A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Title page 4 – Book 4

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness · Title page 4 – Book 4

THE SUBSTANCE OF Mr. Cartwright's EXCEPTIONS Considered.

BY RICH. BAXTER.

LONDON, Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinson, at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675.

p. 3The Substance of Mr. Cartwright's Exceptions considered.

TO reply to these Exceptions verbatim, I conceive were a sinful loss of time, and a great wrong to to the Learned Author, and more to my self, and most of all to the Reader and the Truth. For it would unavoidably tire us all, and drown the Truth in a mountainous heap of useless Altercations; and the main business would be to manifest a Reverend Brother's mistakes, which I conceive may sooner kindle the fire of Anger, than the light of Information.

I shall therefore pass by all that part of the work, and only deal with the remaining Differences, which are the Soul of the Book, and that not in the Order as they lie, but as they seem of greatest moment, or are most insisted on by the Reverend Author.

The main substance of the Exceptions, consisteth of these points following:

1. That I say Faith (and secondarily sincere Obedience) are as to the Law of Works or Innocency, but the Conditions of our Justification by Christ's merits, from its condemning sentence: But they p. 4are our material Righteousness in respect to the Law of Grace; viz. a particular subordinate Righteousness, because a Condition of our Pardon and Salvation. But Mr. C. yieldeth that they are such a Condition, but not that we are justified by them, or that they are our Righteousness thereto.

2. That I make Works to have a co-interest with Faith in Justification.

3. That I make Faith to be but a Condition of our main Justification, consisting in remission of sin: But Mr. C. makes it a Cause, which he calleth Causa applicans.

4. That I make two Laws, and Mr. C. but one; only yieldeth to call the Promise the New-Law.

5. That I make the New▪Covenant a Law to have a peculiar penalty, which Mr. C. denieth.

6. That I make Obedience a Condition of our right to Salvation, [Juris continuandi vel non amittendi) though not of our first Righteousness: And Mr. C. makes it a Condition of Salvation it self, and not of our right to it; yet confesseth that it is the same thing that is the Condition of Justification, and of right to Salvation.

7. That Mr. C. makes the Gospel-Grant to be properly, A sentence of Absolution by God as Judg; and I make it to be but A Donation of pardon and life by God as Rector and Benefactor by Law, and Deed of Gift, and so a virtual, not an actual judicial Sentence: Which yet I little stick on.

8. Mr. C. taketh the Judgment after this life to be no other or further Justification than we have here, but only a further Declaration of it: And I take it to be a decisive Sentence, to put our right …ut of controversie, giving us our Jus Judicatum, p. 5as the Promise did our Jus Constitutum, and moreover, being the orderly means to our possession.

As to the first of these Differences, I would know, Whether it be about the Matter or the Word that we disagree? If the Matter, then Mr. C. would never have granted, 1. That Faith and Obedience is an inherent or personal Righteousness, and so called commonly by Scripture and Divines. 2. That it is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant. 3. That if we be accused to have no right in Christ, because we have not fulfilled this Condition, we must plead the actual fulfilling of it by our selves, or perish; and not plead any fulfilling of it by Christ for us, nor any pardon for our not fulfilling it. 4. Yea, that even wicked men may have a true particular Righteousness, (though not this which is the Condition of Salvation) I remember now no one material difference left between us.

And if it be only Verbal: 1. I conceive that the Dispute, [Whether the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant may be called Righteousness, or we be said to be justified by it?] when we are agreed in the thing, is not worth the contending about. 2. Mr. C. saith, p. 91. of his Exceptions, Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re constet. 3. He confesseth (as is said) that even a wicked Reprobate may have a particular Righteousness, and owneth Bradshaw's so denominating it. He therefore that will yield that the Devil or a Reproba…e may be called righteous quoad causam particularem, and that that is Righteousness, me thinks should not deny it in our case. 4. He confesseth (for it is undeniable) that all our Divines do give the name of p. 6Righteousness to our inherent Righteousness: Therefore de nomine we differ not. 5. He denieth not (for it is past denying) that Scripture often calleth our Faith and sincere Obedience by the name of Righteousness: So that when I so call it, I do but speak as the Holy Ghost hath taught me. Thus far then methinks, we should be fully agreed (as in sense so) that the name of Righteousness is lawful and fit to be applied to our Faith it self, and personal Obedience.

It remains then de nomine, whether we may say, 1. Either that this Faith or Righteousness doth justifie us? 2. Or that we are justified by it?

For the former phrase. I use not to say [Faith justifieth:] 1. Because it soundeth as if I made it an efficient Cause. 2. Because Scripture rather useth the other phrase. [We are justified by Faith.] Though there seem small difference in these speeches, yet indeed the latter best sitteth the nature of a conditional or dispositive Interest: And the Holy Ghost is the fittest Judg. But for the latter phrase, and the former taken in the same sense as the latter, viz. [That Faith justifieth as a Condition, and thence consequentially, as the matter of our subservient particular Righteousness,] I should think that here is no room for a d…s…greement. For,

1. None can deny but that I speak in the Lang… of the Holy Ghost, who saith, [A man is j…ified by W…rks, and not by Faith only;] and that [by our w…rds we shall be justified, and by our words we shall be condemned.] Say not I mistake the meaning of these word…, while, 1. Our Question is no… n… …bout the meaning or matter, but about the … of the phrase. 2. And the thing that I am p. 7first blamed for, is not the misunderstanding of a particular Text, but of the Doctrine of Justification.

2. It is beyond all doubt a contradiction unworthy the Pen of any Learned man to say, This is our Righteousness, and yet will not in tantum justifie us; (and in totum, I ever denied it as much as they:) Forma proculdubio informat & denominat.

3. To justifie, (in the sense I use it) is (first) to constitute Righteous, (for I take it for constitutive Justification first:) But it may be said, that we are constituted Righteous by Faith and Obedience (not speaking of universal Righteousness:) Therefore it may be said we are justified by them.

Nothing can be said to this Argument, but against the minor, by denying that the word [Justifie] is ever taken for constituting Righteous, but only for sentencing us so: But I never yet met but with one Learned man, that I remember, that was of that mind. Our Divines ordinarily distinguish of Justification constitutive and sentential: 1. His Reason is, because it is still taken in sensu forensi, and so we maintain against the Papists. But I answer, Our Divines take not sensum forensem, as excluding, but including, sensum Legalem, vel Civilem (as we commonly speak) but only as excluding sensum Ethicum, as it signifieth merely our acts and qualities of Ethical Justice or Virtue. Now so I grant against the Papists, that Justification signifieth not most usually nor very oft an infusion of new Qualities; but 1. Non reatum culpae vel poenae, which is Innocence and Legal Righteousness. 2. Sentential Absolution. Now I say no more, but, 1. That our Non-reatus culpae finalis impoenitentiae & infidelitatis p. 8aut Rebellionis, is our particular Righteousness or Justification. 2. Our Non-reatus poenae propter hanc culpam is founded herein as the matter. 3. Our Non-reatus poenae aeternae in general dependeth on this (at the last Judgment) as on a Condition. 2. I little doubt but Scripture (mentioning Justification by Faith) means it of constitutive Justification; and Mr. C. for ought I perceive, thinks so too, taking it and sentential Justification for all one.

If then we may be said to be [made Righteous] by Faith and Obedience, then we may be said to be justified by them: But the former is true; Therefore, &c.

That Righteousness which makes not righteous, is a thing, never yet known, except it were only nomen justitiae sine re, and it were only equivocally so called. For Righteousness is a mere relative form, and therefore must make, that is, formally constitute the person righteous so far. Even as there is no existent Worthiness, that makes not worthy; or Guiltiness, that makes not guilty, or Ʋnrighteousness, that makes not so far unrighteous; or Goodness, that makes not so far good: I think none will contradict this.

4. I'll tell you what I will do? If godly Divines would not have me use James's phrase, and say, [We are justified by Works,] yea, or by Obedience, yea▪ … by Faith, as Paul speaks, rather than wrong t… Churches p…ace, I will utterly lay it by in speech …nd writing, and I will only say, [We are made right…us,] and not, [We are justified] by them. And so in my Explication of our Righteousness, I wi…l say, that we have a twofold Righteousness. 1. Inherent personal Righteousness (Evangelically so p. 9called;) which by reason of its exceeding Imperfection (for so I am content to speak) will not justifie us of it self in Judgment: This consisteth inchoatively, or at first, of Faith and Repentance without external Obedience; afterward, of Faith continued, and Obedience added. 2. The other Righteousness is meritoriously Christ's Satisfaction for our sin, and formally the pardon of sin it self, whereby the defaults of all our Faith, Obedience, and other Graces, together with all the sins of our lives, are remitted, or our jus ad impunitatem & regnum. Our Faith or Obedience is none, no not the least part of this Righteousness of Remission, and right to Life: But yet Christ in granting his Act of Pardon or Grace, did except final Infidelity and Impenitency out of it: And therefore as he pardoneth none such, so his Righteousness of Remission alway supposeth concurrent our personal Righteousness (quâ talis, not to be remitted;) Christ never died to purchase us pardon for loving God, hating Sin, Repenting, Obedience, &c. but only for the sin that adheres to these in their deficiency or evil company. Why may not this much reconcile us?

Nay, Note these two things:

1. That Mr. C. in his pleading for an imperfect Righteousness, so denominated from its Conformity to the Law, page 68, 69. professeth, that [Accepting for Righteous, and accounting just, is as much as justifying;] and that, [it is the New-Covenant that so accepteth our Works, as they are a sincere, though imperfect, Conformity to the Law as a Rule;] and that; [for his part he should say, that we and our actions are justified from the Law of Works, i. e. from the Condemnation of it.] Now is not p. 10here as much, or more by far, than I say for Works?

1. More: For I do not think that God's acceptance of our Works, is a justifying them from the Law's Condemnation; but that they are unjustifiable, and still condemned by the Law, and that the Gospel was never of force to save mens Works from the Law's Condemnation, but only to save the person: Nay, that if the Works be not condemned by the Law, the person cannot be justified by Christ, but must be justified by his Works: For justified Works will justifie the person, so far as they are justified; and if the Works be not condemned, the person cannot be condemned for them.

2. But I intend not this as an Accusation of his Opinion; for I believe he meaneth soundly: But then at least consider, Whether this be not as much as I say? He alloweth here, and professeth to use the term [Justification of our Works] as the subject: And if it be fit to say, God justifieth our Works, then what man can devise a Reason why it is not as fit to say, God justifieth us thereby? so far in tanto, though not in t…to: For as Bradshaw truly saith, Every Justification of the cause, is indeed a Justification of the person. I take it for granted therefore, that Mr. C. alloweth me to say, that we are justified by our Works and Faith as our particular Righteousness, by a particular Justification: Yea, he in other places plainly expresseth as much. Now he must needs know, that I often told him, I take it but for a particular Righteousness, and to be but Mat…ria Justificationis particularis, & conditio Justificationis plenariae, vel (supposità conditione praestità) univers…o.

p. 112. Note also, That he gives it as the very sum of all his Answer on this point, that [our Faith (and Obedience) as an imperfect Conformity to the Law, is a particular Righteousness, and so it justifieth not; but as it is the Condition of the Covenant, it justifieth, and so it is no Righteousness.] Now it is here granted, that a personal Righteousness is requisite to our Justification, though not as Righteousness. If Faith, which is our Righteousness, be necessary, though not as our Righteousness, but as a Condition; for my part I have all that I desire for substance in his Concession, that Faith justifieth as a Condition. The rest is but of the name: And of the name himself saith, p. 40. The Question is not, Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words (that he confesseth) but how and in what sense we are to be so justified: There is a particular Justification, and a declarative Justification: Thus we are justified by our Works and Words; but a full and formal Justification is only by Christ's Righteousness, through Faith imputed to us.

