The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Polemic 1 · Chapter 6

The Imputation of Christs Righteousness · Polemic 1 · Chapter 6

p. 130CHAP. VI. Animadverſions on ſome of Dr. T. Tullies Strictures.

§. 1. I Suppoſe the Reader deſireth not to be wearied with an examination of all Dr. Tullies words, which are defective in point of Truth, Juſtice, Charity, Ingenuity, or Pertinency to the Matter, but to ſee an anſwer to thoſe that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it, to diſabuſe the incautelous Readers; Though ſomewhat by the way may be briefly ſaid for my own Vindication. And this Tractate being conciliatory, I think meet here to leave out moſt of the words, and perſonal part of his contendings, and alſo to leave that which concerneth the intereſt of Works (as they are pleaſed to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace) in our Juſtification, to a fitter place, viz. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Chriſtopher Cartwright on the Subject, which Dr. Tullies Aſſault perſwadeth me to publiſh.

p. 131§. 2. pag. 71. Juſtif. Paulin. This Learned Doctor ſaith, [The Scripture mentioneth no Juſtification in foro Dei at all, but that One, which is Abſolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law.

Anſw. 1. If this be untrue, it's pity ſo worthy a Man ſhould unworthily uſe it againſt peace and concord. If it be true, I crave his help for the expounding of ſeveral Texts.

Exod. 23.6, 7. Thou ſhalt not wreſt the Judgment of thy Poor in his Cauſe: Keep thee far from a falſe Matter, and the Innocent and Righteous ſlay thou not; for I will not juſtifie the wicked]. Is the meaning only, I will not abſolve the wicked from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law (of Innocency)? Or is it not rather, [I will not misjudg the wicked to be juſt, nor allow his wickedneſs, nor yet allow thee ſo to do, nor leave thee unpuniſhed for thy unrighteous judgment, but will condemn thee if thou condemn the Juſt].

Job 25.4. How then can Man be juſtified with God? or, How can he be clean that is born of a Woman? Is the ſenſe, [How can Man be abſolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law?] Or rather, [How can he be maintained Innocent?]

Pſal. 143.2. In thy ſight ſhall no Man living be juſtified. Is the ſenſe, [No Man living ſhall be abſolved from the Maledictory ſentence of the Law? Than we are all loſt for ever: Or rather no Man ſhall be found and maintained Innocent, and judged one that deſerved not puniſhment]; (Therefore we are not judged perfect fulfillers of that Law by another or our ſelves).

Object. But this is for us and againſt you: for it denyeth that there is any ſuch Juſtification.

p. 132Anſw. Is our Controverſie de re, or only de nomine, of the ſenſe of the word Juſtifie? If de re, then his meaning is to maintain, That God never doth judg a Believer to be a Believer, or a Godly Man to be Godly, or a performer of the Condition of Pardon and Life to have performed it, nor will juſtifie any believing Saint againſt the falſe Accuſations, that he is an Infidel, a wicked ungodly Man, and an Hypocrite, (or elſe he writeth againſt thoſe that he underſtood not). But if the Queſtion be (as it muſt be) de nomine, whether the word Juſtifie have any ſenſe beſides that which he appropriateth to it, then a Propoſition that denieth the Exiſtentiam rei, may confute his denyal of any other ſenſe of the word.

So Iſa. 43.9, 26. Let them bring forth their Witneſſes that they may juſtified: Declare thou that thou mayeſt be juſtified; that is, proved Innocent.

But I hope he will hear and reverence the Son; Matth. 12.37. By thy words thou ſhalt be Juſtified, and by thy words thou ſhalt be Condemned] (ſpeaking of Gods Judgment) which I think meaneth (de re & nomine) Thy Righteous or unrighteous words ſhall be a part of the Cauſe of the day, or Matter, for or according to which, thou ſhalt be judged obedient or diſobedient to the Law of Grace, and ſo far juſt or unjuſt, and accordingly ſentenced to Heaven or Hell, as is deſcribed Matth. 25. But it ſeems this Learned Doctor underſtands it only, By thy words thou ſhalt be abſolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condemned.

Luk. 18.14. The Publican [went down to his Houſe juſtified rather than the other]; I think not p. 133only [from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law of Innocency] but [by God approved a ſincere Penitent], and ſo a fit Subject of the other part of Juſtification.

Acts 13.39. is the Text that ſpeaketh moſt in the ſenſe he mentioneth; And yet I think it includeth more, viz. By Chriſt, 1. we are not only abſolved from that Condemnation due for our ſins; 2. but alſo we are by his repealing or ending of the Moſaick Law juſtified againſt the Charge of Guilt for our not obſerving it; and 3. Auguſtine would add, That we are by Chriſt's Spirit and Grace made juſt (that is, ſincerely Godly) by the deſtruction of thoſe inherent and adherent ſins, which the Law of Moſes could not mortifie and ſave us from, but the Spirit doth.

Rom. 2.13. Not the Hearers of the Law are juſt before God, but the Doers of the Law ſhall be juſtified]. Is it only, The Doers ſhall be Abſolved from the Maledictory Sentence, &c.? Or firſt and chiefly, They ſhall be judged well-doers, ſo far as they do well, and ſo approved and juſtified, ſo far as they do keep the Law? (which becauſe no Man doth perfectly, and the Law of Innocency requireth Perfection, none can be juſtified abſolutely, or to Salvation by it).

Object. The meaning is, (ſay ſome) The Doers of the Law ſhould be juſtified by it; were there any ſuch.

Anſw. That's true, of abſolute Juſtification unto Life: But that this is not all the ſenſe of the Text, the two next Verſes ſhew, where the Gentiles are pronounced partakers of ſome of that which he meaneth incluſively in doing to Juſtification: Therefore p. 134it muſt include that their Actions and Perſons are ſo far juſtified, (more or leſs) as they are Doers of the Law, as being ſo far actively juſt.

Rom. 8.30. Whom he juſtified, them he alſo glorified; And 1 Cor. 6. … ▪ Ye are juſtified in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the Spirit of our God. Many Proteſtants, and among them Bez… himſelf, expound (in the Papiſts and Auſtins ſenſe of Juſtification) as including Sanctification alſo, as well as Abſolution from the Curſe: And ſo Arch Biſhop Ʋſher told me he underſtood them. As alſo Tit. 3.7. That being juſtified freely by his Grace.

And many think ſo of Rom. 4.5. he [juſtifieth the Ʋngodly] ſay they, by Converting, Pardoning, and Accepting them in Chriſt to Life.

And Rom. 8.33. Who ſhall condemn? it is God that juſtifieth, ſeemeth to me more than barely to ſay, God abſolveth us from the Curſe, becauſe it is ſet againſt Man's Condemnation, (who reproached, ſlandered and perſecuted the Chriſtians as evil Doers, as they did Chriſt, to whom they were predeſtinated to be conformed). And ſo muſt mean, God will not only abſolve us from his Curſe, but alſo juſtifie our Innocency againſt all the falſe Accuſations of our Enemies.

And it ſeemeth to be ſpoken by the Apoſtle, with reſpect to Iſa. 50.8. He is near that juſtifieth me, who will contend with me? Which my reverence to this Learned Man ſufficeth not to make me believe, is taken only in his ſenſe of Abſolution.

Rev. 22.11. He that is Righteous, let him be juſtified ſtill, (foreign) which not only our Tranſlaters, but almoſt all Expoſitors take as incluſive p. 135of Inherent Righteouſneſs, if not principally ſpeaking of it.

