A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 1 · Chapter 6

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness · Book 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? Then 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 th…u shalt be absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condemn…d.

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. 30. 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. 11. Ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Many Protestants, and among them Beza 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 absolv… 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 Epithers: 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 or 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, that 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. Nor 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 Life 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 poen…m decernit; Lex quae irrogat: Peccatum est transgressio Legis: Poena effectus istius trangressionis; Justificatio denique absolutio ab ista poena: Itaque p. 143cum Lex nisi praestita neminem 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 sense, 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 [Evaugelical 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 tells 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 laycth 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 thos… 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 i…, 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 praestandâ: 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? …. But stay a little: Before we come to this, we most 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 plaíner, 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, suh 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 differt 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 praestandà: 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 poenae; 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 fac hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Reatus Culpae 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 malcdiction? 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 sidem 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 Rignteousness 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 mak…ng 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 intimated.

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 un…pt 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 pronounce 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, as 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. 168duplicate page p. 169duplicate page 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?