare
.
That
God
should
die
,
though
it
be
a
conclusion
,
which
to
reason
not
yet
taught
or
principled
from
above
,
may
seeme
of
the
same
hardnesse
and
inconsistencie
with
the
other
,
yet
we
know
it
is
become
not
only
familiar
and
of
easy
admittance
,
but
of
very
precious
and
sweet
importance
,
in
the
Schoole
of
Christianity
.
But
that
God
should
finne
,
is
a
saying
of
a
greater
offence
and
abhorring
to
reason
proselyted
and
made
Christian
,
then
to
reason
yet
only
it selfe
,
and
no
more
.
Secondly
,
suppose
(
for
argument
sake
)
a
possibilitie
of
that
which
is
unpossible
,
that
the
Divine
nature
might
be
hypostatically
or
personally
united
to
an
humanity
tainted
with
sinne
,
yet
could
it
not
give
an
infinitnesse
of
expiatory
value
or
acceptation
thereunto
for
others
,
in
case
it
were
offered
or
made
a
sacrifice
by
it
.
The
reason
is
,
because
such
an
offering
or
sacrifice
were
of
absolute
necessitie
for
the
expiation
of
its
owne
sinne
,
or
at
least
it
should
be
due
,
and
the
justice
of
God
might
lawfully
require
it
in
such
a
way
.
For
no
relation
whatsoever
of
any
creature
to
the
Divine
nature
it selfe
,
or
to
any
person
subsisting
therein
,
be
it
never
so
neere
and
intimate
,
is
able
to
dissolve
or
make
voide
any
right
or
power
which
is
essentiall
to
God
,
as
the
right
of
requiring
a
full
satisfaction
for
sinne
is
,
wheresoever
,
or
in
what
creature
soever
he
findes
it
.
Now
then
whatsoever
God
either
doth
or
(
in
justice
)
may
require
of
any
man
,
to
make
satisfaction
for
his
owne
sinne
,
unpossible
it
is
,
that
with
the
payment
or
tender
thereof
,
he
should
make
satisfaction
for
the
sinnes
of
others
,
as
it
is
unpossible
in
a
course
of
Law
and
Civill
Justice
,
that
a
man
by
paying
his
owne
debt
,
should
thereby
discharge
another
mans
.
The
High
Priest
under
the
Law
,
did
not
make
at●onement
for
himselfe
,
and
for
the
people
,
with
one
and
the
same
sacrifice
;
but
(
saith
the
Scripture
)
he
offered
sacrifice
first
for
his
owne
sinnes
,
and
then
(
needing
no
further
attonement
himselfe
)
for
the
people
.
Heb.
7.27
.
So
then
evident
it
is
,
that
howsoever
the
infinitenesse
of
the
merit
and
satisfactorinesse
of
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
hath
its
resultance
and
rise
from
the
Divine
nature
;
yet
could
no
such
merit
or
satisfactorinesse
have
taken
place
in
respect
of
others
,
had
not
Christ
as
man
,
or
his
humane
nature
wherein
he
suffered
,
bin
perfectly
righteous
,
and
free
from
all
sinne
,
that
so
he
might
stand
in
no
need
at
all
himselfe
of
that
sacrifice
which
himselfe
offered
of
himselfe
.
Dying
righteous
and
being
God
,
his
death
holds
out
weight
and
worth
,
merit
and
satisfaction
for
the
whole
world
;
whereas
had
he
died
a
sinner
in
the
least
degree
,
though
his
death
by
reason
of
the
Godhead
personally
united
to
that
created
nature
,
wherein
in
such
a
case
he
were
supposed
to
suffer
,
had
bin
of
infinite
value
and
satisfaction
(
for
otherwise
it
could
not
have
bin
expiatorie
for
himselfe
,
there
being
every
whit
as
much
required
for
the
attoning
of
one
mans
sinne
,
as
is
for
the
sinne
of
the
whole
world
)
yet
had
the
infinitnesse
of
this
satisfaction
extended
only
to
himselfe
,
and
to
the
purging
of
his
owne
sinne
,
and
not
so
much
as
to
one
other
.
In
so
much
that
in
this
case
,
had
he
meant
to
have
propitiated
for
the
world
,
after
he
had
once
died
and
overcame
death
for
himselfe
,
he
must
have
returned
againe
into
the
infirmitie
of
the
flesh
,
and
have
suffered
death
the
second
time
.
Vpon
this
consideration
doubtlesse
it
is
,
that
the
Holy
Ghost
,
tendering
the
satisfaction
and
peace
of
the
consciences
of
beleevers
,
touching
the
fulnesse
and
unquestionablenesse
of
their
redemption
and
salvation
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
still
inserteth
the
mention
of
his
perfect
righteousnesse
,
when
he
speaketh
of
his
death
or
sufferings
for
them
.
By
his
knowledg
shall
my
righteous
servant
justifie
many
:
for
he
shall
beare
their
iniquities
,
that
is
,
the
punishment
due
to
their
iniquities
.
Esa
53.11
.
manifestly
implying
,
that
there
is
a
great
weight
and
moment
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christs
person
,
to
assure
or
secure
the
consciences
of
men
concerning
their
justification
by
his
death
.
You
may
please
at
leysure
to
peruse
and
compare
these
Scriptures
further
,
being
all
(
with
many
more
)
of
the
same
consideration
.
2
Cor.
5.21
.
Heb.
9.14
.
1
Pet.
1.19
.
1
Pet.
2.22
.
23.24
,
&c.
Thus
then
we
have
at
least
discovered
another
great
end
of
the
righteousnesse
or
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
viz
:
the
qualification
of
his
person
(
at
least
in
part
)
for
that
meritoriousnesse
of
his
death
which
may
stand
the
world
in
stead
for
their
justification
.
So
that
there
is
no
necessitie
at
all
of
having
recourse
to
the
pretended
imputation
,
for
salving
the
necessitie
or
usefulnesse
of
it
.
By
what
we
have
reasoned
in
this
last
passage
,
it
appeares
how
little
substance
of
truth
there
is
in
that
which
some
much
insist
upon
,
SECT.
9
as
a
confirmation
of
the
argument
now
under
debate
,
viz.
that
the
bare
union
of
the
God-head
with
the
flesh
or
humane
nature
of
Christ
,
did
sufficiently
qualifie
it
for
a
sacrifice
(
they
meane
for
a
sacrifice
of
that
same
expiatorie
value
and
vertue
,
which
now
it
is
)
so
that
in
this
respect
(
at
least
)
there
could
be
no
necessitie
or
use
of
his
fu●fi●●ing
the
Law
.
Doubtlesse
the
men
of
this
affirmation
either
do
not
consider
the
necessitie
of
that
personall
integritie
in
Christ
,
which
we
lately
demonstrated
,
and
which
the
Scriptures
from
place
to
place
insinuate
:
or
else
they
conceive
that
Christ
man
,
might
have
bin
righteous
without
doing
the
works
of
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
without
keeping
the
Law
,
which
is
all
one
,
as
if
they
should
say
,
he
might
have
bin
righteous
,
though
he
had
transgressed
.
For
not
to
keepe
the
Law
in
those
to
whom
the
Law
is
given
,
is
nothing
else
but
to
transgresse
.
If
they
thinke
to
relieve
themselves
with
this
interpretation
of
their
notion
,
that
if
Christ
had
suffered
in
the
first
houre
or
instant
of
his
incarnation
,
or
immediatly
after
the
personal
union
of
the
two
natures
,
his
sacrifice
had
bin
of
equall
value
,
merit
,
and
satisfaction
,
with
what
now
it
is
,
and
yet
in
this
case
,
he
had
not
fulfilled
or
kept
the
Law
:
I
answere
that
this
interpretation
is
every
whit
as
unfound
and
inconsistent
with
rea●on
,
as
the
text
it selfe
.
For
First
,
let
this
supposition
be
admitted
,
that
Christ
might
have
suffered
in
the
Womb
,
and
that
this
suffering
of
his
had
bin
as
fully
satisfactorie
for
the
world
,
as
those
sufferings
are
,
which
he
hath
now
endured
;
yet
had
he
bin
as
perfectly
righteous
in
this
case
,
and
consequently
had
observ'd
and
kept
the
Law
as
perfectly
,
as
now
he
hath
done
.
For
the
Law
requireth
of
Infants
during
their
Infancie
,
nothing
but
integritie
and
holinesse
of
nature
,
which
doubtlesse
the
Lord
Christ
had
from
the
first
moment
of
his
conception
:
&
a
child
or
infant
thus
qualified
I
meane
with
holines
&
integritie
of
nature
,
keepeth
the
Law
as
perfectly
&
exactly
,
as
a
man
living
to
30
or
40
yeares
of
age
should
do
,
in
case
he
never
trāsgrest
.
But
Secondly
,
SECT.
10
this
interpretation
drawes
the
saying
it selfe
quite
besides
the
businesse
in
hand
,
and
makes
it
a
meere
impertinencie
to
the
present
question
.
