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

Will any Man believe you, who hath read Olevian, Ursine, Paraeus, Scultetus, Piscator, Carolus Molinaeus, Wendeline, Beckman, Alstedius, Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with abundance more, who are for the Imputation of the Passive Righteousness only? Were Mr. Anth. Wotton, and Mr. Balmford, and his other Adversaries, of the same Opinion in this? Was Mr. Bradshaw so sottish as to write his Reconciling Treatise of Justification in Latin and English, to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while he knew that there was no difference, so much as in the Definition? Was he mistaken in reciting the great differences about their Senses of Imputation of Christs Righteousness, if there were none at all? Did Mr. Gataker agree with Lucius and Piscator, when he wrote against both (as the extremes)? Did Mr. Wotton, and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawson, ⟨p. 61⟩in his Theopolitica agree with you, and such others? Doth not Mr. Cartwright here differ from those that hold the Imputation of the Active Righteousness? What abundance of Protestants do place Justification only in Forgiveness of Sins? And yet as many (I know not which is the greater side) do make that Forgiveness but one part, and Imputation of Righteousness another. And how many make Forgiveness no part of Justification, but a Concomitant? And many instead of [Imputation of Righteousness] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the sake, or merit of Christs Righteousness imputed] (viz. as the Meritorious Cause). And Paraeus tells us, that they are of four Opinions, who are for Christs Righteousness imputed; some for the Passive only; some for the Passive and Active; some for the Passive, Active, and Habitual, some for these three and the Divine. And who knoweth not that some here so distinguish Causes and Effects, as that our Original Sin (or Habitual say some) is pardoned for Christs Original (and Habitual) Holiness: Our Omissions for Christs Active Obedience, and our Commissions for His Passive? Or as more say that Christs Passive Righteousness as Satisfaction, saveth us from Hell or Punishment, and His Active as meritorious, procureth Life as the reward? When many others, rejecting that Division, say;

Will any Man believe you, who hath read Olevian, Ʋrsine, Paraeus, Scultetus, Piscator, Carolus Molinaeus, Wendeline, Beckman, Alstedius, Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with abundance more, who are for the Imputation of the Passive Righteousness only? Were Mr. Anth. Wotton, and Mr. Balmford, and his other Adversaries, of the same Opinion in this? Was Mr. Bradshaw so sottish as to write his Reconciling Treatise of Justification in Latine and English, to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while he knew that there was no difference, so much as in the Definition? Was he mistaken in reciting the great differences about their Senses of Imputation of Christs Righteousness, if there were none at all? Did Mr. Gataker agree with Lucius and Piscator, when he wrote against both (as the extreams)? Did Mr. Wotton, and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawson,