A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

Ans. 1. The distinction of a Person into Natural and Political or Legal, is equivoci in sua equivocata: He therefore that would not have contention cherished and men taught to damn each other for a word not understood, must give us leave to ask what these equivocals mean. What a Natural Person signifieth, we are pretty well agreed; but a Political Person is a word not so easily and commonly understood. Calvin tells us that Persona definitur homo qui caput habet civile. (For omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim: Homo cum est vocabulum naturae; Persona juris civilis.) And so (as Albenius) civitas, municipium, Castrum, Collegium, Universitas, & quodlibet corpus, Personae appellatione continetur; ut Spigel. But if this Definition be commensurate to the common nature of a civil person, then a King can be none; nor any one that hath not a civil head. This therefore is too narrow. The same Calvin (in n. Personae) tells us, that Seneca Personam vocat, cum prae se fert aliquis, quod non est; A Counterfeit: But sure this is not the sense of the Objectors. In general saith Calvin, Tam hominem quam qualitatem hominis, seu Conditionem significat. But it is not sure every Quality or Condition: Calvin therefore giveth us nothing satisfactory, to the decision of the Controversy which these Divines will needs make, whether each believer and Christ be the same Political Person. Martinius will make our Controversy no easier by the various significations gathered out of Vet. Vocab. Gel. Scaliger, Valla; Which he thus enumerateth. 1. Persona est accidens conditio hominis, qualitas quâ homo differt ab homine, tum in animo, tum in corpore, tum in externis. 2. Homo qualitate dictâ proditus: 3. Homo insigni qualitate praeditus habens gradum eminentiae, in Ecclesta Dei, &c. 4. Figura, seu facies ficta, larva histrionica, &c. 5. Ille qui sub hujusmodi figura aliquam representat, &c. 6. Figura eminens in aedificiis quae ore aquam fundit, &c. Individua substantia humana, seu singularis homo. 8. Individua substantia Intelligens quaelibet. Now which of these is Persona Politica vel Legalis. Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I suppose we shall find that we are agreed of the Matter. When I deny the Person of Christ and the sinner to have been the same, or to be so reputed by God, I mean by Person, univocally or properly, An Individual Intelligent substance. And they that mean otherwise are obliged to Define; For Analogum per se positum stat pro suo significato famosiore. If they mean that Christ and the Believer are the same as to some Quality, or Condition, let them tell us what Quality or Condition it is, and I think we shall be found to be of one mind.

But I think by the similitudes of a Sponsor, Attorney, and Guardian, that they mean by a Political Person (not as a society, nor such as agree in Quality, but) A natural Person so related to another Natural person, as that what he doth and suffereth, Is or Hath, is limitedly to certain ends and uses as effectual as if that other person himself did and suffered, Were or Had numerically the same thing. I obtrude not a sense on others, but must know theirs before I can know where we differ. And if this be the meaning, we are agreed: Thus far (though I greatly dislike their way that lay much stress on such human phrases,) I grant the thing meant by them. Christ's Holiness Habitual and Actual, and his Merits and Satisfaction are as effectual to a believers Justification and Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace (which is sealed by baptism) as if we had been, done and suffered the same ourselves. But still remember that this is only [limitedly] to these uses, and on these terms and no other, and I think that this is the meaning of most Divines that use this phrase.

But the sense of those men that I differ from and write against (the Libertines and Antinomians, and some others that own not those names,) is this: that A Legal Person is one so Related to another's Natural person as that what he Hath, Doth, or Suffereth in such a case, is (not only effectual as aforesaid to others, but) is in itself simply Reputed or Imputed to be Morally, though not physically, the Habit, Act and Suffering, the Merit and satisfactory Sacrifice of the other person: And so being the reputed Haver, Doer or Sufferer, Meriter or Satisfyer himself, he hath absolute right to all the proper results or benefits.

And so a man may indeed many ways among us Represent or Personate another. If I by Law am Commanded to do this or that service per meipsum aut per alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-sense, because the other doth it in my name and I am allowed so to do it. So if I appear or answer by any Proctor or Attorney; if the Law make it equal to my personal appearance and answer, it is said that I did it by him: (but only so far as he doth it as my Representer or in my name): So if I pay a debt by the hand of my Servant or any Messenger, if so allowed, I do it by that other. So indeed a Pupil, doth by his Guardian what his Guardian doth, only so far as the Law obligeth him to consent or stand to it.

We did not thus ourselves fulfil all the Law in and by Christ: Nor are we thus the Proprietors of his Habitual perfection, Merits or Satisfaction.

The common reason given by the contrary-minded is, that he was our Surety, or Sponsor, or fidejussor: and so we translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 7. 22. and I remember not any other text of Scripture allegable for that title. But this word doth not necessarily signify any such Representer of our Persons as aforesaid. Nay when he is called thus the fidejussor of a better Covenant, it seemeth plain that it is God's Covenant as such, and so God's Sponsor that is meant; and as Grotius saith Moses pro Deo spospondit in Lege Veteri: Jesus pro Deo in Lege Novâ: Lex utraque & pactum continet, promissa habet. Sponsorem daro solent minûs nati: & Moses & Deus hominibus melius nati erant quam Deus qui inconspicuus. So also Dr. Hamond [He was Sponsor and Surety for God, that it should be made good to us on God's part, on Condition that we performed that which was required of us:] And here they that translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Testament, never intended that it was our Part of the Covenant that is meant by a Testament: But (the most Judicious expositor,)

So Calvin (though almost passing it by) seemeth to intimate that which I think is the truth, that Christ is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of God's Covenant from the s • cerd • tal appropinquation, mentioned verse. 19. &c.

So the Dutch Annot. and many others, besides the Ancients, by a Sponsor, tell us is meant a Mediator.

And we grant that a Mediator is not of one, but doth somewhat on the behalf of both parties. But that as Mediator he Is, Hath, Doth, Suffereth, Meritteth, Satisfyeth; so as the Representer or person of each believer, as that every such Person is supposed in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus in and by the Mediator, is neither signified by this or any other text.