For
when
we
affirme
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christs
life
,
or
his
obedience
to
the
Morall
Law
,
to
be
of
absolute
necessitie
for
the
qualification
of
his
person
for
a
meet
sacrifice
,
our
meaning
is
not
,
that
there
was
an
absolute
necessitie
that
he
should
have
kept
the
Law
upon
the
same
termes
every
waies
which
now
he
hath
done
,
as
that
he
should
performe
the
same
individuall
acts
of
obedience
,
or
the
same
number
of
acts
,
in
case
he
had
bin
called
to
the
suffering
of
death
any
whit
sooner
,
then
now
he
was
:
but
that
,
untill
the
very
houre
and
instant
wherein
he
should
suffer
,
whether
it
were
sooner
or
later
,
he
should
in
all
things
submit
himselfe
unto
the
good
will
and
pleasure
of
God
concerning
him
aswell
in
that
generall
Law
which
requires
obedience
of
all
men
besides
(
which
we
call
Morall
)
as
in
that
particular
and
speciall
Law
of
Mediator
,
which
was
given
unto
and
imposed
upon
himselfe
alone
.
Such
an
indefinite
righteousnesse
as
this
we
judge
,
and
have
(
I
suppose
)
unanswerably
proved
,
to
have
bin
simply
necessarie
in
Christ
,
for
the
raising
of
that
sacrifice
of
himselfe
,
to
that
height
of
acceptation
in
the
behalfe
of
others
,
which
now
it
hath
found
at
the
hand
of
God
.
But
however
,
suppose
this
necessitie
or
use
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
could
not
be
sufficiently
cleared
,
yet
since
there
are
many
others
of
undeniable
evidence
,
the
position
so
much
contended
for
,
viz.
that
the
God-head
of
Christ
sufficiently
qualified
him
for
such
a
sacrifice
as
he
was
,
makes
nothing
at
all
for
the
imputation
of
his
righteousnesse
,
in
the
sense
pretended
.
Therefore
we
shall
not
trouble
either
our selves
or
our
Reader
any
further
with
untying
an
impertinent
knot
.
But
Seventhly
,
SECT.
11
as
Christ
was
a
sacrifice
,
so
was
he
,
and
yet
is
,
and
is
to
be
for
ever
(
Heb.
7.17
.
&
c.
●a
Priest
,
also
,
or
an
High
Priest
:
and
that
righteousnesse
of
his
we
speake
of
,
qualifieth
him
,
that
is
,
contributeth
towards
his
qualification
for
Priest-hood
,
aswell
as
it
did
for
sacrifice
.
If
he
had
not
been
perfectly
righteous
,
and
consequently
fulfill'd
the
Morall
Law
,
a●
well
as
any
other
Law
,
which
concern'd
him
,
he
had
bin
uncapable
of
that
great
place
or
dignitie
of
Priest-hood
,
which
now
he
executes
,
to
the
great
benefit
and
blessing
of
the
world
.
This
is
evident
from
that
Scripture
,
Heb.
7.26
,
27.
For
such
an
High
●riest
it
became
us
to
have
,
who
is
holy
,
harmelesse
,
undefiled
,
separated
from
sinners
,
&c.
meaning
that
no
Priest
whatsoever
without
these
qualifications
,
could
have
stood
us
in
that
great
stead
,
had
bin
sit
to
intercede
with
God
for
us
,
as
Christ
now
doth
.
Eightly
(
and
lastly
)
that
holy
pleasure
,
and
contentment
which
Christ
himselfe
tooke
in
those
works
of
righteousnesse
,
wherein
hee
addresse
himselfe
to
God
his
Father
by
obedience
to
his
Law
,
may
well
be
look'd
upon
,
as
one
considerable
end
or
use
,
of
this
obedience
of
his
.
My
meat
is
(
saith
himselfe
.
Ioh.
4.34
)
to
doe
the
will
of
him
that
sent
me
,
and
to
finish
his
work
Christ
was
inwardly
and
secretly
refresh'd
and
satisfied
,
with
every
act
or
worke
of
righteousnesse
which
he
wrought
,
as
generally
men
are
by
acting
and
working
out
of
such
principles
as
are
connaturall
and
pleasing
to
them
.
It
is
joy
to
the
just
to
doe
judgement
(
saith
Solomon
,
Prov.
21.15
.
)
Then
the
people
rejoyced
,
when
they
offered
willingly
,
&c.
1
Chr.
29.9
.
Especially
the
Lord
Christ
being
full
of
grace
and
of
the
Spirit
of
holinesse
,
and
withall
knowing
perfectly
,
and
throughly
apprehending
the
full
excellencie
and
beauty
of
all
righteousnesse
and
subjection
unto
God
,
could
not
but
take
and
tast
very
high
and
excellent
contentments
in
all
that
he
did
in
such
a
way
.
So
that
were
there
no
other
end
,
use
,
or
necessitie
of
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
about
which
we
now
reason
,
but
only
his
own
personall
satisfaction
and
contentment
in
the
working
it
,
this
is
abundantly
sufficient
to
salve
the
the
usefulnesse
and
necessitie
of
it
.
How
many
things
are
done
even
by
wise
men
,
with
no
relation
to
any
further
end
,
but
only
their
owne
pleasure
,
satisfaction
and
contentment
in
doing
them
?
Therefore
the
Argument
last
propounded
to
establish
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
supposed
)
viz.
the
uselesnesse
of
it
otherwise
,
is
weaker
then
its
fellowes
,
though
neither
have
these
cause
to
boast
of
much
strength
.
A
fift
argument
imployed
in
the
same
service
,
SECT.
12
Argum.
5
is
this
.
If
we
be
debtors
unto
the
Law
,
and
that
not
only
in
matter
of
punishment
,
deserved
by
our
disobedience
to
it
,
but
in
perfection
of
obedience
also
,
then
did
Christ
not
only
suffer
death
for
us
,
that
we
might
be
delivered
from
the
punishment
or
curse
due
unto
our
sinnes
,
but
also
fulfilled
the
Law
for
us
,
that
so
we
may
be
reputed
to
have
fulfilled
the
Law
in
him
,
or
by
the
imputation
of
his
fulfilling
the
Law
unto
us
;
otherwise
the
Law
should
yet
remaine
to
be
fulfilled
by
us
.
But
we
are
debtors
unto
the
Law
,
not
only
in
matter
of
punishment
for
our
transgression
,
but
in
perfection
of
obedience
also
:
otherwise
our
sinning
against
the
Law
,
should
exempt
and
privilege
us
from
subjection
to
the
Law
.
Ergo.
A
short
Answere
(
I
conceive
)
may
do
sufficient
execution
upon
a
long
argument
.
Answere
.
Therefore
(
I
say
nothing
to
the
major
proposition
,
but
only
in
what
we
shall
charge
upon
the
minor
)
to
this
I
answere
that
it
labours
of
an
infirmity
very
incident
to
reasonings
(
especially
against
the
truth
)
called
homonymia
,
or
ambiguitie
of
expression
.
For
when
it
affirmoth
,
that
we
are
debtors
to
the
Law
in
perfection
of
obedience
,
aswell
as
in
matter
of
punishment
;
as
this
debt
of
obedience
may
be
variously
interpreted
and
understood
,
the
proposition
may
either
be
true
,
or
false
.
If
this
be
the
meaning
,
that
we
that
are
beleevers
,
are
debtors
unto
the
Law
in
perfection
of
obedience
,
for
our
justification
,
it
is
utterly
false
.
For
we
have
no
need
to
depend
upon
it
,
or
any
obedience
to
it
,
for
our
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
but
are
fully
and
freely
justified
by
Christs
blood
.
Ro.
5.9
.
Neither
are
such
debtors
to
it
so
much
as
in
matter
of
punishment
,
Christ
having
cased
their
shoulder
of
this
burden
,
by
taking
it
upon
his
own
.
It
is
true
,
those
that
beleeve
not
in
Christ
,
may
in
this
sense
be
said
to
be
debtors
to
the
Law
,
aswell
in
matter
of
perfect
obedience
,
as
of
punishment
;
that
if
they
meane
to
be
justified
,
and
to
escape
the
punishment
,
and
condemnation
under
which
they
lye
,
otherwise
then
by
Christ
,
they
must
keep
the
whole
Law
,
because
no
third
way
of
justification
from
punishment
due
to
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
was
ever
heard
of
,
nor
is
imaginable
,
but
either
by
Faith
in
Christ
,
or
by
a
personall
obstervation
of
the
whole
Law
.
And
in
this
sense
the
Apostle
(
Gal.
5.3
.
)
testifieth
to
every
man
that
is
circumcised
)
viz.
with
reserence
to
his
justification
〈◊〉
God
:
)
this
he
is
bound
to
keepe
the
whole
Law
,
as
well
as
to
be
circumcised
:
I
because
he
that
sticketh
not
wholly
and
entirely
unto
Christ
for
justification
,
must
of
necessitie
keep
and
observe
the
whole
Law
even
every
jot
and
tittle
of
it
,
and
not
some
part
or
parts
of
it
only
,
to
obtaine
justification
with
God
.
But
Secondly
,
If
the
proposition
meaneth
,
that
beleevers
are
debtors
of
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
in
a
way
of
sanctification
and
thankfulnesse
unto
God
for
that
unspeakable
grace
of
Iustification
and
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
by
Christ
,
so
it
is
,
and
hath
bin
formerly
acknowledged
for
a
truth
cap.