But what Reason gives he through the whole, why Faith is no Righteousness as a Condition? He saith still, that [It is no new Accusation to be accused of non-performing the Conditions of the New Covenant, but a making good the former.] But it is most evidently a distinct subordinate Accusation towards the making good the first. Is the means and end all one? Is it all one to accuse a Traytor of being liable to death for Treason merely as such; and to accuse him of not performing the Conditions in an Act of General Pard…n… and so having no b…n…fit by that Act for his escape? The … no… the same, nor the sense the s… A… sation p. 12is not the same. Those things which are divisible are not the same: But these are divisible; ergo, &c. The Devils may be accused of being guilty of death for sin as sin; but not of non-performance of Conditions of Recovery: For a mere Negation is no ground of Guilt or Accusation.

But he thinks, that [the Law constituteth the officium Credendi, and the Covenant the Condition; therefore as a Condition performed, it is no Righteousness; and as a Duty performed, no justifying Righteousness, but particular.] I answer, 1. If this were all so, yet when the Covenant doth take one Legal duty for its Condition, our Salvation may lie on that particular Righteousness. 2. Will it, or may it ever be questioned in Judgment, or not, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant? I think it will be the main Question: I am sure in Conscience it is the main. If it may ever be questioned, Whether we have right in the Promise and Christ's blood or no, I know no way of Legal evincing it, but by producing the Deed of Gift, or our performance of the Condition. All the doubt then to be discussed will be of the latter; and on this will Reprobates begin to plead, [Lord we have done thus and thus;] for the Gift will be undeniable. Now if this will be a Cause to be pleaded at Judgment (yea, for ought I can understand by God's Word, the great Cause of the day,) then certainly the D…fendant will be Guilty, or Not-Guilty; and his Cause will be just, or unjust. If he have justitiam Causae, then Mr. C. is mistaken; if he have not, the man is condenmed. Mr. C. is very much …ut to imagine (and make it the substance of most of his Answers in the main Question) that our performance p. 13of a Condition as such, may not be a Righteousness. What if it were granted to be no Ethical Righteousness (and yet I am loth Covenant-breakers should have so much countenance, or that God's Covenant-keeping should be denied the name of Righteousness;) doth it follow that it is not a judiciary Righteousness, a justitia forensis which is nearest to our great Justification?) If Contractors enter a Suit one against another for not-keeping Covenants, may not, must not the Accused or Defendants Cause be just, or unjust? If a man enter an Action against another for not-performing a Promise, for not-doing what by Lease or other Covenant he was bound to; I think the Law will pronounce him and his Cause just, or unjust; and acquit and justifie him, or else condemn him accordingly. If it be capable of being a Cause in Law, or the matter of an Action or Suit, then it is most necessary a righteous or unrighteous Cause. But,

3. I do not think it tolerable so to exclude the Law as a Law from this work. For,

1. The very Covenant is a Law, even the promisory part: I prove it, 1. God is so super-eminently and transcendently above us, and our absolute Sovereign, that we are not capable of entring into a strict Covenant (as among equals) but such as participateth of the nature of a Law. We have so wholly our dependance on him, and good from him, that he can make no Law of favour, or for our good, but so far it must be as a Benefactor (it being otherwise with earthly Sovereigns, whose Subjects receive not all their propriety from them:) And also he is so conjunctly our absolute Sovereign, that he can enter no Contract with us but authoritatively.

p. 142. From the Definition: A Law taken most fitly, though largely (for jus Constituens, adequate to jus Constitutum; and not for Lex, as its narrowly taken as distinct from Precept, Priviledges, Contracts, &c.) this true proper Law is but Constitutio debiti Authoritativa; or, Signum voluntatis Rectoris debitum Constituens. Now Constituere debitum praemii, is as true an Act of this Law (though every Law have it not, which made some exclude it;) as constituere debitum officii. Yea, acts of absolute free Grace or Pardon are true Laws. So that God did make the New-Covenant as Benefactor and Legislator both; and so gave the Legal jus ad Beneficium, and constituted the Condition of his own Gift.

2. Besides, I am not yet of Mr. C's mind, that the Precept it self, which he calls the Law, is not a real part of the Covenant. What though it be part of the Law? so it may be, and of the Covenant too; for the Covenant (as Mr. Lawson hath well shewed) is truly a Law, called a Covenant from the more excellent part (the Promise) and from God's Condescention, and from man's requisite Consent: Yet called a Laws, as being the authoritative Constitution of what shall be due to us (good or evil) and what shall be due from us for the obtaining of one, and escaping the other. But of this more anon about the Law.

3. Nay, as Unrighteousness condemneth not directly, as it is contrary to Duty, but as it is contrary to the Condition of Life, and is the Condition of the Threat: So when it concerneth Judgment, the word Righteousness doth most nearly belong to Duty as a Condition, and remotely to Duty as Duty performed.

p. 152. The second Question or Point of Difference, [I make Works to have a co-interest with Faith in Justification.]

But how? It is sure confessed not in our first Justification, and that it is principally in our last great Justification at Judgment. Do I advance Works higher than others? or do I not rather seem to depress Faith lower? I never made Works to be the the instrumental Cause of Justification, as others do Faith. I never made them the causa applicans, as Mr. C. makes Faith. I never made them any proper cause. I do aver in the end of my Answer to him, that I give less to Faith, but no more to Works than others.

His Answer is this: [Why? then make it appear that they hold Works to justifie as well as Faith, or to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying: Except you perform this (which I presume you never will) you cannot make good your undertaking.] Ans. I have proved over and over, that they affirm Repentance a Condition of Pardon; and Obedience a Condition of final Justification. If I prove that they do thus, and that I do no more, do I not prove that I give no more to Works than they? What, must I prove that they give no more to Faith, and so make no greater inequality than I, before I can prove that they give as much to Works? The co-interest of a Condition I can prove by forty of them, that they give as far I: But must I prove that they give Obedience the co-interest of a cause, which I deny my self?

p. 16So I did in the next lines cite Davenant, saying the very same words as I, and as fully as I desire, and largely explaining and proving them. Yet Davenant said well, and I say ill, when I am ready to subscribe to his words in the sense as they must plainly import, or with a Protestation to understand them as rightly as I can: If this be not non ex fide personas, sed ex personis fidem, &c. as Tertul. what is?

And what is the Difference? Why it is said, [Dic… te extra oleas vagari, cum ego de conditione Justificationis loquor, at{que} ejusmodi quidem conditione quâ Justificari dicimur: tu autem opponis mihi authorem de operibus Justificatorum, i. e. eorum qui jam Justificati sunt, & fide quidem, non operibus, ex authoris istius sententia, ad salutem necessariis disserentem.]

Resp. 1. Putàssem propiùs ad rem controversam pertinere, quid ego loquor, & de quali conditione, quam tum, cum ego rei & tu actoris partes agis?

2. Nonne Davenantius etiam loquitur de conditione? & de conditione sine qua non? & de conditione ad Justificationis statum retinendum & conservandum? imo de conditione concurrente vel praecursoriâ? Ipsissima authoris verba sunt.

3. Nonne & ego de Justificatorum operibus semper sum locutus, quando dixi ea ad Justificationem continuandam esse necessaria.

It is further answered by Mr. C. to the fifth Conclusion, [Some internal Works must go before Justification, yet they do not therefore justifie as well as Faith. Davenantius eo ipso loco negat opera necessaria esse ad Justificationem ut causas, sed tantum ut ad obtinendam equestrem dignitatem, &c. Fidem autem p. 17(alio loco) dicit esse causam applicantem justitiam Christi, at{que} ideo ei tribuit quod proximè & immediatè pertinetad rem applicatam, &c.]

Reply. 1. Doth not he say, that they are necessary [ut conditiones praecursoriae?] If they are Conditiones, they have the interest of Conditions in Justification. I say not, [They justifie us,] because that phrase sounds as if I ascribed an efficiency to them; but only, that [we are justified by them as Conditions.] And to say, [It is a Condition of Justification, and yet we may not be justified by it as by a Condition] is no better than to say, [Such a thing is an efficient, but causeth not as an efficient.] I deny them to be Causes as well as he.

2. And what if you proved that he makes Faith a Cause, when I do not, and so doth not so nearly equal them as I? Doth that prove that I give more to Works than he? or rather that I give less to Faith? He that will affirm, that he ascribeth no more to Works than you, is but sorrily confuted by your saying, that he ascribeth less to Faith, that is, that he gives Works a co-interest with Faith: Which he may do, by derogating from Faith (or from your estimation of it) without adding any further dignity or power to Works.

Mr. C. gives this as his summary Answer, [Your first inference is of no force, as having no ground, viz. that if I will be of Davenant's mind, I must be of yours. I do not see that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do. (2.) Who hold, that they justifie; and urge, (3.) the words of St. James for it; whereas Davenant (4.) makes Faith to justifie; (5.) as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness, which surely Works cannot. He saith also; p. 18(6.) Opera sequuntur Justificationem & praecedunt Glorificationem; being not acquainted it seems with your distinction of Justification, as Inchoate, and as Consummate at Judgment, whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of Justification as of Glorification.

Rep. If ever words were spoke against most express evidence in terminis, I think these are; 1. That my words were groundless, when I have no fitter expressions of my own mind, than in Davenant's words. 2. I hold not, [that they justifie,] but that [we are justified by them,] which phrase better fits a mere Condition than the former. 3. I take the words of James to be Scripture; and doth it prove, that I give more to Works than Davenant, because I cite the express words of Scripture? What if I misunderstand that Scripture? doth it follow that I give more to Works? 4. Is this an Argument to ground your Accusation on [Davenant makes Faith to justifie, as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness: Works cannot so do?] What then? therefore Davenant gives less to Works than you? A sorry consequence! Or is it, [Therefore Davenant makes not Works to justifie.] Answ. Nor I, if you take it efficiently, as you say, Davenant doth make Faith a Cause. But, 1. Is not this his giving more to Faith, and not loss than I to Works? 2. Doth he not say, that Works are Conditions of Justification, some precursory and concomitant, and some for continuing it? And I still profess, that we are justified by them but as Conditions. If you say, I call them Righteousness by which we are justified, I have answered that before; that is lis de nomine, and I so call them but à posteriore, because they are Conditions p. 19of our Justification, and you and Davenant call them a particular Righteousness as well as I. I still say, as to our universal Justification, they have no further interest than the very essence of a Condition imports; and if Davenant give them not this, he was to blame to tell us otherwise. 5. I make Faith also to justifie [as Apprehending and Applying,] if you do not take the word [As] strictly pro ratione formali, but as signifying Faith's special aptitude to a preheminence in this Work: And I affirm, that Works do not justifie as Apprehending or Applying: (still remember, that when I use the phrase [Faith justifieth,] I use it in Conformity to your Discourse, and mean it as is before explained. 6. Do not I say, as well as he, that opera sequuntur Justificationem & praecedunt Glorificationem? and doth it thence follow, that he was unacquainted with my distinction of Justification Inchoate and Consummate at Judgment? Why? 1. You know the same man was acquainted with the distinction between Justification Inchoate and continued. 2. And that that he saith Works follow Justification, makes them precursory Conditions of Justification, and Conditions of its Continuance? and so plainly acquaints you, that it is those external Works, which he makes Conditions of continuing Justification, which he saith, follow it; which no doubt but they do. 3. Think you then, that this Learned man did not know, that Christ would come again to judg the quick and the dead? and so could distinguish between Justification here and hereafter? Or did he ever dr…am, that the Saints should be judged, and yet not justified then? why, then they must be condemned? For Judging is the Genus, and hath but those two species. p. 20But I have spoke further to this than I intended.

