A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Letter · Section 18
§. XVIII. Yet again, pag. 30. you tell me, [I cannot well swallow down in the lump, what you would have me and others to do, when you direct us to prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority of Votes, till you acquaint us who that Gentleman is, and what sort of Rulers and Majorities you mean].
Answ. What you cannot swallow you must leave: I will not cram or drench you. I could wish for your own sake, that you had not thus often told the World of such a Malady, as that must needs be which hindreth your swallow: When, 1. You your self receive the same Rule in other Instances, and make all this stir against it only, as to the Definition of Justification, even the Logical definition, which is Actus definientis, called Definitio formalis, and not the Definitio objectiva, as the Ipsum definitum is by some improperly called. 2. And when the words in that Instance are not [ONE MAN] but [a few Men] which your Eyes may still see; and when in the General direction where one Man is mentioned, there is no such word as [that one Man], or the least intimation of an Individuum determinatum; You greatly wrong your Honour by such dealing; As you do by adding,
1. [For the single Person (that Monarch in Divinity) to whom we are upon differences to make our Appeals, &c.]
Answ. If you hold on thus to talk as in your sleep, and will not shut your Chamber-door, but commission the Press to report your words to the World, how can your best Friends secure your reputation? Is not all this talk of single Person, and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effects of a Dream, or somewhat worse? These Fictions will serve no honest ends. But you next come indeed to the true difficulty of the Case, and ask:
[I beseech you Sir, how shall your ignorant or weaker Christian be able to judg of fitness?—He had need to have a very competent measure of Abilities himself, who is to give his verdict of anothers, &c.]
This is very true and rational: But it concerneth you as much as me to answer it, unless you will renounce the Rule. And seeing you grant it in other Instances, if you please to answer your own question as to those other, you have answered it as to this: And if you will not learn of your self, I am not so vain as to think, that you will learn of me.
In case of Subtilties which depend upon Wit, and Art, and Industry, in that proportion which few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but one of these ways that can be taken; Either wholly to suspend our Judgments, and not to meddle with them, till we can reach them our selves; Or to take them fide humana, or as probabilities on the Credit of some Men, rather than others: As to the first, I am for as much suspension of Judgment, duplicate page duplicate page as will stand with the part of a Learner (where we must learn; and in useless things for a total suspension). But where Learning is a duty, all Men come to Knowledg by degrees, and things usually appear to them in their probability, before they appear in ascertaining evidence. Therefore here the Question is, Whose judgment I shall take as m…t probable? (Were the case only, how far we should Preach our Judgment to others, there Rulers must more determine; or if it were, How to manage our Judgment so as to keep Ʋnity and Concord, the Church, or major Vote must over-rule us). But it being the meer Judgment or Opinion that is in question, either we must adhere to the Judgment, 1. Of Rulers as such, 2. Or the major Vote as such, 3. Or to those that are most Excellent in that part of Knowledg: Why should I waste time to give you the Reasons against the two first, which are commonly received? When even the Papists, who go as far as any I know living in ascribing to One Man, and to major Votes, yet all agree, that a few subtile Doctors, yea one in the things in which he excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council: And therefore the Scotists prefer one Scotus, Lychetus, Memisse, Rada, &c. before a Pope or Multitude, and so do the Nominals, one Ockam, Gregory, Gabriel, Hurtado, &c. and so the other Sects.
The thing then being such as neither you, nor any Man can deny, the difficulty which you urge, doth press you and all Men: And it is indeed one grand calamity of Mankind, and not the least hinderance of Knowledg in the World; that he that hath it not, knoweth not what another hath, but by dark Conjectures. 4. And therefore Parents and Pupils know not who is their best Tutor: The hearers that are to chuse a Teacher, hardly know whom to chuse; for, as you say truly, he must know much that must judg of a knowing Man.