3.
Sect.
10.
of
this
second
Part.
But
in
this
sense
it
concerneth
not
the
question
in
hand
.
Thirdly
,
we
are
not
therefore
exempted
or
priviledged
from
fulfilling
or
keeping
the
Law
,
no
not
in
respect
of
Iustification
it selfe
,
because
we
have
transgressed
it
:
but
1º
,
having
once
transgressed
,
we
are
utterly
uncapable
of
such
an
observation
or
keeping
it
,
whether
personally
or
by
imputation
,
which
may
amount
to
a
Iustification
or
exemption
from
punishment
.
2º
,
that
relaxation
or
release
which
we
have
from
an
observation
of
,
or
dependance
upon
the
Law
for
Iustification
,
accrueth
unto
us
by
meanes
of
our
dependance
upon
Christ
for
Justification
thorough
his
death
,
and
suffering
the
curse
of
the
Law
for
us
,
Rom.
7.4
.
For
Fourthly
,
SECT.
13
God
never
required
of
any
man
,
but
only
of
Christ
,
both
exactnesse
of
obedience
to
the
Law
,
and
subjection
to
punishment
due
to
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
coniunction
,
but
divisim
only
.
He
that
shall
perfectly
keep
the
Law
,
is
no
where
threatned
,
or
bound
to
suffer
the
penaltie
due
to
the
transgression
of
the
La●●
nay
,
the
very
expresse
renor
of
the
Law
,
promiseth
exemption
or
freedome
from
punishment
unto
such
:
Dee
this
,
and
thou
shall
live
.
The
Law
doth
not
make
any
man
a
debtor
in
respect
of
punishment
,
simply
and
absolutely
,
but
conditionally
only
,
and
upon
supposition
of
sinne
.
Fi●●ly
and
lastly
,
In
case
a
man
hath
transgressed
the
Law
,
and
hath
undergone
and
suffered
(
whe
ther
by
himselfe
or
some
other
for
him
)
the
full
punishment
or
penaltie
threatned
in
the
Law
,
he
is
no
further
a
debtor
unto
the
Law
,
neither
in
point
of
obedience
,
nor
of
punishment
,
nor
hath
any
thing
to
doc
with
the
Law
more
or
lesse
,
for
his
Iustification
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
because
the
punishment
which
hath
bin
so
suffered
(
either
by
him
or
for
him
)
is
of
indisser●●t
and
equall
consideration
to
the
Law
,
with
the
most
absolute
conformity
that
could
have
bin
held
with
the
precepts
and
injunctions
of
it
.
So
that
as
no
man
is
or
ever
was
,
or
can
be
bound
to
fulfill
the
Law
twice
over
,
for
his
Iustification
,
or
to
make
him
righteous
:
So
neither
is
it
equall
or
reasonable
to
conceive
,
that
he
,
that
hath
suffered
in
full
the
penaltie
of
the
Law
,
which
suffering
is
every
waies
as
satisfactorie
to
the
Law
,
as
the
exactest
obedience
to
all
things
conteyned
in
it
,
and
of
one
and
the
same
consideration
with
it
(
as
hath
bin
said
)
should
be
still
bound
to
the
observation
of
the
Law
(
whether
by
himselfe
,
or
any
other
for
him
)
for
his
Justification
,
this
being
all
one
,
as
the
requiring
of
a
double
or
second
obedience
unto
the
Law
,
after
a
man
hath
perfectly
fulfill'd
it
once
.
This
for
answere
to
this
Argument
.
Sixtly
,
SECT.
14
Argumt
.
6
for
the
imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
(
in
the
sense
disparaged
)
some
have
made
triall
of
this
:
If
there
be
no
Iustification
without
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
and
no
such
righteousnesse
to
be
found
,
but
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
performed
to
the
Law
,
then
of
necessitie
this
righteousnesse
must
be
conceived
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
in
Iustification
.
But
neither
can
there
be
any
Iustification
without
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
nor
any
such
righteousnesse
found
,
but
only
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
performed
to
the
Law
.
Ergo.
Intending
to
have
nothing
to
doe
with
the
innocencie
of
the
major
,
I
addresse
my selfe
to
the
minor
,
Answere
.
where
we
shall
find
guilt
and
weaknesse
more
then
enough
,
to
worke
upon
.
To
this
therefore
I
answere
,
First
,
that
however
true
it
be
,
that
Iustification
cannot
take
place
without
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
being
nothing
else
but
the
making
of
a
man
perfectly
righteous
,
yet
such
a
righteousnesse
,
as
the
Sonnes
of
this
argument
intend
,
a
righteousnesse
consisting
determ●nitely
of
such
a
number
or
tale
of
righteous
acts
as
Christ
performed
unto
the
Morall
Law
,
is
not
of
any
absolute
necessitie
thereunto
.
For
if
the
Jewes
under
the
Law
were
justified
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
this
righte
usnesse
of
his
is
not
to
be
limited
or
measured
by
the
righteous
acts
performed
by
him
only
to
the
morall
Law
;
but
to
the
Ceremoniall
also
,
See
cap.
18.
Sect.
3.
of
the
first
part
,
&c.
as
hath
bin
formerly
observ'd
and
proved
more
then
once
:
Secondly
,
SECT.
15
neither
is
it
so
absolutly
true
,
as
our
adver
aries
haply
conceive
it
is
,
that
there
is
no
perfect
righteousnesse
(
take
righteousnesse
in
their
owne
notion
and
sense
)
to
be
found
,
but
only
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
We
have
heretofore
shewed
,
that
there
is
a
righteousnesse
in
the
Law
,
as
absolute
and
complete
,
as
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
it selfe
:
and
that
it
is
much
more
probable
of
the
two
,
that
if
God
imputes
a
legall
righteousnesse
unto
men
in
Iustification
,
that
he
furnisheth
them
this
way
out
of
the
Law
it selfe
for
Christs
sake
then
that
he
should
impute
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
unto
them
.
See
cap.
2.
Sect.
5.
and
c.
5.
sect.
9.
of
this
second
Part.
But
Thirdly
(
&
lastly
)
that
perfect
righteousnesse
wherin
Iustification
consists
,
and
wherewith
men
are
made
formally
righteous
when
they
are
justified
,
is
nothing
else
but
remission
of
sinnes
,
as
hath
bin
abundantly
proved
both
in
the
second
and
fourth
Chapters
of
this
latter
part
of
the
Discourse
.
This
forgivenesse
of
sinnes
is
that
righteousnesse
,
which
the
Scripture
calls
a
righteousnesse
without
works
Rom.
4.
ver.
6
&
7.
compared
together
.
And
which
Augustine
,
[
](A85397-e106040-b)(a)
(a)
ips●
nostra
justitia
quamvi●
vera
sit
propter
veri
bonifinē
ad
quam
refertur
,
tamen
tanta
est
in
hac
vita
,
ut
potius
peccatorum
remissione
constet
,
quam
perfecticne
virtutum
.
Aug.
de
Civit.
l.
19.
c.
27.
Haymo
[
](A85397-e106080-b)(b)
(b)
Quia
credidit
Deo
,
reputatum
est
ei
ad
justitiam
,
id
est
,
ad
remissianem
peccatorum
.
Haym
.
ad
Rom.
4.3
.
,
Bernard
[
](A85397-e106120-b)(c)
(c)
Dei
justitia
est
,
non
peccare
:
hominis
autem
justitia
,
Dei
indulgentia
.
Bernaidus
.
Serm.
23
in
Cantic
.
Christus
factus
est
nobu
justitia
,
in
absblutione
peccatorum
.
Ibid.
Serm.
22.
,
with
others
of
former
times
,
as
likewise
Luther
[
](A85397-e106160-b)(d)
(d)
Iustitiane
stra
,
proprie
est
remissio
peccatorum
,
se●
(
ue
loquitur
Psalmus
)
peccata
non
imputare
,
&c.
Luther
.
in
Summa
.
Ps.
32
,
Calvin
[
](A85397-e106200-b)(e)
(e)
Sequitur
ergo
eo
nos
esse
justos
,
quia
nobis
peceata
non
imputantuy
.
Calv
de
vera
Eccles.
Reform
.
ratione
.
p.
368.
,
Musculus
[
](A85397-e106250-b)(f)
(f)
Iucundum
est
quod
justitia
et
beatitudo
nostra
est
remissio
peccatorum
,
per
fidem
in
Christum
.
Muscu
.
in
Psal.
32.
p.
298.
Quid
enim
est
justum
esse
,
et
reputari
in
peccatu
conceptum
et
natū
,
quam
peccatu
esse
liberum
?
ibid.
,
Pareus
[
](A85397-e106290-b)(g)
(g)
Sic
Deus
Abrahae
et
omnibus
nobu
peccatoribus
fidem
.
imputat
pro
justitia
,
quando
credentes
in
fillium
justificat
hoc
.
est
,
absolvir
,
&c.
Pal
cus
ad
Rom.
2.3
.
p.
363.
Fide
accepit
justitiam
,
sen
remisslonem
peccatorum
a
Deo
gratis
donatam
,
&c.
ibid.
