A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 3 (2 of 5)

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness · Book 3 (2 of 5)

p. 391. If it imply Blasphemy, to say, That Christ repented, 31and believed for us; Doth it follow that Faith or 21. 111.Repentance is our Righteousness, by which we are justified? Can nothing be required of us, and performed by us, but it must therefore be our Righteousness, and by it as our Righteousness we must be justified? 2. The Scriptures which I alledged, (viz. Rom. 9. 29. & 10. 6. Gal. 5. 5. and Rom. 3. 22.) do sufficiently distinguish Faith from that Righteousness, whereby we are justified, and shew it to be only a means, whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, and so by that Righteousness of Christ are justified. The Argument (I think) is good, notwithstanding any thing you say unto it. Faith is only a means whereby Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto us unto Justification: Therefore it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified, Rivet speaking of the De Fide Justif. §. 15. & 16Remonstrants saith, Volunt igitur Fidem cum operibus ventre in partem justitiae debitae, & Fidem justificare, non R…lativè, ut organum apprehendens objectum, sed Inherenter, &c. Hò… iniquitatis mysterium, &c.

1. You might easily know what I meant by [Simply Ibid.and Absolutely justified in the sight of God], if you did well consider the other Members of the distinction, viz. to be wholly freed from all Condemnation; the same p. 40that Mr. Bradshaw meant by Universal Justification: You know sufficiently the distinction betwixt Simpliciter or Absolutè, & secundum quid. Bradshaw having said, Hoc modo (sc. justificatione particulari) non Electi soli, sed & Reprobi ipsi coram Deo Justificari possunt: Adds immediately, Neutri vero eorum absolute hoc modo justificari possunt.—Hoc modo justificari non est penitùs à peccati reatu, sed ab hujus vel illius peccati imputatione injustâ liberari. 2. Comparative Righteousness I shewed to be but a less degree of Unrighteousness: but Ironical Righteousness is down-right Unrighteousness, whereas a less Unrighteousness in comparison of a greater, is a kind of Righteousness. Minus malum respectu majoris habet rationem boni. 3. I do not deny the Righteousness of Faith, though I deny Faith to be that Righteousness by which we are justified. Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith, and sincere Obedience, yet are we not therefore justified by Obedience, but Declarativè, as it is the fruit of Justifying Faith; nor by Faith, but Apprehensivè, as by it we apprehend and receive Christ's Righteousness.

1. I never doubted, much less denied Faith to be a part of Ibid. & 32.Inherent Righteousness. 2. It is indeed a strange Righteousness, that will not justifie so far forth as it will reach: but it is not strange to Protestant-Divines, that Inherent Righteousness cannot reach so far as to justifie in that sense as we speak of Justification. Illud concedimus, (inquit Daven.) esse in omnibus justificatus justitiam quandam De Justif. Habit. cap. 22.inherentem, quam si formalem causam statuant Justifactionis, (liceat enim vocabulum procudere) non repugnabimus: sed predictae Justificationis, quae respondet strict… examini Coelestis Judicis, nec formalis, nec meritoria esse ullo modo potest. And he lays down these two Positions; 1. Christi Mediatoris, in nobis habitantis, atque per Spiritum Ibid.sese nobis unientis, perfectissima Obedientia, est formalis causa justificationis Nostrae, utpote quae ex donatione Dei, & applicatione Fidei fit nostra. 2. Justitia per Spiritum Christi nobis impressa & inherens, non est formalis causa, per quam stamus justificati, hoc est, per quam liberati judicamur à damnatione, & acceptati ad vitam aeternam, tanquam eâdem digni per hanc qualitatem nobis inherentem. That you may not catch at the word [digni], he Ibid. cap. 26.afterward expresseth it thus; Atque hic ne inanem de vocabulis p. 41velitationem instituamus, illud praemittendum nos per formalem causam Justificationis nihil aliud intelligere, quam illud, per quod stamus in conspectu Dei à damnatione liberati, innocentes, gratificati, & ad vitam aeternam acceptati. And the whole Chapter is to prove that Inherens Justitia non est formalis causa Justificationis Nostra coram Deo. But it is a needless labour to cite Authors to this purpose. For what more common with our Divines (I speak of such as are of chief note) than to acknowledg Inherent Righteousness, and yet to deny that we are justified by it? What you mean, when you yeeld that we are not universally justified by Faith, I do not well understand. For if you mean (as you seem to do) that we are not freed by it from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, but only from the Punishment of the New Covenant; 1. I know no Punishment of the New Covenant, but a leaving to the Punishment of the Old Covenant, with an aggravation of it for contempt of Mercy offered. 2. Faith, though not as our Righteousness, yet as the means whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, doth free us from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, viz. Death. For the Just shall live by Faith, Rom. 1. 17. And in that sense Faith doth universally justifie us. For being justified by Faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 1. Whereas you speak of justifying against the Accusation of Non-performing the Condition of the New Covenant; I must still tell you, That taking the Condition meerly as a Condition, the Accusation of non-performing it, is but a confirming a former Accusation of being guilty of the breach of the Old Covenant, and therefore to be condemned, as having no relief from the New Covenant, the Condition of it being not performed. 3. If I do ill oppose the Righteousness whereby we are justified, and the Righteousness whereby we are sanctified, as if the same thing might not be both; then welfare the Papists, who confound Justification and Sanctification. Duraeus the Jesuite, in his Defence Duraeus Advers. Whitak.of Campian, saith, Nova haec, Whitakere, Theologia est, nos per gratiam infusam, vitae novitatem ac sanctificationem adipisci, minimè tamen justificari. At quae te, obsecro, Scriptura docuit Justificationem à Sanctificatione distinguere? The same Righteousness p. 42that doth sanctifie, cannot also justifie; because that Righteousness, which doth sanctifie, doth it but in part; but that which doth justifie, must do it fully, or else it is to little purpose. For (as Bradshaw observes) even De Justif. cap. 25.the Reprobate as well as others, may have a particular Justification. 4. The Texts which I cited, (Luk. 1. 75. Ephes. 4. 24. Psal. 147. 17. Apoc. 22. 11.) seem to me to make the terms [Righteousness and Holiness, Righteous and Holy] equipollent: and that Text, Psal. 145. 17. speaks not of God's People, but of God himself, which (it seems) you did not observe. And why should you call it tautologizing, when two words are joined together as Synonim…'s? What is more …equent in Scripture than this? It hath more shew of tautology, when divers sentences importing the same thing, are joyned together; which yet is very usual. And as the Scriptures, so also our Divines do promiscuously use the words [Righteousness] and [Holiness]. Davenant, Hanc ergo qualitatem justitiae, sive Sanctitatis, quam Deus imprimit De Just. Habit. cap. 26. Bell. Ener. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. p. 126.hominibus renatis, negamus esse causam formalem justificationis, &c. So Ames. Non excluditur justitia, seu Sanctitas inherens, &c. 5. The Matter of our Righteousness, is that which is conformable to the Law: Justum est, quod est secundum Legem; Injustum, quod contra Legem; and so by your own confession is the matter of our Holiness.

1. They are no vulgar Divines, that say, Our Inherent 32Righteousness is imperfect; yea, and make this one principal Argument to prove that we are not justified by Inherent Contra Camp. ad Rat. 8. p. 178. De Justis. Habit. cap. 26. Arg. 4. Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. c. 1. Arg 11. De Recon. par. 2. l. 1. c. 19.Righteousness. Vides, & s…es, & Charitas (inquit Whitakeru…) nos justos aliquo modo saciunt, sed inchoatè, non absolute. Lud. de Dieu, and in him Bucer were cited before. Hear now Davenant; Ipsa (inquit) justitia inherens, in se considerata, qualis reperitur in viatoribus, imperfecta est, atque ca…e… illis perfecti…n…s gradibus, qui ad justificationem perfectam necessario requiruntur. Vide etiam Ibid. cap. 23. ad Arg. 6. Thus also Amesius; Justitia quâ justificatur homo coram Deo, debet esse perfecta: Sed justitia nobis inherens, non est talis. Ergo. Wo…ton speaks not only for himself, but also for others, even our chiefest Divines; Lutherus, Melancthon, Calvinus, & Chemnitius, eá potissimum causâ (N. B.) nos insusâ & inherente justitiâ p. 43justificari non posse contendunt, quòd illa in nobis ita imperfecta sit, ut in Dei conspectum, cum ad judicandum accedat, prodire non audeat.