To ſpeak freely, I remember not one Text of Scripture that uſeth the word [Juſtifie] in this Doctor's ſenſe; that is, Only for the ſaid abſolution from the Curſe of the Law: For all thoſe other Texts that ſpeak for Juſtification by Chriſt's Grace, and Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, (as Rom. 3.20, 24, 28, 30. and 4.2, 5, 25. & 5.1, 9, 16, 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. Gal. 2.16, 17. & 3.8, 11, 24. & 5.4, &c.) do all ſeem to me to mean, not only that [we are abſolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law], but alſo that we are firſt made, and then accounted Perſons firſt meet for Abſolution, and next meet for God's Acceptance of us as juſt, and as Heirs of Life Eternal, and meet for the great Reward in Heaven: For when the Apoſtle denieth Juſtification by Works; it is not credible that he meaneth only, that [By the Works of the Law no Man is abſolved from the Curſe of the Law]; But alſo, No Man by the Works of the Law, is before God taken for a Performer of the neceſſary Condition of Abſolution and Salvation, nor fit for his Acceptance, and for the Heavenly Reward.

Anſw. 2. But let the Reader here note, that the Doctor ſuppoſeth James to mean, that [By Works a Man is abſolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and not by Faith only]. For that James ſpeaks of Juſtification in foro Dei is paſt all doubt: And who would have thought that the Doctor had granted this of the Text of James? But miſtakes ſeldom agree among themſelves.

Anſw. 3. And would not any Man have thought p. 136that this Author had pleaded for ſuch an Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as juſtifieth not only from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, but alſo from the very guilt of ſin as ſin, we being reputed, (not only pardoned ſinners, but) perfect fulfillers of the Law by Chriſt, and ſo that we are in Chriſt conform to the Fac hoc or preceptive part commanding Innocency? Who would have thought but this was his drift? If it be not, all his angry Oppoſition to me, is upon a miſtake ſo foul, as reverence forbids me to name with its proper Epithets: If it be, how can the ſame Man hold, That we are juſtified as in Chriſt, conform to the Precept of perfect Innocency? And yet that The Scripture mentioneth no Juſtification at all, in foro Dei, beſides that one, which is Abſolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law. But ſtill miſtakes have diſcord with themſelves.

Anſw. 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Gataker, Wotton, Piſcator, Paraeus, Ʋrſine, Wendeline, and abundance other excellent Divines, that as ſins of omiſſion are truly ſin, and poena damni, or privations truly puniſhment; ſo for a ſinner for his ſin to be denied God's Love and Favour, Grace and Glory, is to be puniſhed; and to be pardoned, is to have this privative puniſhment remitted as well as the reſt; and ſo that Juſtification containeth our Right to Glory, as it is the bare forgiveneſs of the penalty of ſin; becauſe Death and Life, Darkneſs and Light are ſuch Contraries, as that one is but the privation of the other: But this Learned Doctor ſeemeth to be of the commoner Opinion, that the Remiſſion of Sin is but one part of our Juſtification, and that by Imputation of perfect p. 137Holineſs and Obedience we muſt have another part, which is our Right to the Reward▪ (and I think a little Explication would end that difference). But doth he here then agree with himſelf? And to contradict the common way of thoſe with whom he joyneth? Do they not hold that Juſtification is more than an Abſolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law?

Anſw. 5. But indeed his very Deſcription by Abſolution is utterly ambiguous: 1. Abſolution is either by Actual Pardon, by the Law or Covenant of Grace; which giveth us our Right to Impunity: 2. Or by Sentence of the Judg, who publickly decideth our Caſe, and declareth our Right determinatively: Or by execution of that Sentence in actual delivering us from penalty; And who knoweth which of theſe he meaneth? This is but confuſion, to deſcribe by an unexplained equivocal word.

And who knoweth what Law he meaneth, whoſe Maledictory Sentence Juſtification abſolveth us from? Doth he think that the Law of Innocency, and of Moſes, and the Law of Grace are all one, which Scripture ſo frequently diſtinguiſheth? Or that each of them hath not its Malediction? If he deny this, I refer him to my full proof of it, to Mr. Cartwright and elſewhere. If not, we ſhould know whether he mean all, or which.

3. And what he meaneth by the Sentence of the Law is uncertain: Whether it be the Laws Commination, as obliging us to puniſhment, which is not a Sentence in the uſual proper ſenſe, but only a virtual Sentence, that is, the Norma Judicis; or whether he mean the Sentence of God as Judg, according to the Law: which is not the Sentence of the Law p. 138properly, but of the Judg: It's more intelligible ſpeaking, and diſtinct, that muſt edifie us, and end thoſe Controverſies which ambiguities and confuſion bred and feed.

Anſw. 6. But which-ever he meaneth, moſt certainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth no other Juſtification in foro Dei. For many of the fore-cited Texts tell us, that it oft mentioneth a Juſtification, which is no Abſolution from the Maledictory Sentence, (neither of the Law of Innocency, of Moſes, or of Grace) but a Juſtification of a Man's innocency in tantum, or quoad Cauſam hanc particularem, Viz.

1. Sometimes a Juſtifying the Righteous Man againſt the ſlanders of the World, or of his Enemies.

2. Sometimes a juſtifying a Man in ſome one action, as having dealt faithfully therein.

3. Sometimes a judging a Man to be a faithful Godly Man, that performeth the Conditions of Life in the Law of Grace made neceſſary to God's Acceptance.

4. Sometimes for making a Man ſuch, or for making him yet more inherently juſt, or continuing him ſo.

5. Sometimes for Juſtification by the Apology of an Advocate, (which is not Abſolution).

6. Sometimes for Juſtification by Witness.

7. And ſometimes, perhaps, by Evidence. As appeareth, Iſa 50.8. Rom. 8.33. (and ſo God himſelf is ſaid to be juſtified, Pſal. 51.4. Rom. 3.4. and Chriſt, 1 Tim. 3.16.) 1 King. 8.32. Hear thou in Heaven, and do, and judg thy Servants, condemning the Wicked to bring his way upon his Head; p. 139and juſtifying the Righteous, to give him according to his Righteouſneſs, (where the Sentence is paſſed by the Act of Execution). Is this abſolving him from the Curſe of the Law? So 1 Chron. 6.23. ſo Mat. 12.37. & Jam. 2.21, 24, 25. where Juſtification by our Words and by Works is aſſerted; and many other Texts ſo ſpeak: Frequently to Juſtifie, is to maintain one, or prove him to be juſt. It's ſtrange that any Divine ſhould find but one ſort of ſenſe of Juſtification before God mentioned in the Scriptures.

I would give here to the Reader, a help for ſome excuſe of the Author, viz. that by [praeter unam illam quae eſt Abſolutio] he might mean, which is partly Abſolution and partly Acceptation, as of a fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Chriſt, and partly Right to the Reward, all three making up the whole; but that I muſt not teach him how to ſpeak his own mind, or think that he knew not how to utter it; And ſpecially, becauſe the Inſtances here prove that even ſo it is very far from Truth, had he ſo ſpoken.

Anſw. 7. But what if the word [Juſtification] had been found only as he affirmed? If Juſtice, (Righteouſneſs) and Juſt, be otherwiſe uſed, that's all one in the ſenſe, and almoſt in the word; ſeeing it is confeſſed, that to Juſtifie, is, 1. To make Juſt; 2. Or to eſteem Juſt; 3. Or ſentence Juſt; 4. Or to prove Juſt, and defend as Juſt; 5. Or to uſe as Juſt by execution. And therefore in ſo many ſenſes as a Man is called Juſt in Scripture, he is incluſively, or by connotation, ſaid to be Juſtified, and Juſtifiable, and Juſtificandus. And I deſire no more of the Impartial Reader, but to p. 140turn to his Concordances, and peruſe all the Texts where the words [Juſt, Juſtice, Juſtly, Righteous, Righteouſneſs, Righteouſly] are uſed; and if he find not that they are many ſcore, if not hundred times uſed, for that Righteouſneſs which is the Perſons Relation reſulting from ſome Acts or Habits of his own, (as the Subject or Agent) and otherwiſe than according to his ſolitary ſenſe here, let him then believe this Author.