,
Chamier
[
](A85397-e106340-b)(h)
(h)
Remissio
peccatorum
;
est
Iustitia
imputata
Cham.
Panstrat
.
t.
3
l.
21.
c.
19.
Sect.
10.
Iidem
justitie
proram
et
pupp
im
constituionut
in
remiss●●●peccato
;
um
.
ibid.
Sect.
9.
,
withothers
more
of
satter
times
without
number
,
yea
and
the
Homilies
of
our
own
Church
[
](A85397-e106390-b)(i)
(i)
Because
all
men
are
sinners
and
offender
,
against
God
;
&c.
every
man
of
necessitie
is
constrained
to
seeke
for
another
righteousnesse
or
justification
,
to
be
received
at
Gods
own
hands
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sinnes
and
trespasses
in
such
things
as
he
hath
offended
.
Homil.
of
salvation
,
part
1.
p.
13.
Iustitia
Christi
,
est
absolntio
a
peccatu
per
Christum
ex
side
,
Pet.
Mart.
ad
●om
.
10.8
.
Credimus
totam
nostram
justitiam
positam
esse
in
peccatorum
nostrorum
Remissione
&c.
Harm
.
Confess
.
Gallic
.
art.
13.
have
still
with
confidence
and
without
scruple
,
called
by
the
Name
of
a
righteousnesse
.
See
cap.
5.
Sect.
5.
of
the
first
part
.
and
cap.
4.
Sect.
28.
of
this
latter
part
.
And
because
some
,
who
have
a
great
minde
to
make
Calvin
of
theirs
,
in
the
imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
,
will
needs
have
all
those
passages
in
him
(
which
are
very
many
)
wherein
he
placeth
justification
or
righteousnesse
in
Rem
ssion
of
sinnes
alone
,
to
be
meant
only
in
way
of
opposition
to
that
Popish
opinion
,
which
together
with
remission
of
sinnes
coupleth
infusion
of
grace
to
make
up
the
formall
cause
of
justification
,
as
if
by
the
word
only
,
or
alone
,
he
meant
to
shut
out
this
infusion
of
grace
only
,
and
not
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
imputed
;
I
shall
by
a
passage
or
two
from
him
in
the
point
,
cleere
his
intention
in
such
expressions
,
and
fully
manifest
how
importune
,
and
at
open
defiance
with
the
truth
,
any
such
interpretation
of
his
minde
and
meaning
must
needs
be
.
In
which
words
(
saith
Calvin
,
meaning
those
of
the
Apostle
Rom.
4.6
.
in
his
commentaries
upon
the
place
)
we
are
taught
,
justitiam
,
Paulo
nihil
esse
quàm
remissionem
peccatorum
,
that
is
,
that
righteousnesse
with
Paul
,
is
nothing
else
but
remission
of
sinnes
.
And
not
long
after
upon
the
9th
.
verse
of
the
same
Chapter
;
So
iustitia
Abrahae
est
peccatorum
remissio
(
quod
securè
ipsepro
confesso
assumit
&c.
)
that
is
,
If
Abrahams
righteousnesse
be
the
forgivenesse
of
his
sinnes
(
which
he
,
meaning
Paul
without
any
further
care
or
thought
about
it
,
takes
for
granted
,
&c.
By
these
passages
it
is
evident
,
that
whatsoever
his
own
minde
or
judgement
was
in
the
point
now
under
question
,
viz.
whether
remission
of
sins
simply
&
alone
,
without
any
other
additiō
whatsoever
,
were
the
righteousnesse
of
a
Beleever
in
justification
,
he
attributes
the
affirmative
unto
Paul
,
and
makes
his
opinion
and
judgement
to
stand
,
for
Remission
of
sinnes
simply
,
excluding
not
the
infusion
of
grace
only
,
but
all
other
things
whatsoever
.
Except
(
haply
)
men
(
Gyant-like
)
will
attempt
to
set
Pelion
upon
Ossa
,
heap
presumption
upon
presumption
,
and
say
,
that
Paul
likewise
expressed
himselfe
in
the
Point
,
only
by
way
of
opposition
to
the
Popish
opinion
concerning
grace
infused
,
and
had
no
intent
to
be
understood
simply
,
that
Remission
of
sinnes
was
a
Beleevers
righteousnesse
.
Otherwise
,
for
Calvin
to
ascribe
one
opinion
unto
Paul
in
the
point
of
justification
,
and
to
be
himselfe
of
another
,
is
neither
better
nor
worse
,
then
to
professe
himselfe
wiser
then
he
in
the
businesse
,
yea
then
the
Holy
Ghost
himselfe
speaking
by
him
.
Which
horrid
blasphemy
those
men
unadvisedly
bring
upon
the
head
of
this
holy
and
faithfull
servant
of
God
,
who
labour
to
make
him
of
a
quite
differing
judgment
himselfe
(
especially
in
so
weighty
a
point
as
justification
is
)
from
that
which
he
acknowledgeth
to
be
the
judgment
of
so
great
and
glorious
an
Apostle
,
as
Paul
was
.
I
might
adde
a
third
passage
,
(
yea
and
three
more
to
that
)
of
his
(
ex
abundanti
)
of
the
same
importance
(
and
perhaps
somewhat
more
pregnant
)
Therefore
Paul
(
saith
he
[
](A85397-e106810-b)(a)
(a)
Merite
Paulus
fidei
justitiam
in
peccatorums
ormissiene
simpliciter
includit
,
docevs
earn
a
Davide
describi
,
cum
beatum
heminem
pronunciat
,
cui
non
imputantur
peccata
Calvin
.
De
vera
.
Ecales
.
Res
.
ratione
.
p.
368.
doth
well
,
simply
to
include
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
in
Remission
of
sinnes
,
teaching
us
that
David
so
describeth
it
,
when
he
pronounceth
the
man
happy
,
whose
sinnes
are
not
imputed
unto
him
.
Whether
Calvin
himselfe
did
simply
and
absolutly
,
and
not
with
limitation
and
restraint
,
place
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
in
remission
of
sinnes
,
or
no
,
most
unanswerably
undeniable
it
is
,
that
he
conceived
Paul
so
to
doe
.
Nor
is
there
any
reasonable
ground
or
cause
(
to
adde
a
word
of
this
in
the
close
of
this
Answere
)
why
men
should
be
so
averse
or
shie
as
some
are
,
SECT.
16
from
looking
upon
Remission
of
sinnes
as
a
righteonsness
,
yea
as
a
perfect
and
complete
righteousnesse
;
since
it
is
equivalent
unto
,
and
vertually
conteynes
and
comprehends
in
it
,
the
most
absolute
and
entire
obedience
unto
the
Law
and
will
of
God
,
as
hath
bin
already
fully
demonstrated
,
cap.
2.
Sect.
4.
of
this
second
Part
,
where
also
the
authority
and
confent
of
Augustine
in
this
behalfe
was
produced
,
who
plainly
affirmeth
,
Omnia
mandata
facta
deputantur
,
quonde
quiequid
non
fit
,
ignoscitur
.
Ang.
Retract
.
l.
2.
c.
19.
that
all
the
commandements
(
of
God
)
are
reputed
to
be
kept
or
done
,
when
whatsoever
is
not
done
,
is
forgiven
.
Againe
●
ᵒ
,
it
may
well
,
and
in
sufficient
proprietie
of
speech
,
beare
the
nature
of
a
righteonsnesse
,
(
vea
and
that
perfect
and
compleate
)
because
it
hath
all
those
great
and
high
privileges
annexed
to
it
and
depending
upon
it
,
(
which
a
righteousnesse
most
literally
and
strictly
so
called
,
could
have
)
as
the
love
,
favor
,
acceptation
and
approbation
of
God
,
yea
life
and
salvation
themselves
.
It
hath
bin
elsewhere
(
as
I
remember
)
observed
in
this
discourse
,
that
the
names
of
things
are
very
usually
enterchanged
in
Scripture
,
upon
occasion
of
a
similituda
or
liken●sse
of
use
or
offect
betweene
them
.
John
Baptist
is
called
by
the
name
of
●liah
.
because
he
was
servicenble
unto
God
and
his
cause
after
the
same
manner
and
with
the
same
spirit
that
Eliah
was
.
So
Peter
and
Iohn
were
counted
Pillars
.
Gal.
2.9
.
because
they
were
conceiv'd
to
stand
the
Church
of
Christ
in
some
such
stead
,
as
Pillars
doe
the
house
that
is
supported
by
them
.
So
Christ
himselfe
(
to
omit
other
instances
in
this
kinde
without
number
)
is
called
Bread
,
a
Vine
,
a
Dore
,
a
Way
,
a
Roote
,
a
Branch
,
the
morning
Starre
,
&c.
because
in
something
or
other
he
resembles
the
nature
or
use
,
or
both
,
of
all
these
things
.
In
like
manner
Remission
of
sinnes
though
it
had
not
the
nature
or
essence
of
a
perfect
righteousnesse
in
it
,
may
yet
be
called
a
perfect
righteousnesse
,
because
it
is
of
the
same
consideration
,
benefit
and
use
unto
the
creature
,
with
a
perfect
righteousnesse
indeed
.
But
enough
for
this
argument
.
