And for the latter position, that Christs righteousness is not imputed in the act of justification; if by Christs righteousness be understood his habitual holiness, or his actual righteousness consisting in the perfect observation of the Law moral: here also two of M. Walkers Authors must of necessity leave him, unless they will condemn themselves for blasphemous heretics. For both Pareus and Lubbe•tus, going Ursines and Piscators way, hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sins. For so Pareus expressly (besides what out of him velsewhere) in his Commentaries before mentioned; uThe Apostle placeth justification in the ⟨p. 13⟩Remission of sins alone. Nor doth *Lubbertus herein depart from him. And both therefore also herein concur; that they ground our justification, not upon the Righteousness of Christ, so understood, as hath been said; but on the merit of, and satisfaction made by his sufferings. That which, as for Pareus, by a whole xTreatise written of purpose by him about that Argument, doth most evidently appear; so for Lubbertus is also clear enough, by divers ypassages, even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus. Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein, that he sticketh not to avow that, zThose that ascribe the merit of righteousness unto Christs active obedience or his native holiness, cdo thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain, or superfluous. Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretic, as well as M. Wotton. As for me & my fellows, as in scorn now he calleth them, (tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himself) I hold it no disgrace to me, to be yoked with such; and to have deemed rather as they, then as M. Walker either then did, or now doth. Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors, by what hath been said, ⟨p. 14⟩may easily be deemed; and much less to affirm, what so confidently *elsewhere he doth, that he hath all learned Divines agreeing with him in what he holds: and that “the whole stream of learned Orthodox Divines hold the same Doctrine with him concerning justification by Christs righteousness imputed to believers. Which in such sense and manner as he maintains it, he cannot but know to be most untrue;
And for the latter position, that Christs righteousnes is not imputed in the act of justification; if by Christs righteousnesse be understood his habituall holinesse, or his actuall righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law morall: here also two of M. Walkers Authours must of necessity leave him, unlesse they will condemne themselves for blasphemous heretickes. For both Pareus and Lubbe•tus, going Ursines and Piscators way, hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sinnes. For so Pareus expresly (besides what out of him velsewhere) in his Commentaries before mentioned; uThe Apostle placeth justification in the ⟨p. 13⟩Remission of sinnes alone. Nor doth *Lubbertus herein depart from him. And both therefore also herein concurre; that they ground our justification, not upon the Righteousnesse of Christ, so understood, as hath been said; but on the merit of, and satisfaction made by his sufferings. That which, as for Pareus, by a whole xTreatise written of purpose by him about that Argument, doth most evidently appeere; so for Lubbertus is also cleere enough, by divers ypassages, even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus. Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein, that he sticketh not to avow that, zThose that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse unto Christs active obedience or his native holinesse, cdo thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain, or superfluous. Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretike, as well as M. Wotton. As for me & my fellows, as in scorn now he calleth them, (tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himselfe) I hold it no disgrace to me, to be yoaked with such; and to have deemed rather as they, then as M. Walker either then did, or now doth. Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors, by what hath been said, ⟨p. 14⟩
- vRelat. Postscript. p. 58.
- uApostolus justificationem in solâ remissione peccatorum constituit. P•ran Rom. 4. 7. Dub. 5.
- *Manifestum est, non imputar• peccatum, pony pro justificare, Lub. ad Socin. l. 2. c. 2. p. 124. col. 2. Saepe ostendimus justificationem contineri gratuitâ peccatorum remissione. Ibid. l. 4. c. 10. p. 551. col. 2.Manifestum est, non imputar• peccatum, poni pro justificare, Lub. ad Socin. l. 2. c. 2. p. 124. col. 2. Saepe ostendimus justificationem contineri gratuitâ peccatorum remissione. Ibid. l. 4. c. 10. p. 551. col. 2.
- xDe justitiâ Christi Activâ, & Passiva Epist. ad Com. Lud. Witgen.
- yIn [Greek or Hebrew] est justitia duplex, divina & humana. Humana est inhaerens, & acquisita, illam vocant habitualem; hanc meritoriam. de illa loquitur Apus. Heb. 7. 26. & 1 Pet. 3. 18. de hac Rom. 5. 9. per unam satisfactionem. v. 19. Lubb. c•ntr. Socin. l. 3. c. 5. Sanguine, srve obedientiâ Christi justificamur formalite•; fide instrumentaliter. Ibid. c. 2. p. 355. Duo ad justificationem reqiruntur; unum, ut Christus pro peccatis nostris mortuus sit, atque ita pro eis satisfaciat: alterum, ut nos hanc Christi solutionem five satisfactionem vera fide recipiamus. Ibid. l. 4. c. 9 p. 547. Haec justitia, s•ve obedientia, iive [Greek or Hebrew] Christi, sive denique sacrificium, sive sanguis Christi, sive solutio pretii redemptionis nostrae à Christo sacta, absolvit nos […] reatu, constituit nos justos, justificat nos, &c. Ibid. c. 1. p. 445, 44. Christi enim obedientia, quam Patri in morte pro nobis praestitit, est vera illa justitia, quâ Patri reconciliamur. Ibid. c. 4. p 472.