§. 3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs, as in his ſingular untrue Aſſertion: [Rom. 8.2, 4. The Law of the Spirit of Life, hath freed us from the Law of Sin and of Death. Gal. 3.13. God ſent his Son, thta the Righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us; Chriſt hath redeemed us from the Curſe of the Law; and many more ſuch: Here is no mention of any but one legal Juſtification].

Anſw. 1. Reader, do you believe that theſe two Texts are a perfect Enumeration. And that if theſe mention but one ſenſe or ſort of Juſtification, that it will follow that no more is mentioned in Scripture: Or if many hundred other Texts have the ſame ſenſe?

2. Nay, he hath choſen only theſe Texts where the word [Juſtification] or [Juſtifie] is not at all found. By which I may ſuppoſe that he intendeth the Controverſie here de re, and not de nomine. And is that ſo? Can any Man that ever conſiderately opened the Bible, believe that de re no ſuch Thing is mentioned in Scripture. 1. As making a Man a believing Godly Man. 2. Or as performing the Conditions of Life required of us in the Covenant of Grace. 3. Nor eſteeming a p. 141Man ſuch. 4. Not defending or proving him to be ſuch. 5. Nor judging him ſuch deciſively. 6. Nor uſing him as ſuch. 7. Nor as juſtifying a Man ſo far as he is Innocent and Juſt againſt all falſe Accuſation of Satan or the World.

3. The firſt Text cited by him, Rom. 8.24. downright contradicts him: Not only Auguſtine, but divers Proteſtant Expoſitors ſuppoſe, that by the Law of the Spirit of Life is meant, either the quickning Spirit it ſelf given to us that are in Chriſt, or the Goſpel, as it giveth that Spirit into us; And that by delivering us from the Law of Sin, is meant either from that ſin which is as a Law within us, or Moſes Law, as it forbiddeth and commandeth all its peculiarities, and ſo maketh doing or not doing them ſin; and as it declareth ſin, yea, and accidentally irritateth it: Yea, that by the Law of Death is meant, not only that Law we are curſed by, and ſo guilty, but chiefly that Law, as it is ſaid Rom. 7. to kill Paul, and to occaſion the abounding of ſin, and the Li…e of it: And that by [the fulfilling of the Law in us, that walk not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit], is meant [that by the Spirit and Grace of Chriſt, Chriſtians do fulfil the Law, as it requireth ſincere Holineſs, Sobriety and Righteouſneſs, which God accepteth for Chriſt's ſake; which the Law of Moſes, without Chriſt's Spirit, enabled no Man to fulfil]. Not to weary the Reader with citing Expoſitors, I now only deſire him to peruſe, Ludov. de Dieu on the Text.

And it is certain, that the Law that Paul there ſpeaketh of, was Moſes Law: And that he is proving all along, that the obſervation of it was not neceſſary to the Gentiles, to their performance, or p. 142Juſtification and Salvation, (neceſſitate praecepti vel medii); (for it would not juſtifie the Jews themſelves). And ſure, 1. all his meaning is not, [The Law will not abſolve Men from the ſenſe of the Law]. But alſo its Works will give no one the juſt title of a Righteous Man, accepted of God, and ſaved by him, as judging between the Righteous and the wicked: (as Chriſt ſaith, Matth. 25. The Righteous ſhall go into Everlaſting Life, &c.) 2. And if it were only the Maledictory Sentence of Moſes Law, as ſuch, that Paul ſpeaketh of Abſolution from, as our only Juſtification, then none but Jews and Proſelites who were under that Law, could have the Juſtification by Faith which he mentioneth; for it curſeth none elſe: For what-ever the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law: The reſt of the World were only under the Law of lapſed Nature, (the relicts of Adam's Law of Innocency) and the Curſe for Adam's firſt Violation; and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noah, and after perfected fullier by Chriſt in its ſecond Edition.

2. His other Text [Chriſt redeemed us from the Curſe of the Law] proveth indeed that all Believers are redeemed from the Curſe of the firſt Law of Innocency, and the Jews from the Curſe of Moſes Law (which is it that is directly meant): But what's that to prove that theſe words ſpeak the whole and the only Juſtification? and that the Scripture mentioneth no other?

§. 4. He addeth, [Lex est quae prohibet; Lex quae poenam decernit; Lex quae irrogat: Peccatum eſt tranſgreſſio Legis: Poena effectus iſtius trangreſſionis; Juſtificatio denique abſolutio ab iſta poena: Itaque p. 143c…m Lex niſi praeſtita nenimem Juſtificat, & praeſtitam omnes in Chriſto agnoſcunt, aut Legalis erit omnis JUſtificatio coram Deo, aut omnino nulla].

Anſw. 1. But doth he know but one ſort of Law of God? Hath every Man incurred the Curſe by Moſes Law that did by Adams? Or every Man fallen under the peremptory irreverſible condemnation which the Law of Grace paſſeth on them that never believe and repent? Doth this Law, [He that believeth not ſhall be damned] damn Believers? One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent. Another ſuppoſeth them under that defect, and condemneth peremptorily (not every Sinner) but the Wicked and Unbelievers.

2. Again here he ſaith, [Juſtification is Abſolution from that Penalty]. But is a Man abſolved (properly) from that which he was never guilty of? Indeed if he take Abſolution ſo looſly as to ſignifie, the juſtifying a Man againſt a falſe Accuſation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty; So all the Angels in Heaven may poſſibly be capable of Abſolution: Juſtification is ordinarily ſo uſed, but Abſolution ſeldom by Divines. And his words ſhew that this is not his ſenſes, if I underſtand them. But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Chriſt, and yet Juſtification is our Abſolution from the Curſe, then no Man is juſtified that is Righteous by that Imputation.

3. And how unable is my weak Underſtanding, to make his words at peace with themſelves? The ſame Man in the next lines ſaith, [Lex niſi praeſtita neminem juſtificat: and all Juſtification before God muſt be legal or none]; ſo that no Man is juſtified but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law: p. 144And yet Juſtification is our Abſolution from the Puniſhment and Malediction of the Law; As if he ſaid, No Man is juſtified but by the pardon of that ſin which he is reputed never to have had, and Abſolution from that Curſe and Puniſhment which he is reputed never to have deſerved or been under. Are theſe things reconcileable? But if really he take Abſolution for juſtifying or acquitting from a falſe Accuſation, and ſo to be abſolved from the Malediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that never deſerved it, or was under it, then it's as much as to ſay, that there is no pardon of ſin, or that no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Pardon, is juſtified.

4. All this and ſuch Speeches would perſwade the Reader that this Learned Diſputer thinketh that I took and uſe the word [Legal] generally as of that which is related to any Law in genere, and ſo take Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, that (ſpeaking in the uſual Language that I may be underſtood) I take [Legal] ſpecially (and not generally) for that Righteouſneſs, which is related to the Law of Works or Innocency, (not as if we had indeed ſuch a Righteouſneſs as that Law will juſtifie us for; But a pro-Legal-Righteouſneſs, one inſtead of it, in and by our perfect Saviour, which ſhall effectually ſave us from that Laws condemnation): And that by [Evangelical Righteouſneſs], I mean, that which is related to the Law of Grace, as the Rule of Judgment, upon the juſt pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but juſtifie us. If he knew this to be my meaning, in my weak judgment, he ſhould not have written either as if he p. 145did not, or as if he would perſwade his Rsaders to the contrary: For Truth is moſt congruouſly, defended by Truth: But if he knew it not, I deſpair of becoming intelligible to him, by any thing that I can write, and I ſhall expect that this Reply be wholly loſt to him and worſe.