And again; Nihil profectò causae erat, cur Vasquez Ibid. cap. 23.in 1. 2. Disp. 202. n. 26. tantopere huic argumento confideret, ut illo potissimum niteretur; Perfectio nostrae justitiae (inquit Vasques) non debet probari ex quibusdam Scripturae testimonits, in quibus commendatur perfecta & integra charitas, sed potiùs ex illis, in quibus docemur nobis inesse justitiam. Nam justitia non est, quae vera, & perfecta non est.

And again; Justitia nostra habitualis nobis à Deo infusa, Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. & c. 19. Of the Covenant, ch. 16. p. 10non est perfecta. And again; Respondent nostri Theologi justitiam illam habitualem esse imperfectam. I will add one more, whom both you and I reverence, viz. Mr. Blake, He having spoken of some (he names none, but you know, I suppose, whom he meaneth) who grant Holiness to be imperfect, but will have Righteousness (our Personal Righteousness) by all means to be perfect; he adds, [This and much more to affert a personal perfect Inherent Righteousness, as is said] all which, as it is here held out, to me is new, and I must confess my self in ignorance all over. I never take Imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction, no more than Imperfect Holiness. Isaiah (I am sure) saith, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, &c. See more afterward.

2. I take Righteousnes, to be a Conformity to the Law, which Conformity may be more or less perfect, as one may more or less come up to the Rule set before him. If I over-slipt any thing in your Aphorisms, you might have directed me to it; otherwise to search for it, may prove both a tedious and a fruitless labour.

That one thing may be more or less like another, is most Ibid. Alio alio amicior, & similior, Alsted. Metaph. l. b. 2. c 5.evident, so that if all the wit in the World should conspire against it, yet one might as easily demonstrate it, as he did, who to prove dari motum, when one had disputed against it, rose up and walked. Is not the Similitude sometime more, sometime less, that is betwi…t Parents and Children, and betwixt Children of the same Parents, especially Twinns? and so in other things? To deny this, what is it but to put out mens eyes, or to bid defiance unto common sense? Relata recipiunt magis & p. 44Log. l. 1. c. 7.minus, saith Burgersdicius. Yet he saith, Rccipere magis & minus non convenit omnibus Relatis. Surely there is great difference betwixt Similitudo and Aequalitas, so that neither Scheibler nor any Man else must think to carry it so, as if there were eadem utriusque ratio; so that because Aequalitas consistit in indivisibili; therefore similitudo must do so too. Perfect Righteousness indeed is quaedam Aequalitas, not simply all Righteousness. That an Action cannot be conform to the Precept, except it be perfectly conform, you must prove as well as assert, before I can assent. I could yet see no reason to doubt of Of the Coven. c. 16. p. 111that which Mr. Blake saith, [As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar, is an Image; so Conformity imperfectly answering to the Rule, is Conformity likewise].

1. You do not well to confound Conformity and 33Equality. And though the Law require perfect Conformity, which none can perform, it doth not follow that imperfect Conformity is none at all. If a perfect Conformity to the Law could be performed by us, then we should be justified by the Law, which we cannot be: yet the Regenerate conform to the Law in some measure, and so it behoves us to do; For then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Ps. 119. 6 I let pass your Second and Third. Ad 4. I do not speak of Qualification considered absolutely, but in reference to the Rule. Mr. Blake saith well, [Neither do I Loc. cit.understand how Holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and Righteousness perfect, taken formally, in reference to a Rule. We may (for ought I know) as well make Holiness formal, and refer it to a Rule, and Righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any Rule at all. And in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in Holiness or Righteousness; it is as they come up, or fall short of the Rule, that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection]. Holiness and Righteousness are opposite unto sin: therefore formally considered, they are a Conformity to the Rule, as Sin is a deviation from it. The Conformity therefore of our Actions and Dispositions to the Rule is not (as you say) the matter of our Righteousness, but (as I conceive) it is the form; and our Actions and Dispositions p. 45themselves are the matter of it, viz. of our Personal and Inherent Righteousness; and so of our Holiness. The Rule of Righteousness (to which as we conform more or less, we are more or less righteous) is the Law, the sum whereof is contained in the Decalogue: therefore it is said, That Believers are under the Law as a Rule, though not under it as a Covenant. For Poena Evangelica, of which you speak, I have said enough of it before.

To your Queries and Objections, I answer, Ad 1. Ibid. & 34.Christ doth justifie the Unrighteous, God doth justifie the Ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. But how? They were unrighteous and ungodly before they were justified; they are not so when they are justified, though it is not their Personal Righteousness or Godliness whereby they are justified. Know ye not that the Ʋnrighteous shall not inherit, &c. And such were some of you, but you are washed, &c. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. That of Tarnovius, Of the Coven. p. 219.cited by Mr. Ball, is useful here; In Scriptura saepe res dicitur quod paulò antè suit, ut caeci vident, surdi audiunt, claudi ambulant, &c. Ad 2. The Law doth not justifie any but such as are perfectly righteous; therefore they that are imperfectly, though truly righteous, cannot be justified by it. Sumus verè justi, (saith Davenant) De Just. Hab. c. 23. ad Arg. 7. Ibid. ad Arg. 8.non putativè, si respiciamus justitiam nostram habitualem: sed haec vera justitia est adhuc inchoata & imperfecta. And again, Sanctificationem nostram non putativam & fictitiam, sed veram & realem statuimus. Bellarmini autem Dialecticam, qui inde concludit nos justificari justiti… inherente, putativam arbitramur, & fictitiam. And why should not Imperfect Righteousness be acknowledged True Righteousness, as well as Imperfect Holiness is acknowledged True Holiness? That of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 24. [in Righteousness and true Holiness]; or, as the Original hath it, [in righteousness and holiness of Truth], attributes Truth as well to Righteousness, (though imperfect) as to Holiness. Genitivus Veritatis (saith Calvin on the place) l…co Epitheti positus est, qui tam justitiae, quam sanctitati convenit. Ad 3. You seem quite to mistake the meaning of that in James 2. 10. It makes nothing against an Imperfect Righteousness, but only shews, That respect must be had to one Precept as well as to ano…her▪ because p. 46though a Man should keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, viz. so as wholly to wave it, and to have no respect unto it, he were guilty of all, his Obedience were indeed none at all. For to obey, is to do that which is commanded, because it is commanded. Now he that doth any one thing co nomine because it is commanded, will indeavour to do every thing that is commanded. A Quatenus ad omne, &c. That this is the meaning of the words, is clear by v. 11. See Calvin on the place. Ad 4. The Law doth pronounce an imperfect Obeyer imperfectly righteous; and therefore if he be left to the Law, to stand or fall by it, he shall not be justified for his Righteousness, but shall be condemned for his Imperfection. Ad 5. The Damned and Devils cannot be pronounced Righteous according to the Law, as the Saints may. Is there no difference betwixt Imperfect Obedience, and Perfect (if it may be called Perfect) Disobedience? The Unregenerate do something that, but nothing as the Law requireth: the Regenerate do something both that, and as, though not so perfectly as the Law requireth. L…cet modus agendi (inquit Daven.) bonus sit, quta agunt ex side & charitate, tamen gradus in De Just. Act. c. 34. Memb. 2.hoc modo desicit, quia non agunt ex tanta fi…e & charitate quanta ab ipsa Lege praecipitur. It is granted, That the best action of any upon earth is not good and just according to the rigour of the Law; for the rigour of the Law requires it to be perfectly good and just, which it is not. But it follows not, that therefore it is not good and just at all. Nam aliud …st (saith the same learned Author) actionem esse verè bonam, al ud esse purè bonam, Ibid. Cap. …6. ad test. 7.& ab omni vitio liberam: sicut aliud est aurum ve…um, aliud aurum purum, ab omni sace depuratum. That Rule therefore, Bonum non nisi ex integrà causa c…itur, malum ex quolibet d…f…ctu, must be taken cum gram salis, viz. so as that the Defectus must be either in the s… stance of the Act, or in some material Circumstance: And of such Actions Dr. Twisse (whom you cite) doth speak; Qui dat elcemosynam vanae gloriae studio, &c. There is indeed some desect in the best Actions of the be… Men, quoad gradum: But shall we therefore deny the… to be good, because they are some way defecti…e, …nd s… not perfectly good? And see here I pray, to what yo… have now brought the matter; even to make Imperfec… p. 47Holiness no Holiness, as well as Imperfect Righteousness no Righteousness. For is not Holiness Goodness as well as Righteousness? Therefore if every defect make Goodness no Goodness, then there is no more an Imperfect Holiness (which yet you grant) then there is an Imperfect Righteousness. Those words, [Neque put andumest, fieri posse, ut per Legem saltem aliquá ex parte justificemur] taken in rigore are not true. For then there were no such thing as a particular Justification; neither do they accord with that which I cited before out of Lud. de Dieu on Rom. 8. 4. to which place you did refer me. Indeed we cannot be so justified by the Law, as thereby to be freed from all condemnation; and this seems to be all that your Author here cited did mean, when he saith, Si non es Legem transgressus, Lege justificaris: si transgressus es, condemnaris. But this doth no more prove, That Righteousness must either be perfect, or it is none at all, (though indeed it is none as to absolute and universal Justification) than it doth prove, that there is no Holiness at all, except it be perfect. For doth not the Law require perfect Holiness as well as perfect Righteousness? And is not every transgression of the Law a privation of Holiness, as well as of Righteousness? How then can you admit an Imperfect Holiness to be Holiness, and yet deny an Imperfect Righteousness to be Righteousness? And if our Inherent Righteousness (for of that we speak) must needs be perfect, if it be any at all, must not the same be said of our Holiness, this being a conformity to the Law as well as the other?