The sum of my Reply to this Question is this: 1. I never gave Works a co-interest with Faith, in causing or effecting our Justification: For I never gave Faith such an interest. 2. I never gave Works an equal interest with Faith. 3. I never gave external Works any interest in our first Justification. Only to that I require, that the Faith be such as Mr. C. himself so much pleads for, A working Faith, or non renuens operari; or that hath Works in it Virtually, (as taking Christ for King to be obeyed.)

Contr. 3. The next Difference between us is this: Mr. C. makes Faith to be Causa applicans of our Justification; and I make it to be but a Condition.

I understand my own term partly, but I understand not his: What Cause is this Causa applicans? As far as I understand him, he meaneth an efficient Cause: And that which is an efficient, may be said to effect. Here is the difference then, I do not make Faith to effect the pardon of any sin, that is, to pardon me (as a less principal Cause:) But had Mr. C. given us this Causality of Faith in any notion familiar to us Logicians of the lower Form, we should better have known what to make of it. In the mean time should I presume but to pass my Conjecture which of the sorts of Efficients he intends, perhaps I might wrong him by my mistakes; yet let these two things be remembred: 1. That I hereby give less to Faith, but not more to Works. 2. That I only excuse my self, for not calling Faith, p. 21A Cause of Justification: But I do not accuse others that so call it, nor will I contend with them about it, if they mean a moral Cause, or per accidens only, if they will give me leave to forbear. And though anon I shall shew, that I hope you may yet mean the same as I by Causa applicans, that it is but dispositio causae materialis, id est, Recipientis; yet because so great a number of great Divines call it the instrumental Cause, I must first speak to that sense, on that supposition.

And here I remember Mr. C's next words to those even now cited: [Do our Divines give more to Faith than you? 1. As you urge the foreign of St. James, for being justified by Works; so you also insist upon the very letter of St. Paul, and will have Faith it self to be properly our Righteousness by which we are justified: This our greatest Divines do not, no more than the other.]

Reply. 1. I had rather be accused of adhering too close to the words of the Holy Ghost, than of departing causelesly from them.

2. How oft have I told you over and over, that I make Faith to be no further our Righteousness, than as it is the Condition of our Righteousness merited by Christ? And knowing this, could you think and say, that I give more to Faith than your self, who say, it is the Condition as well as I? Sure the naming of this Condition by the name Righteousness, is not giving more to it! If it be, 1. You cannot say so, that use the name your self; 2. And here seem to confess I have [the very letter] of Scripture for it: And that's enough I think to justifie the name, while I agree with you in the thing.

p. 22He proceeds thus: [Yet you stick not to brand them as making man his own Justifier or Pardoner, foreign. Truly this is over-gross: What professed Adversary could reproach our greatest Divines more than thus? Whither will not a man's partiality carry him, if he be let alone? May you not as well say, that Christ made some their own Saviours, because he said, that their Faith had saved them? I had thought that all the glory did belong to the principal Agent, rather than to the Instrument.]

Reply. Where I have offended God in wronging men, I desire and hope for pardon. Yet if I may give a true account of my words, I must say, 1. That I would have you review, whether it be you or I that broke the Ninth Commandment. I did not say, that these Divines do make man his own Justifier; but only that [I give not to Faith, and so to man so much as they, not daring to make man his own Justifier.] I am afraid I should be guilty of this, if I said, that Faith effecteth our Justification: Doth it follow that I say, They are guilty of it? I think not, for all your anger. For Consequences are not to be fastened upon men that disown them, at least, as directly guilty of them: I see them, or seem to my self so to do; it would therefore bring that guilt on me, if I held their opinion, though it may not on them (unless remotely.)

2. I never once thought of charging the men as holding, that they justifie themselves; but only I charged their opinion with it consequentially. And must the Reverence of men prohibite us to mention or intimate the ill Consequences of their mistakes? Then hath the Serpent got the day, when p. 23he hath once lodged his errours in Reverend breasts: It will be no more lawful to disturb him, if he be once so housed. Who is he that liveth, and erreth not? What errour in Morality hath not absurd and vile Consequents? If we mention them, it seems we are given up to a lamentable state of sin.

3. I now understand why you heap up the words of some late Reverend Divines, which I thought did make up utram{que} paginam in your Exceptions; and though themselves might receive a fair Answer, yet did seem your most irrefragable Argument. But if this be so, it's vain to dispute any more: For if I bring Scripture or Reason, you may say, The Divines are against it. If I argue against their Opinions, by shewing their absurdities, you may say, What professed Adversary could reproach them more? It's too gross to charge Absurdities or ill Consequents on a Doctrine that such men hold. Then must mistakes dare us and deride us, when they are got into these holts, we can follow them no further.

4. What say you by Amesius, that saith, That there is such a Concatenation of Truths, that whoever denies one, and holdeth one errour, doth by Consequence overthrow the Foundation? Cas. Cons. I am not of his mind, unless it be limited to some kind of Truths: But it seems then he thought, that consequentially every errour denied Christ the Foundation: How far was this man given up to reproach, not only the late Reverend Divines, but all men living? far more than I.

5. M. C. thinks that Christ's active Righteousness in obeying the Moral Law, is not imputed to us for our Righteousness. I suppose his Reason is much drawn from several Absurdities or ill Consequents p. 24which he thinks will follow, if the contrary be asserted: Perhaps, that it will make Christ's death needless or vain; (for those that say as he, do charge it with no less.) Must I therefore lament the condition of Mr. C. as one left of God, to reproach all those Churches and Divines that are against him, as bad as their professed Adversaries do? and say▪ He makes them deny the death of Christ?

6. If I must believe as the Church believes, which Church is it? why am I not as excusable for being loth to reproach the Church of Christ for 1200, if not 1400 years after Christ (who never made Faith the Instrument of justifying, that I could yet find) as accusable for reproaching some part of the Divines of Europe for 150 years, by declaring the Reason of my dissent from the ill Consequence of their Opinions? If we must go to the Poll, neither you nor I shall be well pleased; if to the Ballance, to weigh the Authority of Divines, where dwells he that must hold the scales?

7. Either we may charge Consequences on the owners of mistakes, or not: If not, then how come I to be charged with this hainous crime; which can be no way made good, but by pretending such Consequence? If we may, then I might do it; which yet I did not on the men, but their Opinion.

8. If this Consequence follow not their Doctrine, then disprove it. My proof is this: [He that saith, The act of my Believing is the efficient Cause of my Justification, doth consequently say, that I justifie my self: But, &c. therefore.] The major is plain, in that, [If the act be an Instrument, it is the Agents Instrument: But I am the Agent; therefore.] And p. 25if I do by this Instrument produce the effect, then I do pardon my self, for that's the effect.

9. You say, [Whither will a man's partiality carry him, if he be let alone?] 1. That Partiality was the cause either you do know, or you do not. If you do not, according to my simple Opinion, you should not have so sentenced: If you do know it, then either directly by seeing my heart from York hither; (which I will not suppose you to pretend to:) Or else by some certain sign. Suppose you have signs of my reproaching our Divines, yet prove by your signs that I did it through partiality: I say again, prove it. 2. If it were from partiality, then it is by siding with some other party against you, whom I prefer before you: That party is either my self alone, or some others. If others, who be they? Papists or Protestants? or who? I know no party on Earth that I prefer before them, or equal with them (which I speak on supposition that I know my own heart as well as you do.) If it be my self, then the Charge is much higher: But the prover must be foreign. To value my own judgment before so many, and such men, and thence so to reproach them, I confess is a hainous crime: where I know nothing by my self, yet am I not thereby justified. But surely, if I do know my own heart, I am partial in all my studies, for those men whom I am charged to be partial against, even against my self, and all others now living: But the light of appearing-Truth is that which forceth me to differ from them; and if I am mistaken, I have not yet learned a remedy. But certain I am, that partly partiality for these Reverend men, and partly the lothness to incur their censures, and especially p. 26lothness to occasion their offence and disquiet, have been so strong a temptation to me to shut my eyes, that I have been sometimes provoked to say, [Depart from me; this knowledg is an ungrateful burthen, an offence to my dearest Friends, and makes men take me as a man of Contention:] sed vicit veritas, (if I mistake not.)

I think he that considers, 1. That you have that party on your side who are a stronger temptation to partiality than any party (besides Christ, his Truth, and the same men in other things,) that I have to sway me against them. 2. And that you so much use their words, where I conceive better Arguments are wanting, may perhaps see cause to put it again to the enquiry, Who is more likely in this Cause to be partial?

1. As for your inference from Christ's words, [Thy Faith hath saved thee.] I reply, 1. Christ did not say, that I can find, [Thy Faith is the efficient instrumental cause of thy Salvation,] nor I think any thing equipollent: For I suppose he intended no more than the interest of a Moral Condition; if you take it to be spoken of saving him from his disease, or from the guilt of sin. But if you can prove, that it was spoken of saving him from the power of sin by further Sanctification, then I will yield, that their Faith was some cause. 2. So far as a man is the efficient of his own Salvation, I think he may properly be called his own Saver: Men are called in Scripture the Saviours of others; why not as truly of themselves, when they are said to save themselves? If it be unfit (as it is) to use the word Saviour in this sense, of a mere man, the Reason is not from any Logical unfitness (unless that so full a name should p. 27not be unlimitedly given to him, that is the cause of one part of Salvation, and not the rest;) but it is, because it will be justly offensive, now Christ hath made this his proper name. But can you prove, that man doth as truly pardon himself, as he doth reform himself further by Faith? and so that Logically there is no more against calling him his own Pardoner or Justifier, than [the saver of himself from actual sin.]

11. You say, you [had thought all the glory had belonged to the Agent, and not to the Instrument.]

Reply. 1. We were not speaking of the glory, which is a Moral Interest (where spoke I a word of that?) but of the Natural Efficiency. 2. I never was of your mind, nor ever shall be I think. I know as the creature compared to God is nothing, so its honour compared to his is nothing; and I know its honour, as well as its essence and existence, is all derived from God. But I think God puts an honour upon every Instrument that he useth, and most in their best and noblest Works. Proved, 1. The Relation to God, the principal Agent, puts an honour on it, to be Instrumentum Dei. 2. The Relation to the end or happy effect, puts an honour on on it. 3. Every Instrument hath an Aptitude to its office, and that Aptitude is honourable. 4. All free Agents have a Moral honour in being instrumental to any good, in that they act it voluntarily. 5. God will commend the Moral actions of his people, that were but mere Conditions of the effect; therefore surely those that were Instruments: And Gods commendation doth both suppose them honourable, and pu… a glory or honour upon them.