5. His [Lex niſi praeſtita neminem juſtificat] is true; and therefore no Man is juſtified by the Law, But his next words [& praeſtitam omnes in Chriſto agnoſcunt] ſeemeth to mean that [It was performed by us in Chriſt]; Or that [It juſtifieth us, becauſe performed perfectly by Chriſt as ſuch]: Which both are the things that we moſt confidently deny. It was not Phyſically, or Morally, or Politically, or Legally, or Reputatively, (take which word you will) fulfilled by us in Chriſt: it doth not juſtifie us, becauſe it was fulfilled by Chriſt, (as ſuch, or immediately, and eo nomine). It juſtified Chriſt, becauſe he fulfilled it; and ſo their Law doth all the perfect Angels. But we did not perſonally fulfil it in Chriſt; it never allowed vicarium obedientiae to fulfil it by our ſelves or another: Therefore anothers Obedience, merely as ſuch, (even a Mediators) is not our Obedience or Juſtification: But that Obedience juſtifieth us, as given us only in or to the effecting of our Perſonal Righteouſneſs, which conſiſteth in our right to Impunity, and to God's Favour and Life, freely given for Chriſt's Merits ſake, and in our performance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace, or that free Gift, which is therefore not a co-ordinate but a ſub-ordinate Righteouſneſs (and Juſtification) to qualifie us for the former. This is ſo plain and neceſſary, that if (in ſenſe) it be not underſtood by all that are admitted to the Sacramental p. 146Communion, (excepting Verbal Controverſies or Difficulties) I doubt we are too lax in our admiſſions.

§. 5. Next he tel's us of a threefold reſpect of Juſtification: 1. Ex parte principii. 2. Termini. 3. Medii: (I find my ſelf uncapeable of teaching him, that is a Teacher of ſuch as I, and therefore preſume not to tell him how to diſtinguiſh more congruouſly, plainly, and properly, as to the terms). And as to the Principle or Fountain whence it floweth, that is, Evangelical Grace in Chriſt, he ſaith, It is thus neceſſary, that in our lapſed State all Juſtification be Evangelical].

Anſw. Who would deſire a ſharper or a ſofter, a more diſſenting or a more conſenting Adverſary? Very good: If then I mean it ex parte principii, I offend him not by aſſerting Evangelical Righteouſneſs: The Controverſie then will be only de nomine, whether it be congruous thus to call it. And really are his Names and Words put into our Creed, and become ſo neceſſary as to be worthy of all the ſtreſs that he layeth on them, and the calling up the Chriſtian World to arrive by their Zeal againſt our Phraſe? Muſt the Church be awakened to riſe up againſt all thoſe that will ſay with Chriſt, [By thy words thou ſhalt be juſtified]. And with James, [By Works a Man is juſtified, and not by Faith only], and [we are judged by the Law of Liberty], and as Chriſt, Joh. 5.22. [The Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son]; and that ſhall recite the 25th Chapter of Matthew.

Even now he ſaid at once, [There is no Juſtification in foro Dei, but Abſolution, &c. The Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us, &c. Here is no p. 147mention of any Juſtification but Legal]. And now [All our Juſtification ex parte principii, is only Evangelical]. So then no Text talks of Evangelical Juſtification, or of Juſtification ex parte principii: And Abſolution which defineth it, is named ex parte principii. And yet all Juſtification is Evangelical. Is this mode of Teaching worthy a Defence by a Theological War?

2. But Reader, Why may not I denominate Juſtification ex parte principii? Righteouſness is formally a Relation: To juſtifie conſtitutively, is to make Righteous. To be Juſtified, (or Juſtification in ſenſu paſſivo) is to be made Righteous; And in foro, to be judged Righteous: And what meaneth he by Principium as to a Relation, but that which other Men call the Fundamentum, which is loco Efficientis, or a remote efficient? And whence can a Relation be more fitly named, than from the fundamentum, whence it hath its formal being? Reader, bear with my Error, or correct it, if I miſtake. I think that as our Righteouſneſs is not all of one ſort, no more is the fundamentum: 1. I think I have no Righteouſneſs, whoſe immediate fundamentum is my ſinleſs Innocency, or fulfilling the Law of Works or Innocency, by my ſelf or another: and ſo I have no fundamentum of ſuch. 2. I hope I have a Righteouſneſs conſiſting in my perſonal Right to Impunity and Life; and that Jus or Right is mine by the Title of free Condonation and Donation by the Goſpel-Covenant or Grant: And ſo that Grant or Goſpel is the fundamentum of it: But the Merits of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs purchaſed that Gift, and ſo thoſe Merits are the remote fundamentum or efficient: And thus my Juſtification, p. 148by the Doctor's confeſſion, is Evangelical. 3. I muſt periſh if I have not alſo a ſubordinate perſonal Righteouſneſs, conſiſting in my performance of thoſe Conditions on which the New-Covenant giveth the former. And the fundamentum of this Righteouſneſs is the Reality of that performance, as related to the Irrogation, Impoſition, or Tenor of the Covenant, making this the Condition. This is my Hereſie, if I be heretical; and be it right or wrong, I will make it intelligible, and not by ſaying and unſaying, involve all in confuſion.

§. 6. He addeth, [Ex parte Termini Legalis eſt, quia terminatur in ſatisfactione, Legi praeſtanda: Liberavit me à Lege mortis, &c. And hence, he ſaith, the denomination is properly taken.

Anſw. 1. The Reader here ſeeth that all this Zeal is exerciſed in a Game at Words, or Logical Notions; and the Church muſt be called for the umpirage, to ſtand by in▪ Arms to judg that he hath won the Day: What if the denomination be properly to be taken from the Terminus? Is it as dangerous as you frightfully pretend to take it aliunde? 2. But ſtay a little: Before we come to this, we muſt crave help to underſtand what he talketh of: Is it, 1. Juſtificatio, Juſtificans (active ſumpta)? Or, 2. Juſtificatio Juſtificati (paſſive)? 3. Or Juſtitia?

1. The firſt is Actio, and the Terminus of that Action is two-fold. 1. The Object or Patient (a believing Sinner). 2. The Effect, Juſtificatio paſſivè, neither of theſe is the Law, or its Malediction. But which of theſe is it that we muſt needs name it from?

2. The paſſive or effective Juſtification is in reſpect of the Subjects Reception called Paſſio: In p. 149reſpect of the form received, it is as various as I before mentioned.

1. The Effect of the Donative Juſtification of the Law of Grace, is Juſtitia data; a Relation (oft deſcribed).

2. The Effect of the Spirits giving us Inherent Righteouſneſs, is a Quality given, Acts excited, and a Relation thence reſulting.

3. The Effect of Juſtification per ſententiam Judicis, is immediately a Relation, Jus Judicatum.

4. The Effect of an Advocates Juſtification, is Juſtitia & perſona ut defenſa ſeu vindicata.

5. The Effect of Executive Juſtification, is Actual Impunity or Liberation. And are all theſe one Terminus, or hence one name then? Theſe are the Termini of Juſtificatio Juſtificantis, ut Actionis; and nothing of this nature can be plainer, than that, 1. Remiſſion of ſin (paſſively taken) the Reatus or Obligatio ad poenam, (the firſt ad quem, and the ſecond à quo) are both the immediate Termini of our Act of Juſtification. 2. That the Terminus Juſtitiae, as it is the formal Relation of a Juſtified Perſon, as ſuch, is the Law as Norma Actionum, as to Righteous Actions, and the Law or Covenant, as making the Condition of Life, as to thoſe Actions, ſub ratione Conditionis & Tituli. And the Promiſſory and Minatory part of the Law, as Juſtitia is Jus praemii, & impunitatis. Firſt, The Actions, and then the Perſon are Juſt in Relation to the Law or Covenant, by which their Actions and they are to be judged. But the remoter Terminus is the malum à quo, and the bonum ad quod. And as à quo, it is not only the evil denounced, but alſo the p. 150Reatus, or Obligation to it, and the efficacious Act of the Law thus curſing, and the Accuſation of the Actor or Accuſer, (real or poſſible) that is ſuch a terminus.

