Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sense [sic] sound Protestants…

2. Note, that when they say that Imputation is the Form of Justification, they mean not of Justification Passively as it is ours, but Actively as it is Gods Justifying act; so Maresius ibidem. And many deny it to be the form: And many think that saying improper.

3. Note, that it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants, that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sense as our sins are said to be imputed to him; (even before they are committed many Ages;) which cleareth fully the whole Controversy to those that are but willing to understand, and blaspheme not Christ; so Maresius ubi supra: Quemadmodum propter deliquia nostra ei imputata punitus fuit Christus in terris; ita & propter ejus Justitiam nobis imputatam coronamur in Caelis. And Joh. ⟨p. 46⟩Crocius Disput. 10. p. 502. And Vasseur in his solid Disp. Thes. Sedan. Vol. 2. pag. 1053, 1054. While he mentioneth only Satisfaction for our Justification, yet § 27. saith that Satisfaction is imputed to us, and placeth Christs Imputed Righteousness in his Obedience to the death; and saith that this satisfying Obedience, in suffering, is our Imputed Righteousness. Ea igitur Obedientia Christi qua Patri paruit usque ad mortem crucis, qua coram Patre comparuit ut voluntatem ejus perficeret, qua a Patre missus, ut nos sui sanguinis effusion redimeret, justitiae ejus pro peccatis nostris abunde satisfecit; ea inquam obedientia ex gratia Patris imputata & donata, illa justitia est qua justificamur. And they ordinarily use the similitude of the Redemption of a Captive, and Imputing the Price to him. He addeth (Hence we may gather that as Christ was made sin, so we are made the Righteousness of God, that is by Imputation] which is true.

3. Note, that it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants, that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sence as our sins are said to be imputed to him; (even before they are committed many Ages;) which cleareth fully the whole Controversie to those that are but willing to understand, and blaspheme not Christ; so Maresius ubi supra: Quemadmodum propter deliquia nostra ei imputata punitus fuit Christus in terris; ita & propter ejus Justitiam nobis imputatam coronamur in Caelis. And Joh. ⟨p. 46⟩Crocius Disput. 10. p. 502. And Vasseur in his solid Disp. Thes. Sedan. Vol. 2. pag. 1053, 1054. While he mentioneth only Satisfaction for our Justification, yet § 27. saith that Satisfaction is imputed to us, and placeth Christs Imputed Righteousness in his Obedience to the death; and saith that this satisfying Obedience, in suffering, is our Imputed Righteousness. Ea igitur Obedientia Christi qua Patri paruit usque ad mortem crucis, qua coram Patre comparuit ut voluntatem ejus perficeret, qua a Patre missus, ut nos sui sanguinis effusione redimeret, justitiae ejus pro peccatis nostris abunde satisfecit; ea inquam obedientia ex gratia Patris imputata & donata, illa justitia est qua justificamur. And they ordinarily use the similitude of the Redemption of a Captive, and Imputing the Price to him. He addeth (Hence we may gather that as Christ was made sin, so we are made the Righteousness of God, that is by Imputation] which is true.

The plain truth in all this is within the reach of every sound Christian, and self-conceited wranglers make difficulties where there are none. Yea, how far the Papists themselves grant the Protestant doctrine of Imputation, let the following words of Vasseur on Bellarmine be judg. [Bellarm. ait; Si solum vellent haeretici nobis imputari Merita Christi, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super see onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum Sententia: I doubt some will say, it is false, because Bellarmine granteth it; but Vasseur addeth [Haec ille: sed an nostra longe abest ab illâ, quam in nobis requireret sententia.] And I wish the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace ⟨p. 47⟩to read the words of Pighius, Cassander, Bellarmine, &c. saying as the Protestants, cited by Joh. Crocius de Justificat. Disput. 9. pag. 458. &c. And of Morton Apolog especially Tho. Waldensis.

The plain truth in all this is within the reach of every sound Christian, and self-conceited wranglers make difficulties where there are none. Yea, how far the Papists themselves grant the Protestant doctrine of Imputation, let the following words of Vasseur on Bellarmine be judg. [Bellarm. ait; Si solum vellent haeretici nobis imputari Merita Christi, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum Sententia: I doubt some will say, it is false, because Bellarmine granteth it; but Vasseur addeth [Haec ille: sed an nostra longe abest ab illâ, quam in nobis requireret sententia.] And I wish the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace ⟨p. 47⟩to read the words of Pighius, Cassander, Bellarmine, &c. saying as the Protestants, cited by Joh. Crocius de Justificat. Disput. 9. pag. 458. &c. And of Morton Apolog especially Tho. Waldensis.

The History of the Socinians opposing Christs Satisfaction and Merits I overpass, as being handled by multitude of Writers.