2. And they that distinguish of a Natural and Political Person, do but darken the case by an ill-expressed distinction, which indeed is not of two sorts of Persons, but between Reality and Acceptation, taking Person properly for a Natural Person: It's one thing to be such a Person, and another thing to have the Act, Passion, Merit, &c. Accepted for that other Person: And this latter signifieth, either 1. That it was done by the other person mediately, as being a chief Cause acting by his Instrument. 2. Or that it was done for that other Person by another. The first is our denied sense, and the second our affirmed sense.

Among us Sureties and Sponsors are of several sorts: Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another sense of Sponsion in the Civil Law, than is pertinent to the objectors use: And in Baptism the same word, hath had divers senses as used by persons of different intentions. The time was when the Sponsor was not at all taken for the Political Person (as you call it) of Parent or Child, nor spake as their Instrument, in their name: But was a Third person, who (because many parents Apostatized, and more Died in the Childs minority) did pass his word, 1. That the Parent was a credible Person, 2. That if he Dyed so soon or Apostatized, he himself would undertake the Christian Education of the Child. But the Parent himself was Sponsor for the Child in a stricter sense, (as also Adopting Pro-parents were, & as some take God-fathers to be now,) that is, they were taken for such, whose Reason, will and word, we authorised to dispose of the Child as obligingly, as if it had been done by his own reason will and word, so be it, it were but For his good, and the Child did own it when he came to age: And so they were to speak as in the Childs name, as if Nature or Charity made them his Representers, in the Judgment of many. (Though others rather think that they were to speak as in their own persons, e. g. I dedicate this Child to God, and enter him into the Covenant as obliged by my Consent.) But this sense of Sponsion is nothing to the present Case.

They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety as if the word had but one signification, and all Sureties properly represented the person of the Principal obliged person, do deal very deceitfully: There are Sureties or Sponsors, 1. For some Duty, 2. For Debt, 3. For Punishment. 1. It is one thing to undertake that another shall do a Commanded duty: 2. It's another thing to undertake that else I will do it for him: 3. It's another thing to be Surety that he shall pay a Debt, or else I will pay it for him: 4. It's another thing to undertake that he shall suffer a penalty, or else to suffer for him, or make a Valuable Compensation.

1. And it's one kind of Surety that becometh a second party in the bond, and so maketh himself a debtor; 2. And its another sort of Surety that undertaketh only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friend; who may pay it on such Conditions as he and the Creditor think meet, without the Debtors knowledge. Every Novice that will but open Calvin may see that Fidejussor and Sponsor are words of very various signification; and that they seldom or never signify the Person Natural or Political (as you call it) of the Principal: Sponsor est qui sponte & non rogatus pro alio promittit, ut Accursvel quicunque spondet, maxim pro aliis: Fidejubere est suo periculo fore id, de quo agitur, recipere: Vel, fidem suam pro alio obligare. He is called Adpromissor, and he is Debtor, but not the same person with the Principal, but his promise is accessoria obligatio, non principalis. Therefore Fidejussor sive Intercessor non est conveniendus, nisi prius debitore principali convento: Fidejussores a correis ita differunt, quod hi suo & proprio morbo laborant, illi vero alieno tenentur: Quare fideijussori magis succurrendum censent: Veniâ namque digni sunt qui alienâ tenentur Culpâ, cujusmodi sunt fidejussores pro alieno debito obligati, inquit Calv.

There must be somewhat more than the bare name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once used of Christ as Mediator of God's Covenant, or the name of a Surety as now used among men, that must go to prove that the Mediator and the several sinners are the same Legal Persons in God's account.

But seeing Legal-Personality is but a Relation of our Natural person, to another Natural person, that we may not quarrel and tear the Church when really we differ not 1. Let our agreement be noted. 2. Our difference intelligibly stated.

1. It is granted (not only by Dr. Tully, but others that accurately handle the Controversy,) 1. That Christ and the Believer never were nor are our Natural person; and that no union with him maketh us to be Christ, or God, nor him to be Peter, John or Paul, &c. That we know of no third sort of Natural person, (which is neither Jesus, nor Peter, John, &c.) But composed of both united, which is constituted by our Union. For though it be agreed on, that the same Spirit that is in Christ is (operatively) also in all his Members, and that therefore our Communion with him is more than Relative, and that from this Real-Communion, the name of a Real-Union may be used; yet here the Real-Union is not Personal (as the same Sun quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant, and yet maketh them not our person:) Therefore he that will say we are Physically one with Christ, and not only Relatively; but tell us [ONE What?] and make his words Intelligible; and must deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that by that time we are not like to be found differing. But remember that while Physical Communion, is confessed by all, what UNION we shall from thence be said to have (this Foundation being agreed on) is like to prove but a question, de realitione & nomine.

2. Yea all the world must acknowledge that the whole Creation is quoad praesentiam & derivationem more dependant on God than the fruit is on the Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the inseperate Cause of our Being, Station, and Life; And yet this natural intimateness, and influx, and causality, maketh not GOD and every Creature absolutely or personally One.

3. It is agreed therefore that Christ's Righteousness is neither materially nor formally, any Accident of our natural Persons; (and an Accident it is) unless it can be reduced to that of Relation. 1. The Habits of our Person, cannot possibly be the habits of another inherently. 2. The actions of one cannot possibly be the actions of another, as the Agent, unless as that other as a principal Cause, acteth by the other as his Instrument or second Cause. 3. The same fundamentum relationis inherent in One Person, is not inherent in another if it be a personal Relation: And so the same individual Relation that is one Mans, cannot numerically be another Mans, by the same sort of in-being, propriety, or adherence. Two Brothers have a Relation in kind the same, but not unmerically.

4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falsely, and therefore taketh not Christ's Righteousness to be anymore or otherwise ours, than indeed it is; nor imputeth it to us erroneously.

5. Yet it is commonly agreed, that Christ's Righteousness is OURS in some sense; And so far is justly reputed Ours, or imputed to us as being Ours.