II. But when he ſaith, Ex parte Termini Legalis eſt, either ſtill he taketh legal generally, as comprehending the Law of Innocency, of Works, and of Grace, or not. If he do, I muſt hope he is more intelligent and juſt, than to inſinuate to his Reader, that I ever mention an Evangelical Juſtification that is not ſo legal, as to be denominated from the Law of Grace, as diſtinct from that of Works: If not, he was indebted to his intelligent Reader for ſome proof, that no Man is juſtified againſt this falſe Accuſation; [Thou art by the Law of Grace the Heir of a far ſorer puniſhment, for deſpiſing the Remedy, and not performing the Conditions of Pardon and Life. And alſo for this thou haſt no right to Chriſt, and the Gifts of his Covenant of Grace]. But no ſuch proof is found in his Writings, nor can be given.

III. But his [Quia Terminatur in ſatisfactione Legi praeſtanda]. I confeſs it is a Sentence not very intelligible or edifying to me. 1. Satisfactio proprie & ſtricte ſic dicta differ… à ſolutione ejuſdem quod ſit,ſolutio aequivalentis alias indebite: Which of theſe he meaneth, Satisfaction thus ſtrictly taken, or ſolutio ejuſdem, I know not: Nor know what it is that he meaneth by Legi praeſtandâ: Indeed ſolutio ejuſdem is Legi praeſtanda, but not praeſtita by us (perſonally or by another): For we neither kept the Law, nor bare the full Penalty; And p. 151the Law mentioned no Vicarium Obedientiae aut p…enae; Chriſt performed the Law, as it obliged himſelf as Mediator, and as a Subject, but not as it obliged us; for it obliged us to Perſonal performance only: And Chriſt by bearing that Puniſhment (in ſome reſpects) which we deſerved, ſatisfied the Law-giver, (who had power to take a Commutation) but not the Law: unleſs ſpeaking improperly you will ſay that the Law is ſatisfied, when the remote ends of the Law-giver and Law are obtained. For the Law hath but one fixed ſenſe, and may be it ſelf changed, but changeth not it ſelf, nor accepteth a tantundem: And Chriſt's ſuffering for us, was a fulfilling of the Law, which peculiarly bound him to ſuffer, and not a Satisfaction loco ſolutionis ejuſdem: And it was no fulfilling the Penal part of the Law as it bound us to ſuffer: For ſo it bound none but us; ſo that the Law as binding us to Duty or Suffering, was neither fulfilled, nor ſtrictly ſatisfied by Chriſt; but the Law-giver ſatisfied, and the remote ends of the Law attained, by Chriſt's perfect fulfilling all that Law which bound himſelf as Mediator.

Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Puniſhment, or both, and what by ſatisfaction I am not ſure: But as far as I can make ſenſe of it, it ſeeneth to mean, that Poena is ſatiſfactio loco obedientiae, and that Puniſhment being our Due, this was ſatisfactio Legi praeſtandâ, (for he ſaith not Praeſtita). But then he muſt judge that we are juſtified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfect Obedience. And this will not ſtand with the ſcope of other Paſſages, where he endureth not p. 152my Opinion, that we are not juſtified by the fae hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Reatus Gulpae in ſe, but by Chriſt's whole Righteouſneſs from the Reatus ut ad paenam.

2. But if this be his ſenſe, he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus à quo, that Juſtification is properly denominated from. And why ſo? 1. As Juſtitia and Juſtificatio paſſive ſumpta, vel ut effectus, is Relatio, it hath neceſſarily no Terminus à quo; And certainly is in ſpecie, to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quem. And as Juſtification is taken for the Juſtifiers Action; why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus ad quem, as à quo? Juſtificatio efficiens ſic dicitur, quia Juſtum facit: Juſtificatio apologetica, quia Juſtum vindicat vel probat. Juſtificatio per ſententiam, quia Juſtum aliquem eſſe Judicat: Juſtificatio executiva, quia ut Juſtum eum tractat.

But if we muſt needs denominate from the Terminus à quo, how ſtrange is it that he ſhould know but of one ſenſe of Juſtification?

3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, [In ſatisfactione Legi praeſtitâ, though he ſay praeſtandâ, and ſo denominateth from the Terminus à quo: But if ſo, 1. Then it cannot be true: For ſatisfacere & Juſtificare are not the ſame thing, nor is Juſtifying giving Satisfaction; nor were we juſtified when Chriſt had ſatisfied, but long after: Nor are we juſtified eo nomine, becauſe Chriſt ſatisfied, (that is, immediately) but becauſe he gave us that Jus ad impunitatem & vitam & ſpiritum ſanctum, which is the Fruit of his Satisfaction. 2. And as is ſaid, if it be only in ſatisfactione, then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it p. 153bound us: for to ſatisfie for not fulfilling, is not to fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is juſtified, for no Man hath ſatisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law, by himſelf or another: But Chriſt hath ſatisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for ſin.

His Liberavit nos à Lege Mortis, I before ſhewed impertinent to his uſe, Is Liberare & Juſtificare, or Satisfacere all one? And is à Lege Mortis, either from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the ſole mal…diction? There be other Acts of Liberation beſides Satisfaction: For it is [The Law of the Spirit of Life] that doth it: And we are freed both from the power of indwelling-ſin, (called a Law) and from the Moſaical Yoak, and from the Impoſſible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.

§. 7. He addeth a Third, Ex parte Medii, quod eſt Juſtitia Chriſti Legalis nobis per fidem Imputata: Omnem itaque Juſtificationem proprie Legalem eſſe conſtat.

Anſw. 1. When I read that he will have but one ſenſe or ſort of Juſtification, will yet have the Denomination to be ex termino, and ſo juſtifieth my diſtinction of it, according to the various Termini; And here how he maketh the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to be but the MEDIƲM of our Juſtification, (though he ſhould have told us which ſort of Medium he meaneth) he ſeemeth to me a very favourable conſenting Adverſary: And I doubt thoſe Divines who maintain that Chriſt's Rig…teouſneſs is the Cauſa Formalis of our Juſtification, (who are no ſmall ones, nor a few, though other in anſwer to the Papiſts diſclaim it) yea, and thoſe that make it p. 154but Cauſa Materialis, (which may have a ſound ſenſe) will think this Learned Man betrayeth their Cauſe by prevarication, and ſeemeth to ſet fiercly againſt me, that he may yeeld up the Cauſe with leſs ſuſpicion. But the truth is, we all know but in part, and therefore err in part, and Error is inconſiſtent with it ſelf. And as we have conflicting Fleſh and Spirit in the Will, ſo have we conflicting Light and Darkness, Spirit and Fleſh in the Underſtanding; And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book, that in one line the Fleſh and Darkness ſaith one thing, and in the next oft the Spirit and Light ſaith the contrary, and ſeeth not the inconſiſtency: And ſo though the dark and fleſhy part riſe up in wrathful ſtriving Zeal againſt the Concord and Peace of Chriſtians, on pretence that other Mens Errors wrong the Truth, yet I doubt not but Love and Unity have ſome intereſt in his lucid and Spiritual part. We do not only grant him that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is a Medium of our Juſtification, (for ſo alſo is Faith a Condition, and Diſpoſitio Receptiva being a Medium); nor only ſome Cauſe, (for ſo alſo is the Covenant-Donation); but that it is▪ an efficient meritorious Cauſe, and becauſe if Righteouſneſs had been that of our own, Innocency would have been founded in Merit, we may call Chriſt's Righteouſneſs the material Cauſe of our Juſtification, remotely, as it is Materia Meriti, the Matter of the Merit which procureth it.