I
hope
it
will
be
from
henceforth
contented
,
and
complaine
no
more
for
want
of
satisfaction
.
A
seventh
argument
which
is
likewise
layd
hold
on
by
some
as
a
Shield
and
Buckler
to
defend
the
imputation
assailed
,
SECT.
17
Argum.
7
is
this
:
If
Doe
this
,
and
live
,
be
an
everlasting
rule
of
God
,
and
which
shall
never
be
dissolved
,
cancelled
,
or
growne
out
of
date
,
then
must
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
be
imputed
unto
men
in
justification
,
that
so
they
may
be
said
to
have
done
this
,
that
is
,
to
have
fulfilled
the
Law
,
and
so
live
.
But
Doe
this
and
live
,
it
an
everlasting
rule
of
God
,
which
shall
never
be
dissolved
,
&c.
Ergo.
I
answere
,
that
all
the
strength
of
this
argument
,
lyeth
in
the
hollownesse
of
those
words
,
(
take
them
out
of
which
proposition
you
please
)
is
an
everlasting
rule
,
&c.
In
this
sence
I
grant
,
that
do
this
and
live
,
is
an
everlasting
rule
:
it
is
,
and
hath
bin
,
and
shall
be
everlastingly
true
,
that
whosoever
shall
do
this
,
that
is
,
fulfill
the
Law
perfectly
,
shall
live
and
enjoy
the
favor
of
God
&c.
But
this
sence
makes
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
neither
is
there
so
much
as
the
face
of
a
consequence
in
the
major
,
if
it
be
taken
:
whosoever
continueth
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
do
them
,
shall
live
and
be
saved
,
whether
Christs
righteousnesse
be
imputed
unto
them
,
or
not
,
But
if
the
meaning
of
the
clause
be
,
is
an
everlasting
rule
,
that
is
,
is
the
only
perpetuall
and
standing
rule
or
Law
,
whereby
,
and
according
to
which
men
must
be
justified
and
so
saved
,
so
that
no
man
can
be
justifyed
,
but
he
only
that
may
truly
be
said
to
have
done
this
,
that
is
,
performed
an
universall
obedience
to
all
the
precepts
,
to
every
jot
and
tittle
of
the
Law
;
in
this
sense
(
I
say
)
it
neither
is
,
nor
ever
was
,
nor
ever
shall
be
a
rule
of
God
,
nor
a
rule
of
truth
.
For
God
hath
alwaies
had
,
and
for
ever
will
have
,
Repugnantia
legis
et
fidei
est
i●
causa
justificationis
:
facilius
enim
aquam
igni
copulabis
,
quam
haec
duo
concilis
es
,
homines
lego
et
side
esse
justos
.
Calvin
.
in
Gal.
3.12
.
another
Law
or
rule
for
the
Iustification
of
men
,
besides
,
Doe
this
and
live
,
even
that
Law
or
rule
which
is
still
in
Scripture
opposed
to
this
,
Beleeve
this
and
live
.
Compare
Rom.
3.27
.
with
Rom.
10.5.6
.
&c.
See
likewise
cap.
4.
of
the
first
part
of
this
discourse
,
throughout
,
together
with
the
Answere
given
to
the
Scripture
,
Gal.
3.10
.
in
cap.
5.
of
this
second
part
.
These
passages
perus'd
and
considered
,
will
perfectly
allay
all
the
heat
and
burning
of
this
Argument
.
Another
foundation
to
build
the
imputation
counter-argued
upon
,
is
laid
by
some
after
this
manner
.
SECT.
18
Argum.
8
That
righteousnesse
which
God
accepteth
on
our
behalfe
,
as
the
righteousnesse
imputed
to
us
in
Justification
.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
is
that
righteousnesse
which
God
accepteth
on
our
behalfe
.
Ergo
I
answere
briefly
,
1º
,
by
denying
the
Major
,
2º
,
Answer
.
by
distinguishing
upon
the
Minor
.
The
reason
of
my
deniall
to
the
Major
,
is
,
because
God
may
and
doth
accept
that
for
us
,
or
on
our
behalfe
,
which
yet
hee
need
not
(
in
the
sense
contended
for
in
this
Treatise
)
impute
to
us
.
God
accepted
Abrahams
prayer
on
the
behalfe
of
Ismael
,
and
yet
did
not
impute
this
prayer
to
Ismael
himselfe
,
as
if
he
had
prayed
it
.
In
like
manner
he
accepted
the
prayer
of
Elisha
for
the
Shunamites
Sonne
,
and
yet
did
not
looke
upon
the
child
as
if
he
had
made
it
for
himselfe
.
It
is
true
in
these
and
many
other
cases
of
like
consideration
which
might
be
added
,
the
persons
prayed
for
by
others
,
received
benefit
by
the
prayers
that
were
made
for
them
,
but
there
is
no
colour
of
reason
to
conceive
,
that
God
must
necessarily
looke
upon
such
prayers
,
as
if
they
had
bin
made
by
the
persons
themselves
,
for
whom
they
were
made
,
and
who
were
profited
by
them
:
It
is
like
they
had
the
greater
acceptation
with
God
,
and
prevailed
more
on
the
behalfe
of
those
for
whom
they
were
made
,
because
they
were
made
by
others
for
them
,
(
especially
by
persons
of
such
grace
and
interest
with
God
as
they
were
,
who
did
make
them
)
then
if
they
had
bin
made
by
themselves
.
In
like
manner
,
those
on
whose
behalfe
Christs
sufferings
were
accepted
,
receive
an
unspeakable
blessing
and
benefit
by
them
:
but
this
operates
nothing
towards
such
an
inference
or
conclusion
as
this
,
that
therefore
God
must
looke
upon
these
sufferings
of
Christ
,
as
if
they
had
personally
endured
them
,
on
whose
behalfe
they
are
accepted
(
which
is
the
imputation
principally
opposed
in
this
Treatise
)
nay
such
a
supposition
or
imputation
as
this
,
rather
tends
to
destroy
or
prejudice
their
acceptation
,
then
any
waies
to
further
it
.
The
sufferings
of
Christ
(
doubtlesse
)
have
the
height
of
their
acceptation
with
God
on
the
behalfe
of
those
that
beleeve
,
because
they
are
look'd
upon
by
him
as
the
sufferings
of
himselfe
,
I
meane
of
Christ
,
and
of
no
other
.
Againe
2º
,
to
the
minor
,
I
answere
likewise
by
Distinction
.
If
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
the
proposition
meaneth
,
precisely
that
obedience
which
he
exhibited
to
that
generall
and
common
Law
,
whereunto
all
other
men
are
oblieged
,
considered
apart
from
his
obedience
to
that
peculiar
Law
of
Mediator
,
given
to
himselfe
alone
,
so
it
is
altogether
false
.
For
God
did
not
accept
this
righteousnesse
of
Christ
on
our
behalfe
,
so
,
or
upon
such
termes
as
to
justifie
us
,
either
with
it
,
or
for
it
,
as
hath
bin
ten
times
said
,
and
oft
enough
proved
already
.
If
by
this
righteousnesse
,
be
meant
that
obedience
of
Christ
,
commonly
knowne
by
the
name
of
Passive
,
or
both
Active
and
Passive
together
,
so
this
proposition
may
be
granted
:
but
then
the
other
will
be
found
tar
die
,
as
hath
bin
shewed
,
unlesse
we
make
foure
termes
in
the
syllogisme
instead
of
three
,
by
taking
the
same
words
in
one
sense
in
the
Major
,
and
in
another
sense
in
the
Minor
;
and
then
it
is
no
longer
a
syllogisme
,
but
a
Paralogisme
.
So
that
neither
can
this
argument
do
any
thing
.
Therefore
let
us
further
trie
the
strength
of
those
that
are
yet
behind
.
Some
conceive
that
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
taken
and
left
)
may
be
firmly
established
upon
the
publiquenesle
of
his
person
,
SECT.
19
Argumt
.
9
and
reason
after
this
manner
.
If
Christ
were
a
publique
person
,
standing
in
the
place
or
stead
of
all
those
that
should
beleeve
in
him
,
then
all
that
he
did
,
and
all
that
he
suffered
,
are
to
be
looked
upon
,
and
are
reputed
by
God
as
done
and
suffered
by
these
,
and
consequently
are
imputed
to
them
.
But
Christ
was
a
publique
Person
,
standing
in
the
place
and
stead
of
all
that
should
beleeve
in
him
.
Ergo.
In
this
argument
,
Answere
.
I
charge
the
former
Proposition
with
weaknesse
and
untruth
.
Because
the
publiquenesse
of
Christs
person
,
or
his
standing
in
the
place
of
those
that
should
beleeve
,
is
no
sufficient
ground
to
build
this
inference
upon
;
therefore
all
that
he
did
,
and
all
that
he
suffered
,
are
looked
upon
by
God
.
,
as
done
or
suffered
by
them
.
This
is
evident
:
his
conception
,
incarnation
,
birth
,
circumcision
,
subjection
to
Ioseph
his
supposed
Father
,
his
apposing
the
Doctors
in
the
Temple
,
his
whipping
the
buyers
and
sellers
out
of
the
Temple
,
his
Redemption
of
the
world
,
with
other
particulars
more
of
like
consideration
without
number
,
were
all
,
either
things
done
,
or
suffered
by
him
:
yet
are
they
not
looked
upon
by
God
as
done
,
or
suffered
by
all
those
that
beleeve
in
him
.