God hath in all Arts and Sciences given some few Men an excellency of Wit and Reach above the generality of their Profession, and they have a more clear and solid Judgment: If all Men could but know who these be, the World would in one Age be more recovered from Ignorance than it hath been in ten. But the power of the Proud, and the confidence of the Ignorant, and the number of all these, and the Slanders and Scorn, and p…vish Wranglings of the common Pride and Ignorance against those few that know what they know not, is the Devils great means to frustrate their endeavours, and keep the World from having knowledg. This is certain and weighty Truth, and such as you should make no Malignant applications of, nor strive against. Mankind must needs acknowledg it. Your urgent questioning here [Do you not mean your self?] doth but expose you to pity, by opening that which you might have concealed.
And to your Question I say, could I enable all Ignorant Men to know who are the best Teachers, I should be the grand Benefactor of the World: But both the blessing of excellent Teachers, and also of acquaintance with them and their worth, is given by God, partly as it pleaseth Him, freely, even to the unworthy, and partly as a Reward to those that have been faithful in a little, and obeyed lower helps; (for there is a Worthiness to be found in some Houses, where the Preacher cometh with the voice of Peace, and unworthiness, which oft depriveth Men of such Mercies.) Both absolutely Free-Grace, and also Rewarding-Grace, do here shew themselves.
But yet I add, 1. That Light is a self-demonstrating thing; and will not easily be hid. 2. And those that are the Children of Light, and have been true to former helps and convictions, and are willing to sell all for the Pearl, and fear not being losers by the price of Knowledg, but would have it whatever Labour or Suffering it must cost, and who search for it impartially and diligently, and forfeit it not by Sloth, or a fleshly, proud, or worldly Mind, these, I say, are prepared to discern the Light; when others fall under the heavy Judgment of being deceived by the Wranglings, Scorns, Clamours and Threatnings of PROUD IGNORANCE. And thus one Augustine was a Light in his time, and though such as Prosper, Fulgentius, &c. knew him, Pelagius and the Massilienses wrangled against him: And Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Phagius, Zuinglius, Calvin, Musculus, Zanchius were such in their times; and some discerned them to be so, and more did not: If Men must have gone by the judgment of Rulers, or the major Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Reformation? If you can better direct Men how to discern Gods Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do it, and do not cavil against it.
As for your [One single Protestant in such a case as Justification], and your [I wish it be not your meaning] Pag. 31. they deserve no further answer, nor I all the anger, pag. 31, 32, 33.
§. XIX. But pag. 34. Note again, 1. That it is not Objective Definitions, (as some call them) but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] supposed to be Mens needful Acts, which you say are Re, the same with the Definitum. 2. And that yet you must have it [supposed that these Definitions are true]. And I suppose that few Good Christians comparatively know a true one, no, nor what a Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which constitute it) is.
You say, [I absolutely deny what you so rashly avow, that the Definition of Justification is controverted by the greatest Divines: This is one of your liberal Dictates: The Reformed Divines are all, I think, before you, agreed about the nature of Justification, its Causes, &c. and consequently cannot differ about the Definition].
Answ. 1. But what if all Divines were so agreed? So are not all honest Men and Women that must have Communion with us: Therefore make not Definitions more necessary than they are, nor as necessary as the Thing.
2. You must be constrained for he defending of these words, to come off by saying, that you meant, That though they agree not in the Words, or Logical terms of the Definition; but one saith, This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but that; one saith this, and another that is the Formal, or Material Cause, &c. yet de re, they mean the same thing, were they so happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions: And if you will do in this, as you have done in your other Quarrels, come off by saying as I say, and shewing Men the power duplicate page duplicate page of Truth, though you do it with never so much anger, that you must agree, I shall be satisfied, that the Reader is delivered from your snare, and that Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or say of me.
3. But because I must now answer what you say, and not what I foresee you will or must say, I must add, that this passage seemeth to suppose that your Reader liveth in the dark, and hath read very little of Justification. 1. Do all those great Divines, who deny the Imputation of Christs active Righteousness, and take it to be but Justitia Personae, non Meriti, and that we are Justified by the Passive only, agree with their Adversaries, who have written against them, about the Definition and Causes of Justification? Will any Man believe you, who hath read Olevian, Ʋrsine, Paraeus, Scultetus, Piscator, Carolus Molinaeus, Wendeline, Beckman, Alstedius, Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with abundance more, who are for the Imputation of the Passive Righteousness only? Were Mr. Anth. Wotton, and Mr. Balmford, and his other Adversaries, of the same Opinion in this? Was Mr. Bradshaw so sottish as to write his Reconciling Treatise of Justification in Latine and English, to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while he knew that there was no difference, so much as in the Definition? Was he mistaken in reciting the great differences about their Senses of Imputation of Christs Righteousness, if there were none at all? Did Mr. Gataker agree with Lucius and Piscator, when he wrote against both (as the extreams)? Did Mr. Wotton, and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawson, in his Theopolitica agree with you, and such others? Doth not Mr. Cartwright here differ from those that hold the Imputation of the Active Righteousness?
What abundance of Protestants do place Justification only in Forgiveness of Sins? And yet as many (I know not which is the greater side) do make that Forgiveness but one part, and Imputation of Righteousness another. And how many make Forgiveness no part of Justification, but a Concomitant? And many instead of [Imputation of Righteousness] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the sake, or merit of Christs Righteousness imputed] (viz. as the Meritorious Cause). And Paraeus tells us, that they are of four Opinions, who are for Christs Righteousness imputed; some for the Passive only; some for the Passive and Active; some for the Passive, Active, and Habitual; some for these three and the Divine. And who knoweth not that some here so distinguish Causes and Effects, as that our Original Sin (or Habitual say some) is pardoned for Christs Original (and Habitual) Holiness: Our Omissions for Christs Active Obedience, and our Commissions for His Passive? Or as more say that Christs Passive Righteousness as Satisfaction, saveth us from Hell or Punishment, and His Active as meritorious, procureth Life as the reward? When many others, rejecting that Division, say; That both freedom from Punishment, and right to Glory are the conjunct effects of His Habitual, Active, and Passive Righteousness, as an entire Cause (in its kind); as Guil. Forbes, Grotius, Bradshaw, and others truly say: Besides that many conclude with Gataker, that these are indeed but one thing and effect, (to be Glorified, and not to be Damned or Punished); seeing not to be Glorified is the Paena damni, and that the remitting of the whole Penalty damni & sensus, and so of all Sin of Omission and Commission, is our whole Justification.
And I need not tell any Man that hath read such Writers, that they ordinarily distinguish of Justification, and give not the same Definition of one sort as of another, nor of the Name in one Sense as in another.
Many confess (whom you may read in Guil. Forbes, and Vinc. le Blanck) that the word [Justifie] is divers times taken in Scripture (as the Papists do) as including Sanctification: And so saith Beza against Illyricus, pag. 218. as cited by G. Forbes, [Si Justificationem generaliter accipias, ut interdum usurpatur ab Apostolo, Sanctificatio non erit ejus effectus, sed pars aut species]: And as I find him (mihi) pag. 179. Quamvis Justificationis nomen interdum generaliter accipiatur pro omni illius Justitiae dono quam a patre in Christo accipimus, &c.
And how little are we agreed whether Reconciliation be a part of Justification or not? Yea, or Adoption either? Saith Illyricus [Hoc affirmo, recie posse dici Justificationem esse Causam omnium beneficiorum sequentium: Nam justificatio est plena Reconciliatio cum Deo, quae nos facit ex hostibus filios Dei:] To which Beza ibid. saith, (distinguishing of Reconciliation) Neutro modo idem est Reconciliatio ac Justificatio.—Si Remissio peccatorum est Justificationis Definitio, quod negare non ausis, &c.
Of the three sorts or parts of Christs Righteousness imputed to make up three parts of our Justification, see him de Predest. pag. 405. Col. 2. which Perkins and some others also follow.
Olevian (as all others that grosly mistake not herein) did hold, that God did not judg us to have fulfilled all the Law in Christ; and that our righteousness consisteth only in the Remission of Sin, and right to Life as freely given us for anothers Merits: But Beza insisteth still on the contrary, and in his Epistle to Olevian, (pag. 248. Epist. 35.) saith, Quid vantius est quam Justum arbitrari, qui Legem non impleverit? Atqui lex non tantum prohibet fieri quod vetat,—verum praecipit quod jubet.—Ergo qui pro non peccatore censetur in Christo, mortem quidem effugerit; sed quo jure vitam praeterea petet, niso omnem justitiam Legis in eodem Christo impleverit? (This is the Doctrine which Wotton and Gataker (in divers Books largely) and Bradshaw, after many others do Confute). Yet saith he, Neque vero id obstat, quominus nostra Justificatio Remissione peccatorum apte & recte definiatur], Which is a contradiction. Yet was he for Love and Gentleness in these differences; ibid.