2. But for all this it followeth not that all Juſtification is only Legal, as Legal noteth its reſpect to the Law of Innocency: For 1. we are juſtified from or againſt che Accuſation of being non-performers of the Condition of the Law of Grace; p. 1552. And of being therefore unpardoned, and lyable to its ſorer Penalty. 3. Our particular ſubordinate Perſonal Righteouſneſs conſiſting in the ſaid performance of thoſe Evangelical Conditions of Life, is ſo denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace, (as it inſtituteth its own Condition) as the meaſure of it, (as Rectitudo ad Regulam). 4. Our Jus ad impunitatem & vitam, reſulteth from the Donative Act of the Law or Covenant of Grace, as the Titulus qui eſt Fundamentum Juris, or ſuppoſition of our Faith as the Condition. 5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judicis, by which we ſhall be judged at the Laſt Day. 6. The ſame Judg doth now per ſententiam conceptam judg of us, as he will then judg per ſententiam prolatam. 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law, this ſame Law of Grace, which in primo inſtanti doth make us Righteous, (by Condonation and Donation of Right) doth in ſecundo inſtanti, virtually juſtifie us as containing that regulating uſe, by which we are to be ſententially juſtified. And now judg Reader, whether no Juſtification be Evangelical, or by the Law of Grace, and ſo to be denominated: (for it is lis de nomine that is by him managed). 8. Beſides that the whole frame of Cauſes in the Work of Redemption, (the Redeemer, his Righteouſneſs, Merits, Sacrifice, Pardoning Act, Interceſſion, &c.) are ſure rather to be called Matters of the Goſpel, than of the Law.

And yet we grant him eaſily; 1. That Chriſt perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency, and was juſtified thereby, and that we are juſtified by that Righteouſneſs of his, as the meritorious Cauſe. p. 1562. That we being guilty of Sin and Death, according to the tenor of that Law, and that Guilt being remitted by Chriſt, as aforeſaid, we are therefore juſtified from that Law, (that is, from its Obligation of us to Innocency as the neceſſary terms of Life, and from its Obligation of us to Death, for want of Innocency): But we are not juſtified by that Law, either as fulfilled or as ſatisfied by us our ſelves, either perſonally or by an Inſtrument, ſubſtitute or proper Repreſentative, that was Vicarius Obedientiae aut poenae. 3. And we grant that the Jews were delivered from the poſitive Jewiſh Law, which is it that Paul calleth, The Law of Works. And if he pleaſe, in all theſe reſpects to call Juſtification Legal, we intend not to quarrel with the name, (though what I called Legal in thoſe Aphoriſms, I choſe ever after to call rather, Juſtitia pro-legalis). But we cannot believe him, 1. That it is only Legal; 2. Or that that is the only (or moſt) proper denomination.

§. 8. He proceedeth thus, [And it will be vain, if any argue, That yet none can be ſaved without Evangelical Works, according to which it is confeſſed that all men ſhall be judged: for the diſtinction is eaſie (which the Author of the Aphoriſms ſomewhere uſeth) between the firſt or Private, and the laſt or Publick Juſtification.— In the firſt ſenſe it is never ſaid, That Works juſtifie, but contrary, That God juſtifieth him that worketh not, Rom. 4.5. In the latter we confeſs that Believers are to be juſtified according to Works, but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Juſtification maketh men juſt before God, but only ſo pronounceth them.

Anſw. 1. This is ſuch another Conſenting Adverſary p. 157as once before I was put to anſwer; who with open mouth calls himſelf conſequentially what he calleth me; if the ſame Cauſe, and not the Perſon make the Guilt. Nay let him conſider whether his grand and moſt formidable Weapon [So alſo ſaith Bellarmine, with other Papiſts] do not wound himſelf: For they commonly ſay, That the firſt Juſtification is not of Works, or Works do not firſt juſtifie us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papiſts? If not, let him uſe better Arguments himſelf.

2. But why is the firſt Juſtification called Private? Either he meaneth God's making us juſt conſtitutively, or his judging us ſo: and that per ſententiam conceptam only, or prolatam alſo.

1. The common diſtinction in Politicks, inter judicium Privatum & Publicum, is fetcht from the Judg, who is either Perſona privata vel publica: a private Man, or an authorized Judg judging as ſuch: And ſo the Judgment of Conſcience, Friends, Enemies, Neighbours, mere Arbitrators, &c. is Judicium privatum; and that of a Judg in foro, is Judicium publicum, (yea, or in ſecret, before the concerned Parties only in his Cloſet, ſo it be deciſive): If this Learned Doctor ſo underſtand it, then, 1. Conſtitutive Juſtification (which is truly firſt) is publick Juſtification, being done by God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who ſure are not herein private authorized Perſons. 2. And the firſt ſentential Juſtification, as merely Virtual, and not yet Actual, viz. as it's virtually in the Juſtifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publick in ſuo genere, being the virtus of a Publick Law of God, or of his Donative Promiſe. 3. And the p. 158firſt Actual Juſtification, per Deum Judicem per ſententiam conceptam (which is God's ſecret judging the Thing and Perſon to be as they are) is (ſecret indeed in ſe, yet revealed by God's publick Word but) publick as to the Judg. 4. And the firſt ſententia prolata (the fourth in order) is ſomeway publick as oppoſite to ſecreſie, (for, 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven; 2. And in part by Executive demonſtrations on Earth): But it is certainly by a publick Judg, that is, God. 5. And the firſt Apologetical Juſtification by Chriſt our Interceding Advocate, is publick both quoad perſonam, and as openly done in Heaven: And if this worthy Perſon deny any Juſtification per ſententiam Judicis, upon our firſt Believing, or before the final Judgment, he would wofully fall out with the far greateſt number of Proteſtants, and eſpecially his cloſeſt Friends, who uſe to make a Sentence of God as Judg to be the Genus to Juſtification.

But if by [Private and Publick Juſtification]; he means [ſecret and open]. 1. How can he hope to be underſtood when he will uſe Political Terms unexplained, out of the uſual ſenſe of Politicians: But no men uſe to abuſe words more than they that would keep the Church in flames by wordy Controverſies, as if they were of the terms of Life and Death. 2. And even in that ſenſe our firſt Juſtification is publick or open, quoad Actum Juſtificancantis, as being by the Donation of a publick Word of God; Though quoad effectum in recipiente, it muſt needs be ſecret till the Day of Judgment, no Man knowing anothers Heart, whether he be indeed a ſound Believer: And ſo of the reſt as is intim…ted.

p. 159Concerning, what I have ſaid before, ſome may Object, 1. That there is no ſuch thing as our Juſtification notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2. That the Sententia Concepta is God's Immanent Acts, and therefore Eternal.

Anſw. To the firſt, I ſay, 1. It is certain by Luk. 15.10. that the Angels know of the Converſion of a Sinner, and therefore of his Juſtification and publickly Rejoyce therein. Therefore it is notified to them. 2. But I refer the Reader for this, to what I have ſaid to Mr. Tombes in my Diſputation of Juſtification, where I do give my thoughts, That this is not the Juſtification by Faith meant by Paul, as Mr. Tombes aſſerteth it to be.

To the Second, I ſay, Too many have abuſed Theology, by the miſconceiving of the diſtinction of Immanent and Tranſient Acts of God, taking all for Immanent which effect nothing ad extra. But none are properly Immanent quoad Objectum, but ſuch as God himſelf is the Object of, (as ſe intelligere, ſe amare): An Act may be called indeed immanent in any of theſe three reſpects; 1. Ex parte Agentis; 2. Ex parte Objecti; 3. Ex parte effectus. 1. Ex parte agentis, all God's Acts are Immanent, for they are his Eſſence. 2. Ex parte Objecti vel Termini, God's Judging a Man Juſt or Unjuſt, Good or Bad, is tranſient; becauſe it is denominated from the ſtate of the Terminus or Object: And ſo it may be various and mutable denominatively, notwithſtanding God's Simplicity and Immutability. And ſo the Sententia Concepta is not ab Aeterno. 3. As to the Effect, all confeſs God's Acts to be Tranſient and Temporary. But there are ſome that effect not (as to judg a thing to be what it is).

p. 1603. Either this Militant Diſputer would have his Reader believe that I ſay, That a Man is juſtified by Works, in that which he called [making juſt, and the firſt Juſtification], or not: If he would, ſuch untruth and unrighteouſneſs (contrary to the full drift of many of my Books, and even that which he ſelected to oppoſe) is not a congruous way of diſputing for Truth and Righteouſneſs: nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modeſt. If not, then why doth he all along carry his profeſſed agreement with me, in a militant ſtrain, perſwading his Reader, that I ſavour of Socinianiſm or Popery, or ſome dangerous Error, by ſaying the very ſame that he ſaith. O what thanks doth God's Church owe ſuch contentious Diſputers for ſuppoſed Orthodoxneſs, that like noctambuli, will riſe in their ſleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an Allarm on their Drums, and cry out, The Enemy, The Enemy, and will not let their Neighbours reſt!

I have wearied my Readers with ſo oft repeating in my Writings (upon ſuch repeated importunities of others) theſe following Aſſertions about Works.

1. That we are never juſtified, firſt or laſt, by Works of Innocency.

2. Nor by the Works of the Jewiſh Law (which Paul pleadeth againſt).

3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of Commutative Juſtice, or of diſtributive Governing Juſtice, according to either of thoſe Laws (of Innocency, or Jewiſh).

4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man, which are ſet againſt or inſtead of the leaſt part of God's p. 161Acts▪ Chriſt's Merits, or any of his part or honour.

5. Nor are we at firſt juſtified by any Evangelical Works of Love, Gratitude or Obedience to Chriſt, as Works are diſtinguiſhed from our firſt Faith and Repentance.

6. Nor are we juſtified by Repentance, as by an inſtrumental efficient Cauſe, or as of the ſame receiving Nature with Faith, except as Repentance ſignifieth our change from Ʋnbelief to Faith, and ſo is Faith it ſelf.

7. Nor are we juſtified by Faith as by a mere Act, or moral good Work.

8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Inſtrument of our Juſtification.

9. Much leſs by ſuch Works of Charity to Men, as are without true love to God.

10. And leaſt of all, by Popiſh bad Works, called Good, (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Auſterities, &c.)

But if any Church-troubling Men will firſt call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS, and next will call no Act by the name of Juſtifying Faith, but the belief of the Promiſe (as ſome) or the accepting of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs given or imputed to us, as in ſe, our own (as others) or [the Recumbency on this Righteouſneſs] (as others) or all theſe three Acts (as others); and if next they will ſay that this Faith juſtifieth us only as the proper Inſtrumental Cauſe; And next that to look for Juſtification by any other Act of Man's Soul, or by this Faith in any other reſpect, is to truſt to that Juſtification by Works, which Paul confuteth, and to fall from Grace, I do deteſt ſuch corrupting and p. 162abuſing of the Scriptures, and the Church of Chriſt. And I aſſert as followeth;

1. That the Faith which we are juſtified by, doth as eſſentially contain our belief of the Truth of Chriſt's Perſon, Office, Death, Reſurrection, Interceſſion, &c. as of the Promiſe of Imputation.

2. And alſo our conſent to Chriſt's Teaching, Government, Interceſſion, as to Imputation.

3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spirit, and promiſed Glory, as well as Imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.

4. Yea, that it is eſſentially a Faith in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt.

5. That it hath in it eſſentially ſomewhat of Initial Love to God, to Chriſt, to Recovery, to Glory; that is, of Volition; and ſo of Deſire.

6. That it containeth all that Faith, which is neceſſarily requiſite at Baptiſm to that Covenant; even a conſenting-practical-belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt: and is our Chriſtianity it ſelf.

7. That we are juſtified by this Faith, as it is [A moral Act of Man, adapted to its proper Office, made by our Redeemer, the Condition of his Gift of Juſtification, and ſo is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject, or the Diſpoſitio materiae vel ſubjecti Recipientis]: Where the Matter of it is [An adapted moral Act of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio formalis of its Intereſt in our Juſtification is [Conditio praeſtita] ſpeaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel Diſpoſitio moralis Receptiva] ſpeaking logically; which Dr. Twiſs ſtill calleth Cauſa diſpoſitiva.

8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith, (in God the Father, p. 163Son; and Holy Ghoſt) is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo (principally).

9. That we are continually juſtified by this Faith as continued, as well as initially juſtified by its firſt Act.

10. That as this Faith includeth a conſent to future Obedience, (that is, Subjection) ſo the performance of that conſent in ſincere Obedience, is the Condition of our Juſtification as continued (Secondarily) as well as Faith (or conſent it ſelf) primarily: And that thus James meaneth, that we are Juſtified by Works.

11. That God judging of all things truly as they are, now judgeth Men juſt or unjuſt, on theſe Terms.

12. And his Law being Norma judicii, now vertually judgeth us juſt on theſe terms.

13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by, we ſhall at the laſt Judgment alſo be judged (and ſo juſtified) thus far by or according to our ſincere Love, Obedience, or Evangelical Works, as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace, which juſtifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified, by and for the Merits, perfect Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice of Chriſt, which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Univerſal Conditional Juſtification and Adoption, before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatſoever.

Reader, Forgive me this troubleſom oft repeating the ſtate of the Controverſie; I meddle with no other. If this be Juſtification by Works, I am for it. If this Doctor be againſt it, he is againſt much p. 164of the Goſpel. If he be not, he had better have kept his Bed, than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream, when we have ſadly warred ſo many Ages already about mere words. For my part, I think that ſuch a ſhort explication of our ſenſe, and rejection of ambiguities, is fitter to end theſe quarrels, than the long diſputations of Confounders.

4. But when be ſaith, [Works make not a Man juſt, and yet we are at laſt juſtified according to them], it is a contradiction, or unſound. For if he mean Works in the ſence excluded by Paul, we are not juſtified according to them, viz. ſuch as make, or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt: But if he take Works in the ſenſe intended by James, ſincere Obedience is a ſecondary conſtitutive part of that inherent or adherent perſonal Righteouſneſs, required by the Law of Grace, in ſubordination to Chriſt's Meritorious Righteouſneſs; And what Chriſtian can deny this? So far it maketh us Righteous, (as Faith doth initially). And what is it to be juſtified according to our Works, but to be judged, ſo far as they are ſincerely done, to be ſuch as have performed the ſecondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life?

5. His [According] but not [ex operibus] at the Laſt Judgment, is but a Logomachie [According] ſignifieth as much as I aſſert: But [ex] is no unapt Prepoſition, when it is but the ſubordinate part of Righteouſneſs and Juſtification, of which we ſpeak, and ſignifieth (with me) the ſame as [According].

6. His Tropical Phraſe, that [Works pronouce us juſt] is another ambiguity: That the Judg p. 165will pronounce us juſt according to them, as the foreſaid ſecond part of the Conſtitutive Cauſe, or Matter of our Subordinate Righteouſneſs, is certain from Matth. 25. and the ſcope of Scripture: But that they are only notifying Signs, and no part of the Cauſe of the day to be tryed, is not true, (which too many aſſert).

§. 9. He proceedeth, [If there be an Evangelical Juſtification at God's Bar, diſtinct from the legal one, there will then alſo be in each an abſolution of divers ſins: For if the Goſpel forgive the ſame ſins as the Law, the ſame thing will be done, and a double Juſtification will be unprofitable and idle. If from divers ſins, then the Law forbids not the ſame things as the Goſpel, &c.]

Anſw. It's pitty ſuch things ſhould need any Anſwer.

1. It's a falſe Suppoſition, That all Juſtification is Abſolution from ſin: To juſtifie the ſincerity of our Faith and Holineſs, is one act or part of our Juſtification, againſt all (poſſible or actual) falſe Accuſation.