3. But if it must be as you say you thought it to be p. 28yet I pray you remember to do me this right, as when-ever I give more to Obedience, or less to Faith than you would have me, do not charge me with derogating from the honour of Faith, seeing no glory is due to it as an Instrument! And if I do give less to Christ than you, tell me of it, and spare not.

He next asks, [Whether they that make Faith an Instrument, do deny any more than I (who make both Faith and Works Conditions) that none but God can forgive sins?]

Reply. I think they do deny it more than I. I confess they do not make man the principal Cause; but in making him the Instrumental, they make him as an Instrument under God to pardon himself, I think. The effect may be ascribed to every Cause, according to the nature and proportion of its Causality: But Conditions are no Causes as such.

2. You make both Faith and Works Conditions of Salvation; i. e. Glorification: And is not that as much against the honour of Christ, as making them the Conditions of Justification in Judgment? If it were true, that one were dishonourable to him, it would be as true of the other; but is indeed true of neither.

Here I remember the like great offence that you took before at these few words [James took not Calvin's counsel;] when you had said, Calvin's counsel was not to use the phrase, of being justified by Works. And you say, that [it contains nothing but a taunt against Calvin, and that it's unworthy usage of so Reverend a man.]

Reply. Truly, I do reverence scarce any name, since the Apostles days, or at least since Austin, more than Calvin's: And there was not in me, that p. 29I know of a taunting intent; nor do I see any thing in those words that contain such unworthy usage as you express. The words signifie but this, [James his practice was contrary to the counsel that Calvin there gives, not to use the terms, of being justified by Works:] I thought the Emperor or the Pope would have endured as hard language as this. Certain I am, the greatest persons in honour Ecclesiastical or Civil that ever I knew, would not have taken it for such unworthy usage (as far as I can be certain by their making lighter of far worse.) Truly I fear, that this extream high expectation of such superlative Honour in the Ministers, is the great thing that threatens our calamity: When the example of the fall of the Roman Clergy by Luther, hath no more humbled us.

After this again, you bid me, [put not off Calvin with a taunt, as I did before.] But I have said more to these by-pages than I thought to have done.

The sum of all is this, I understand not what Cause it is that you call Causa applicans, till you tell me. But I verily think that you are of my mind, and do not know it, and that you mean with Dr. Twisse causam dispositivam (for so he oft saith, Faith is of Justification;) which is but Dispositio Recipientis, and is part of the subjective material Cause, and no efficient at all; some call it a passive receiving. Instrument: And indeed conditio praestita is dispositio moralis recipientis In the mean time, I pray you take it rather for a depressing Faith (which yet you say the glory belongs not to as Instrument) than for an advancing Works, if I say that Faith is no efficient Cause of Justification.

p. 30Controv. 4. [Mr. C. acknowledgeth but one Law, from which the Covenant is distinct; and I make two distinct Laws.

To this I have spoken at large to others, and therefore shall say little now; the rather, because I take what is said to Mr. C. to remain satisfactory for all his Answers. Only I shall briefly explain my meaning about this.

Prop. 1. A Law is Debiti (vel juris) constitutio Authoritativa, vel signum voluntatis Rectoris debitum constituens. This Definition is not of Lex, as distinct from Precept, Priviledg, Contract, in the narrow sense; but as it is the Constitution of all Moral right or due, and so the act is adequate to the product debitum. This is called Jus; which word signifieth both Jus Constituens, and Jus Constitutum. The first is, Law in the true general nature of it; the second is Debitum. Even Contracts do oblige by an exercise of that Imperium which a man hath over his own actions and himself: Or else they are not efficiently obligatory at all, but only the Antecedent Conditions; which when man hath put, God seconds them with an Obligation.

Prop. 2. The parts of a Law are two: 1. One is the Constitution of what shall be due from us. This is called Precept, de agendo vel non agendo (which is Prohibition:) This constituteth the debitum officii. 2. The second is the Constitution of what shall be due to us. This is twofold: 1. Of Good. 2. Of Evil. 1. Of Good: And that is twofold, 1. Absolutely p. 31given, without any Condition; which is commonly called the act of God quà Benefactor, but so is all giving whatsoever; yet is it his act as Legislator too. 2. Conditionally: Which hath two acts, 1. To constitute the Jus ad Datum, or the Debitum beneficii. 2. To constitute the Condition of that Jus or Debitum. And that is, 1. The Condition of our first right. 2. Or of our continued right. 3. The Constitution de Debito mali poenae, is ever conditiona…, i. e. propter culpam: And though the word Condition is commonly used in bonam partem, as a member of Promises and Contracts, yet is it truly and properly also used in malam partem, as a member of the Threatning.

Prop. 3. All the Doctrines, Narratives, Historical and Prophetical found in Scripture, are Adjuncts of God's Law in the strictest sense; and parts of it in a larger sense; yea, they are signa Constituentia Debitum, and so true parts of Law strictly taken in their Remote use, though in their nearest use they are but Adjuncts; even as Narratives of the matter and occasion, are in many Statute-Laws of this Land.

Prop. 4. All the generical essence of a Law, is found in each individual; and there needeth no other form, but mere matter for the reception of that general nature, to make an individual Law.

Prop. 5. The Specification of Laws therefore, is not so proper as the Specification of Substantial Beings, but a Moral, less proper Specification.

p. 32Prop. 6. Laws may be said specifically to differ, and be distinguished these ways: 1. From the special end; especially when the ends are much distant or destructive of each other. 2. From the very matter, when the difference is very great, and so from the Condition of Premiant or Penal acts. 3. From Divers Efficients, i. e. Legislators, or the divers grounds of Legislative right, and so of Legislation. 4. From the signifying matter; and so some are written, some verbal, &c. 5. From the state of the subject to whom the Laws are given. 6. From the number of parts: So some are only Precepts, some are only for reward upon duty, some only for division of Inheritance, or Constitution of particular Rights without Conditions. Some have all the forementioned parts, Preceptive, Penal and Premiant: For they are not essential parts of a Law in Genere, but only of some Laws in specie, from the order of effecting. Some are made immediately by the Sovereign Power; some the Sovereign makes mediately, by giving power to others to make them; as Under-Laws of Corporations, &c. so from the manner of the Sanction, as remediable, or remediless, Reward and Penalty.

Pro. 7. The word [Law] agreeth properly to all the parts of God's Law, taken singly; not only to the Precept and Commination, but also the Promise: Yea, it is as properly called a Law as a Covenant; because a Law doth but Jus Constituere & Obligare subditum; but a Covenant is a self-obliging, and a making a duty to our selves, and so putting a Law upon our selves. Now in the most strict sense, God p. 33cannot be said to be obliged, (as Durandus and others shew:) But in that the perfect Goodness, Veracity, Fidelity and Immutability of God doth ascertain to us the thing promised; therefore, after the manner of men, we may say, that God by his Word doth oblige himself, who yet strictly cannot be a Debtor: And thus God is said to Covenant.

Prop. 8. This same act of Promise is called a L…w and a Covenant in several respects. It's called a Law, in that it is the act of a Rector, performed to the ends of Government, imposing on us the act of consenting, and annexing a reward and penalty.

Thus it is Lex stricta dicta. It is called a Covenant, partly as God doth, as it were, engage himself: (And so the mere Promise is a simple Covenant) partly as he requireth man's Promise or Consent to the terms (and so it is a propounded or tendered Covenant-mutual;) and partly as man doth actually repromise and engage himself to God, and accept the terms of God's Covenant: (And so it is an actual, mutual Covenant or Contract.) But it is called Jus Constituens, a Law in the general sense, as it is the Constitution of Right howsoever.

Prop. 9. Though the true nature of a Law be found in each of the formentioned acts singly, yet it is the preceptive Act that is most eminently so called, especially as (dis-junctively) taking in the Penal Act with it, explicitely or implicitely. And so the great and eminent work of Laws is obligare aut ad Obedientiam aut ad poenam, and the premiant Act is not of such constant use and necessity.

p. 34Prop. 10. The word [Law] therefore is more comprehensive than the word [Covenant] strictly taken; the former, being properly used as of every single act fore-mentioned; the latter only of the Promise. Yet is the whole Law sometimes called a Covenant from the Promise, which is a noble part of it; but that is an improper Appellation, as calling the whole by the name of a part: But the other is more proper, as calling the whole and each part by the name of that general Essence which doth inform each part, and the whole. Properly therefore God's Covenants are his Laws (unless when the name Covenant is improperly used of mere Predicti…ns, and then Remotely and Reductively they are Laws) but all God's Law is not a Covenant.

Prop. 11. According to the forementioned ways of Specification, God's Laws may be thus specified and distributed: 1. As from the special ends. And so God's Laws are either, 1. For the obliging the Subject to perfect obedience; or for the recovering and restoring him from his revolt, and from his misery. The former is also, 1. As obliging to obedience every way perfect: This was the Law given to Adam in Innocency, and it doth not so oblige us now: For it cannot obligare ad praeteritum, and to duty, ☞so far as Penalty is suffered for former non-performance. 2. Or as obliging to perfect obedience only for the future, as supposing former sin: And so it is the general Law of God, and that ☞Law of Nature which still remains in force to faln Mankind, obliging him still to obey or suffer.

p. 352. The recovering Law is specified both, 1. As it …estoreth rebelling Apostatizing man to God and his obedience, 1. Inchoatively, by Repentance and Faith. 2. Progressively, by sincere Obedience, through Sanctification. 3. Perfectly, in Glory. And 2. As it restoreth undone, lost, condemned man from his misery, 1. Relatively, by Gift. 2. Really, as in the three fore mentioned degrees. For that which brings us to God, (to Obedience, as the means to please him as the end) doth thereby restore us from our own Misery.

3. God's Laws are specified from their matter, thus:

1. As to the Precept: God hath a Law (or had) whose matter was perfect Obedience (as before-described:) And he hath a Law, whose matter is Repentance for Imperfection, Faith in him that restoreth us from sin, and sincere Obedience for the future to God-Redeemer.

2. As from the matter of the Promisory part: So God had a Law made to Adam, which as Divines do think, and it is very probable) did promise Adam not only Immunity from God's Wrath, Death, &c. but also a Celestial Glory afterward, in case of his perfect Obedience. God hath now a Law, by which he promiseth to give Christ himself to be our Head, Husband, and Lord, and Saviour, and with him Remission, Adoption, Justification, the Spirit of the Redeemer, and a Glorification with our Head, where we shall for ever praise him that hath redeemed us to God by his Blood, and made as Kings and Priests to God; and in order thereto, that he will by degrees take off our sin by Sanctification, and our penal misery by Preservations, p. 36Deliverances, Consolations, and at last by the Resurrection and final Absolution. These things were not the matter of the first Promise.

3. As to the Threatning, (though some say that the New-Law hath no threatning: yet) 1. God's Law purely Moral, 1. Did threaten to man in Innocency, Death in general, which contained the loss of God's Favour and Spirit, and of his present felicity, and his hopes of what was promised for the future; together with the pains and dissolution of his body, and everlasting pains (at least) to his Soul: Which pain would much consist in the gripes of Conscience for his not-continuing his Innocency, and in the sense of his misery in the foresaid Loss. 2. The same Law of Nature, called Moral, as still continued to faln man, doth threaten upon every further Transgression, the increase of our foresaid misery (so far as we are capable subjects;) and doth by more renewed Obligations, bind on us the same.