1. You do not ans…er my Question, viz. Whether 34those Orthodox Writers (a multitude of whom you say you could heap up) do make our Personal Righteousness that by which we are justified. If they do not, their calling it Evangelical is to no purpose. 2. It is not preposterous to say, That Righteousness (viz. inherent) is required unto Sanctification; it being that whereby we are sanctified, as Imputed Righteousness is that whereby we are justified. You said before, That I did ill oppose that whereby we are justified, as if the same thing might not do both: You grant then (it seems) that Righteousness may sanctifie; I think it must, and so is required unto Sanctification. How you can make Inherent Righteousness ita se habere ad sanctificationem, ut se habet p. 48Albedo ad Parietem, to me seems very strange: rather (I think) ut se habet Albedo ad Dealbationem. 3. If you had spoken absolutely without any qualification, [He that affirmeth a Man Righteous, (viz. by Inherent Righteousness) and yet denieth him to be justified, viz. by that Righteousness, contradicteth himself] you had condemned all our famous Divines (I think) of selfcontradiction. But your speech being so qualified, as it is, [so far as he is Righteous] I know not at whom it striketh. But though none by the Law of Works can be pronounced perfectly righteous, and therefore if they be tryed by it, all will be found unrighteous, yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no such thing as an Imperfect Righteousness.

You seem not to dislike what I say, neither do I what Ibid.you now say. I grant, that the New Covenant is to the wicked an unspeakable mercy, in that by it they may be freed from the condemnation of the Old Covenant: yet until they embrace the New Covenant, they remain under the Old, even under the condemnation of it.

1. Concerning Christ's Satisfaction, how it may be called both our Legal and our Evangelical Righteousness, 35I have spoken before. Legal Righteousness may either signifie the Righteousness of the Law, foreign, or the Righteousness which is of or from the Law, foreign. There is great difference between these two, for the former is asserted, but the latter is exploded, Rom. 8. 4. & 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9. Christ's Satisfaction may be called our Legal Righteousness in the former sense, not the latter. But in both respects it is our Evangelical Righteousness, as being the Righteousness of the Gospel, foreign, i. e. the Righteousness which the Gospel doth hold out unto us, and the Righteousness which is of or from the Gospel, foreign, i. e. the Righteousness which by the Gospel we are made partakers of through Faith. And therefore it is called the Righteousness which is of Faith, foreign, and by Faith, foreign, Rom. 9. 30. & 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9. 2. In that Faith is the Condition, or Instrument (or what any please to call it) whereby Christ's Righteousness is made ours unto Justification, it rather follows, that Faith it self is not properly our Righteousness, by which we are justified.

p. 49Something out of Rivet I have cited before to this purpose; hear also what another saith, viz. Vignerius, whose Disputation Rivet much commends, and thought meet to annex it to his own, Quidni in fide nostrâ gloriabimur, De Satisfact. Christi inter opera Riveti, Disp. 13 §. 61.si ex fide justificatio est, ut operae Evangelico, & appositâ foederi conditione, contra Apostolum, qui exclusam esse dicit per Legem fidei gloriationem? Rom. 3. 26.—An possibile est, ut sit fidei instrumentum accipiendae justitiae, & simul sit ipsa, quam querimus, justitia? Ʋtut sanè glorietur homo, solus tamen Christus est nostra justitia, nec aliud agit Fides, quam quòd Christum apprehendit, & nostram facit illius justitiam, ut in eo inveniamur, non nostram habentes justitiam, quae ex Lege est, sed illam, quae est per fidem Christi, justitiam, quae est ex Deo per fidem, Phil. 3. 9.

1. I see nothing in the place cited (viz. Aphor. p. 127, Ibid.128.) but a Similitude, which proves nothing; and I gave some touch of it in the Ammadversions. Whereas you now say, [In respect of the condition of our personal performance to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, Faith is imputed unto us instead of our personal performance of Perfect Obedience], it seems to imply as if personal performance of Perfect Obedience might be required as a Condition to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, which were very strange. For if Perfect Obedience could be performed by us, what need were there of Christ's Satisfaction to be imputed to us, except for sin committed or contracted before this personal performance of perfect Obedience? If Righteousness come by the Law, Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. ult. But how-ever, such Obedience cannot be performed by any, there being not a Just man upon Earth, that doth good, and sinneth not, Eccles. 7. 20. That Faith is as effectual or …ufficient a Condition under the New Covenant, as perfect personal Obedience, if performed, would have been under the Old Covenant: if this were all that you meant, though I like not your expression, yet I allow the thing; only this I think meet to observe, That perfect personal Obedience was so the Condition of the Old Covenant, that it was also the Righteousness required in it: But Faith is so the Condition of the New Covenant, as that it is not properly the Righteousness it self, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness that the p. 50New Covenant doth offer and afford to a Believer, instead of Perfect Obedience personally to be performed by the Old Covenant. For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn, &c. I do not think that we can be said truly and properly to pay any thing our selves as a price, whereby to purchase the benefits of the New Covenant; see Isa. 55. 1. and Apoc. 22. 17. When we preach and press Holiness and Good Works, we use to distinguish betwixt Via Regni & Causa regnandi; and we make them requisite unto Glorification, but not unto Justification. Dicimus (inquit Rivetus) bona opera Colleg. Controver. Disp. 36.necessaria esse, tanquam adjunctum consequens justificationem, tanquam effectum acquisitae salutis, quatenus salus accipitur pro justificatione; & tanquam antecedens ad salutem, quatenus accipitur pro glorificatione; non autem tanquam causam, quae salutem efficiat.

2. The acceptance of a Gift, being a means to enjoy it, is a means whereby the Gift doth inrich; and so Faith is a means whereby Christ's Righteousness doth justifie us, as being a means whereby it is imputed unto us, and made ours. But properly it is the Gift that doth inrich, though not without the acceptance of it; and so it is the Righteousness of Christ that doth justifie, though not without Faith. The Tryal of a Man's Title in Law to a Gift, depends on the Tryal, and Proof of his Acceptance of it, because otherwise except he accept of the Gift, it is none of his: Yet for all this, it is the Gift that doth inrich, though it must be accepted, that it may do it. And so it is Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, though Faith be required of us, that it may be made ours, and so we may be justified by it.

That my words are contradictory one to another, you say, but the Reason which you add for proof of it, is of little 36force. I deny it to be as proper to say, [We are justified by Faith as a Condition] as to say, [We are justified by Christ's Satisfacti…n, as the Meritorious Cause]; yea and as the Righteousness by which we are justified. What inconvenience doth arise from it, if Paul and the Scriptures do oftner speak improperly than properly in this Point? May not improper Speeches, concerning some Point, be more frequent in Scripture, than proper? Sacramental Speech…s, wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing signified, are improper: Yet are the… p. 51more frequent in Scripture, than those which in that kind are more proper.

1. You not clearing the Question, either there or any Ibid.where else (that I know) in your Aphorisms, seemed to leave it doubtful; and so I thought meet to note it, that you might prevent any ones stumbling at it.

2. What you now add upon review, doth less please; For the Holiness that is in us, is from God, the imperfection of it is from our selves; this therefore may be sinful, though God's Work be good.