Yet Qu. & Resp. Christ. pag. 670. He leaveth out Christs Original Habitual Righteousness, [Non illa essentialis quae Deitatis est, nec illa Habitualis, ut ita loquar, Puritas Carnis Christi.—Quae quum non distingueret Osiander faedissime est hallucinatus.
And ibid. 670. he giveth us this description of Justification.
Qu. Quid Justificationem vocat Paulus hoc loco? R. Illud quo Justi fimus, id est, eousque perfecti, integri, foreign, ut plenissime, non tantum aboleatur quicquid in nobis totis in est turpitudinis, qua Deus summe purus offendi ullo modo possit, verum eti…m in nos comperiatur quicquid in hac humana natura usque adeo potest eum delectare, ut illud vita aeterna pro bona sua voluntate coronet].
Yet (as in his Annot. in Rom. 8. 30. & alibi) he confesseth that Justification in Scripture, sometime is taken for Sanctification, (or as including it) so he taketh our Sanctification to contain the Imputation of Christs Sanctity to us. (Qu. & Resp. pag. 671.) 1. Dico nostras Personas, imputata ipsius perfecta sanctitate & integritate, plene sanctas & integras, ac proinde Patri acceptas, non in nobis sed in Christo censemur. 2. And next the Spirits Sanctification; and thus Christ is made Sanctification to us.
Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Pemble, Vind. Grat. distinguish of Justification as an Immanent Act in God from Eternity, and as it is the notice of the former in our Consciences: But doubtless the commonest Definitions of Justification agree with neither of these: And Pemble of Justification otherwise defineth it (as Mr. Jessop saith Dr. Twisse did).
Lud. Crocius Syntag. pag. 1219. thus defineth it, [Justificatio Evangelica est actus Divinae gratiae, qua Deus adoptat peccatorem per approbationem obedientiae Legis in sponsore atque intercessore Christo, & per Remissionem peccatorum ac Justitiae imputationem in eo qui per fidem Christo est insitus]. And saith, pag. 1223. [Fides sola justificat quatenus notat Obedientiam quandam expectantem promissionem ut donum gratuitum—& apponitur illi Obedientiae quae non expectat promissionem ut donum omnino gratuitum, sed ut mercedem propositam sub Conditione operis alicu…us praeter acceptationem & gratitudinem debitam, quae sua Natura in omni donatione quamvis gratuita requiri solet. Et ejusmodi Obedientia peculiariter opus ab Apostolo, & Latinis proprie Meritum dicitur; & qui sub hac conditione obediunt Operantes vocantur, Rom. 4. 4. & 11. 6. This is the truth which I assert.
Conrad. Bergius Prax. Cathal. dis. 7. pag. 983. tells us that the Breme Catechism thus openeth the Matter: [Qu. Quomodo Justificatur Homo coram Deo? R. Accipit Homo Remissionem peccatorum & Justificatur, hoc est, Gratus fit coram Deo in vera Conversione, persolam fidem, per Christum, sine proprio Merito & dignitate.
Cocceius disp. de via salut. de Just. pag. 189. Originalis Christi Justitia correspondet nostro Originali peccato, &c. vid. coet. plura vid. de foeder.