6. And this ambiguous syallable [OURS] (enough to set another Age of Wranglers into bitter Church-tearing strife, if not hindered by some that will call them to explain an ambiguous word) is it that must be understood to end this Controversy. Propriety is the thing signified. 1. In the strictest sense that is called Ours, which inhereth in us, or that which is done by us. 2. In a larger (Moral) sense, that which a Man as the principal Cause, doth by another as his Instrument, by authorizing, commanding, persuading, &c. 3. In a yet larger sense that may be called OURS, which a third person doth partly instead of what we should have done (had, or suffered) and partly for our use, or benefit. 4. In a yet larger sense that may be called OURS, which another hath, or doth, or suffereth for our Benefit, (though not in our stead) and which will be for our good, (as that which a Friend or Father hath, is his Friends or Childs, and all things are Ours, whether Paul, or &c. and the Godly are owners of the World, in as much as God will use all for their good).

7. It is therefore a Relation which Christ's Righteousness hath to us, or we to it, that must here be meant by the word [OURS]: Which is our RIGHT or Jus; And that is acknowledged to be no Jus or Right to it in the foresaid denied sense; And it is agreed that some Right it is. Therefore, to understand what it is, the Titulus seu Fundamentum juris must be known.

8. And here it is agreed; 1. That we are before Conversion or Faith related to Christ as part of the Redeemed World, of whom it is said, 2 Cor. 5. 19. That God was in Christ, reconciling the World to himself, not imputing to them their sins, &c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Christ as his Covenanted People, Subjects, Brethren, Friends, and Political Members; yea, as such that have Right to, and Possession of Real Communion with him by his Spirit: And that we have then Right to Pardon, Justification, and Adoption, (or have Right to Impunity in the promised degree, and to the Spirits Grace, and the Love of God, and Heavenly Glory). This Relation to Christ and this Right, to the Benefits of his Righteousness are agreed on: And consequently that his Righteousness is OURS, and so may be called, as far as the foresaid Relations and Rights import.

II. Now a Relation (as Ockam hath fully proved) having no real entity, beside the quid absolutum, which is the Subject, Fundamentum, or Terminus, he that yet raileth at his Brother as not saying enough, or not being herein so wise as he, and will maintain that yet Christ's Righteousness is further OURS, must name the Fundamentum of that Right or Propriety: What more is it that you mean? I think the make-bates have here little probability of fetching anymore Fuel to their Fire, or turning Christ's Gospel into an occasion of strife and mutual enmity, If they will but be driven to a distinct explication, and will not make confusion and ambiguous words their defense and weapons. If you set your quarrelsome Brains on work, and study as hard as you can for matter of Contention, it will not be easy for you to find it, unless you will raze out the names of Popery, Socinianism, Arminianism, or Solifidianism, Heresy, &c. instead of real Difference. But if the angriest and loudest Speakers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the most Orthodox places.

Briefly, 1. The foresaid Benefits of Christ's Righteousness, (Habitual, Active and Passive) as a Meritorious, Satisfactory, Purchasing Cause, are ours.

2. To say that the Benefits are Ours, importeth that the Causal Righteousness of Christ is related to us, and the Effects as such a Cause: and so is itself OURS, in that sense, that is, so related.

3. And Christ himself is OURS, as related to us as our Savior; the Procurer and Giver of those Benefits. And do you mean anymore by [OURS]?

If you say that we deny any Benefits of Christ's Righteousness which you assert, name what they are. If you say that we deny any true Fundamentum juris, or reason of our title, name what that is. If you say that we deny any true Relation to Christ himself, tell us what it is: If you cannot, say that you are agreed.

1. If you say that the Benefit denied by us, is that we are judged by God, as those that (habitually and actively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency ourselves, though not in our natural Persons, yet by Christ as representing us, and so shall be justified by that Law of Innocency as the Fulfiller of it, we do deny it, and say, That you subvert the Gospel, and the true Benefits which we have by Christ.

2. If you say that we deny that God esteemeth or reputeth us, to be the very Subjects of that Numerical Righteousness, in the Habits, Acts, Passion or Relation, which was in the Person of Christ, or to have done, suffered, or merited ourselves in and by him, as the proper Representer of our Persons therein; and so that his Righteousness is thus imputed to us as truly in itself our own propriety, we do deny it, and desire you to do so also, lest you deny Christianity.

2. If you blame us for saying, That we had or have no such Relation to Christ, as to our Instrument, or the proper full Representer of each Believers particular Person, by whom we did truly fulfil the Law of Innocency, habitually and actively, and satisfied, merited, &c. We do still say so, and wish you to consider what you say, before you proceed to say the contrary.

But if you come not up to this, where will you find a difference.

Object. 2. Christ is called The Lord our Righteousness, and he is made Righteousness to us, and we are made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21, &c. And by the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous.

Answ. And are we not all agreed of all this? But can his Righteousness be Ours no way but by the foresaid Personation Representating? How prove you that? He is Our Righteousness, and his Obedience maketh us Righteous.

1. Because the very Law of Innocency which we dishonored and broke by sin, is perfectly fulfilled and honored by him, as a Mediator, to repair the injury done by our breaking it.

2. In that he suffered to satisfy Justice for our sin.

3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father, all that Righteousness which we are truly the Subjects of, whether it be Relative, or Qualitative, or Active; that is, 1. Our Right to Christ in Union to the Spirit, to Impunity, and to Glory; And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which we are made Holy, and fulfil the Conditions of the Law of Grace. We are the Subjects of these, and he is the Minister, and the meritorious Cause of our Life, is well called Our Righteousness, and by many the material Cause, (as our own perfect Obedience would have been) because it is the Matter of that Merit.

4. And also Christ's Intercession with the Father, still procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits.

5. And we are Related as his Members (though not parts of his Person as such) to him that thus merited for us.

6. And we have the Spirit from him as our Head.

7. And he is our Advocate, and will justify us as our Judge.

8. And all this is God's Righteousness designed for us, and thus far given us by him.

9. And the perfect Justice and Holiness of God, is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove, that we justly own all asserted by these Texts? But if you think that you have a better sense of them, you must better prove it, than by a bare naming of the words.

Object 3. If Christ's Righteousness be Ours, then we are Righteous by it as Ours; and so God reputeth it but as it is: But it is Ours; 1. By our Union with him. 3. And by his Gift, and so consequently by God's Imputation.