1. Relation when it is founded in Quality, may (for Ibid. Vide Alsted. Metaphys. lib. 2. c. 5.any thing I see) be intended and remitted, as the Quality is wherein it is founded. I like not Scheiblers joyning Similitude and Equality together, as if there were the same reason of both. One thing cannot be more or less equal, though it may be nearer to, or further from Equality than another; but one thing may be more or less like, when yet there is a true and proper likeness in both.

2. That no Man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works, is the same that I say: But why do you put in these terms [fully and exactly] if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exact?

3. That our Inherent Righteousness (for I must still mind you that we are speaking of it) is Non-reatus poenae, I deny; and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent, as being nothing to Inherent Righteousness, about which now is all the Dispute. Pag. 37. You seem to come up to what I say, when you grant, that our Gospel-Righteousness considered in esse officii, as related to, or measured by the Precept, so our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees. Here by Faith and Holiness, you mean the same with that which immediately before you called Gospel-Righteousness, which must needs be meant of Inherent Righteousness. As for those words which you insert, [and that only quoad materiam praeceptam] I know not well what they mean. For how can officium, as related to, and measured by the Precept, be considered but quoad materiam praeceptam?

1. If I take Holiness (as you say) as opposite to 37Sin, How do I make all the Actions of the Heathens Holy? Do I make them not sinful? I have ever approved of those Sayings of the Ancients.

p. 52Sine cultu veri Dei, etiam quod virtus videtur esse, Prosp. de V…cat. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 7. Idem in Sentent. ex Aug. Sent. 106. Aug. contra Julian. lib. 4. c. 3.peccatum est. And, Omnis infidelium vita, peccatum est, & nihil est bonum sine summo bon…. Ʋbi enim deest agnitio aeternae & incommutabilis veritatis, falsa vertus est, etiam in optimis moribus. And, Quicquid boni fit ab homine, & non propter hoc fit, propter quod fieri debere vera saptentia praecipit, & se officio videatur bonum, ipso non recto sine peccatum est. Scripture also doth carry me that way, namely these places, Rom. 8. 8, 9. and Heb. 11. 6. I wave that place Rom. 14. ult. because it seems to look another way; though Prosper de Vitâ Contempl. lib. 3. cap. 1. doth urge it to this purpose. There is not then the same reason of the Actions of Heathens, as of the Actions of Believers: these are imperfectly holy, the other are altogether unholy.

2. You grant that Holiness is the same with Righteousness, which is opposed to Reatus Culpae: And truly I should think, that Inherent Righteousness is rather Non-reatus Culpae, than Non-reatus Poenae. For your Parenthesis, [If any were found, that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works] it is ever granted, That such a perfect Righteousness is not found in any upon Earth; but still it is denyed, that because it is not perfect, therefore it is none at all.

Justi appellantur (saith Hierom, speaking of Zachary, Ad Ctesiphont. contra Pelagian.Elizabeth, Job, &c.) non quòd omni vitio careant, sed quòd majori parte virtutum commendentur. You grant, that Holiness may be denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept. Now this you must grant, may recipere magis & minus: for so you grant that Holiness may. And if Congruency, why not Conformity? For Congruency and Conformity, though divers words, yet import (for any thing I see) one and the same thing. I take I aith to be in part our Inherent Righteousness, as it is Officium, not as it is Conditio praecisè considerata.

3. Whether Habitual Faith, or Actual, be properly the Condition of the Covenant, is little to our purpose. And for the thing it self, as I shall grant, that we must not content our selves with a habit of Faith, but must als… act Faith: So (I think) you will not deny, that we are Fideles, and so justified, even when we sleep, though no act of Faith be performed by us.

p. 53You say nothing to that which I answered concerning Ibid.our Divines, of whom you spake, viz. That they hold, That the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is not our Personal Righteousness; and therefore though they say, (as you alledge) That our Justification is perfect, and therefore (as you infer) our Righteousness, viz. whereby we are justified, must be perfect also; yet all this is little to your purpose.

2. To what you say, I have said enough before, viz. That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant, as to Justification, is not our Righteousness whereby we are justified, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, the only Righteousness by which we are justified. And for being rei poenae Novae Legis for non-performance of its Condition; I say still, I know no punishment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition, but only a leaving to the punishment of the Old Law; which punishment yet (I grant) will be so much the more grievous, as the sin, which an Unbeliever, both as an Unbeliever, and otherwise, is guilty of by Gospel-Aggravations, is the more hainous.

1. I as little doubt but that sincerity of Righteousness 38doth consist with imperfection of Righteousness, viz. Inherent Righteousness, which is really the same with Holiness, how-ever in this or that respect we may distinguish the one from the other.

2. How Hypocrisie can be taken for a seeming or appearing better than we are, yet without affectation or dissimulation, I do not understand. If without any affectation or dissimulation of ours, we seem better than we are, it is another's errour, not our fault; neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites. Your manifold distinctions of Sincerity do serve rather to confound the Reader, than to unfold the matter. I take sincerity to be no distinct Grace, but the Modus of other Graces: but why that Modus may not admit of degrees, I confess I do not see. I conceive Zeal to be of like nature, yet one may be more or less zealous, and so also more or less sincere. You say here, [There is no Medium inter Ens & non Ens] of which I make no doubt but pag. 2. you think Relations to be inter Ens & Nihil; and what difference between Nihil & non Ens? You say, That you have over and over shewed, That Conformity p. 54to the Rule of the Condition, doth consist in indivisibili. Indeed you have divers times affirmed, That all Conformity is of that nature, but I could never yet see it proved. But why do you now speak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition? I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Personal Righteousness, and the Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteousness. And this Righteousness, though it be sincere, I hold to be imperfect, because the Conformity to the Rule is imperfect. [Sincerity (saith Master Blake) is said to be the New Rule, or the Rule of Of the Coven. chap. 16. pag. 111.the New Covenant. But this is no Rule, but our Duty, taking the Abstract for the Concrete; Sincerity for sincere walking, and this according to the Rule of the Law, not to reach it, but in all parts to aim at it, and have respect unto it. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Psal. 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Righteousness, which in reference to its Rule (N. B.) labours under many imperfections]. And a little before he saith thus, [I know no other Rule but the Old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule].

3. It seems very incongruous to grant, that Apoc. 22. 11. [Be holy still] doth import an encrease of Holiness; and yet to deny, that [Be righteous still] doth import an increase of Righteousness. For any thing I know, some on the contrary may as well say, That the latter words import an increase of Righteousness, and yet the other no increase of Holiness. Whereas you speak of varying the sense according to the variety of Subjects, you take it for granted, That here the Subjects are various; whereas both by this, and divers others places before cited, it seems clear to me, that the Subjects, viz. Righteousness and Holiness are really the same one with the other. For the Formale of Righteousness, what is it but Conformity to the Law, the only Rule of Righteousness? And why such Conformity may not be more or less, I am yet to learn. That place indeed, as many other, speaks of a true Personal Righteousness in the Saints, but yet not of a Perfect Righteousness in them; and consequently not of such a Righteousness, as whereby they are justified, except it be only in some sort, and in p. 55some measure, which is not the Justification about which we contend. This Imperfect Righteousness is measured by the Law of Works, as a Rule, though it be accepted only by the gracious condescension of the Gospel.

To Ephes. 4. 24. you give many Answers, but they 39seem but so many Evasions.

1. I think there is no Question, but the Apostle speaks by way of Precept and Exhortation. q. d. If you have indeed learned Christ, and have been taught by him, you have learned to do so and so; therefore have a care to do so. Surely the Apostles words import a duty required, and so implicitly contain a Precept or Exhortation.

2. That he speaks as well to Believers, True Believers, as mere Professors, is as little to be doubted. For he speaks unto them upon a supposition, that they had learned Christ, and had been taught by him; which though it may belong to mere Professors, yet to true Believers much rather.

3. If the New Man, which is created in Righteousness and Holiness, may encrease, as you grant, then surely Righteousness and Holiness, in which the New Man is created, and without which the New Man is nothing, must increased also. To say, That the New Man may increase in Holiness, but not in Righteousness, is for one that would say any thing, so that he may but foreign. As well might it be said, That the New Man is created in Holiness, but not in Righteousness.

4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law, to which we must labour to conform still more and more, not only extensivè, but also intensivè.

