The Covenant Sealed, Section 4
SECT. IV. Imperfect conformity to the Law, is Righteouſneſs inherent; as an Image, leſs like the Pattern, is an Image.
I Said in my Treatiſe, [The perfection of this Holineſs and Righteouſneſs in mans integrity, ſtood in the perfect conformity to this Law; and the reparation of this in our regenerate eſtate (in which the Apoſtle placeth the Image of God) muſt have reference, as to God as a pattern, ſo to his Law as a Rule.] Here I paſs by ſome words of yours of a Tranſcendentall p…rfection, not well underſtanding them, much leſs underſtanding that they ſerve at all to our purpoſe, and come to your ſecond,There is a partial reparation of inherent righteouſneſs in regeneration. where you anſwer, That there is a partial reparation of our Holineſs in Regeneration, but no reparation of our perſonall, inherent Righteouſneſs at all. Is Righteouſneſs by the Law of works? I take this to be dangerous doctrine. Anſw. You entituled this controverſie, pag. 41. Sect. 28. [Of Evangelical perſonal Righteouſneſs] And now you underſtand it, of perſonal, inherent, Legal Righteouſneſs. Are Legal and Evangelical the ſame, or, are not you the ſame? When the Apoſtle joyns Righteouſneſs, and true holineſs together, as that in which the Image of God did conſiſt, and is to be repaired in the Regenerate, Is there a partial reparation of the one, and no reparation at all of the other? In your former reply, you ſay, I hope you obſerve, that we ſpeak not of that called Morall Righteouſneſs, conſiſting in an habit of giving every man his own, but of juſtitia forenſis: where you ſeem to make that a full definition of ſuch Righteouſneſs; when I had thought that Moral righteouſneſs had given God, as well as man, his own: And if we ſpeak not of this righteouſneſs, when we ſpeak of a Rule of righteouſneſs, I cannot but obſerve, that it hath been a wild diſcourſe, and little to purpoſe, ever ſince either of us entred upon it, either we ſpeak of this, or elſe (I think) we might as well have kept ſilence. I know no inherent Righteouſneſs, that is not Moral Righteouſneſs. You demand, Is Righteouſneſs by the Law of works? I take this for dangerous doctrine. Anſw. You put it as though I int…nded, that the Law raiſeth a man to that Righteouſneſs for which it calls in order to juſtification, and life, according to the tenor of the Covenant of works, which were dangerous doctrine indeed, rendring Chriſts death to be in vain, as we may ſee from the Apoſtle, Gal. 2.21. And of the more danger it is; the more I ſuffer. I ſay, that the Righteouſneſs of which I ſpeak, (and which, all, I think, underſtand, when they ſpeak (as you do of a believing mans perſonal, inherent Righteouſneſs) is from the Spirit of God, working with power in the hearts of his choſen, but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God, and led by no other Rule. And here I think there is no danger.
I illuſtrated this with a compariſon [As an Image carrying an imperfect reſemblance of its Sampler, is an Image: ſo conformity, imperfectly anſwering the Rule, is conformity likewiſe.] Here 1. You come in with yoor Dilemma againſt me. Either that Image ſay you, is like the Sampler in ſome parts, and unlike in others, or elſe it is like in no part, but near to like. If the latter, then it is but near to a true Image of that thing, and not one indeed. If the former, then it is nothing to our caſe. Anſw. You may do well to tell us, what near to like means, in the mean time, I muſt tell you, that you bring no perfect enumeration. It is like in all parts, though not with a full reſemblance, compleat in degree. 2. You tell me that Scheibler ſaies, that ſimilitude do's lie in puncto as it were, and ex parte ſui admits not of magìs and minùs, and therefore ſtrictè & philoſophicè loquendo, ſaith he, that is only ſimile, which is perfectly ſo, but vulgariter loquendo, that is called ſimile, which is properly but mi…ùs diſſimile. And then you adde by way of conceſſion,Similitude conſiſteth not in puncto, but admits of magìs and minùs. that Scripture ſpeaks vulgariter often, and not ſtrictè & Philoſophicè, as ſpeaking to vulgar wits, to whom it muſt ſpeak, as they can underſtand. Give me leave then that pretend to know no more then a vulgar wit, to ſpeak the language of Scripture, which I think was your own language in the laſt Section, where you ſaid, that There is a partiall reparation of our holineſs in our regeneration, and this, the Apoſtle tels us is the reparation of the Image of God, Eph. 4.24. And as I take it, the language of Scheibler alſo in his Topicks, where I had thought he had ſpoken ſtrictè or logicè at leaſt, and there he ſaith, Paria â ſimilibus omnino differunt, and how they differ I know not, if there be not magìs and minùs in ſimili, as there is not in Pari. As you confeſs it to be true in Scripture-ſenſe; ſo I take it, with Scheiblers leave, to be true in the exacteſt philoſophical ſenſe. Similitude is founded in quality, as parity in quantity; And that qualities are intended and remitted, I ſhall believe, till I have learn'd new Logick. Davenant in Coloſ. 3.10. ſaith, This is to be held, that Chriſt is otherwiſe the Image of the Father then we. He is the Image of equality, enjoying the ſame nature with the Father, whoſe Image he is. Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation, imperfectly reſembling ſome ſimilitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace. You conclude, If all this were otherwiſe, it is little to your purpoſe, for in this conformity of ours, there is ſomthing of quantitative reſemblance as well as qualitative, and ſo it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as ſimilitude to the rule. Anſw. What there is of quantity, and how much, you do not tell, and if there be not only a ſimilitude, but alſo a parity between God and man, ſo that when God is judged of man, he ſhould be tryed by his peers, I ſhall ſay nothing, but reſt amazed.