Answ. 1. I have told you before that it is confessed to be Ours; but that this syllable OURS hath many senses; and I have told you in what sense, and how far it is OURS, and in that sense we are justified by it, and it is truly imputed to us, or reputed or reckoned as OURS: But not in their sense that claim a strict Propriety in the same numerical Habits, Acts, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfaction, which was in Christ, or done by him, as if they did become Subjects of the same Accidents; or, as if they did it by an instrumental second Cause. But it is OURS, as being done by a Mediator, instead of what we should have done, and as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness and Benefits, which are freely given us for the sake hereof.

2. He that is made Righteousness to us, is also made Wisdom, Sanctification and Redemption to us: but that sub genere Causae Efficientis, non autem Causae Constitutivae: We are the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ. Plainly the Question is, Whether Christ or his Righteousness, Holiness, Merits, and Satisfaction, be Our Righteousness Constitutively, or only Efficiently? The Matter and Form of Christ's Personal Righteousness is OURS, as an Efficient Cause, but it is neither the nearest Matter, or the Form of that Righteousness which is OURS as the Subjects of it; that is, It is not a Constitutive Cause nextly material, or formal of it.

3. If our Union with Christ were Personal, (making us the same Person) then doubtless the Accidents of his Person would be the Accidents of ours, and so not only Christ's Righteousness, but every Christians would be each of Ours: But that is not so. Nor is it so given us by him.

Object. 4. You do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all, which consisteth in perfect Obedience and Holiness, but only a Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfect Inherent Righteousness in ourselves: The Papists are forced to confess, that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law, and not only the Retributive part: But they say, It is in ourselves, and we say it is Christ's imputed to us.

Answ. 1. The Papists (e. g. Learned Vasquer in Rom. 5.) talk so ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants, or the Law of Innocency and of Grace, as if they never understood it. And hence they 1. seem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace. 2. Therefore they use to call those Duties but Perfections; and the Commands that require them, but Counsels, where they are not made Conditions of Life: and sins not bringing Damnation, some call Venial, (a name not unfit) and some expound that as properly no sin, but analogically. 3. And hence they take little notice, when they treat of Justification, of the Remitting of Punishment; but by remitting Sin, they usually mean the destroying the Habits: As if they forgot all actual sin past, or thought that it deserved no Punishment, or needed no Pardon: For a past Act in itself is now nothing, and is capable of no Remission but Forgiveness. 4. Or when they do talk of Guilt of Punishment, they lay so much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction, as if Christ's Satisfaction and Merits had procured no pardon, or at least, of no temporal part of Punishment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protestants, as if we denied all Personal Inherent Righteousness, and trusted only to the Imputation of Christ▪s Righteousness as justifying wicked unconverted Men: The Papists therefore say not that we are innocent or sinless, (really or imputatively); no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation, unless when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Condition of the Law of Grace, and not that of Innocency.

2. But if any of them do as you say, no wonder if they and you contend: If one say, We are Innocent, or Sinless in reality, and the other, we are so by Imputation, when we are so no way at all (but sinners really, and so reputed); what Reconciliation is there to be expected, till both lay by their Error?

Object. 5. How can God accept him as just, who is really and reputedly a Sinner? This dishonoreth his Holiness and Justice.

Answ. Not so: Cannot God pardon sin, upon a valuable Merit and Satisfaction of a Mediator? And though he judge us not perfect now, and accept us not as such; yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy, 2. and the Members of a perfect Savior; 3. and will make us perfect and spotless, and then so judge us, having washed us from our sins in the Blood of the Lamb.

Object. 6. Thus you make the Reatus Culpae, not pardoned at all, but only the Reatus Poenae.

Answ. 1. If by Reatus Culpae be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator, and so to be Reus, is to be Revera ipse qui peccavit; then we must consider what you mean by Pardon: For if you mean the nullifying of such a Guilt, (or Reality) it is impossible, because necessiate existentiae, he that hath once sinned, will be still the Person that sinned, while he is a Person, and the Relation of one that sinned will cleave to him: It will eternally be a true Proposition, [Peter and Paul did sin]; But if by Pardon you mean, the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due, (damni vel sensus) so it is pardoned; and this is indeed the Reatus poenae: Not only the Penalty, but the Dueness of that Penalty, or the Obligation to it, is remitted and nullified.

2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpae you mean an Obligation to Punishment for that Fault, this being indeed the Reatus poenae, as is said, is done away. So that we are, I think, all agreed de re; And de nomine you may say that the Reatus Culpae is done away or remitted, or not, in several senses: In se, it is not nullified, nor can be: But as Dueness of Punishment followeth, that is pardoned.

Object. 7. You have said, That though we were not personally but seminally in Adam when he sinned, yet when we are Persons, we are Persons guilty of his actual sin: And so we must be Persons that are Partakers of Christ's Actual Righteousness, and not only of its Effects, as soon as we are Believers. For Christ being the Second Adam, and public Person, we have our part in his Righteousness, as truly and as much as in Adam 's sin.

Answ. 1. We must first understand how far Adam 's sin is ours: And first I have elsewhere proved that our Covenant-Union and Interest supposeth our Natural Union and Interest; and that it is an adding to God's Word and Covenant, to say, That he covenanted that Adam should personate each one of his Posterity in God's imputation or account, any further than they were naturally in him; and so that his innocence or sin should be reputed theirs, as far as if they had been personally the Subjects and Agents. The Person of Peter never was in Reality or God's Reputation, the Person of Adam. (Nor Adam 's Person the Person of Peter): But Peter being virtually and seminally in Adam, when he sinned, his Person is derived from Adam 's Person: And so Peter 's Guilt is not numerically the same with Adams, but the Accident of another Subject, and therefore another Accident, derived with the Person from Adam (and from nearer Parents). The Fundamentum of that Relation (of Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Person to Adam, (and so it is Relatio in Relatione fundata). The Fundamentum of that natural Relation, is Generation, yea a series of Generations from Adam to that Person: And Adam 's Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his personal Fault and Guilt charged on him by the Law: So that here is a long series of efficient Causes, bringing down from Adam's Person and Guilt a distinct numerical Person and Guilt of everyone of his later Posterity.