Macovius Colleg. de Justif. distinguisheth Justification into Active and Passive, and saith, Justificatio Activa significat absolutionem Dei, quae Hominem reum a reatu absolvit: And he would prove this to be before Faith, and citeth for it (abusively) Paraeus and Tossanus, and thinketh that we were absolved from Guilt from Christs undertaking our Debt, Thes. 12. thus arguing, [Cujus debita apud Creditorem aliquis recepit exsolvenda, & Creditor istius sponsionem ita acceptat, ut in ea acquiescat, ille jam ex parte Creditoris liber est a debitis: Atque Electoram omnium in singulari debita apud Deum Patrem Christus, ex quo factus est Mediator, recepit exolvenda, & Deus Pater illam sponsionem acceptavit, &c. Passive Justification, which he supposeth to be our application of Christs Righteousness to our selves daily as oft as we offend. Th. 5. (And part 4. disp. 22. he maintaineth, that There are no duplicate page duplicate page Dispositions to Regeneration). Others of his mind I pass by.
Spanhemius Disput. de Justif. saith, that [The Form of Passive Justification consisteth in the apprehension and sense of Remission of Sin and Imputation of Christs Righteousness in capable Subjects] grosly: Whereas Active Justification (Justificantis) ever immediately causeth Passive (Justificationem justificati) which is nothing but the effect of the Active, (or as most call it, Actio ut in patiente): And if this were the Apprehension and Sense (as aforesaid) of Pardon and imputed Righteousness, then a Man in his sleep were unjustified, and so of Infants, &c. For he that is not Passively justified, is not at all justified.
I told you else-where, that the Synops. Leidens. de Justif. pag. 413. Th. 23. saith, That Christs Righteousness is both the Meritorious, Material, and Formal Cause of our Justification.
What Fayus, and Davenant, and others say of the Formal Cause, viz. Christs Righteousness imputed, I there shewed: And how Paraeus, Joh. Crocius, and many others, deny Christs Righteousness to be the Formal Cause.
Wendeline defineth Justification thus (Theol. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Justificatio est actio Dei gratuita, qua peccatores Electi, maledictioni legis obnoxii, propter justitiam sen satisfactionem Christi fide applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali Divino, remssis peccatis, a maledictione Legis absolvuntur & justi censentur. And pag. 615, 616. He maintaineth that [Obedientia activa, si proprie & accurate loquamur, non est materia nostrae Justificationis, nec imputatur nobis, ita ut nostra censeatur, & nobis propter eam peccata remittantur, & debitum legis pro nobis solvatur; quemadmodum Passiva per imputationem censetur nostra, &c. Et post [Si dicus Christum factum esse hominem pro nobis, hoc est, nostro bono, conceditur: Si pro nobis, hoc est, nostro loco, negatur: Quod enim Christus nostro loco fecit, & factus est, id nos non tenemur facere & fieri, &c.
Rob. Abbot approveth of Thompsons Definition of Evangelical Justification, (pag. 153.) that it is, Qua poenitenti & Credenti remittuntur peccata, & jus vitae aeternae conceditur per & propter Christi obedientiam illi imputatam: (Which is sound, taking Imputatam soundly, as he doth).
Joh. Crocius, Disp. 1. p. 5. thus defineth it, [Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter satisfactionem Christi peccatoribus in Christum totius Mundi redemptorem unicum, vere credentibus gratis sine operibus aut meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & justitiam Christi imputat ad sui nominis gloriam & illorum salutem aeternam. And he maketh only [Christs full satisfaction for Sin, to be the Impulsive-External, Meritorious, and Material Cause; as being that which is imputed to us; and the Form of Justification to be the Remission of Sin, Original and Actual, or the Imputation of Christs Righteousness (which he maketh to be all one) or the Imputation of Faith for Righteousness].
Saith Bishop Downame of Justif. p. 305. [To be Formally Righteous by Christs Righteousness imputed, never any of us, for ought I know, affirmed. The like saith Dr. Prideaux, when yet very many Protestants affirm it.
Should I here set together forty or sixty Definitions of Protestants verbatim, and shew you how much they differ, it would be unpleasant, and tedious, and unnecessary.
And as to those same Divines that Dr. Tully nameth as agreed, Dr. Davenants and Dr. Fields words I have cited at large in my Confes. saying the same in substance as I do; as also Mr. Scudders, and an hundred more, as is before said.
And let any sober Reader decide this Controversie between us, upon these two further Considerations.
1. Peruse all the Corpus Confessionum, and see whether all the Reformed Churches give us a Definition of Justification, and agree in that Definition: Yea, whether the Church of England in its Catechism, or its Articles, have any proper Definition: Or if you will call their words a Definition, I am sure it's none but what I do consent to. And if a Logical Definition were by the Church of England and other Churches held necessary to Salvation, it would be in their Catechisms (if not in the Creed): Or if it were held necessary to Church-Concord, and Peace, and Love, it would be in their Articles of Religion, which they subscribe.
2. How can all Protestants agree of the Logical Definition of Justification, when 1. They agree not of the sense of the word [Justifie,] and of the species of that Justification which Paul and James speak of? Some make Justification to include Pardon and Sanctification, (see their words in G. Forbes, and Le Blank); many say otherwise. Most say that Paul speaketh most usually of Justification in sensu forensi, but whether it include [Making just] as some say, or only [Judging just] as others, or Nolle punire, be the act as Dr. Twisse, they agree not. And some hold that in James Justification is that which is coram hominibus, when said to be by Works; but others (truly) say, it is that coram Deo.
2. They are not agreed in their very Logical Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions are reduced; no not so much as of the number and nature of Causes, nor of Definitions (as is aforesaid): And as I will not undertake to prove that all the Apostles, Evangelists and Primitive Pastours, knew how to define Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Causes in general, so I am sure that all good Christians do not.
3. And when Justification is defined by Divines, is either the Actus Justificantis, and this being in the predicament of Action, what wonder if they disagree about the Material and Formal Causes of it?
Nay, it being an Act of God, there are few Divines that tell us what that Act is: Deus operatur per essentiam: And Ex parte agentis, his Acts are his Essence, and all but one. And who will thus dispute of the Definition and Causes of them, Efficient, Material, Formal, Final? when I presumed to declare, that this Act of Justifying is not an immanent Act in God, nor without a Medium, but Gods Act by the Instrumentality …f his Gospel-Covenant or Promise, many read it as a new thing; and if that hold true that the First Justification by Faith, is that which Gods Gospel-Donation is the Instrument of, as the Titulus seu Fundamentum Juris, being but a Virtu… …d not an Actual Sentence, then the Definition of it, as to the Causes, must differ much from the most common Definitions.
But most Protestants say that Justification is Sententia Judicis. (And no doubt but there are three several sorts or Acts called Justification, 1. Constitutive by the Donative Covenant, 2. Sentential, 3. Executive.) And here they are greatly at a loss, for the dec…sion of the Case, what Act of God this Sententia Jucis. What it will be after death, we do not much disagree: But what it is immediately upon our believing▪ It must be an Act as in patiente, or the Divine …ss…nce denominated from such an effect. And what Judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tombes saith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels: But that is not all, or the chief: some run back to an Imma…ent Act; most leave it undetermined: And sure the Name of Sentence in general, signifieth no true Conce…tion of it at all, in him that knoweth not what that Sentence is, seeing Universals are Nothing (out of us) but as they exist in individuals. Mr. Lawson hath said that wihch would reconcile Protestants, and some Papists, as to the Name, viz. that Gods Execution is his Sentence; He Judgeth by Executing: And so as the chief punishment is the Privation of the Spirit, so the Justifying Act, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed about Active Justification (which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fullier to open.)
And as to Passive Justification (or as it is Status Justificati) which is indeed that which it concerneth us in this Controversie to open, I have told you how grosly some describe it here before. And all agree not what Predicament it is in: some take it to be in that of Action, ut recipitur in passo; and some in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct: But most place it in Relation; And will you wonder if all Christian Women, yea or Divines, cannot define that Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions of the Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Causes, of that which must be defined (as it is capable) by its subjectum, fundamentum and terminus.
I would not wish that the Salvation of any Friend of mine (or any one) should be laid on the true Logical Definition of Justification, Active or Passive, Constitutive, Sentential or Executive.
And now the Judicious will see, whether the Church and Souls of Men be well used by this pretence, that all Protestants are agreed in the Nature, Causes and Definition of Justification; and that to depart from that one Definition (where is it?) is so dangerous as the Doctor pretendeth, because the Definition and the Definitum are the same.