2. God hath besides this, his special Law of Grace, which threateneth more than the Law did to Adam, or as merely natural it doth to any: (I mean as it is made to man as man, and for obedience as such, and not as it is made to man as redeemed for Recovery and Restoration:) that is, This New-Law threatneth the l…ss and privation of all that good, which we before mentioned, as the matter of its promise; as the loss of Christ himself, that he shall be no Head, Husband, or effectual Saviour to us; nor be our Advocate with God to justifie us, nor intercede for our Salvation: We shall lose all the h…pes we had of God's favour, as to be restored by him, and of the Remission of our sins, and of Justification and Adoption, and of the sanctifying p. 37…pirit, and all the Consolations of God, the joy and peace in believing, the deliverance from the Captivity of Satan, and from the dominion of sin, the right by promise to the bless…ngs of this Life, and to eternal Glory, as purchase▪ and restored, and of final Absolution in Judgment. The pain of serse also is much more than he fi…st Law did threaten: For as in general it wil… be a far sorer punishment, so specially it will be i…icted for ingratitude against the Redeemer; and …t will much consist, 1. In the sense of the greatn…ss of the fore-mentioned loss. 2. In the gripes o… Conscience for their ingratitude, and wilful neglecting and rejecting of so great and free a Salvation.

And wher…as some say, It is no Privation, and consequently …o punishment, to lose that which they never had.

I answer, It is very false: If they had but an offer of, it and conditional Promise (specially so free and sure a one) and were put into a possibility of it, and a way to attain it, so that their own refusal only depriveth them of it (or their Impenitency and Ingratitude) this is properly a Privation and a Penalty: Though it's true, according to their Doctrine that deny Christ's general Satisfaction, and that he purchased to all men a possibility of recovery, it would be no punishment to miss of it, as being but a Negation, and no Privation.

4. Also and most principally from the matter of the several Conditions of the penal and premiant Acts, are God's Laws specified and distinguished. The Condition of the first Threatning, was the least particular sin; the Condition of the Threatning of the New-Law, is only final Impenitency, Infidelity p. 38and Rebellion against the Lord that bought us, in respect to the penalty of everlasting wrath and death: But lesser sins are oft punished with some withdrawings of the Spirit of Grace, and some sense of God's displeasure, and temporal affictions. The Condition of the Promise of the first Law was perfect obedience, without the least sin: This is now ceased (though Mr. G. deny it); for, 1. The matter of the Condition now would be naturaliter impossibile: man having once sinned, it is impossible he should be perfect, and that which i… done, should again be undone. It is therefore …n intolerable conceit for us to conceive, that God offers life to sinners, on condition that they be not sinners; and that he hath a Covenant in this form. [If th…u have not sinned in Adam, thou shalt live. God's Promises run not upon terms of natural impossibility: For such a Promise is indeed a Threaten…ng or Sentence, and no Promise, and is equivalent in Law-sense to this, [Because thou hast sinned in Adam, thou art guilty of Death.] 2. The Conditions of the Promises are future or present usually, and not somewhat past; at least, where Duty is the matter of the Condition, as here it is. And when the time of the Condition is expired (as it is when it is become naturally impossible) the Promise ceaseth 3. God is as it were, obliged by his Promise, while it is in force: But when the Condition is absolutely violated, God can no longer stand obliged. Our Covenant-breaking disobligeth him. 4. Cessante naturali sub…ecti capacitate c…ssat promissio: But the capacity of all Mankind is ceased of receiving the benefit of the first Covenant on its ter…s; therefore, &c.

p. 39Mr. C. saith, This would as well prove, that the Precept ceaseth, because man is uncapable of obeying it.

I answer, 1. A man loseth Benefits by his own fault, but no man must be freed from Duty or Penalty by his own fault. Nemo ex proprio crimine commodum recipit, we may lose our own right by our sin, but God loseth not his. 2. The Law doth cease to oblige us to Obedience absolutely perfect: It doth not command us now that we shall not be guilty of Adam's sin. 3. But for the time to come, Obedience is not naturaliter impossibile, but only moraliter per accidens ex prava disp…sitione, which aggravates sin but excuseth not from duty: But our capacity of the Reward, on the terms of that Covenant, is as naturally imp…ssible, as it is for contradictory Propositions to be both true, [Peccavimus in Adamo,] and, [Non peccavimus in Adamo.]

Mr. C. objecteth, That it may seem unreasonable that the Promise ceast, and the Threat be in force.

I answer, The contrary is true: Nothing more reasonable, than that man's sin should forfeit his own right, and disoblige God, without forfeiting God's right, and disobliging themselves. So much of the Condition of the Promise of the first Law.

Now I add for Comparison: The Condition of the Covenant, or Promise of the Law of Grace, is Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience, which much differs from the former Condition. Of this more fully anon. So much of the Specification of God's Laws by the Conditions, the Promise and Threat; and so of the Specification of them from the matter of each part.

p. 403. God's Laws are specified from the divers Relations of the Legislator, and …he divers rights of Government: And so God's first Law of Nature was made by him as Creator, or as Rector ex jure Creationis: But his Law of Grace is made by him as Redeemer, or as Rector ex jure Redemptionis. Here I might easily shew a multitude of mischievous errours that follow the denying universal Redemption quoad pret…m & satisfactionem: But I pass them. Especially note here these three things following: 1. That the jus Redemptionis doth not destroy the the former jus Creationis; but supposing it is superadded to it, and somewhat subordinate. 2. That therefore the Law of God, as Creator is not destroyed or abrogated by the Law of the Redeemer, but is superadded, and that in a certain Subordination to it. 3. That yet the said Law of Creation stands not now alone (as God's right of Creation to the Government stands not alone, but conjunct with his right of Redemption:) And therefore, 1. The Threatening is not now remediless as then it was, but conjunct with, and potentially or virtually destroyed by the remedying Law. 2. And therefore the Precept is not now to the same ends only, or wholly as before the fall: The immediate end indeed is the same, that is, that man be obliged to Duty to his Creator; but remotely there is this change, the end is not now to retain perfect man in his perfection, nor to keep him from falling from his first felicity, or forfeiting his right to the benefit of that Covenant: And the immediate remaining end, remaineth not alone: For the Law of Nature is not now only to oblige us to obey the Creator, but also the Redeemer: And it is also to p. 41be the Rule of our sincere Obedience, which is the Condition of our Salvation: So that now the Law of Nature (or the Moral Law) is the Law of God as Creator and Redeemer both: For all things are delivered into the hands of Christ, and therefore the Laws. As if the Subjects and Laws of a Nation of pardoned Rebels, should by the King be delivered to his Son as their Governor, having procured their pardon: So that there are no Laws in the World now but the Redeemers Laws. But yet we must still observe a wide difference between his Law of Grace, which is proper to God-Redeemer as Redeemer; and this remnant of the Law of Nature, which the Redeemer found the sinner under when he redeemed him, and which was with the sinner delivered up to him, partly still to oblige the sinner to duty, partly to oblige him to punishment, that so he might be a fit subject for the Law of Redemption, whose very nature is to be a remedying Law, to dissolve the obligation of the former.

4. God's Laws also are specified, or at least diversified by the different matter of the sign. And so some Laws of God consist in his Revelations by the mere Works of Nature, within us, and without us, in which we may read much of God's mind; the invisible things of God being seen in the things that are made, so far as to leave men without excuse. This is now commonly called the Law of Nature: Other Laws God hath revealed by Works indeed, but it is supernatural Works: And so Christ's Life, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, giving the Spirit, were a real Law to the World that could know them: For they were signs of God's Will de Debito Credendi, &c. Other Laws God hath revealed p. 42by word of mouth, others by Inspiration, others by Writing; which are now his principal standing Laws, adjoyning to that of Nature (and containing its matter.)

5. God's Laws are divers, according to the divers states of the subject. And so God's first Law was to innocent Man in his Friendship, and in some felicity. God's remedying Law of Grace (yea, and his remnant of the pure Morals) is made to man faln: But with this difference; The Morals as such, remain to oblige man qui peccator, not only quà peccator. But the Law of Grace is to oblige, and to recover a sinner quà peccator Redemptus & Restaurandus est. And as Laws of men are distinguished, some being for defending the just some for punishing the unjust; some for loyal Subjects, some for those that have been disloyal, &c. so may we say of God's Laws. But the differing ends here included are more considerable.

6. So from the number of Parts, or the several Rights constituted, are God's Laws distinguished. Some constitute only the dueness of Duty or Penalty: (as the remnant of the Law of Nature, or pure Morals, which lost the adjoyned Promise, and so stood alone to Adam before the Promise was made: I say alone, though not without mercy and possibility of remedy, yet without any Promise of a remedy revealed.) Other Laws of God have Precept, Promise and Threatning, as is aforesaid.

7. Some Laws are of God's own immediate enacting, though he may use a Scribe to cause the sign, or a Herald to promulgate them, yet no ones Will enterposeth to give them a Being: Such are the Laws of Nature and Scripture. Other Laws of God are p. 43so his, as that immediately they are the Laws of men: Such are all Laws of Common-wealths and Churches, which are not against God's special Laws, but according to their general Determinations and Directions: Which are all only as Under-Laws, to be made and altered pro re nata; which it was not fit should be determined a-like to all Ages and Nations by one universal, standing Law; nor yet did God think fit to be called down to every alteration, so as to be the visible Governour of each Church and Commonwealth: And therefore he hath entrusted a certain Legislative power for such under-Laws in the hand of his Officers; and what they do, according to his Commission, he owneth and maketh it his own Laws; and so commandeth us in the Fifth Commandment to obey them.

8. Lastly, God's Laws are much differenced from the manner of the Sanction. And so the Threatning of his first Law, though it shewed no remedy, yet it excluded not all possibility of remedy nor was a peremptory undissolvable Obligation: Much less is the remaining part of it so now, when the Covenant of Grace is made. But the Threatning of the Law of Grace, to the final non-performers of the Conditions of that Covenant, is a peremptory Threatning, and its Obligation is remediless and undissolvable. This is because God hath adjoyned to it a Prediction, that there shall be no more Sacrifice for sin, nor remedy, nor escape. Thus much of the several Specifications or Distributions of God's Laws.

Here note these two things:

1. That I have not instanced all this while, in the Law of the Jews Church or Common-wealth as p. 44such, because the Explication of it hath such difficulties, that cannot thus obiter and cursorily be opened.

2. From what is said it may appear, that the first and most eminent distribution of God's Laws, as standing at the greatest difference, is between that made to Adam in Innocency, and that made by the Redeemer for our Recovery. For in almost all the forementioned respects are they differenced, as I have shewed already. And the second most eminent distribution of God's universal Laws, is into the remnant of the Law of Nature, Creation, or pure Morals, as now put into the hand of the Redeemer, and the proper Law of the Redeemer being Lex remedians, a Law of Grace.

Note also, That because the Covenant or Promisory part is the principal part of this Law, it being purposely a remedying Law, an Act of Oblivion, therefore it is more commonly called the Covenant than the Law, and more commonly and properly called the Promise than the Covenant; and frequently also (or sometime) a Testament though some deny it;) and oft a Constitution, Disposition, Ordination, which is a Law, and oft and properly also called a Law. But the Law of Works with Adam, was principally contained in the Precept and Comimination; insomuch, as it seemeth a very hard Controversie with some, Whether there were any Covenant or Promise at all or no. There is none found written, unless implied in the Threat; and that is hard to be concluded, seing every threat of death implieth not a promise of everlasting life: And whether it were contained in nature or no, is hard to say.

p. 45Paraeus in Proem. ad Comment. in Rom. denieth that there is any Covenant of Nature, but only of Grace; and saith, God cannot naturally be obliged to the Creature. Others think, that though in point of Commutative Justice he could not, yet as Rector ob sines Regiminis secundum Justitiam distributivam, he was quasi obligatus, to reward man perfectly obeying, though how far they dare not say. These things are left very dark, or at least, we see little of them. But (though it be probable by some passages in the Gospel, and somewhat in Reason, that Adam had a Promise not only of continuing in that felicity, but of a greater; yet) I never read, to my remembrance, the name of Covenant or Promise used of that Law to Adam.

The third most observable distribution of God's Laws, is between the Law given by Moses to the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews, and the Promise or Law of Grace by Jesus Christ. The differences I will not now adventure on; only I shall say these three things: 1. That one was but particular to one people, the other universal: 2. That among the Jews, this was by an excellency called the Law, so that they in a manner appropriated hat term to it, as if they knew no other Law. 3. That therefore in Paul's Epistles it is this Judicial Law that is commonly called [The Law,] and which he disputeth against directly and expresly in the Doctrine of Justification, and whose Abrogation he so contends for, and which he sets against the Law of Faith, and the Grace and Truth that came by Jesus Christ. If this be not observed, the Scripture, especially Paul's Epistles, will not be understood.

p. 46The fourth most observable difference between God's Laws is between the Law of Grace, or the Pr… mise as before Christ and the same as after Christ. This difference, though very great, yet is mostly but accidental in the Promulgation. At first it was revealed more obscurely, and after more clearly: At first eminently to one Nation, and after universally to the Catholick Church (and for the gathering of it first:) So that the term [Gospel] is appropriate to that Publication, which was after Christ; and the former called only the Promise. Yet some difference more than accidental here is between these two: For 1. They before Christ, were bound to believe only in a Messiah in general; we are bound to believe that Jesus Christ is he, or we shall die in our sins: They were to believe in him as to come; we, as come already: A more general dark Belief would save them it was not so necessary to Salvation to know his Death, and Resurrection, and Ascension, and coming again to Judgment; (for sure the Disciples were in a state of Salvation, when they knew not these: But now all these are necessary to Salvation to be known. 2. The matter of their Obedience to the Redeemer, was not then the same as now: Then they must shew sincere Obedience partly in observing the Jewish Law; but now not so: Nay, we have Sacraments newly instituted, and Churches otherwise ordered, &c. 3. More of the Spirit and Grace was poured out after Christ than before; insomuch, as that eminent degree hath the name of [the Spirit] oft appropriated to it: And so it is said, the Disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because Christ was not yet glorified: And it is called the Spirit of Promise, that is the promised p. 47Spirit. So much for the Distribution of God's Laws.

Prop. 12. The nature or use of a Law, is to be the rule of our actions, and of God's Judgment: Regula actionum Moralium, & norma judicii, because it constituteth what is due both from us, and to us.

Prop. 13. Whatever Law therefore is in force for us to line by, we must necessarily be judged by it: And whatever Law we are judged by, we must either be justified or condemned by: For judging is the genus, which existeth not but in these species of Abs…lution and Condemnation.

Prop. 14. To justifie or condemn a man according to the Law, as the rule of Judgment is to judg that the reward is due, or not due; or the punishment due, or not due to him, according to the tenor of that Law; that is, that he is guilty, or not guilty, when he is charged with a fault, and to have no right to the reward, or to be liable to the penalty, because of his fault.

Prop. 15. To be guiltless, is to be just in sensu forensi against these Accusations: To be one, 1. That is saultless; 2. Or to whom the benefit or reward is due, or to whom the penalty is not due according to that Law, this is to be just.

Prop. 16. He that is thus just, is therefore justified, because he is just: For the justitia Causae, & ita personae quoad hanc causam, is it which is to be p. 48enquired after as the business of the day: And it is the Office of the just Judg, to justifie the just qua talis, because they are just; and condemn the unjust, because they are unjust. For to justifie, is but to sentence him just; that is, just, because he is just. It is therefore impossible for any man to have justitiam causae, a just Cause, or Righteousness of his Cause at God's Bar, and yet not to be justified by it.

Prop. 17. Yet that which is the cause of Justification in sensu forensi, is not always a proper cause in a Physical sense; but sometime only an Antecedent, or Dispositio materiae, or Causa sine qua non: The Cause that is to be tried.

Prop. 18. Though mediately (quod ad reatum culpae) it be the Precept that will be the rule to judg men just or unjust by, yet ultimately it is the penal or premiant act of the Law, the Promise or the Threatning, which is it that concludeth men just or unjust, and is the immediate rule of justifying or condemning them, and not the Precept or Prohibition. These do but determine de Debito Officii, or what was or shall be due from us to God; but the final business of the Judgment, is to determine what is due fr…m God to us: And this is constituted in the Promise and the Threatning only.

Prop. 19. It is therefore the Condition of that Promise or Threatning, that will be the very thing by which we must be tried: (For the Condition is part of the Promise which is conditional.) And the Question of the day will be, Whether we did perf…rm that Condition of the Promise or not? and so▪ p. 46Whether the Condition of the Threatning be found upon us or not.

Prop. 20. That which is our performance of the Condition of the Promise, and not committing the Condition of the Threat, is therefore our Material Righteousness, by which we are justified in that Judgment against the Accusation of non-performance.

Prop. 21. As there was a Two-fold Law entire, consisting of Precepts, Threatning, and Promise, (or at least the two first, by the consent of all, were in the First Law) made upon a double ground of Legislation, to a different End, a different Subject, &c. so is there a Two-fold Judgment, and so a Two-fold Justification and Condemnation: One by God as Rector, according to the pure Law of Works, as Creator: The other by God in Christ as Redeemer and Rector of the Redeemed World, upon the terms, and by the Law of Grace. The Judgment of God-Creator, according to the Law of Works, hath two parts and seasons, according as that Law doth much differ as it stood entirely in Innocency, and without Remedy, till the promise of Grace; and as it stands in part, and with that Redeeming Promise since.

1. The first Judgment that God held, was after the Fall of Adam, when as Creator according to that first Law, he sat upon the Offendors, and passed the Sentence of Condemnation on all Mankind: but before the Execution, yea even in the Judgment, the Mediator as it were interposing; that is, God in mercy resolving upon, and promising a way for p. 50the rescuing of the Offendor by the Satisfaction of his Justice; he look'd upon that Satisfaction and Sacrifice as in esse morali; and upon consideration of it as future, he past a Sentence of Conditional Absolution and Pardon, in a Promise of the Messias to bruise the Serpent. But this was but somewhat obscurely done: Hereupon he prescribed typifying Bloody Sacrifices as the Conditions in part, and as …ther teaching intimations of the promised Sacrifice. He accepted the Bloody Sacrifice of Abel sincerely offered in Faith; and he rejected the Unbloody Sacrifice of Cain offered without Faith and sincerity; and told him, [If thou do well, (that is, according to the New-Law also) shalt thou not be accepted? (viz. through the promised Seed and Sacrifice …; but if thou do ill, sin lieth at the door]: expounding the Covenant of Grace more fully, as being Conditional, and Faith and sincere Obedience being the Conditions: which it is most likely God fullier expounded then to the Patriarks, than is left written. This Covenant God yet made plainer to N…ah, and yet much plainer to Abraham, and to the Israelites in Types; and yet much plainer by th… Prophets, especially David and Isaiah. Thus G… did first, by his own actual Sentence or Promise, and then by the same revealed fullier by Prophets and Laws, conditionally justifie the fallen World, and absolve them from their guilt.

But because the Sacrifice offered, and Satisfaction performed, wa… more than the same as merely promised and undertaken; therefore God reserved the f…ller Declaration of that Absolution, which is the … it, till the M…ssiah should come. And then God did again more fully pronounce the Sentence p. 51of Conditional Absolution, twice, or two ways: First, He did by a Voice from Heaven pronounce, [This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased, bear ye him]; q. d. [According to his undertaking he is Incarnate, and is now satisfying my Jastice, and doth all that I require at his hands for Man's Redemption. This is he in whom my Wrath is appeased to the World, (not absolutely to acquit them, but) so far that if they will Hear him, they shall live]. Next this, The Lord Jesus himself having taken fuller possession of his Dominion and Empire, doth most clearly publish the New-Law of Grace: That, [Whoever doth Repent and Believe, shall be pardoned and saved, &c.] This Law is an Act of Pardon: And being so oft spoken by God himself, and now by Christ in the flesh, it is equivalent to a General Sentence of Judgment. Not as Absolutely and Actually pardoning particular Sinners: for so it is but a Law of Grace, or a Promise of it on Condition: But as it is the solemn Pronunciation of a General and Conditional Absolution to all Mankind, so it is a kind of Sentence, or equivalent thereto. And thus God the Father as Rector, according to the Law of Works, hath himself, by an Act of Grace, Justified Conditionally the fore-condemned World. And this Conditional Justification is not to be sleighted, because but Conditional, and because that many afterwards perish: For it is a pure free Gift; and the Condition is but the accepting of the Gift according to its Nature, viz▪ Christ and Life: And Acceptance is so naturally supposed necessary in all Gifts, that it is not used to be expressed as a Civil Condition, but implyed among rational Men and the Gift called Absolute, (though p. 52indeed so far Conditional); And Refusal and Ingratitude useth to deprive Men of those Gifts which the Laws of Men call Absolute.

Besides, it belongeth not to God as Legislator, to give Men Hearts to accept his Gift (but in another Relation): And he gives Christ, and Pardon, and Right to Life, as Legislator and Rector secundum Leges, and as Benefactor together. And therefore God doth quantum in se as Legislator, justifie all Men.

In the first Justification of the Father, or God-Creator, (I mean by him as Judg), the sole Condition, and so the sole Righteousness of the Justified World, is the Sacrifice and Merit of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is therefore called the Lord our Righteousness. No Act or Habit of Man's, either Faith or Works, is any Condition of this first Justification. Thus was God in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing to them their transgressions. Thus have we Redemption in …is Blood, even the Remission of sins: Thus having purged (or made purgation of) our sins by himself, he ascended and sa… at the Right Hand of God, Heb. 1. 3. Here Christ the Redeemer was not the Judg, but was judged, and loco delinquentis & rei: God the Father here was Judg, who first condemned his Son, as it were; and after Satisfaction given, justified first him as Sponsor, and then the World for his sake. Thus God forgave those all the Debt, who yet perish by taking their fellow-Servant by the Throat. Remember that we disclaim all Man's Works or Faith, as not being the least part of, or Ingredient in, This General Conditional Justification of fallen Mankind, by an Act of Pardon equivalent to a Sentence.

p. 53But seeing it was never in the thoughts of the Father or Mediator to make us Gods, and exempt us from his Government; therefore a Lord we must still have, and therefore a Law: and he was pleased by a Law to make the foresaid Justification, and convey to us our Right in Christ and his Benefits. And this Law imposeth on us Duty to the Lord-Redeemer, and constituteth the Conditions on which we shall live by him, and so is of use for the Application of his Benefits; and according to this New-Law the Redeemer that hath bought us, doth here govern us; therefore according to this Law will he judg us. So that the Great Judgment at the Last Day, will be by Christ as Redeemer, (and God the Father in and by him) and so by the Redeemer's Law.