2. And it is not the same sort of Guilt, or so plenary, which is on us, for Adam 's Act, as was on him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another sort: that is, He was guilty of being the willful sinning Person, and so are not we, but only of being Persons whose Being is derived by Generation from the willful sinning Persons, (besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity): That is, The Relation is such which our Persons have to Adam 's Person, as make it just with God to desert us, and to punish us for that and our pravity together. This is our Guilt of Original sin.

3. And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Propagation, and resultancy from our very Nature so propagated. And now let us consider of our contrary Interest in Christ.

And, 1. Our Persons are not the same as Christ's Person, (nor Christ's as ours) nor ever so judged or accounted of God.

2. Our Persons were not naturally, seminally, and virtually in Christ's Person (any further than he is Creator and Cause of all things) as they were in Adams.

3. Therefore we derive not Righteousness from him by Generation, but by his voluntary Donation or Contract.

4. As he became not our Natural Parent, so our Persons not being in Christ when he obeyed, are not reputed to have been in him naturally, or to have obeyed in and by him.

5. If Christ and we are reputed one Person, either he obeyed in our Person, or we in his, or both. If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Person of each Sinner, his Obedience could not be meritorious, according to the Law of Innocency, which required sinless Perfection; And he being supposed to have broken the Law in our Persons, could not so be supposed to keep it. If we obeyed in his Person, we obeyed as Mediators, or Christ's, of which before.

6. But as is oft said, Christ our Mediator undertook in a middle Person to reconcile God and Man, (not by bringing God erroneously to judge that he or we were what we are not, or did what we did not, but) by being, doing, and suffering for us, that in his own Person, which should better answer God's Ends and Honor, than if we had done and suffered in our Persons, that hereby he might merit a free Gift of Pardon and Life (with himself) to be given by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Accepters. And so our Righteousness, as is oft opened, is a Relation resulting at once from all these Causes as fundamental to it, viz. Christ's Meritorious Righteousness, his free Gift thereupon, and our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Believers. And this is agreed on.

Object. 8. As Christ is a Sinner by imputation of our sin, so we are Righteous, by the imputation of his Righteousness. But it is our sin itself that is imputed to Christ: Therefore it is his Righteousness itself that is imputed to us.

Answ. 1. Christ's Person was not the Subject of our personal Relative Guilt, much less of our Habits or Acts.

2. God did not judge him to have been so.

3. Nay, Christ had no Guilt of the same kind reckoned to be on him; else those unmeet Speeches, used rashly by some, would be true, viz. That Christ was the greatest Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater, Blasphemer, Thief, &c. in all the World, and consequently more hated of God, (for God must needs hate a sinner as such). To be guilty of sin as we are, is to be reputed truly to be the Person that committed it: But so was not Christ, and therefore not so to be reputed. Christ was but the Mediator that undertook to suffer for our sins, that we might be forgiven; and not for his own sin, real or justly reputed: Expositors commonly say that to be [made sin for us], is but to be made [a Sacrifice for sin]. So that Christ took upon him neither our numerical guilt of sin itself, nor any of the same species; but only our Reatum Poenae, or Debt of Punishment, or (lest the Wrangler make a verbal quarrel of it) our Reatum Culpae non qua talem & in se, sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae: And so his Righteousness is ours; not numerically the same Relation that he was the Subject of made that Relation to us; nor yet a Righteousness of the same Species as Christ's is given us at all, (for his was a Mediators Righteousness, consisting in, 1. perfect Innocency; 2. And that in the Works of the Jewish Law, which bind us not; 3. And in doing his peculiar Works, as Miracles, Resurrection, &c. which were all His Righteousness as a conformity to that Law, and performance of that Covenant, which was made with, and to him as Mediator). But his Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause and Reason of another Righteousness or Justification (distinct from his) freely given us by the Father and himself by his Covenant. So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter; And they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin itself in its formal Relation to be his own, and so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together, and they that will not overthrow the Gospel, by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind and measure, must needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controversy.

Object. 9. When you infer, That if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ, we cannot be again bound to obey ourselves afterward, nor be guilty of any sin; you must know that it's true, That we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did, (which is to redeem us, or to fulfil the Law of Works) But yet we must obey to other ends, viz. Ingratitude, and to live to God, and to do good, and other such like.

Answ. 1. This is very true, That we are not bound to obey to all the same ends that Christ did, as to redeem the World, nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency. But hence it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our Persons legally, but in the Person of a Mediator, seeing his due Obedience and ours have so different Ends, and a different formal Relation, (his being a conformity proximately to the Law, given him as Mediator) that they are not so much as of the same species, much less numerically the same.

2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by him: For else we could not be yet obliged to obey, though to other ends than he was: For either this Obedience of Gratitude is a Duty or not; If not, it is not truly Obedience, nor the omission sin: If yea, then that Duty was made a Duty by some Law: And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude (or for what ends soever) either we do all that we are so bound to do, or not. If we do it (or any of it) then to say that we did it twice, once by Christ, and once by ourselves, is to say that we were bound to do it twice, and then Christ did not all that we were bound to, but half: But what Man is he that sinneth not? Therefore seeing it is certain, that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel, (in the time and measure of his Faith, Hope, Love, Fruitfulness, &c.) it followeth that he is a sinner, and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in, both because he was bound to do it himself, and because he is a sinner for not doing it.

3. Yea, the Gospel binds us to that which Christ could not do for us, it being a Contradiction. Our great Duties are, 1. To believe in a Savior. 2. To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith. 3. To repent of our sins. 4. To mortify sinful Lusts in ourselves. 5. To fight by the Spirit against our flesh. 6. To confess ourselves sinners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want. 9. To love God for redeeming us. 10. Sacramentally to covenant with Christ, and to receive him and his Gifts; with many such like; which Christ was not capable of doing in and on his own Person for us, though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them, and pray for the pardon of our sins, as in ourselves.

4. But the Truth which this Objection intimateth, we all agree in, viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency, that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvation, (and so such Righteousness necessary in ourselves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency, and be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace, because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator, and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited, and by it Christ, Pardon, Spirit and Life, by him freely given to Believers.