5. The very conjunction of the words here, as in other places, shews that they are used as foreign. Besides, how we should give unto God the things that are God's, and to Men the things that are Mens, and not conform to the Law, which doth prescribe our Duty towards God, and towards Men, I cannot see: and surely Conformity to the Law, is the Righteousness now in question.

1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus Ibid.poenae primae Legis propter peccatum; What need is there of any other justification? [Ʋpon the Laws Convictions Of the Coven. c. 14. p. 95.(saith Mr. Blake) there may follow Gospel-Aggravations; but Conviction is the Work of the Law]. If p. 54duplicate page p. 55duplicate page p. 56Conviction, then surely Condemnation. If the Law do not condemn, what can? And what can the Law condemn for, but for sin? It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the knowledg of sin, Rom. 3. 20.

2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestitam Conditionem, it is no new Accusation, but a making good of a former Accusation; and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis, is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Légis; save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur.

3. I confess, I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of: I did not find them in your Aphorisms, but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification, so I understood it. But truly now that you open your conception more than before, I can see no solidity in it. We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith; but not by Faith, as being it self our Righteousness. Faith is indeed required unto Justification, yet not as our Righteousness, but as a Condition, Instrament, or Means (for I would not strive about words) whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness. I see not, that the Scripture doth speak of such a Two-fold Justification, one by Christ and his Righteousness, another by Faith as our Righteousness; but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith. By him all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.

Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness, of Ibid.which I expresly spake. I take it to be really the same with Holiness. What you cite therefore out of Gataker (p. 47.)and Placaeus, is nothing against me, I speaking of Righteousness in one sense, and they in another. Besides, you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words: for Sons is as much as reus culpae, and insons as much as non-reus culpae; whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae, and Insons for Non-reus poenae; how-ever his words are not to our purpose.

1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe Ibid.that, which I said about the Materiality and Formality, as well of Holiness as of Righteousness.

2. As Holiness (you grant) is a Conformity to the Law, as it doth constituere debitum officii, so I conceive p. 57is Righteousness, (Inherent I still mean) and not a Conformity to the Rule, as it constituteth, Conditionem praemii obtinendi, & poenae vitandae, si nimirùm seclusá (p. 48.)omni consideratione officii, Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur.

1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting Ibid. & 40.**Justification is by the consent of all men (I mean Protestants) a remission of our sins, and accepting of us as Righteous, Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, cap. 4. p. 138.as Righteous, or Accounting just, is (I think) as much as Justifying.

2. I did not (nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned) speak so generally, but to presuppose Faith, whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ, and then our Actions. By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice, &c. Heb. 11. 4. At length, after many words, which touch not me, in your 6th, you grant as much as I did, or do desire, viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled, before our external Obedience can be accepted. Whereas you there add, That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works, that Abel's Works were accepted: I answer, It was not indeed by the Law of Works; yet as they were a sincere, though imperfect Conformity to that Law, as a Rule, so they were accepted by the New Covenant. The Law of Works directs, the Covenant of Grace accepts, though we come short of what the Law requires.

[The Law (as Mr. Blake saith) still commands us, Of the Coven. ch. 16. p. 9, 10. Ibid. p. 111 112.though the Covenant in Christ, through the abundant Grace of it, upon the terms that it requires and accepts, frees us from the Sentence of it]. And again, [A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant, God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience: In this sence our Imperfection hath its perfectness; otherwise I must say, That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness, in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness, &c.] He means the Law of Works, which (as before noted) he saith is, a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule.

1. I shall not deny, but that our Faith and Obedience 40, & 41.may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness: Yet I think, That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners. For besides that the unsoundness of Faith (and so p. 58of Obedience) is sin; besides this (I say) if our Faith be not sound, it is in vain, we are yet in our sins, we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, there being no freedom for us without Faith.

2. I know none that say, Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works. For my part I should say, We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works, i. e. from the condemnation of it, God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions, notwithstanding our imperfection, for which the Law, if we should be sentenced by it, would condemn us. But here by the way, let me observe this, That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms, doth seem to manifest thus much, That when you composed those Aphorisms, you either knew not, or liked not that Twofold Justification, which now you so often speak of, and somewhere say, That my ignorance in this Point is it, that doth mainly darken all my Discourse. That common saying is not always true, foreign.

For my words; 1. I see not why those, [Acquitting us from all sin] should offend you. For you might see by what I there said, That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us. And so the Phrases used in Scripture, of God, not remembring our sins, his covering them, casting them behind his back, into the bottom of the Sea, &c. they all import such an acquitting of us from sin, as I intended; not as if God did account us to be without sin, which were false, but that God doth not charge sin upon us, viz. so as to exact satisfaction for sin from us. I meant the very same with Mr. Gataker in the words which you cited p. 39. Non hoc dicitur, Deum apud se judicare, illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christus satisfecit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse; sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum, & jus ad vitam aeternam, ac si nihil vel mali admisissent, vel boni debiti omisissent. Thus Christ speaks to the Church, Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair, my Love, and there is no spot in thee. What? may some say, Is there no spot in the Church? No, none in her, so as to be imputed to her. Sine maculâ deputatur, quia culpa non imputatur, as one doth no less truly Gilber. ad Loc.than elegantly express it. You your self yeeld as much as I desire, or as my words import, viz. That God acquitteth p. 59us from all sin, so as it induceth an obligation to punishment.

2. When you say, That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, is one Justification, and to justifie us against the accusation of being so obliged, is another Justification; I confess (Davus sum, non Oedipus) I do not well understand what you mean, for to my apprehension these are one and the same. Me-thinks it must needs be, That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, doth also eo nomine justifie us against the Accusation of being so obliged. For how are we acquitted from the Obligation, if not justified against the Accusation of being obliged?

3. I marvel why you should trouble your self with speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and of final unbelief, when as you could not but know, that I spake of all sin, from which we may be justified. Why might not one as well quarrel with those words of the Apostle, Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things, &c.

4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief, yet (as I expresly added in that very place which you take hold on) so that this be rightly understood. For the right understanding of it, I said something before; and for further explication, I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant, Chap. 33.

5. But in the next you do most strangely, even without any cause that I can see, foreign, and (as they say) fluctus in simpulo excitare. That [first our Persons, and then our Duties and Actions may properly be said to be justified, that is, accepted as just, and acquitted from all accusation brought against them, though in themselves they be not such, but that sin doth cleave unto them] why should this seem such horrid Doctrine, as that your Heart should detest it?

1. I speak of good Actions: for it is absurd to say, That evil Actions are accepted as just, though we may be so accepted notwithstanding our evil Actions.