For
to
what
purpose
(
for
example
)
should
I
,
being
a
beleeving
Gentile
,
and
so
not
only
free
from
the
Yoke
of
Iewish
Ceremonies
,
but
further
,
under
command
not
to
use
them
,
be
looked
upon
by
God
as
one
circumcised
?
so
what
can
it
in
reason
advantage
me
,
to
be
look'd
upon
by
God
,
as
one
who
in
Christ
,
was
in
subjection
unto
Ioseph
?
especially
how
shall
I
not
feare
and
tremble
,
to
take
the
least
hold
of
such
a
conceipt
,
that
God
should
looke
upon
me
,
as
having
redeemed
the
world
,
which
yet
was
one
of
the
greatest
acts
that
Christ
did
?
Therefore
this
proposition
is
no
Oracle
.
Princes
and
Magistrates
are
publique
persons
:
yet
God
forbid
that
all
that
they
doe
,
should
be
look'd
upon
by
God
,
as
done
by
all
those
that
are
in
subjection
under
them
.
Adam
was
as
publique
a
person
(
yea
and
more
publique
,
in
a
sense
)
then
Christ
himselfe
;
yea
and
is
conceived
by
the
most
,
to
have
stood
as
much
in
the
place
or
stead
of
his
posteritie
,
as
Christ
did
in
the
stead
of
his
,
I
meane
of
those
that
were-to
descend
Spiritually
from
him
by
Faith
:
(
though
for
my selfe
,
I
had
rather
demurre
,
then
joyne
issue
in
this
)
And
yet
how
ridiculous
is
it
on
the
one
hand
,
and
of
dangerous
consequence
on
the
other
,
to
suppose
that
all
that
Adam
did
,
and
all
that
very
possibly
he
might
have
done
,
either
may
,
or
might
have
bin
so
imputed
to
all
his
posteritie
,
as
if
they
had
done
it
?
Of
what
advantage
or
concernment
can
it
be
unto
me
,
that
God
should
looke
upon
me
,
as
one
that
gave
Names
to
all
Cattell
,
and
to
the
foules
of
Heaven
,
and
to
every
Beast
of
the
Field
,
which
yet
Adam
did
?
Gen.
2.20
.
Or
as
upon
one
,
that
first
propagated
man-kinde
,
and
begat
Cain
,
which
we
know
were
done
by
Adam
?
with
twenty
things
more
of
like
nature
.
In
case
he
had
stood
,
and
continued
in
his
righteousnesse
,
the
publiquenesse
of
his
person
had
bin
no
waies
touched
,
nor
impaired
hereby
:
and
yet
is
it
of
very
doubtfull
importance
,
to
conceive
,
that
all
that
righteousnesse
which
Adam
in
this
case
had
wrought
,
should
have
bin
look'd
upon
as
the
righteousnesse
of
all
his
posteritie
,
and
imputed
to
them
for
their
Justification
;
For
from
hence
it
would
follow
,
10
,
that
all
his
posteritie
should
have
bin
saved
,
20
,
that
they
should
all
have
bin
sinlesse
:
which
are
two
principall
regions
of
terra
incognita
:
30
,
(
and
lastly
)
that
they
should
all
have
bin
justified
by
a
double
righteousnesse
,
one
personall
and
wrought
by
themselves
,
another
imputative
,
wrought
by
another
:
and
so
(
in
this
respect
at
least
)
should
have
bin
better
provided
for
their
justification
,
then
those
that
are
now
justified
by
Christ
.
Secondly
,
it
hath
bin
formerly
demonstrated
,
SECT.
20
how
little
consistence
it
hath
either
with
truth
,
See
cap.
2.
Sect.
14.
of
this
second
Part.
or
with
the
manner
of
Scripture
expression
,
to
say
,
that
the
sufferings
of
Christ
,
are
by
God
look'd
upon
as
our
sufferings
,
or
to
conceive
that
we
should
suffer
in
him
.
It
is
not
all
one
to
say
(
saith
Doctor
Willet
)
we
are
punished
in
Christ
,
and
Christ
was
punished
for
us
,
and
in
our
stead
:
this
is
warranted
by
the
Scripture
,
Esa
53.6
.
But
the
other
cannot
be
affirmed
,
for
seeing
in
Christs
death
we
have
remission
of
our
sins
,
we
cannot
be
said
for
the
same
sinnes
,
to
be
punished
in
and
with
Christ
,
whereof
we
have
remission
in
his
death
.
Comment.
on
Dan.
9.
Qu.
25.
p.
289.
Thirdly
,
the
publiquenesse
of
a
person
,
who
negotiates
the
businesse
and
affaires
of
others
,
as
Christ
did
of
those
that
shall
beleeve
in
him
,
doth
no
further
,
or
any
otherwise
interesse
those
whose
affaires
they
manage
,
in
what
they
do
,
in
,
or
about
such
a
transaction
,
but
only
with
reference
to
the
issue
and
successe
of
what
they
do
for
them
,
in
that
behalfe
.
If
a
man
undertakes
the
ordering
and
issuing
of
such
a
businesse
for
me
,
and
deales
dishonestly
or
unconscionably
with
others
therin
,
and
at
last
makes
a
conclusion
with
much
damage
and
disadvantage
to
me
,
which
might
be
a
wise
and
saire
cariage
of
things
on
my
behalfe
,
have
bin
prevented
;
I
am
in
this
case
liable
to
suffer
all
the
detriment
and
damage
,
which
the
unconscionablenesse
,
or
weaknesse
of
my
Agent
hath
brought
upon
me
:
but
I
am
not
to
be
look'd
upon
,
as
one
that
have
us'd
the
same
unconscionablenesse
with
him
,
or
as
if
his
weaknesse
were
mine
.
Or
in
case
he
had
dealt
wisely
or
faithfully
for
me
,
and
had
brought
my
businesse
to
a
good
end
or
issue
;
I
here
receive
benefit
and
good
by
such
a
mans
wisdome
and
faithfulnesse
:
but
these
are
not
ascribed
orimputed
unto
me
,
as
mine
owne
,
because
he
was
my
Agent
that
used
them
.
The
Client
that
prevailes
against
his
adversary
before
the
Judge
,
by
the
skill
of
his
Advocate
or
Lawyer
,
is
not
therefore
reputed
as
skilfull
in
the
Law
,
as
his
Advocate
,
nor
to
have
pleaded
his
own
cause
as
substantially
and
effectually
,
as
his
Lawyer
did
.
In
like
manner
,
as
farre
as
Adam
had
a
Commission
or
power
from
God
to
deale
for
me
,
or
in
my
affaires
,
being
one
of
his
posteritie
,
I
am
bound
to
undergoe
and
suffer
my
share
in
that
evill
or
miserie
which
he
brought
upon
the
world
,
through
his
weaknesse
or
unfaithfulnesse
in
that
transaction
:
but
this
weaknesse
or
unfaithfulnesse
of
his
as
a
Commissioner
for
me
,
is
not
look'd
upon
as
my
personall
weaknesse
or
unfaithfulnesse
;
only
so
farre
as
my
person
was
in
his
,
they
are
ascribed
and
imputed
unto
me
as
mine
own
.
See
for
this
cap.
2.
Sect.
11.
of
this
second
part
.
So
againe
on
the
other
hand
,
as
farre
as
Christ
had
a
power
from
God
to
deale
for
me
,
and
in
mine
affaires
,
being
one
that
beleeve
in
him
,
I
have
my
part
and
portion
in
that
blessed
end
and
issue
whereunto
by
his
holinesse
,
wisdome
,
faithfulnesse
and
patience
he
brought
the
affaires
of
the
world
entrusted
in
his
had
:
but
God
doth
never
the
more
looke
upon
me
,
as
if
that
holinesse
,
wisdome
,
faithfulnesse
and
patience
,
had
bin
mine
,
nor
is
it
any
waies
necessary
that
he
should
,
to
make
me
capable
of
that
which
falls
to
my
share
as
I
am
a
beleever
,
in
that
great
and
blessed
transaction
of
Christ
.
Fourthly
and
lastly
(
to
part
with
this
argument
also
upon
such
terms
,
SECT.
21
that
we
may
never
need
to
meete
more
)
neither
is
it
altogether
so
solid
or
sound
a
truth
,
as
haply
is
supposed
,
that
Christ
stood
in
the
place
or
stead
of
those
that
should
beleeve
in
him
,
especially
in
all
things
performed
by
him
,
and
which
tended
to
the
qualification
of
his
person
,
for
the
accomplishing
of
that
great
work
of
Redemption
.
To
stand
in
the
place
or
stead
of
another
,
implies
a
necessitie
of
his
being
in
the
same
place
,
and
doing
the
same
things
himselfe
wherin
he
stands
,
and
which
he
doth
,
who
is
supposed
to
stand
in
his
stead
,
unlesse
they
had
bin
done
by
this
other
for
him
.