I will not dare to determine that there will then be no use of the Law of Works as a Rule of Judgment, (but none as the Only Rule to any); or that there will be no justifying Men from the Guilt of Death as due, according to the Sentence of that first Law.

But these things I may say, 1. That if there be any Accusation of Men merely as sinners, and as guilty of Death by the first Law, then must there be at Judgment a double Justification requisite against a double Accusation. One is against the true Accusation, that is, we sinned against the Law of Works, and thereby deserved the Penalty. Against this (confessing our sins) we plead, The Blood of Christ procuring us pardon, and that Pardon as given us conditionally in the New-Covenant. Then comes the second Justification to be necessary, in that here we are devolved over to the New Covenant, and to be tryed by the Redeemer and his Law: and p. 54then the Question is only, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant or not? Against the false Accusations [that we have not] we must be justified by our Actual Performance, as the Matter of our Righteousness. This Justification is subordinate to the former; and by this the former is brought to perfection, and so we are absolutely justified.

2. Note also; That the Scripture doth so much suppose our Antecedent Conditional Justification by God-Creator in the Blood of Christ, that it seemeth to describe the general Judgment, as if that former were done already, and the latter only or mainly were apt to do, as the Work of that Day, as the means of making the first absolute. For Christ as Redeemer shall be the Judg; and for loving or not loving himself in his Members, shall the Sentence pass: not upon the mere terms of the Law of Works, but for improving or not-improving their Talents of Grace, I mean of Mercy received from the Redeemer. Here is therefore a Particular Justification from the false Charge of non-performance of the Gospel-Conditions, necessary; and also a General Justification from the guilt of all sin indeed committed, necessary, as the conjunct Grounds of the total and final Ʋniversal Absolution. Which we may, according to the tenor of the Law, conceive of as in this order, (and so produceth also the Justification in our Consciences, according to the Rule of the same Law).

First, The great Question is, Whether the Sinner is to be sent to Heaven or to Hell? Saved or Damned? The Accuser saith, He is to be damned. (Here's the Accusation de fine).

p. 55His first Accusation, as the Reason is, [Lord, he hath broke thy Law, which saith, The Soul that liveth shall die]. The Justifier saith, [I pardoued all Men for the sake of the Blood of the Redeemer, on Condition of Faith and Repentance]. (This part of the Judgment, that in the Gospel-Description seemeth to suppose as done).

The next Charge or Accusation is, [Lord, he did not truly believe and repent, and therefore hath no benefit by the Law of Grace: (or else) He added not sincere Obedience, or did not persevere, and therefore hath lost his Right to thy Pardon]. Against this we are justified by pleading Not-guilty; that is, That we did Believe. Repent, Obey sincerely, and Persevere. Upon which our Judg will determine, That according to the Law of Grace we are Not-Guilty in the Point we are Accused, and consequently that universally we are not lyable to Condemnation.

By all this it appeareth that Justification being considered, 1. As opposite to Accusation; 2. As opposite to Condemnation; That there is a Two-fold Accusation, and consequently a Two-fold Justification opposite thereto, and that there is a Two-fold Condemnation of the wicked virtually in Law: Also that there is one final Peremptory Sentence of Condemnation in Judgment, which shall pass upon them upon this double Ground. And there is one final Sentence of Life for the Justification of Believers in Judgment; which passeth also on the double ground of the foresaid double Justification, as opposite to Accusation: of which the first only is Justification a Reatu, the second, Contra Reatum falsum impactum; vel quod rei non sumus: These p. 56are done in Law at our first Believing, from which time forward there is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ; but before they were in Christ by Faith, there was a Condemnation. Also that though there be two Laws that Condemn, yet there is but one that Justifieth; though that one hath a double justifying force, from the foresaid double Accusation; wherefore one is à Condemnatione Legis veteris; the other is ne Condemnemur Lege novâ, vel in Judicio per Legem novam. Which I make all plain thus.

1. The Law of Works condemneth Men as sinners, (still pardoned).

2. The Law of Grace condemneth them further as such and such sinners in specie, viz. as final Rejecters of Christ.

The first of these the Law of Grace remitteth conditionally before Faith (to all) actually, upon Believing. The last is never remitted, nor any justified from it.

I shewed before how there may be a double Accusation in Judgment: one true, that we were to be condemned as Sinners: the other false, That we were to be condemned as Unbelievers, Rebels against Christ, or Apostates. We are justified from one by pleading Remission, and from the other by pleading Not-Guilty; that is, our personal Righteousness, in tantum, so far as that Charge extendeth. This is Justification by Plea or Apologie, whether by others or Christ as our Advocate: Upon which as the Ground, or Justitia Causae, follows the final absolute sentential Justification from the main charge (of being lyable to Damnation, and having no right to Salvation) by Christ as Judg. p. 57Though it may be said also, That he justifieth in the foresaid subordinate sense, from the particular Accusations, (of being condemnable as Sinners, and being Unbelievers, and being Condemnable as Unbelievers) as Judg, both as he concludeth of the distinct parts of the Sentence before the sum or whole, and as he concludeth those Parts and Premises in the whole: First, Judging, [He is not condemnable for sin simply as against the Law of Works]. Next, [He is not guilty of final nonperformance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace; therefore not condemnable for that, or by that Law]: And then, [Therefore he is not condemnable at all, but hath Right to Life]. That I doubt not but God will make Man capable of a shorter dispatch at that final Judgment, than we use to have at Humane Barrs, and therefore our Pleadings will not be so particular and express. But yet as they will proceed on these Grounds, so this Order and these Reasons of the Sentence will be made manifest to the World, how short soever it be, and we shall be enabled to see the implyed Reason and Order, without particular dilatory Expressions.

By this it appeareth that it is impossible that a Creature can be under any Law, whose Office it is to be the Rule of Actions and Judgment; but he must be judged, and so either Justified or Condemned by that Law: which is expressed also in Scripture by our being judged according to our Works; that is, his performing or not-performing the Conditions of the premiant or penal Act of that Law. And to be judged according to our Works, is to be justified or condemned according to our Works: which Works must needs be part of the Cause to be then p. 58tryed; and every Cause is Just or Ʋnjust: and the justice of the Cause, is the justice of the Person as to that Cause: and a Man is therefore justified by the Judg, because he is just, his Cause being just. And so is it no hard matter for a willing unprejudiced Mind, to see how Works do or do not justifie, though perhaps they may differ about the fitness of each others Notions and Expressions hereabouts.

I c…ss I think that those plain vulgar Christians, … troubled their heads with the Notions of Divi… about which are most of our Controversies, … as right, if not much righter apprehens…o… of the Substance of this Doctrine of Justification than most others. And that very Speech, which the Marrow of Modern Divinity so blameth, as joyning our own Righteousness with Christ's, to make up one entire Righteousness, is yet in it self no unfit Expression, but apt to set forth the very scope of the Gospel; and in the Mouth of a sound Christian it is sound Divinity: I mean these vulgar words, [We must do our best, and God will help us by his Grace, and forgive us wherein we fail]: or, [Christ by his Spirit causeth all the Regenerate to Believe, Repent, and sincerely obey him to the death, and forgiveth all their sins]. This is plain Doctrine, which any honest Country-man may understand, though never so illiterate; and which is not only enough for Salvation, as to this Point, if soundly believed, but for ought I know, may be more than most Disputers will suffer themselves and others to know quietly, without contradicting it again by their Novelties. And I doubt not, if the word Justification be not known, or eve… heard, p. 59(which yet I am far from desiring) yet while the Doctrine of Remission of Sin, and Right to Life, is known and believed, then is the same thing known in other words. And it's not inobservable, that the Apostle's Creed rather useth the term [Forgiveness of sin], which poor People better understand, and not the term [Justification], about which the Learned have filled the World with needless Quarrels.

Forgiveness of Sin is not the whole Righteousness. God never forgiveth his sin, that hath nothing but sin: He never made a grant of the forgiveness of all sins, without Exceptions, but only of the forgiveness of all upon condition of our performing the Gospel-Conditions: And the Condition is a plain Exception of the non-performance of it self, out of the Matter of the Pardon. Inherent Personal Righteousness is confessed by all Protestants and Christians. A Righteousness which makes not Righteous, so far, is a palpable Contradiction. To make Righteous, is to justifie Constitutivè. So far as any Man is Constituted Just, God will, 1. Esteem him, and Accept him as Just; 2. Sentence him Just; 3. And use him as Just in Execution. And Christ the Advocate will maintain him Just, if there be need or cause.

When the word [Justification] is taken only for Remission of Sin, and Right to Life, (or judging us such as have this) then it is a needless question to ask, Whether it consist materially in any Works or Actions of our own: Faith and Repentance can be but preparatory Conditions of it, and none of the Matter, only Christ's Righteousness meriteth i…. If Justification be taken for Making, p. 60Esteeming, or Sentencing us Performers of the Gospel-Conditions, then the matter of it is only in our own Hearts and Lives. If Justification be taken universally, it comprehendeth both the former. If taken for the final Sentence pronouncing us non damnandos sed glorificandos, then it is grounded on the two former, (whereof one is subordinate to the other) as being Causae duplicis duplex Justitia.

The Fifth Controversie between us, is; Whether the New-Law or Covenant have any Penalty constituted by it self, or whether only the Law of Works do constitute penalty?

To this I need to say no more than I have done already, because his Opinion is grounded on the former, That there is but one Law; which overthrown, this falls with it.

Mr. C's Error lyeth in his confounding Legem in genere, Cum hac Lege Operum in specie. A Law in general is a Determination or Constitution Authoritative de jure, and obligeth ad Obedientiam aut ad Poenam. But Laws are several ways specified, as is afore declared, and I will not repeat.

The Penalty proper to the New-Law, consisteth in these Particulars following.

1. To have no part in Christ, to be no Member of him, not united or espoused to him, is one part of the Penalty, as it is poena damni: Who will say that the Law of Works did threaten this? It would have been to Adam but a Negation, and no Privation, and so no Penalty.

2. The like may be said of the missing of Justification and Pardon of all sin; which is a part of p. 61the poena damni, which the Law of Works knew not. Before the Law of Grace was enacted, and by Christ's Blood and the Promise, Remission was made possible; yea, conditionally given, it would have been no Penalty, though a misery, not to be forgiven.

3. The like may be said of the denyal of Sanctifying Grace, and the help of the Spirit to them that quench it.

4. And the hopelesness of their Condition that sin against the Holy Ghost.

5. And the non-liberation from eternal Torments.

6. But especially the Peremptory Sentence of Judgment, and Execution according. The Law of Works being violated, the Communication was dispensable on valuable Considerations, and the Obligation to Punishment dissolvable, and the Punishment it self removable: But the New-Law hath affixed a prediction to the Commination, making the said Commination indispensable, the Obligation undissolvable, and the Punishment certainly everlasting and remediless; not only (as the first Law) providing no Remedy, but decreeing that none shall be provided at all.