Object. 10. The same Person may be really a sinner in himself, and yet perfectly innocent in Christ, and by imputation.

Answ. Remember that you suppose here the Person and Subject to be the same Man: And then that the two contrary Relations of perfect Innocency, or guiltlesness, and guilt of any, (yea much sin) can be consistent in him, is a gross contradiction. Indeed he may be guilty, and not guilty in several partial respects; but a perfection of guiltlesness excludeth all guilt. But we are guilty of many a sin after Conversion, and need a Pardon. All that you should say is this, We are sinners ourselves, but we have a Mediator that sinned not, who merited Pardon and Heaven for sinners.

2. But if you mean that God reputeth us to be perfectly innocent when we are not, because that Christ was so, it is to impute Error to God: He reputeth no Man to be otherwise than he is: But he doth indeed first give, and then impute a Righteousness Evangelical to us, instead of perfect Innocency, which shall as certainly bring us to Glory; and that is, He giveth us both the Renovation of his Spirit, (to Evangelical Obedience) and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteousness of Christ that merited it; And this thus given us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us.

§. 1. I Suppose the Reader desireth not to be wearied with an examination of all Dr. Tullius words, which are defective in point of Truth, Justice, Charity, Ingenuity, or Pertinency to the Matter, but to see an answer to those that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it, to disabuse the incautelous Readers; Though somewhat by the way may be briefly said for my own Vindication. And this Tractate being conciliatory, I think meet here to leave out most of the words, and personal part of his contendings, and also to leave that which concerneth the interest of Works (as they are pleased to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace) in our Justification, to a fitter place, viz. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Christopher Cartwright on the Subject, which Dr. Tullius Assault persuadeth me to publish.

§. 2. pag. 71. Justif. Paulin. This Learned Doctor saith, [The Scripture mentioneth no Justification in foro Dei at all, but that One, which is Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law.

Answ. 1. If this be untrue, it's pity so worthy a Man should unworthily use it against peace and concord. If it be true, I crave his help for the expounding of several Texts.

Exod. 23. 6, 7. Thou shalt not wrest the Judgment of thy Poor in his Cause: Keep thee far from a false Matter, and the Innocent and Righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked]. Is the meaning only, I will not absolve the wicked from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law (of Innocency)? Or is it not rather, [I will not misjudg the wicked to be just, nor allow his wickedness, nor yet allow thee so to do, nor leave thee unpunished for thy unrighteous judgment, but will condemn thee if thou condemn the Just].

Job 25. 4. How then can Man be justified with God? or, How can he be clean that is born of a Woman? Is the sense, [How can Man be absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law?] Or rather, [How can he be maintained Innocent?]

Psal. 143. 2. In thy sight shall no Man living be justified. Is the sense, [No Man living shall be absolved from the Maledictory sentence of the Law? Then we are all lost forever: Or rather no Man shall be found and maintained Innocent, and judged one that deserved not punishment]; (Therefore we are not judged perfect fulfillers of that Law by another or ourselves).

Object. But this is for us and against you: for it denieth that there is any such Justification.

Answ. Is our Controversy de re, or only de nomine, of the sense of the word Justify? If de re, then his meaning is to maintain, That God never doth judge a Believer to be a Believer, or a Godly Man to be Godly, or a performer of the Condition of Pardon and Life to have performed it, nor will justify any believing Saint against the false Accusations, that he is an Infidel, a wicked ungodly Man, and an Hypocrite, (or else he writeth against those that he understood not). But if the Question be (as it must be) de nomine, whether the word Justify have any sense besides that which he appropriateth to it, then a Proposition that denieth the Existentiam rei, may confute his denial of any other sense of the word.

So Isa. 43. 9, 26. Let them bring forth their Witnesses that they may justified: Declare thou that thou mayest be justified; that is, proved Innocent.

But I hope he will hear and reverence the Son; Matth. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be Justified, and by thy words thou shalt be Condemned] (speaking of God's Judgment) which I think meaneth (de re & nomine Thy Righteous or unrighteous words shall be a part of the Cause of the day, or Matter, for or according to which, thou shalt be judged obedient or disobedient to the Law of Grace, and so far just or unjust, and accordingly sentenced to Heaven or Hell, as is described Matth. 25. But it seems this Learned Doctor understands it only, By thy words th • u shalt be absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condemn • d.

Luk. 18. 14. The Publican [went down to his House justified rather than the other]; I think not only [from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law of Innocency] but [by God approved a sincere Penitent], and so a fit Subject of the other part of Justification.

Acts 13. 30. is the Text that speaketh most in the sense he mentioneth; And yet I think it includeth more, viz. By Christ, 1. we are not only absolved from that Condemnation due for our sins; 2. but also we are by his repealing or ending of the Mosaic Law justified against the Charge of Guilt for our not observing it; and 3. Augustine would add, That we are by Christ's Spirit and Grace made just (that is, sincerely Godly) by the destruction of those inherent and adherent sins, which the Law of Moses could not mortify and save us from, but the Spirit doth.

Rom. 2. 13. Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be justified]. Is it only, The Doers shall be Absolved from the Maledictory Sentence, &c? Or first and chiefly, They shall be judged well-doers, so far as they do well, and so approved and justified, so far as they do keep the Law? (which because no Man doth perfectly, and the Law of Innocency requireth Perfection, none can be justified absolutely, or to Salvation by it).

Object. The meaning is, (say some) The Doers of the Law should be justified by it; were there any such.

Answ. That's true, of absolute Justification unto Life: But that this is not all the sense of the Text, the two next Verses show, where the Gentiles are pronounced partakers of some of that which he meaneth inclusively in doing to Justification: Therefore it must include that their Actions and Persons are so far justified, (more or less) as they are Doers of the Law, as being so far actively just.

Rom. 8. 30. Whom he justified, them he also glorified; And 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Many Protestants, and among them Beza himself, expound (in the Papists and Austin's sense of Justification) as including Sanctification also, as well as Absolution from the Curse: And so Arch Bishop Usher told me • he understood them. As also Tit. 3. 7. That being justified freely by his Grace.