Now
Christ
did
a
thousand
things
,
yea
and
suffered
many
,
for
the
doing
and
suffering
wherof
,
there
lay
no
personall
necessitie
upon
many
Beleevers
,
whether
Christ
had
done
or
suffered
them
,
or
no.
As
for
example
,
there
was
no
necessitie
,
either
in
way
of
duty
,
or
of
penaltie
,
lying
upon
any
Beleever
,
one
or
other
,
to
be
conceived
or
borne
of
a
virgin
,
to
turne
water
into
wine
,
to
command
the
winds
and
the
Seas
,
to
ordain
Apostles
,
or
the
like
.
Againe
there
was
no
necessitie
lying
upon
any
beleeving
Gentile
to
have
bin
circumcised
,
to
have
bin
in
subjection
unto
Ioseph
,
to
have
eaten
the
Passeover
at
Hierusalem
,
&c.
Therefore
in
all
these
Passages
of
his
life
,
with
many
others
,
it
is
full
evident
that
he
stood
not
in
the
place
or
stead
of
all
Beleevers
,
All
that
the
Scripture
speaketh
in
this
case
is
,
that
he
suffered
for
us
,
was
made
a
curse
for
us
,
&c.
which
expressions
,
though
they
imply
indeed
(
in
the
generall
)
a
necessitie
of
our
sufferings
,
unlesse
Christ
had
suffered
for
us
,
yet
do
they
not
imply
a
necessitie
of
our
sufferings
in
the
same
kinde
,
or
after
the
same
manner
,
in
all
particulars
.
It
doeth
not
follow
,
that
except
Christ
had
bin
circumcised
,
we
must
have
bin
circumcised
,
except
he
had
fasted
40
daies
we
must
have
fasted
40.
except
he
had
bin
scourged
with
rods
,
or
crucified
on
a
Crosse
,
we
must
of
necessitie
have
bin
scourged
or
crucified
:
only
it
followes
,
that
except
Christ
had
suffered
either
in
these
or
some
other
particulars
,
as
satisfactorie
to
divine
wisdome
and
justice
as
these
,
we
must
have
suffered
,
and
that
most
grievously
.
Therefore
it
is
not
every
waies
so
square
a
truth
,
that
Christ
,
even
in
his
sufferings
themselves
particularly
considered
,
stood
in
our
stead
.
But
the
Scriptures
which
oft
say
,
that
Christ
suffered
for
us
,
died
for
as
,
&c.
never
say
,
that
either
he
kept
the
Morall
or
Ceremoniall
Law
,
nor
any
part
of
either
for
us
;
though
this
expression
may
be
admitted
,
without
granting
that
he
did
these
in
our
stead
.
See
cap.
3.
Sect.
11.
of
this
second
part
.
And
thus
we
see
that
this
argument
also
is
defective
on
every
side
.
Another
,
SECT.
22
Argum.
10
reaching
after
the
same
conclusion
with
the
former
,
but
scarse
with
the
liek
appearance
of
strength
,
is
this
:
If
we
cannot
be
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
otherwise
then
by
the
imputation
of
it
,
then
must
it
needs
be
imputed
unto
us
,
in
our
justification
.
But
there
is
no
way
of
being
Iustified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
but
only
by
the
imputation
of
it
unto
us
.
Ergo.
I
answere
in
few
words
to
the
latter
proposition
,
Answer
.
that
if
the
righteousnesse
,
that
is
,
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
could
have
no
other
influence
into
Iustification
,
but
in
that
way
of
imputation
,
which
hath
hitherto
bin
gain-said
,
either
Iustification
must
stand
without
it
,
or
else
fall
.
For
certame
it
is
,
that
no
such
imputation
can
stand
,
as
hath
bin
proved
by
three
demonstrations
and
by
foure
,
and
by
many
more
added
to
them
,
in
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
.
But
the
weaknesse
of
the
Proposition
is
sufficiently
evinced
from
hence
,
because
that
righteousnesse
of
Christ
mentioned
in
it
,
concurr's
towards
Iustification
,
by
qualifying
his
person
for
that
sacrifice
of
himselfe
,
by
which
Iustification
or
remission
of
sinnes
,
hath
bin
purchased
for
all
those
that
beleeve
,
as
hath
bin
opened
at
large
in
an
answere
to
a
former
argument
.
The
quiver
of
our
Adversaries
is
well
nigh
exhaust
,
and
almost
empty
,
by
this
I
scarce
know
two
arguments
more
really
differing
from
those
already
produced
,
that
will
well
hold
the
Answering
.
The
best
of
those
which
yet
remaine
,
I
conceive
is
this
.
If
we
may
truly
be
said
to
be
dead
,
and
crucified
with
Christ
,
SECT.
23
Argum.
11
to
be
quickened
with
Christ
,
to
have
risen
againe
with
Christ
,
to
sit
in
heavenly
places
in
,
or
with
Christ
,
&c.
then
may
we
be
truly
said
to
have
fulfilled
the
Law
with
Christ
also
,
(
for
there
is
no
reason
why
any
difference
should
be
made
in
this
case
)
and
consequently
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
by
Christ
is
imputed
to
us
,
and
accounted
ours
.
But
we
may
truly
be
said
to
be
dead
,
and
crucified
,
and
quickned
,
&
raised
againe
and
to
sit
with
Christ
in
Heavenly
places
,
the
Scripture
affirming
all
this
.
Ergo.
My
Answere
to
this
argument
is
a
Protestation
against
the
consequence
of
the
major
Proposition
,
Answere
.
as
being
insufficient
.
Our
being
dead
,
and
risen
againe
with
Christ
,
&c.
in
a
Scripture
serise
,
ha●●●●o
such
conclusion
or
inference
as
this
in
their
bowells
,
therefore
we
have
fulfilled
the
Morall
Law
with
Christ
also●
:
or
if
we
could
be
said
to
have
fulfilled
this
Law
with
Christ
,
our
own
fulfilling
it
in
him
,
should
rather
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
Cap.
2.
Sect.
11.
of
this
second
Part.
then
his
fulfilling
it
for
us
,
(
as
we
formerly
reasoned
concerning
the
imputation
of
Adams
sinne
)
But
the
reason
of
the
difference
,
viz.
why
we
may
be
said
(
in
the
Scripture
sense
)
to
be
dead
,
and
risen
againe
with
Christ
&c.
and
yet
cannot
be
said
to
have
fulfilled
the
Law
with
Christ
(
in
the
sense
demanded
)
is
this
.
When
the
Scripture
saith
,
we
are
dead
,
we
are
crucified
,
we
are
quickened
or
risen
againe
with
Christ
,
&c.
the
meaning
is
not
,
that
God
looks
upon
us
,
as
if
we
had
layd
downe
our
naturall
lives
by
death
,
when
he
layd
downe
his
,
and
as
if
this
la●ing
down
ourlives
,
were
a
fatisfaction
to
his
justice
for
our
sinne
:
for
then
we
might
aswell
be
said
to
have
satisfied
for
our selves
,
or
to
have
redeemed
our selves
with
Christ
,
as
to
have
died
,
or
bin
crucified
with
him
:
such
expressions
as
these
only
import
,
either
a
profession
of
such
a
death
in
us
,
which
holds
proportion
,
and
hath
a
spirituall
kinde
of
resemblance
and
likenesse
with
the
death
of
Christ
,
which
is
usually
called
a
death
or
dying
unto
sinne
,
and
to
the
world
,
Rom.
6.5
.
or
else
,
this
death
it selfe
really
effected
and
wrought
in
us
by
that
death
of
Christ
,
being
therefore
called
,
the
communion
or
fellowship
of
his
sufferings
,
aswell
as
a
conformitie
to
his
death
.
Phil.
3.10
.
You
have
the
expression
us'd
in
the
former
sense
,
Rom.
6.
●
.
How
shall
we
,
that
are
dead
to
sinne
,
(
that
is
,
who
professe
a
being
dead
unto
sinne
with
Christ
)
live
yet
therin
;
and
so
be
a
reproach
to
our
Profession
?
In
the
latter
sense
,
it
is
found
,
Gal.
2.20
.
I
am
crucified
with
Christ
,
that
is
,
the
naturall
death
of
Christ
for
for
m●
an●
many
moe
,
hath
wrought
upon
me
in
a
way
of
assimilation
to
it selfe
,
and
hath
made
me
a
dead
man
to
the
world
.
So
when
Beleevers
are
said
to
be
quickened
or
risen
againe
with
Christ
,
the
meaning
is
not
,
that
God
lookes
upon
them
as
quickened
from
a
naturall
or
corporall
death
,
to
a
naturall
or
glorified
life
and
condition
,
as
Christ
quickening
and
rising
againe
was
;
which
yet
must
be
the
meaning
,
if
any
thing
be
made
of
it
,
to
strengthen
the
proposition
now
under
assault
:
but
the
cleare
meaning
of
such
expressions
is
,
either
to
signifie
the
profession
that
is
made
by
us
of
that
newnesse
of
life
,
which
in
way
of
a
spirituall
analogie
and
likenesse
answeres
that
life
whereunto
Christ
was
quickened
and
rose
againe
from
the
death
Rom.
6.5
.
or
else
the
new
life
it selfe
,
raised
and
wrought
in
us
,
by
that
quickning
and
rising
againe
of
Christ
from
the
dead
.