If any impartial man would not be troubled with needless tedious writings, and yet would see the Truth clearly, about Justification and Imputation, in a very little room, let him read, 1. Mr. Bradshaw, 2. Mr. Gibbon's Sermon in the Exercises at Giles's in the Fields. 3. Mr. Truman's great Propitiation. 4. Joshua Placeus, his Disput. de Justif. in Thes. Salmur. Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blank's late Theses; Which will satisfy those that have any just capacity for satisfaction. And if he add Wotton de Reconciliatione, and Grotius de Satisfactione, he need not lose his labour: no nor by reading John Goodwin of Justification, though every word be not approvable. And Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermons of Satisfaction, coming last, will also conduce much to his just information.

If any impartial man would not be troubled with needless tedious writings, and yet would see the Truth clearly, about Justification and Imputation, in a very little room, let him read, 1. Mr. Bradshaw, 2. Mr. Gibbon's Sermon in the Exercises at Giles's in the Fields. 3. Mr. Truman's great Propitiation. 4. Joshua Placeus, his Disput. de Justif. in Thes. Salmur. Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blank's late Theses; Which will satisfie those that have any just capacity for satisfaction. And if he add Wotton de Reconciliatione, and Grotius de Satisfactione, he need not lose his labour: no nor by reading John Goodwin of Justification, though every word be not approveable. And Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermons of Satisfaction, coming last, will also conduce much to his just information.

So much of the Historical part.

CHAP. II. Of the true stating of the Controversy, and the explication of the several points contained or merely implied in it.

CHAP. II. Of the true stating of the Controversie, and the explication of the several points contained or meerly implyed in it.

I take explication to be here more useful than argumentation: And therefore I shall yet fuller open to you the state of our differences▪ and my own judgment in the point, with the reasons of it, in such necessary Distinctions, and brief Propositions, as shall carry their own convincing light with them. If any think I distinguish too much, let him prove any to be needless or unjust, and then reject it and spare not. If any think I distinguish not accurately enough, let him add what is wanting, and but suppose that I have elsewhere done it, and am not now handling the whole doctrine of Justification, but only that of Imputation, and what it necessarily includeth.

I take explication to be here more useful than argumentation: And therefore I shall yet fullier open to you the state of our differences▪ and my own judgment in the point, with the reasons of it, in such necessary Distinctions, and brief Propositions, as shall carry their own convincing light with them. If any think I distinguish too much, let him prove any to be needless or unjust, and then reject it and spare not. If any think I distinguish not accurately enough, let him add what is wanting, and but suppose that I have elsewhere done it, and am not now handling the whole doctrine of Justification, but only that of Imputation, and what it necessarily includeth.

Though a man that readeth our most Learned Protestants, professing that they agree even with Bellarmine himself in the stating of the case of Imputation, would think that there should need no further stating of it. I cited you Bellarmine's ⟨p. 49⟩words before with Vasseur's consent: I here add Johan. Crocius de Justif. Disp. 10. pag. 500.501. Vide hominis sive vertiginem sive improbitutem, clamat fieri non posse ut Justitia Christi nobis imputetur eo sensu qui haereticis probetur — Et tamen rectam vocat sententiam, quam suam faciunt Evangelici. Quod enim cum rectâ ratione pugnare dicit, nos per Justitiam Christi formaliter justos nominari & esse, nos non tangit: Non dicimus; Non sentimus: Sed hoc totum proficiscitur e Sophistarum officinâ, qui phrasin istam nobis affingunt, ut postea eam exagitent tanquam nostram: (yet some of our own give them this pretence.) Nos sententiam quam ille rectam judicat, tenemus, tuemur; sic tamen ut addamus, quod Genti adversariae est intolerabile, non alia ratione nos justos censeri coram Deo.] But by Justification the Papists mean Sanctification: And they count it not intolerable to say that the penalty of our sins is remitted to us, by that Satisfaction to the Justice of God according to the Law of Innocency, which Christ only hath made. But though many thrust in more indeed, and most of them much more in words; yet you see they are forced to say as we say whether they will or not: For they seem unwilling to be thought to agree with us, where they agree indeed.] And the following words of Joh. Crocius pag. 506, 507. &c. show the common sense of most Protestants, [When Bellarmine observeth that Imputation maketh us as righteous as Christ, he saith, [If we said that we are Justified by Christs essential righteousness. — But we say it not. Yea above all we renounce that which the Sophister puts in of his own, even that which he saith of Formal Righteousness: For it is not our opinion, that we are constituted formally Righteous by ⟨p. 50⟩Christ's Righteousness, which we rather call the Material cause. — § 32. Christs satisfaction is made for all: But it is imputed to us, not as it is made for all, but as for us. I illustrate it by the like. The Kings Son payeth the debt of a Community deeply indebted to the King, and thence bound to perpetual slavery. This payment gets liberty for this, and that, and the other member of the Community:

THough a man that readeth our most Learned Protestants, professing that they agree even with Bellarmine himself in the stating of the case of Imputation, would think that there should need no further stating of it. I cited you Bellarmine's

For it is imputed to them by the King as if they had paid it. But this Imputation transferreth not the honour to them, but brings them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid by Christ for all, is imputed to this or that man, he is taken into the society of the Benefit, — Pag. 503. Distinguish between the Benefit, and the Office of Christ. The former is made ours, but not the latter, —Pag. 542. The Remission of sin is nothing but the Imputation of Christs Righteousness. Rom. 4. Where Imputation of Righteousness, Remission of Iniquities, and non-imputation of sin, are all one, — Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pleaseth, — Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents to unworthy Children, —Pag. 551. He denieth that we have Infinite Righteousness in Christ, because it is imputed to us in a finite manner, even so far as was requisite to our absolution.