2. I plainly say, That sin doth cleave to our good Actions; yet (I say) God doth accept them as just, notwithstanding the imperfection of them, and the sin that doth cleave unto them. If this be offensive to you, as well (I think) may you be offended at that Nehem. p. 6013. 22. Remember me, O Lord, concerning this, and spare me according to the greatness of thy Mercy. And so at that 1 Pet. 2. 5. You also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual House, an Holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ. Neither is there any reason why those words [acquitted from all accusation brought against them] should distaste you. For what though an Accusation be true, if yet in some other respect it be of no force? May not they be properly said to be acquitted from all Accusation, who notwithstanding the Accusation, are freed from condemnation? What matter is it how we are accused, so long as we are sure not to be condemned? Therefore the Apostle useth these Expressions as equipollent, [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect?] and [Who is he that condemneth?] Rom. 8. 33, 34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon those words of the Apostle, [Who shall lay any thing to the charge, &c.] as you do upon mine? Might you not say, Why? I will lay this, and that, and that, and ten thousand things besides to their charge? Yea, but when you have done all you can, to what purpose is it? For who is he that condemneth them, notwithstanding all the Accusations brought against them? These very words of the Apostle Medull. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 20.doth Amesius alledg in the former of those Sections which you cite. And if (as you say) all may be the…e fully seen in Amesius, that you would say in this, then I see not that you would say any thing against me, a… indeed you do say nothing. But what do you mean by those words, [and that as to the Law of Works] which by a Parenthesis you thrust in among mine? As if I meant, that as well our Actions as our Persons are accepted a… just, and acquitted from all condemnation by the La… … Works. Truly I think tàm quàm, as well the one as the other, that is indeed neither the one nor the other. The Law doth convince of sin, and (as much as in it lies) condemn for sin, both us and our Actions, even the best of them: But by the New Covenant, Through Faith in Christ we are accepted as just, though guilty of manifold sins; and our Actions are accepted also, though full of imperfection. When you say, That the Reatus Culpae cannot possibly be removed, or remitted, though I think it is but a striving about words, which I do not love, yet p. 61I cannot assent unto it. For I think it is truly and properly said to be remitted or pardoned; neither doth that seem proper or pertinent, which you add by way of Explication, [that is, The Man cannot be, or justly esteemed to be a Man that hath not sinned]. Quid tum postea? Cannot therefore the guilt of sin be remitted? Yea, how should sin be remitted, if it were not committed? I think it is as proper to say, Remittere culpam, as Remittere poenam. Surely if I may argue from the frequent use of Phrases, and hence infer the propriety of them, as you did, there is nothing more usual in Scripture, (and so in other Writings, and in common Speech) then to say, that Sins, Faults, Offences are remitted. Grotius saith, That foreign, which in Latin is Remittere, is as De Satis. pag. 52.much as missum facere; and that the Greek Scholiasts usually expound it by foreign, i. e. to neglect, not to regard, to pass over, (as Prov. 19. 11. to pass over a transgression) and that therefore foreign, is peccata missa facere, which the Scripture (he saith) following the Metaphor further, calls peccata in mare projicere, Mich. 7. 19. It is true, Sin is said to be remitted Ibid. p. 53.in reference unto Punishment: Remittere, or missa facere peccata, (as Grotius saith) is as much as punire nolle. Yet this hinders not but that sin, or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned; yea (I think) it doth confirm it. For if it be proper to say, That God will not punish sin, and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin; then it is proper to say, That God doth remit or pardon sin. In a word therefore, my words, about which you make so much adoe, are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them. They do not import, that our Actions, e…en the best of them, if strictly examined, are not sinful; or that God doth not see any sin in them; but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them, and accept them in Christ, (who is the High-Pri…st, that doth bear, and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things, Exod. 28. 38.) as if they had no sin in them. Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions, and yet grant the justifying of our Persons. Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other. For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions? Surely if the Action be sinful, the Person whose Action it is p. 62must needs be so too. And though you pass over the next, because you reverse your former Assertion, yet in that which I there said, you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me.

1. You grant what I say.

2. I have said before, That though (in mine Opinion) 42sin may properly be said to be remitted, yet this is in reference unto punishment.

3. You had no reason to imagine, that I should think, that my Actions, or the Actions of the best upon Earth, can be justified against all Accusations, as if they were absolutely good and perfect; when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions, and how it is through Christ covered, and not imputed unto us. Yea, and immediately I cited divers places of …cripture (…iz. Eccles. 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8, 9. Job 9 4. Exod. 28. 38.) to prove, that neither our Persons, nor our Actions are so righteous, but that we may be accused of, and condemned for sin in them, and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be. It is strange how you should pass by all this, it being directly before your eyes, and should raise a suspicion, as if I should mean quite contrary.

1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified Ibid.by Christ, afterward they may be justified by our Works, when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained i…, viz. That first it is meant only of good Works; and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake, as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous, but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them▪ Illud semper retineatur, (inquit Davenantius) han… De Just. Act. c. 33. Memb. 2.acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo; Cum enim ipsi renati carnem peccatricem adhuc gestent, & opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant, Deus neque ipsos, neque eorum opera grata haberet, n…si & hos & illa in Christo magis q…àm in seipsis amplexaretur. What you say of Chamîer and others, as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ, might well have been spared, as being nothing at all against me, who am far from making our Works meritorious, when I make even the best of p. 63them imperfect, and to need pardon. 2. It is evident by this very Section, to which you now reply, that I spake only of good Actions. For how absurd and sensless were it to say, that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous, as I there say that our Works are not? The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake; so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere.

1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing, Ibid.though it be that, and somewhat more.43, & 44.

2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of, I speak for my self.

3. I take all sin to be against the Law, as it is distinguished from the Gospel, though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel. Of that Law I suppose St. John spake, saying, Sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul, By the Law is the knowledg of sin, Rom. 3. 20. And again, I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not know lust, (or as the Margent hath it, concupiscence, viz. to be sin) except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines, that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments.

4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief, and neglect of the Sacraments, &c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue. The first precept requires us to have the Lord, and him only, for our God; and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us, and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us. The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe; and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances; See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath, Part. 2. Chap. 4. §. 21, 22, 23. What you add after, makes all for me in this particular, only some things seem meet to be observed.

1. This (I confess) to me is strange Philosophy, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, ceased not to be Earth still, when it was made Man. As well may you say, That Adam's rib, of which Eve was formed, ceased not to be a Rib still; and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies.

2. The Precept and Threatning (you say) are parts of the New Law, though they be common with the Old. p. 64Here you seem to grant, That nothing is commanded, or threatned in the New Law, which is not commanded or threatned in the Old. Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness, and a Two-fold Justification; one in respect of the Old Law, another in respect of the New. The Precept [believe] belongs to the Old Law; but as it is not only a Precept, but also a Condition, upon performance of which Salvation is promised, [Believe; and thou shalt be saved] so it belong; to the New Law. So this Threatning [If thou dost not believe, thou shalt perish] belongs to the Old Law, as threatning death for every sin, and consequently for unbelief, which is a sin: and it belongs to the New Law, as leaving an Unbeliever under the condemnation of the Old Law both for that sin of unbelief, and also for all other sins, from the guilt of which he cannot be freed, because he doth not perform the Condition, which the New Law to that end doth require of him. And (as I have before noted) the Condemnation of an Unbeliever is now increased, as his Sin is, by neglecting Salvation offered upon condition of believing.

3. You say, That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige. But your Reason seems invalid, Quia cessat materia, vel capacitas subjecti. You mean, no Man can perform the Condition; and so no Man is capable of the Promise made upon that Condition. But why may it not be said, That as the Precept, which is also the Condition, ceaseth not, though none be able to obey it: so the Promise doth remain, though none can enjoy the benefit of it? It may seem unreasonable, that the Threatning should still be in force, and the Promise be quite taken away.

4. You say again, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, doth still retain the form of Earth; which surely doth need further Explication, or Conformation, or both.

5. The threatning of the New Law (you say) hath something proper to the New Law: But for any thing I see, the New Law doth threaten nothing, which the Old Law doth not threaten: though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of sin, so there will be an increase of condemnation.

p. 656. Whereas you say, that the right stating and clear apprehension of this part, (viz. of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, and how far the Law of Works is abrogated) is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadversions take notice of, or than any thing (as to difficulty) that I deal with; truly my desire was, and so is, only to give you some hints for the further clearing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphorisms. But if you think, that here in this Section, which is somewhat long, you have sufficiently explicated those Points, I am not of your mind.

1. All that you here say is nothing to my Animadversion; only you strive a little about the acceptation of those 44word▪ [the Moral Law].

2. Neither do I make the Moral Law as taken for the Precept co…junct with …he Threatning, a true part of the New Law: ye… Moral Law so taken, being not dissolved … abr…g…d by the New Law, as you grant, Unbelievers while they remain such, both for their unbelief, and for their other sins, are under condemnation, as belonging …n…o them by the Old Law, there being no Remedy provided for them by the New Law; which hath no other threatning, (I think) but that it leaves Unbelievers to the Old Law, and the condemnation of it.

1. I do not dislike your Thesis, [That Christ died not Ibid. & 45.to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Grace] as you understand it, viz. for final unbelief. Yet I hold, That such as profess the Gospel, and live in those sins, which are not consistent with true and sincere Faith, do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace; and for such violation of that Covenant Christ died, or else all such are left without Remedy. I am in this fully of Mr. Blakes mind, [As a wife (saith he) by adultery, Of the Coven. chap. 33.so they by sin forsake the Covenant, by which they stand betrothed; and by consequence it must needs follow, that Christ died for breach of the Covenant of Grace, as well as for breach of the Covenant of Works; unless we will say, That all Men by name Christians, and found in any of those sins, are in a lost and unrecoverable condition, joyning with those that hare said, That there is no Grace or Pardon for those that fall into sin after Baptism. That he died not for their sins, that live and die … final impenitency and unbelief, may be easily granted: p. 66and that rises to no more, than that he died not for those, that finally and unrecoverably break Covenant with him].