And many think so of Rom. 4. 5. he [justifieth the Ungodly] say they, by Converting, Pardoning, and Accepting them in Christ to Life.

And Rom. 8. 33. Who shall condemn? it is God that justifieth, seemeth to me more than barely to say, God absolveth us from the Curse, because it is set against Man's Condemnation, (who reproached, slandered and persecuted the Christians as evil Doers, as they did Christ, to whom they were predestinated to be conformed). And so must mean, God will not only absolv • us from his Curse, but also justify our Innocency against all the false Accusations of our Enemies.

And it seemeth to be spoken by the Apostle, with respect to Isa. 50. 8. He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? which my reverence to this Learned Man sufficeth not to make me believe, is taken only in his sense of Absolution.

Rev. 22. 11. He that is Righteous, let him be justified still, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) which not only our Translators, but almost all Expositors take as inclusive of Inherent Righteousness, if not principally speaking of it.

To speak freely, I remember not one Text of Scripture that useth the word [Justify] in this Doctor's sense; that is, Only for the said absolution from the Curse of the Law: For all those other Texts that speak for Justification by Christ's Grace, and Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, (as Rom. 3. 20, 24, 28, 30. and 4. 2, 5, 25. & 5. 1, 9, 16, 18. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 2. 16, 17. & 3. 8, 11, 24. & 5. 4, &c.) do all seem to me to mean, not only that [we are absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law], but also that we are first made, and then accounted Persons first meet for Absolution, and next meet for God's Acceptance of us as just, and as Heirs of Life Eternal, and meet for the great Reward in Heaven: For when the Apostle denieth Justification by Works; it is not credible that he meaneth only, that [By the Works of the Law no Man is absolved from the Curse of the Law]; But also, No Man by the Works of the Law, is before God taken for a Performer of the necessary Condition of Absolution and Salvation, nor fit for his Acceptance, and for the Heavenly Reward.

Answ. 2. But let the Reader here note, that the Doctor supposeth James to mean, that [By Works a Man is absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and not by Faith only]. For that James speaks of Justification in foro Dei is past all doubt: And who would have thought that the Doctor had granted this of the Text of James? But mistakes seldom agree among themselves.

Answ. 3. And would not any Man have thought that this Author had pleaded for such an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, as justifieth not only from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, but also from the very guilt of sin as sin, we being reputed, (not only pardoned sinners, but) perfect fulfillers of the Law by Christ, and so that we are in Christ conform to the Fac hoc or preceptive part commanding Innocency? Who would have thought but this was his drift? If it be not, all his angry Opposition to me, is upon a mistake so foul, as reverence forbids me to name with its proper Epithers: If it be, how can the same Man hold, That we are justified as in Christ, conform to the Precept of perfect Innocency? And yet that The Scripture mentioneth no Justification at all, in foro Dei, besides that one, which is Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law. But still mistakes have discord with themselves.

Answ. 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Gataker, Wotton, Piscator, Pareus, Ursine, Wendeline, and abundance other excellent Divines, that as sins of omission are truly sin, and poena damni, or privations truly punishment; so for a sinner for his sin to be denied God's Love and Favor, Grace and Glory, is to be punished; and to be pardoned, is to have this privative punishment remitted as well as the rest; and so that Justification containeth our Right to Glory, as it is the bare forgiveness of the penalty of sin; because Death and Life, Darkness and Light are such Contraries, as that one is but the privation of the other: But this Learned Doctor seemeth to be of the commoner Opinion, that the Remission of Sin is but one part of our Justification, and that by Imputation of perfect Holiness and Obedience we must have another part, which is our Right to the Reward; (and I think a little Explication would end that difference). But doth he here then agree with himself? And to contradict the common way of those with whom he joineth? Do they not hold that Justification is more than an Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law?

Answ. 5. But indeed his very Description by Absolution is utterly ambiguous: 1. Absolution is either by Actual Pardon, by the Law or Covenant of Grace; which giveth us our Right to Impunity: 2. Or by Sentence of the Judge, who publicly decideth our Case, and declareth our Right determinatively: Or by execution of that Sentence in actual delivering us from penalty; And who knoweth which of these he meaneth? This is but confusion, to describe by an unexplained equivocal word.

And who knoweth what Law he meaneth, whose Maledictory Sentence Justification absolveth us from? Doth he think that the Law of Innocency, and of Moses, and the Law of Grace are all one, which Scripture so frequently distinguisheth? Or that each of them hath not its Malediction? If he deny this, I refer him to my full proof of it, to Mr. Cartwright and elsewhere. If not, we should know whether he mean all, or which.

3. And what he meaneth by the Sentence of the Law is uncertain: Whether it be the Laws Commination, as obliging us to punishment, which is not a Sentence in the usual proper sense, but only a virtual Sentence, that is, the Norma Judicis; or whether he mean the Sentence of God as Judge, according to the Law: which is not the Sentence of the Law properly, but of the Judge: It's more intelligible speaking, and distinct, that must edify us, and end those Controversies which ambiguities and confusion bred and feed.

Answ. 6. But which-ever he meaneth, most certainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth no other Justification in foro Dei. For many of the fore-cited Texts tell us, that it oft mentioneth a Justification, which is no Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence, (neither of the Law of Innocency, of Moses, or of Grace) but a Justification of a Man's innocence in tantum, or quoad Causam hanc particularem, Viz.

1. Sometimes a Justifying the Righteous Man against the slanders of the World, or of his Enemies.

2. Sometimes a justifying a Man in someone action, as having dealt faithfully therein.

3. Sometimes a judging a Man to be a faithful Godly Man, that performeth the Conditions of Life in the Law of Grace made necessary to God's Acceptance.

4. Sometimes for making a Man such, or for making him yet more inherently just, or continuing him so.

5. Sometimes for Justification by the Apology of an Advocate, (which is not Absolution).

6. Sometimes for Justification by Witness.

7. And sometimes, perhaps, by Evidence. As appeareth, Isa 50. 8. Rom. 8. 33. (and so God himself is said to be justified, Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. and Christ, 1 Tim. 3. 16.) 1 King. 8. 32. Hear thou in Heaven, and do, and judge thy Servants, condemning the Wicked to bring his way upon his Head; and justifying the Righteous, to give him according to his Righteousness, (where the Sentence is passed by the Act of Execution). Is this absolving him from the Curse of the Law? So 1 Chron. 6. 23. so Mat. 12. 37. & Jam. 2. 21, 24, 25. where Justification by our Words and by Works is asserted; and many other Texts so speak: Frequently to Justify, is to maintain one, or prove him to be just. It's strange that any Divine should find but one sort or sense of Justification before God mentioned in the Scriptures.