But I have mentioned these before, about the diversification of God's Laws, and there also mentioned a real difference in the Pain of Sense, between that which is threatned in the Law of Works, and of Grace. But if Mr. C. be resolved to confound these Sinners, and say God hath but one Law, looking only at the general nature of a Law, when he should look at the distinct species, then there's no Remedy.

p. 626. Our Sixth Controversie is; Whether the same thing which is the Condition of our Salvation (as Mr. C. confesseth Obedience is) be not also a Condition of our final sentential Justification, and of our Right to Salvation (though not of our first Right)? I affirm and he denies.

Our first Right to Salvation is given with our Justification or Pardon, upon our first believing: but our Obedience upon Opportunity is a Condition non-amittendi, or without which it shall not continue, nor shall we have ever Jus in re. This I proved I think sufficiently in the Postscript of my Papers to Mr. C. but he easily put by all, with the distinction of [Right to Salvation] and [Salvation it self].

Before I consider his Exceptions, I will add this Answer to his Distinction. 1. He yeeldeth the whole Cause in acknowledging, 1. That Justification and Right to Salvation have the same Conditions, (which he could not deny). 2. That Obedience is a Condition of Salvation. 3. For his Distinction is sine differentiâ; there is no such thing in the World, no nor possible, as a proper Condition of Salvation, distinct from a Condition of Right to it. First, I hope, with any fair Dealer, I may take it for granted that he doth not equivocate in the word Condition, taking it for a mere Physical Qualification, called a Condition or Preparation, in another sense than ours; but that we are still speaking of a Condition in sensu Civili, Legali, vel Morali: Not as the Dryness of the Wood, or the Application of it to the Fire, is called a Condition of its Burning; nor as the valiant Mind of Souldiers p. 63is a Condition of their valiant Fighting and Conquering, not imposed by the General, but naturally necessary by way of Qualification or Enablement: but it is a Condition constituted by a Promise, Law, Covenant, or Testament that we are speaking of. 1. I so explained my Mind fully. 2. The subject-Matter of our Dispute will be on no other sensed Condition; so that I may well take it for granted, that we are agreed in this, and that Mr. C. will not seek any Evasion by an Equivocation in this word.

And then the Case is past question; for every Condition is a Condition of Right, which I prove thus.

It is a Condition of that which the Promise giveth: But it is Right (to Salvation) which the Promise giveth; Therefore it is a Condition of Right (to Salvation). The Major is past dispute; it being the Condition of a Promise, and a part of that Promise, and its Office, to suspend the efficacy of the Promise or Donative Act. The Minor is as far past dispute with all that know, that the proper product of Laws, Covenants, Promises, &c. is Right or Dueness. The Promise gives nothing else immediately and naturally but Right. As Sanctification, Glorification, Health, Riches, or any benefit not relative; the Promise gives but Right to them, (though it be called a giving the thing it self morally, because God doth infallibly fulfil his Promise): But it is by actual natural Causation tha… the thing it self must be after given or conveyed. Therefore seeing we speak not of a Condition in a Physical sense, (as Eating is a Condition of Living) but in a moral, or civil, or judiciary p. 64sense; it is past doubt that it's essential to a Condition to have a respect to Right, and to be Conditio juris, vel obtinendi, vel retinendi.

And if the Assertors of the contrary be called to prove their distinction from the Scripture, you should see on what arbitrary Affirmations and Inventions of their own, such Doctrines are built. For instance, when it is promised, Mark 16. 16. That, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. And Rom. 10. Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved]. And Heb. 5. 9. He became the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him]. Prove now by such evidence as should move an impartial Man, that Believing only in the first Promise, and such other is Conditio juris; and that, [Calling on the Name of the Lord, and obeying] are not Conditiones juris, vel obtinendi, vel retinendi: That Faith only is a Condition in a judiciary sense, and Repentance, Love to God and Obedience are only Physically Conditions, or are Conditions of Salvation, but not of Right to Salvation: Prove that in the same Text, Joh. 16. 27. Faith is made … Condition of Right to God's Love, and Love to Christ is made a Condition of his Love, but not of Right to it; [For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God]. Is here either reason or room for your distinction? [Because] is equally added to both, what-ever kind of Condition they are. The Text saith expresly, [Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through th… Gates into the City]. And can you pro…e that by Right here is not meant Right?

p. 65And again observe that Right to Salvation, and Right to Justification at Judgment, are not, yea, cannot be denyed to have the same Conditions: For that which justifieth our Cause, will justifie us: But that which proveth our Right to Salvation, justifieth our Cause: For our Right to Salvation, is our Cause it self to be then judged.

The Seventh Controversie is, Whether the words of the Gospel-Promise or Grant, forgiving sin, be properly a Sentence of Absolution by God as Judg? Or rather an Act of Oblivion or Donation of Pardon and Life by God, partly as Benefactor, and partly as Rector, by Law and Guilt? Whether it be a Judicial Sentence only Virtually or Actually? Mr. C. holdeth, that the words of the Gospel, [He that believeth shall be justified and saved]; are an actual sentence of God as Judg: I hold that it is but an Act of Oblivion or Condonation, and a Gift of Life by God as Legislator and Benefactor, and so but a Virtual Sentence.

But first let it be noted, That all this is but a Controversie de nomine, and not de re. As long as we are agreed what this Act of Oblivion is, and what it doth, I take it to be a matter of no great noment, whether it be de nomine, to be called a Sentence of Judgment, properly or improperly. But my Reasons are these.

1. This Gospel-Act is called by the name of a Law, both in Prophesies, and in the words of the Gospel it self, Isa. 2. 3. and 8. 16, 20. & 42. 4. & 51. 4. Mich. 4. 2. Rom. 3. 27. Gal. 6. 2. Heb. 7. 12. Jam. 11. 25. & 2. 8, 12. 1 John 3. 4. Heb. 8. 10, 16.

p. 662. It is NOrma actionum moralium & norma judicis: Ergo, it is a Law, 1 John 2. 5. Heb. 4. 2, 3. Jam. 1. 22. John 12. 47, 48. & 14. 23. & 15. 7. John 5. 22, 23. Jam. 2. 12. Rev. 20. 12, 13. Matth. 25. Joh. 3. 16, 18, 19.

3. A Day of Judgment is foretold and described in the Gospel, in which a final Sentence will pass on Men according to this Law. Ergo, &c. The Law and Sentence are not to be confounded: For they are not all one: The Norma judicis, according to which Men must be judged, is not the Judgment it self.

4. A Law is an universal Rule, and the sanction Conditional, and it neither justifieth nor condemneth any antecedently, but only after they have kept or broken it; And then it doth it ut Lex, and not ut sententia judicis: But a judicial Sentence is about particular or individual Persons and Cases; and supposeth a Law kept or broken, and supposeth Accusation, (virtual or actual): and also the particular Cause to be judicially decided, is, Whether the Law condemn or absolve the Person (virtually): Therefore the Law and Sentence are no more to be confounded, than a Law giver and a Judg.

5. If it be a Sentence of Judgment, it is a Sentence secundum norm…m alicujus Legis; some Law is the Rule of it: But no Law is the Rule of it; Ergo▪ it is no Sentence of Judgment, properly so called. If any Law be the Rule of it, it is either an Ʋniversal Law made to Mankind, or a particu… Law (as that made to Noah, to Abraham, to the Jews by Moses, &c.) Not the latter: If the former, it must be that called the Law of Nature, and Covenant of Works made to Adam, or the p. 67Law or Covenant of Grace made in Christ: Not the first: For to say, [He that believeth shall be saved], is not to Sentence as Judg according to the Law, [In the day that thou sinnest thou shalt die]. Not the latter; for then the Law and the Judgment were all one; and to say, [He that believeth shall be saved], would be all one as to say, [John or Peter hath right to Salvation according to the Promise, because they are true Believers]. He that is not satisfied with thus much, let him think as he list, for I shall trouble the Reader with no more.

The Eighth Controversie is, Whether the judgment of Christ upon Believers after this Life, be not properly a justifying Sentence? I affirm it, and Mr. G. denyeth it, and taketh it to be only a Declaration of our Justification which we had in this Life.

Every judicial Sentence, is a Declaration; but every Declaration is not a judicial Sentence. This Question therefore is not, Whether it be a Declaration, but whether it be not such a Declaration as is a Sentence of the Judg in Judgment? And if so, Whether it be not a proper Justification, (though here also I know, according to his meaning, the Question is but de nomine).

1. That is a proper Sentence of Judgment, which is the publick Declaration and Decision of the Judg, to put our Right to Salvation out of Controversie, against all Accusers, and to give us our Jus Judicatum, by determining of our Jus Constituturi; and this as an orderly means to our full possession. But such will be Christ's Sentence at p. 68the Last Judgment; Ergo, it will be properly a Judicial Sentence.

2. The Scripture doth most exactly describe it as a proper Judgment; It calleth it the Act of Christ as Judg; It calleth it a Judgment: It describeth the Cause, the Persons, the Plea, the Evidence, and the Sentence, 1 Pet. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 1. Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22, 24, 26, 27. Rev. 20. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Luk. 10. 14. Heb. 6. 2. & 9. 27. Eccles. 12. 14. & 11. 9. Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Matth. 25. throughout.

2. It is an Article of our Creed, That Christ shall come again to judg the quick and the dead; and among Christians past dispute. And if he judg, he sentenceth as Judg. And if he sentence as Judg, it is either a Sentence of Justification, or of Condemnation: All Judgment which is the genus, is found in one of these special Acts; There is no middle. It is a Judgment of Condemnation or of Justification. If the Name be questioned, I appeal to all Lawyers, all Men that live in Civil Societies, and all Divines; especially Protestants, who maintain against the Papists, that the word Justifie is most commonly taken in the New Testament in a judiciary Sense, for either the Sentence of a Judg, or the Plea of an Advocate at Judgment. I think this Controversie needeth no more words. And if I should here cite an hundred Divines that call this Last Judgment by the name of a Sentence of Justification or Condemnation, I should merit nothing of the Reader, but rebuke for troubling him with unnecessary words.

p. 69And now having reviewed all that I find remaining Controverted, between this Learned, Reverend and Pious Brother and my self, about the Matter which he thought meet to Animadvert on, (or at least all that is worth the Reader's notice). I am glad that our Differences are brought into so narrow a room; and that it is very doubtful whether every one of them be not only de nomine: And I think it but a needless trouble to the Reader, to answer all his numerous Citations out of Amesius, Piscator, Paraeus, Zanchy, Calvin, Davenant, &c. and such late Divines, which make up the main Body of his Reply: Nor to make so tedious an enquiry, Whether he or I do best understand those Writers Sense: The Controversies themselves being cleared, I have done. And my design is but this:

1. To perswade Divines not to make God's Servants believe that they differ in great and weighty Matters, and so to render them unfit for each others Love and Communion, when they differ but in Words and Logical Notions.

2. To perswade Men to suffer their Brethren peaceably to rest in that Truth, and those Expressions of it, which are found in Scripture, and the Church Ʋniversal for above a thousand years rested in, and not make Humane Notions seem necessary to our Salvation and Church-Communion: Nor in a siding Humour to set the Phrases of some late honoured Divines, against Scripture and the Universal Church, and then to make them Engines of destruction, by making them seem needful Truths, which are but new incongruous Notions, which must at last be attacqued, to force them to confess that their meaning is the same with that which others long have taught.