2. Whereas you confess, That for unbelief and impenitency, though it be not final, Men remain obligati ad poenam per L…gem Naturae, but deny it as to the proper Obligation of the New Law; I conceive that the New Law providing no Remedy for them, while they remain such; in this respect they are as well by the New Law obligati ad poenam for the time, as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are for ever. You grant the Gospel doth non-liberare, while Men continue in Unbelief; yet you conceive, That it doth not obligare ad poenam propriè, viz. ad non-liberationem, & ad poenam majorem. Now I conceive that while it doth non-liberare, it may be said, obligare ad non-liberationem; though I should rather like to say, That it doth relinquere in statu non-liberationis, and so majoris poenae ob contemptum gratiae, & misericordiae oblatae. In your Similitude, The Malefactor, whiles he refuses to come in, and submit to the Terms upon which Pardon is offered, remains in a state of Condemnation, though the sentence be not executed upon him, except he continue in his refusal of the offer unto the term prefixed. But you profess your self willing to acknowledg, That this non-liberatio may in some sort be called Poena; and truly I think, that Poena Nova Legis non alia est, quàm non-liberatio à poená veteris Legis; hoc tamen semper addito, poenam veteris Legis, ob neglectum liberationis in Lege Novâ oblatae, graviorem reddi.

I mean [Actually in the state of Damnation] and 45you grant as much as I desire, viz. That they are obliged even for that sin unto death, per Legem Naturae, & non liberati per Legem Gratiae. Why then should you deny, that they are actually obliged to Damnation? Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation? Or betwi…t obliged, and actually obliged? He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation, and so remains, as long as he remains in unbelief; The Wrath of God abideth on him, John 3. 36. That the Sentence is not yet executed, but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it, is another thing.

p. 67The Parenthesis, which you say, is wanting in your Ibid.Aphorisms, might help to make the words more clear; as they stand, they seem obscure: which is all that I would have observed.

Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Ibid. & 46.Philosophical Disputes; yet I am also unwilling to recede from received Opinions, except I see urgent cause for it. Now that an Accident must have a Subject to exist in, as it is generally held, so I am perswaded it is true. Burgersdicius (whose authority I may well enough oppose Logic. lib. 1 cap. 7.to Scheiblers) saith, Accidens est Ens substantiae inhaerens. Indeed he saith, Relationes non tam inhaerent alicui subjecto, quàm adhaerent: but he doth not deny that they do inhaerere. For he saith, Relatio ejusmodi accidens est, quod non tantùm (N. B.) in aliquo est, ut in subjecto, sed refertur etiam ad aliud. It is usually one Argument which our Divines have against Transubstantiation, that thereby Accidents are made to exist without a Subject. Scheibler grants, that an Accident hath not existence by it self, that it is not foreign, (so it should be, not foreign). Now every thing that hath Existence, must (I think) either exist by it self, or in some other thing.

2. Adjunctum & Subjectum, and Effectum & Causa, are not so contradistinct, but that the same thing may be Adjunctum & Effectum, and so the same thing Subjectum & Causa.

3. Whereas Scheibler saith, Actio transiens nullum habet subjectum, ne quidem ipsum Patiens, ut visum est; See Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4. p. 135.I say, Ego illud nondum vidi, nec vel verum, vel verisimile mihi videtur. I think, Omnis Actio subjectatur in Patiente: and this I hold to be true even of Immanent Actions, which though they have the Agent for the Subject, yet it is because the Agent is there also the Patient; and it is not quà Agens, but quà Patiens, that it is the subject of the Action.

4. He argues thus, Actio ut sic non dicit nisi egressum à virtute activâ alicujus Agentis. Egressus autem opponitur foreign esse in. Resp. 1. Actio ut sic necessario infert Passionem. Fieri enim non potest, ut aliquid agat, nisi etiam aliquid patiatur. Ergo Actio non tantum dicit egressum à virtute activá, verùm etiam infert receptionem in Patiente. 2. Actio & Passo sunt idem p. 68metus; sed Actio vocatur quatenus ab Agente procedit, Passio autem quatenus in Patiente recipitur. Etiamsi igitur Actio & Passio formaliter differant, cum tamen realiter idem sint, si Passio est in subjecto, Actionem etiam in ubjecto esse necesse est.

5. Whereas you doubt whether Scotus be not right in holding that Immanent Acts are in the Prcdicament of Quality, that (as divers other Passages) doth shew that you are much inclined to that which doth cross the common Opinion; which surely is in it self very dangerous, though (I know) you are prudent and sober-minded, so that there is little cause of fear this way in respect of you. Yet wanton Wits, and unstable Spirits, may extend your Notions further than you intended them; and therefore, especially considering the times into which we are faln, you have need to be wary: but dictum sapienti sat est.

Though we cannot know God to Perfection, yet we may and must know him so, as to remove from him all 46See Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4. p. 130, 131. Ibid.Imperfection, and consequently all composition. The more simple any thing is, caeteris paribus, the more perfect it is: Therefore God being most Perfect, he is most Simple.

This con…ains only a Logical Dispute about the Predicaments and Relations. Now for the Predicaments, though I do not say that they all note real Beings distinct one from another, so Actior and Passion do not; yet I think they all note real Beings, i. e. Beings which are not meerly rational or imaginary. And how you should question this, especially of Substance, Quantity and Quality, (which are more than two) I cannot conceive. And for Relations, hear Aqu…nas, whose judgment (besides that he gi…eth reason for what he saith) with me is of far more weight than of your late Authors. Quida… Part. 1. Qued. 13. Art. 7. in Corp.p…s…erunt Relationem non esse rem naturae, sed rationis tanti…m. Quod quidem apparet esse falsum ex hoc, quod ipsae res naturalem ordinem & habitudinem habent ad invi…m. Yet as there are Entia Rationis, so there are Relationes Rationis. Yea, Aquinas shews, Ibid. …. ib…. ad 2. & ad 4.that Q…aedam Relati…n…s sunt quantum ad utrumque extremum res naturae, &c. Quandoque verò in uno extremo est res naturae, & in a…t …o extremo est r…s rationis t…ntùm, nempe c… duo extrema non sunt ejusdem ordinis, p. 69&c. And of this latter sort he notes the Relations are, which are betwixt God and the Creatures. Cum igitur (inquit) Deus sit extra totum ordinem creaturae, & omnes creaturae ordinentur ad ipsum, & non è converso, manifestum est, quòd creaturae realiter referuntur ad Deum, sed in Deo non est aliqua realis relatio ad creaturas, sed secundum rationem tantùm, in quantum creaturae referuntur ad ipsum. Et sic nihil prohibet hujusmods nomina importantia relationem ad creaturam, praedicari de Deo ex tempore, non propter mutationem aliquam ipsius, sed propter creaturae mutationem, sicut columna fit dextra animali, nullâ mutatione circa ipsam existente, sed animali translato. And again, Creatio Aquin. Part 1. Quaest. 45 Art. 3. Ad 1.(inquit) activè considerata significat actionem divinam, quae est ejus essentia cum relatione ad creaturam. Sed relatio in Deo ad creaturam non est realis, sed secundum rationem tantùm: relatio verò creaturae ad Deum est realis, &c.

Heereboord, p. 179. saith, Pater non significat aliquid, quod humanae naturae propriè & per se insit, sed quomodo ille, qui sic dicitur, se habeat ad filium. Resp. Pater est Relatum, nempe Substantia cum Relatione ad aliud: Paternitas est Relatio, & inest subjecto, nempe homini, qui est Pater. Quod p. 184. dicit Relationem esse medium inter Ens rea…e & Nihil, id tantum dicit, non probat.

You say, That however you are confident, that Relation is not verè Ens; yet you will not say, that it is Nihil or Non Ens; and you said before, (as I noted, and it is most sure) Inter Ens & non Ens non datur medium. The distinction of Medium Participationis, & Medium Negationis will not here serve. For certainly Contradictoria non admittunt medium Negationis. Aut Homo, aut non Homo: aut Ens, aut non Ens: non datur medium. The Authors to which you refer me, I have not, save only Dr. Twisse; but he is of another Edition, viz. in Folio, so that I cannot find the place, as you cite it.

1. He that is justified, is so freed from all condemnation, Ibid. & 47, 48, 49.that he is liable to no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. And he that is so freed, is perfectly freed, and consequently perfectly justified, though the freedom from condemnation, and so the justification be not so fully and p. 70perfectly made manifest as it shall be. The freedom from condemnation per sententiam Judicis, of which you speak, doth not add to the freedom it self, but only to the manifestation of it. The Sentence is indeed past already, John 3. 18. though it be not so solemnly pronounced, as it shall be.