In
the
former
sense
,
you
shall
finde
one
of
them
used
Colos.
3.1
.
Jf
ye
be
risen
with
Christ
,
that
is
,
since
you
make
profession
of
that
new
and
excellent
life
,
which
answers
the
life
which
Christ
lived
upon
,
and
after
his
resurrection
,
give
this
account
and
evidence
of
it
unto
the
world
,
seeke
the
things
that
are
above
,
&c.
In
the
latter
sense
,
you
may
finde
the
other
Eph.
2.5
.
Even
when
we
were
dead
in
sinnes
,
hath
quickened
us
together
with
Christ
,
meaning
that
GOD
by
the
quickening
and
raising
of
Christ
from
the
dead
,
had
begotten
them
(
as
Peter
speakes
)
to
such
a
life
,
which
spiritually
answereth
that
quickening
and
rising
againe
of
Christ
.
But
on
the
other
hand
,
as
there
is
no
such
expression
in
Scripture
as
this
,
we
have
fulfilled
the
Law
with
Christ
:
so
neither
if
there
were
,
would
it
make
any
thing
at
all
to
salve
the
truth
of
the
proposition
under
question
,
if
the
sense
and
meaning
of
it
were
caried
according
to
the
line
of
the
interpretation
of
those
other
expressions
mentioned
.
For
what
if
we
should
be
said
either
to
professe
such
a
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
which
holds
a
spirituall
analogie
or
proportion
with
Christs
fulfilling
the
Law
,
or
really
and
personally
to
fulfill
the
Law
after
such
a
manner
:
were
there
any
thing
in
this
to
inferre
an
imputation
of
Christs
personal
fulfilling
the
Law
,
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
thereof
unto
us
?
Doubtlesse
Christ's
quickening
and
rising
againe
,
are
not
in
the
letter
and
formalitie
of
them
imputed
unto
the
Saints
for
their
quickening
and
rising
againe
,
in
the
same
manner
:
if
they
were
,
Hymeneus
and
Philetus
had
bin
no
Heretiques
,
for
teaching
that
the
resurrection
was
past
already
.
2
Tim.
2.18
.
Therefore
neither
is
there
any
thing
in
this
reason
,
more
then
in
its
fellowes
,
to
repaire
the
breaches
that
have
bin
made
upon
that
imputation
,
which
with
them
it
seeks
to
fortifie
.
We
have
but
one
encounter
more
,
SECT.
24
Argum.
12
and
then
the
battaile
ceaseth
for
the
present
.
The
last
argument
I
shall
propound
and
Answere
,
is
this
.
Whosoever
is
a
sinner
,
and
so
continueth
,
whilst
he
lives
,
cannet
be
justified
otherwise
then
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
But
every
man
(
Christ
excepted
)
is
a
sinner
,
and
so
continueth
whilst
he
lives
.
Therefore
no
man
can
be
justified
but
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
.
An
answere
to
this
,
and
an
end
:
Answere
.
though
the
truth
is
,
that
more
then
an
answere
hath
bin
given
already
.
I
repeate
therefore
,
rather
then
adde
(
in
reference
to
the
former
Proposition
)
that
if
there
be
no
other
way
or
means
for
the
justifying
of
a
sinner
,
then
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousnesse
(
in
the
sense
so
often
sentenced
)
doubtlesse
the
condition
of
the
whole
world
is
miserable
and
help-lesse
:
there
is
no
way
or
dore
of
life
yet
opened
unto
sinners
.
For
imputation
of
this
righteousnesse
upon
such
terms
there
is
none
;
as
hath
bin
largly
proved
,
and
(
if
I
be
not
mistaken
)
beyond
all
reasonable
deniall
,
throughout
the
bodie
of
this
discourse
.
But
blessed
be
the
Father
of
mercies
,
and
God
of
all
comfort
,
who
without
the
key
of
such
an
imputation
,
hath
opened
an
effectuall
dore
of
Iustification
unto
poore
sinners
,
yea
even
unto
those
,
who
are
like
to
be
no
better
then
sinners
,
whilst
they
live
in
the
world
;
however
this
justification
coming
upon
them
,
makes
them
the
best
and
happiest
of
sinners
in
that
kinde
.
Those
that
truly
beleeve
in
Iesus
Christ
,
being
not
under
the
Law
,
but
under
grace
,
are
not
liable
to
condemnation
,
for
the
things
they
commit
daily
against
the
Law
.
If
any
man
sinne
(
as
we
ast
do
,
whilst
we
live
)
we
have
an
Advocate
with
the
Father
,
Iesus
Christ
the
righteous
:
and
he
is
the
propitiation
for
our
sinnes
1
J●n
.
2.1.2
.
So
that
for
the
dissolving
and
taking
away
all
the
gur●t
,
danger
and
inconveniences
of
the
●inu●s
of
beleevers
in
every
kinde
,
there
needs
no
imputation
of
the
active
obedience
of
Christ
,
the
propitiation
which
he
is
unto
them
by
his
blood
and
interc●ision
,
hath
done
this
service
for
them
to
the
uttermost
,
before
this
imputation
is
supposed
to
come
at
them
.
And
doubtlesse
it
is
no
more
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
then
the
Midwifes
were
to
the
deliver●e
of
those
Hebrew
women
,
who
were
fully
and
safely
delivered
before
the
Midwifes
came
at
them
.
Que
apud
Dominum
propitiatio
est
,
nisi
sacrisicicium●
et
quod
est
sacri
ficium
,
nisi
quod
pro
no●is
oblatum
est
in
morte
Christi
?
Aug.
Exod.
1.
What
propitiation
(
saith
Augustine
)
is
there
with
the
Lord
,
but
sacrifice
?
and
what
sacrifice
is
there
,
but
that
which
was
offered
for
us
in
the
death
of
Christ
?
Nor
are
we
to
thinke
that
the
fulnesse
of
the
merit
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
so
exhaust
and
spent
upon
the
purchase
of
the
parden
and
forgivenesse
of
our
sinnes
,
that
it
will
not
hold
out
to
procure
our
acceptation
also
with
God
.
Yes
,
by
the
redundancie
of
this
merit
(
saith
Mr.
Reynolds
[
](A85397-e109800-b)(a)
(a)
The
life
of
Christ
.
p.
402.
)
after
satisfaction
made
thereby
unto
his
Fathers
justice
for
our
debt
,
there
is
further
a
purchase
made
of
grace
,
and
glory
,
and
all
good
things
in
our
behalfe
.
Yea
Adoption
it selfe
,
and
the
acceptation
of
our
persons
,
and
admittance
into
the
high
favour
of
God
to
be
made
heyres
of
selvation
,
spring
all
from
one
and
the
same
most
precious
and
fruitfull
roote
of
the
blood
of
Christ
,
the
perfect
holinesse
of
his
person
,
and
righteousnesse
of
his
life
presupposed
(
as
hath
bin
said
.
)
So
that
he
that
hath
communion
in
the
fulnesse
of
his
death
,
shall
not
know
what
to
doe
with
the
imputation
of
the
righteousnesse
of
his
life
after
it
,
were
it
made
unto
him
,
or
conferred
upon
him
.
But
enough
(
if
not
more
then
enough
)
of
this
heretofore
.
Thus
have
we
at
last
overcome
and
fully
answered
all
those
arguments
and
pie●●●
which
(
to
my
knowledge
)
have
yet
bin
insisted
upon
,
and
cons●●ed
in
by
an●
,
for
the
up-bearing
of
th●●●utation
〈◊〉
Christs
righteousnesse
,
in
the
sense
〈…〉
contradicted
in
the
discourse
,
viz.
in
the
letter
and
formality
of
it
,
or
as
the
formall
cause
(
whether
in
whole
or
in
part
)
of
Iustification
.
If
any
man
of
con●●ary
judgment
and
yet
unsatisfied
,
will
vouchsafe
in
a
spirit
of
meekenesse
and
love
,
either
to
di●●●●
the
insufficiencie
and
weaknesse
of
any
of
there
Answers
(
in
case
he
conceives
them
insufficient
and
weake
)
or
else
further
to
object
,
what
he
conceives
to
be
of
greater
weight
and
importance
,
then
the
arguments
already
answered
,
I
shall
willingly
and
unpartially
consider
of
either
.
And
if
in
either
I
shall
finde
any
thing
of
pregnant
and
solid
conviction
,
and
above
answere
,
I
shall
soone
turne
Proselyte
,
and
be
glad
to
be
so
delivered
of
an
error
.
I
had
much
rather
be
imployed
in
cancelling
and
desacing
mine
owne
errors
,
then
other
mens
:
and
desire
to
make
it
my
daily
trade
and
occupation
,
to
exchange
darknesse
for
light
,
crooked
things
for
streight
,
errors
for
truths
.
The
Lord
by
his
Spirit
lead
us
into
the
way
of
all
●ruth
,
and
keepe
us
that
we
turne
not
aside
,
either
to
the
right
hand
or
to
the
lest
,
that
so
we
may
be
soundly
built
up
in
our
most
holy
Faith
,
and
be
prepared
hereby
for
his
everlasting
Kingdome
.
FINIS
.