2. The Law of Innocency commanded not the Believing Acceptance of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Pardon, and ſo the Remnants of that Law in the hand of Chriſt (which is the Precept of perfect Obedience de futuro) commandeth it only conſequently, ſuppoſing the Goſpel-Promiſe and Inſtitution to have gone before, and ſelected this as the terms of Life; ſo that as a Law in genere (exiſtent only in ſpeciebus) commandeth Obedience, and the Law of Innocency in ſpecie commanded [perſonal p. 166perfect perpetual Obedience, as the Condition of Life]; ſo the Goſpel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer, as the new Condition of Life: on which ſuppoſition, even the Law of lapſed Nature further obligeth us thereto: And as the Commands differ, ſo do the Prohibitions.

There is a certain ſort of ſin excepted from pardon, by the pardoning Law, viz. Final non-performance of its Conditions: And to judg a Man not guilty of this ſin, is part of our Juſtification, as is aforeſaid.

§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical Juſtification are ſpecie diſtinct, then ſo are the Courts in which we are juſtified.— If diſtinct and ſubordinate, and ſo he that is juſtified by the law, is juſtified by the Goſpel, &c.]

Anſw. 1. No Man is juſtified by the Law of Innocency or Works, but Chriſt: Did I ever ſay that, [That Law juſtifieth us], who have voluminouſly wrote againſt it? If he would have his Reader think ſo, his unrighteouſneſs is ſuch as civility forbids me to give its proper Epithets to. If not, againſt what or whom is all this arguing?

2. I call it [Legal] as it is that perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt our Surety, conform to the Law of Innocency; by which he was juſtified (though not abſolved and pardoned): I call it [pro Legalis juſtitia], becauſe that Law doth not juſtifie us for it (but Chriſt only) but by it given us ad effecta by the New-Covenant; we are ſaved and juſtified from the Curſe of that Law, or from Damnation, is certainly as if we had done it our ſelves: I call p. 167Faith our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, on the Reaſons too oft mentioned. Now theſe may be called Two Juſtifications, or (rather) two parts of one, in ſeveral reſpects, as pleaſeth the Speaker. And all ſuch Word-Souldiers ſhall have their liberty without my Contradiction.

3. And when will he prove that theſe two Sorts, or Parts, or Acts, may not be at once tranſacted at the ſame Bar? Muſt there needs be one Court to try whether I am a true Believer, or an Infidel, or Hypocrite; and another to judg that being ſuch, I am to be juſtified againſt all Guilt and Curſe, by vertue of Chriſt's Merits and Interceſſion? Why may not theſe two parts of one Man's Cauſe be judged at the ſame Bar? And why muſt your Pupils be taught ſo to conceive of ſo great a buſineſs, in it ſelf ſo plain?

§. 11. He proceedeth, [The Ʋſe of this Evangelical▪ Juſtification is made to be, that we may be made partakers of the Legal Juſtification out of us, in Chriſt: And ſo our Juſtification applyeth another Juſtification, and our Remiſſion of ſins another.

Anſw. No Sir; but our particular ſubordinate ſort of Righteouſneſs, conſiſting in the performance of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz. a believing ſuitable Acceptance) is really our Diſpoſitio receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that Pardon and Glory, which for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs if freely given us. And our perſonal Faith and Sincerity muſt be juſtified, and we in tantum, before our Right to Chriſt, Pardon and Life can be juſtified in foro.

p. 1682. And to juſtifie us as ſincere Believers, when others are condemned as Hypocrites, and Unbelievers, and Impenitent, is not Pardon of Sin. Theſe Matters ſhould have been put into your (excellent) Catechiſm, and not made ſtrange, much leſs obſcured and oppoſed, when laying by the quarrels about mere words, I am confident you deny none of this.

§. 12. He addeth, [Then Legal Juſtification is nothing but a bare word, ſeeing unapplyed; as to the Matter it is nothing, as it is not called Healing by a Medicine not applyed; nor was it ever heard that one Healing did apply another].

Anſw. Alas, alas, for the poor Church, if this be the Academies beſt! ſorrow muſt excuſe my Complaint! If it be an Argument it muſt run thus: If Legal (or pro-legal) Righteouſneſs (that is, our part in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs) be none to us (or none of our Juſtification) when not-applyed, than it is none alſo when it is applyed: But, &c.

Anſw. It is none till applyed: Chriſt's Merits, or Legal Righteouſneſs juſtifie himſelf, but not us till applyed: (Do you think otherwiſe, or do you wrangle againſt your ſelf?) But I deny your Conſequence: How prove you that it is none when applyed therefore? Or the Cure is none when the Medicine is applyed?

Perhaps you'l ſay, That then our Perſonal Righteouſneſs, and ſubordinate Juſtification, is ours before Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and ſo the greater dependeth on, and followeth the leſs.

p. 169Anſw. 1. Chriſt's own Righteouſneſs is before ours. 2. His Condition, Pardon to fallen Mankind is before ours. 3. This Gift being Conditional, excepteth the non-performance of the Condition; And the nature of a Condition, is to ſuſpend the effect of the Donation till performed. 4. Therefore the performance goeth before the ſaid Effect, and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any cauſe of it, but a removal of the ſuſpenſion; nor hath the Donation any other dependance on it. And is not all this beyond denial with Perſons not ſtudiouſly and learnedly miſled?

But you ſay, It was never heard that one Healing applyed another.

Anſw. And ſee you not that this is a lis de nomine, and of a name of your own introduction for illuſtration? If we were playing at a Game of Tropes, I could tell you that the Healing of Mens Ʋnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their Guilt; And the healing of Men's Ignorance, Pride, and Wrangling about words, and frightning Men into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death, is applicatory as to the healing of the Churches Wounds and Shame. But I rather chuſe to ask you, Whether it was never heard that a particular ſubordinate perſonal Righteouſness (even Faith and Repentance) was made by God the Condition of our Right to Pardon, and Life by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs? Did you never teach your Sholars this, (in what words you thought beſt?) And yet even our Faith is a Fruit of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; but nevertheleſs the Condition of other Fruits.

If you ſay that our Faith or Performance is not p. 170to be called Righteouſneſs, I refer you to my Anſwer to Mr. Cartwright; And if the word Righteouſneſs be not ofter (ten to one) uſed in Scripture for ſomewhat Perſonal, than for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed, then think that you have ſaid ſomething.

If you ſay, But it juſtifieth not as a Righteouſneſs, but as an Inſtrument. I Anſwer, 1. I have ſaid elſewhere ſo much of its Inſtrumentality, that I am aſhamed to repeat it. 2. It juſtifieth not at all, (for that ſignifieth efficiency); but only maketh us capable Recipients. 3. We are juſtified by it as a medium, and that is a Condition performed (as aforeſaid): And when that Condition by a Law is made both a Duty and a Condition of Life, the performance is by neceſſary reſultancy [a Righteouſneſs]. But we are not juſtified by it, as it is a Righteouſneſs in genere; nor as a mere moral Virtue or Obedience to the Law of Nature; but as it is the performance of the Condition of the Law of Grace; and ſo as it is this particular Righteouſneſs, and no other.

§. 13. [In Legal Juſtification (ſaith he) taken preciſely, either there is Remiſſion of ſin, or not: If not, What Juſtification is that? If yea, then Evangelical Juſtification is not neceſſary to the application of it; becauſe the Application is ſuppoſed, &c.]

Anſw. 1. What I uſually call [Evangelical Righteouſneſs] he ſuppoſeth me to call Juſtification; which yet is true, and ſound, but ſuch as is before explained.

p. 1712. This is but the ſame again, and needeth no new anſwer; The performance of the Condition is ſtrangely here ſuppoſed to follow the Right or Benefit of the Gift or Covenant: If he would have the Reader think I ſaid ſo, he may as ingeniouſly tell, that I deny all Juſtification: If not, what meaneth he?