2. He that is freed from all Condemnation, is certainly freed from all Accusation, so as that no Accusation can be prejudicial to him; though he may be accused, yet it matters not, seeing he cannot be condemned. Else the Apostle had triumphed before the Victory, saying, Who shall lay any thing to the charge, &c. Who is he that condemneth? Rom. 8. 33, 34.

3. The Apostle doth not only say, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. but also, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? v. 33. viz. when they are in Christ, and so justified. Which in effect is as much, as if it were said, There shall be no condemnation to such. But you grant, That other Texts speak as much, and that such neither now are, nor ever shall be under condemnation. Yet you say, That they would be to morrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. You mean (I suppose) if they did not renew the Act of Faith: but (I say, and you grant it) they who are once justified, though they sin daily, yea, and may lie long in sin, as David did, yet they shall renew the Act of Faith, and have the joy of God's Salvation restored unto them, as he prayed, Psal. 51. 12. Neither is there any intercision of Justification, though there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it.

To your Objections, I answer, Ad 1. He that is once justified, can contract no guilt so as to fall from his Justification. Besides, when I spake of Justification being perfect, I only mean, That a Justified Person is justified, not in part only, but fully, i. e. from all sins which at present he is guilty of: not but that his Justification hath need to be renewed in respect of new sins; and so his Justification may be said to increase extensivè, as extending to more and more sins, as they are increased more and more. But that in this respect we shall be more fully justified at the last Judgment than we are now, is p. 71but by accident, and not from the Nature or Essence of Justification.

Ad 2. Justification per Sententiam Judicis, & Sententiam magis publicam, makes (as I said) but for the more full and perfect manifestation of it. In die De Justif. Disp. 7.judicii (inquit Maccovius) Christus non tam justificaturus (N. B.) est credentes, quàm declaraturus est ex operibus eorum, eos credidisse in hac vitâ, & justificatos fuisse. Thus undoubtedly is that to be understood in Acts 3. 19. For without question no sins shall then (at the last Judgment) be blotted out, which were not blotted out before: but the blotting of them out shall then more fully appear than before. In resurrectione à mortuis, (inquit De Libr. Apocryph. Prelect. 171.Rainoldus noster) Christus, qui veniet judicatum vivos & mortuos, quemadmodum ipse pronunciat, ea quae ligaverint ipsius ministri, ligatum iri in coelis, ita quae priùs in terrâ remissa fuerint, confirmabit ipse suâ sententiâ, ut remissa & deleta in aeternum, omnia nimirum fidelium & sanctorum peccata. Quare quaecunque, & quorumcunque peccata remissa fuerint in hoc seculo, etiam in futuro seculo remittentur, quoniam autem peccata non fuerint remissa in hoc seculo, non remittentur in futuro, nempe peccata hominum incredulorum & impiorum. Petrus, Act. 3. hoc locupletissimè confirmavit.—Resipiscite (inquit) ut deleantur peccata vestra, postquam venerint tempora refrigerationis, &c.—Nostri cum affirmant peccata non remitti in futuro seculo, sed in isto tantum, negant id quod astruunt Pontificii, peccata remissum iri in futuro seculo, quae in praesen…i non remittebantur. Nam Christus confirmabit sententiam suam, quam priùs tul…t, cum feret sententiam illam novissimam in ultimo judicio. Itaque peccata nulla tum remittentur, nisi quae quisque testimonto conscientiae suae hîc percipit remissa esse in presenti seculo.—Certè ipse (Bellarminus) agnovit, vel agnoscere potuit è verbis **Instit. lib. 3. c. 1. §. 7.Calvini quae citat, nos hoc judicio esse, praesertim in eo ipso loco Calvini quem citat, ubi ait Calvinus, Christum (Mat. 12. 32.) hâc partitione usum esse, quâ judicium complexus est, quod sent…t in hác vitâ uniuscujusque conscientia, & postremum illúd, quod palam (N. B.) in resurrectione feretur. For peccata futura, which you also here speak of, I have said enough in answer to the former Objection. And you p. 72may see much more to this purpose in the Account given to the Parliament by the Ministers which they sent to Oxford, p. 7, 8, 9.

Ad 3. Castigatory Punishment is no part of that Condemnation, from which we are freed by Justification, but a means to preserve us from falling into Condemnation, see 1 Cor. 11. 32.

Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional, viz. upon condition of the continuance of our Faith, yet the continuance of the Condition being certain, so also is the continuance of our Justification. There is not the like reason of Predeitination, which is only a decreeing of what God will do for us; but God justifieth (as you say) pro praesenti; and whom he once justifieth, he will always justifie; else the Apostle would not say, Whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. 8. 30. Though Means must be used, and Conditions performed for the continuation and consummation of our Justification; yet it being certain that the Means shall be used, and the Conditions performed, it is also certain that our Justification shall be continued and consummated.

Here perhaps you may take hold of what I say, and object, It shall be consummated; therefore as yet it is not consummated.

Answ. It is not (I grant) in respect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to Justified Persons: but it is already consummated; **Justificatio nullum locū relinquit condemnationi. Joh. 5. 24. Et vitam aeternam certò & immediate adjudicat. Ames. Medul. lib. 1. cap. 27. §. 23.John 5:24so that they have a full right to the enjoyment of those Benefits. Therefore the Apostle speaks as of a thing already done, Whom he justified, them he also glorified: see also Rom. 5. 1, 2.

Ad 5. If by this, [the solemnizing of all is wanting] you mean That yet there wants the manifestation of our Justification, it hinders not but that our Justification is already perfect, though it be not so perfectly made manifest as hereafter it shall be. So if by [Marriage not solemnized] you mean a Marriage not publickly celebrated, I see not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in it self as perfect as the other. But it seems strange, that you should think, that we should scarce be called Justified p. 73now, but in reference to Justification at the last Judgment; when-as both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as a thing that we are here actually partakers of. What you say of Mr. Lawson, as if he held, That Justification here is but a right to Justification hereafter, I much wonder at: His Reasons I know not, but if that be his Opinion, the whole current of Scripture, and the general consent of Divines (I think) is against him. Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day, Sentential Justification, I should rather call it, Publick Sentential Justification, or a publick manifestation of the Sentence of Justification. For surely our Justification here is **See the Oxford account, p. 7. and Ames. Med. lib. 1. cap. 27.Sentential. God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous, though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgment. Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word [Justification] for Justification (as you say) by Sentence, do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day, but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justifie those that believe.

Perhaps you will say, Where is that Sentence?

Answ. It is in the Scripture. But (you may say) The Scripture speaks only in general. Well, but if God in the Scripture say, That all that believe are justified, as Acts 13. 39. then consequently he saith, That you and I believing, are justified. And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular; though it is true, they have not that clear evidence and full assurance, as they shall have hereafter. So for Condemnation at the last day, I think it to be but a more solemn and publick pronouncing of the Sentence, together with the immediate and full execution of it. For otherwise the Sentence is past already, He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3. 18. I do not deny, that Declarative Justification at the last Judgment, is properly Justification; only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have, though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is. That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before, only shews that it is more full Extensivè, as freeing from the guilt of more sins: but that is only per accidens; Justification in it self considered, was as perfect before: for it freed from all sin, and from all Condemnation, and the other doth no more.

p. 74What the meaning of your Question was, [If we be 50not one real Person with Christ, then one what?] I could not tell: but the words did seem to imply, That we must either be one real Person with Christ, or else we could not any way be one with him; whereas the Scripture is clear, that Believers are one with Christ though that they are one real Person with him, is no to be admitted. Therefore I thought meet …o answer as I did, viz. That we are one Spirit, as the Apostle expresseth it, 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is, spiritually one with Christ, as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him. No doubt but further Queries may still be made: and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature? Yet I see not why we should not content our selves with those Similitudes and Resemblances, which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery, as of the Vine and Branches, Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members, Ephes. 5.

To your next Section I need say no more than this, Ibid.Non oportet litigare de verbis, cum de re constet.

I have shewed my meaning all along, viz. That Christ's Ibid. & 51.Satisfaction, and not Faith, is properly that by which we are justified. Whereas you say, [We are justified by Faith it self, as the Condition, and not so by Christ] I can admit it only thus, That Faith is the Condition required of us, that so we may be justified by Christ. Otherwise I cannot yeeld, that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification, is properly that by which we are justified; but of that enough before. For the Habit and Act of Faith, I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature. For Habits may be in us when we sleep, or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits. I think also, that though acquired Habits follow Acts, yet infused Habits (such as Faith is) go before.