For it is imputed to them by the King as if they had paid it. But this Imputation transferreth not the honour to them, but brings them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid by Christ for all, is imputed to this or that man, he is taken into the society of the Benefit, — Pag. 503. Distinguish between the Benefit, and the Office of Christ. The former is made ours, but not the latter, —Pag. 542. The Remission of sin is nothing but the Imputation of Christs Righteousness. Rom. 4. Where Imputation of Righteousness, Remission of Iniquities, and non-imputation of sin, are all one, — Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pleaseth, — Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents to unworthy Children, —Pag. 551. He denyeth that we have Infinite Righteousness in Christ, because it is imputed to us in a finite manner, even so far as was requisite to our absolution.

But I will a little more distinctly open and resolve the Case.

1. We must distinguish of Righteousness as it relateth to the Preceptive part of the Law; and as it relateth to the Retributive part: The first Righteousness, is Innocency contrary to Reatus Culpae: The second is Jus ad impunitatem & ad praemium (seu d•num,) Right to Impunity and to the Reward.

2. We must distinguish of Christs Righteousness, ⟨p. 51⟩which is either so called, formally and properly, which is the Relation of Christs person to his Law of Mediation imposed on him. 1. As Innocent and a perfect obeyer; 2. As one that deserved not punishment, but deserved Reward. Or it is so called materially and improperly; which is, Those same Habits, Acts and Sufferings of Christ, from which his Relation of Righteous did result.

3. We must distinguish of Imputation, which signifieth (here) 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christs Acts, the subjects of his Habits and Passion in a Physical sense. 2. Or to repute the same formal Relation of Righteousness which was in Christs person, to be in ours as the subject. 3. Or to repute us to have been the very subjects of Christ's Habits and Passion, and the Agents of his Acts in a Political or Moral sense, (and not a physical); as a man payeth a debt by his Servant, or Attorney, or Delegate. 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said Habits, Acts, and Passions; one to Christ as the natural Subject and Agent, and another to us as the Moral, Political, or reputed Subject and Agent (And so his Formal Righteousness not to be imputed to us in it self as ours, but another to result from the same Matter.) 5. Or else that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Matter of his Righteousness, morally, and also of the Formal Righteousness of Christ himself. 6. Or else by Imputation is meant here, that Christ being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of sinful man, and become a Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Person of a Mediator, to have fulfilled all the Law imposed on him, by perfect Holiness ⟨p. 52⟩and Obedience, and Offering himself on the Cross a Sacrifice for our sins, voluntarily suffering in our stead, as if he had been a sinner, (guilty of all our sins) As soon as we believe we are pardoned, justified, adopted for the sake and merit of this Holiness, Obedience and penal Satisfaction of Christ, with as full demonstration of divine Justice, at least, and more full demonstration of his Wisdom and Mercy, than if we had suffered our selves what our sins deserved (that is, been damned) or had never sinned: And so Righteousness is imputed to us, that is, we are accounted or reputed righteous, (not in relation to the Precept, that is, innocent, or sinless, but in relation to the Retribution, that is, such as have Right to Impunity and Life,) because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness, Obedience and Satisfaction, merited our Pardon, and Adoption, and the Spirit; or merited the New-Covenant, by which, as an Instrument, Pardon, Justification and Adoption are given to Believers, and the Spirit to be given to sanctify them:

3. We must distinguish of Imputation, which signifyeth (here) 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christs Acts, the subjects of his Habits and Passion in a Physical sence. 2. Or to repute the same formal Relation of Righteousness which was in Christs person, to be in ours as the subject. 3. Or to repute us to have been the very subjects of Christ's Habits and Passion, and the Agents of his Acts in a Political or Moral sense, (and not a physical); as a man payeth a debt by his Servant, or Attorney, or Delegate. 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said Habits, Acts, and Passions; one to Christ as the natural Subject and Agent, and another to us as the Moral, Political, or reputed Subject and Agent (And so his Formal Righteousness not to be imputed to us in it self as ours, but another to result from the same Matter.) 5. Or else that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Matter of his Righteousness, morally, and also of the Formal Righteousness of Christ himself. 6. Or else by Imputation is meant here, that Christ being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of sinful man, and become a Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Person of a Mediator, to have fulfilled all the Law imposed on him, by perfect Holiness

And when we believe, we are justly reputed such as have Right to all these purchased Gifts.