I would give here to the Reader, a help for some excuse of the Author, viz. that by [praeter unam illam quae est Absolutio] he might mean, which is partly Absolution, and partly Acceptation, as of a fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Christ, and partly Right to the Reward, all three making up the whole; but that I must not teach him how to speak his own mind, or think that he knew not how to utter it; And specially, because the Instances here prove that even so it is very far from Truth, had he so spoken.

Answ. 7. But what if the word [Justification] had been found only as he affirmed? If Justice, (Righteousness) and Just, be otherwise used, that's all one in the sense, and almost in the word; seeing it is confessed, that to Justify, is, 1. To make Just; 2. Or to esteem Just; 3. Or sentence Just; 4. Or to prove Just, and defend as Just; 5. Or to use as Just by execution. And therefore in so many senses as a Man is called Just in Scripture, he is inclusively, or by connotation, said to be Justified, and Justifiable, and Justificandus. And I desire no more of the Impartial Reader, but to turn to his Concordances, and peruse all the Texts where the words [Just, Justice, Justly, Righteous, Righteousness, Righteously] are used; and if he find not that they are many score, if not hundred times used, for that Righteousness which is the Persons Relation resulting from some Acts or Habits of his own, (as the Subject or Agent) and otherwise than according to his solitary sense here, let him then believe this Author.

§. 3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs, as in his singular untrue Assertion:

Answ. 1. Reader, do you believe that these two Texts are a perfect Enumeration. And that if these mention but one sense or sort of Justification, that it will follow that no more is mentioned in Scripture: Or if many hundred other Texts have the same sense?

2. Nay, he hath chosen only these Texts where the word [Justification] or [Justify] is not at all found. By which I may suppose that he intendeth the Controversy here de re, and not de nomine. And is that so? Can any Man that ever considerately opened the Bible, believe that de re no such Thing is mentioned in Scripture. 1. As making a Man a believing Godly Man. 2. Or as performing the Conditions of Life required of us in the Covenant of Grace. 3. Nor esteeming a Man such. 4. Nor defending or proving him to be such. 5. Nor judging him such decisively. 6. Nor using him as such. 7. Nor as justifying a Man so far as he is Innocent and Just against all false Accusation of Satan or the World.

3. The first Text cited by him, Rom. 8. 24. downright contradicts him: Not only Augustine, but divers Protestant Expositors suppose, that by the Law of the Spirit of Life is meant, either the quickening Spirit itself given to us that are in Christ, or the Gospel, as it giveth that Spirit into us; And that by delivering us from the Law of Sin, is meant either from that sin which is as a Law within us, or Moses Law, as it forbiddeth and commandeth all its peculiarities, and so maketh doing or not doing them sin; and as it declareth sin, yea, and accidentally irritateth it: Yea, that by the Law of Death is meant, not only that Law we are cursed by, and so guilty, but chiefly that Law, as it is said Rom. 7. to kill Paul, and to occasion the abounding of sin, and the Life of it: And that by [the fulfilling of the Law in us, that walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit], is meant [that by the Spirit and Grace of Christ, Christians do fulfil the Law, as it requireth sincere Holiness, Sobriety and Righteousness, which God accepteth for Christ's sake; which the Law of Moses, without Christ's Spirit, enabled no Man to fulfil]. Not to weary the Reader with citing Expositors, I now only desire him to peruse, Ludov. de Dieu on the Text.

And it is certain, that the Law that Paul there speaketh of, was Moses Law: And that he is proving all along, that the observation of it was not necessary to the Gentiles, to their performance, or Justification and Salvation, (necessitate praecepti vel medii); (for it would not justify the Jews themselves). And sure, 1. all his meaning is not, [The Law will not absolve Men from the sense of the Law]. But also its Works will give no one the just title of a Righteous Man, accepted of God, and saved by him, as judging between the Righteous and the wicked: (as Christ saith, Matth. 25. The Righteous shall go into Everlasting Life, &c.) 2. And if it were only the Maledictory Sentence of Moses Law, as such, that Paul speaketh of Absolution from, as our only Justification, then none but Jews and Proselytes who were under that Law, could have the Justification by Faith which he mentioneth; for it curseth none else: For whatever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law: The rest of the World were only under the Law of lapsed Nature, (the relicts of Adam 's Law of Innocency) and the Curse for Adam 's first Violation; and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noah, and after perfected fullier by Christ in its second Edition.

2. His other Text [Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law] proveth indeed that all Believers are redeemed from the Curse of the first Law of Innocency, and the Jews from the Curse of Moses Law (which is it that is directly meant): But what's that to prove that these words speak the whole and the only Justification? and that the Scripture mentioneth no other?

§. 4. He addeth, [Lex est quae prohibit; Lex quae poen • m decernit; Lex quae irrogat: Peccatum est transgressio Legis: Poena effectus istius trangressionis; Justificatio denique absolutio ab ista poena: Itaque cum Lex nisi praestita neminem Justificat, & praestitam omnes in Christo agnoscunt, aut Legalis erit omnis Justificatio coram Deo, aut omnino nulla].

Answ. 1. But doth he know but one sort of Law of God? Hath every Man incurred the Curse by Moses Law that did by Adams? Or every Man fallen under the peremptory irreversible condemnation which the Law of Grace passeth on them that never believe and repent? Doth this Law, [He that believeth not shall be damned] damn Believers? One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent. Another supposeth them under that defect, and condemneth peremptorily (not every Sinner) but the Wicked and Unbelievers.

2. Again here he saith, [Justification is Absolution from that Penalty]. But is a Man absolved (properly) from that which he was never guilty of? Indeed if he take Absolution so loosely as to signify, the justifying a Man against a false Accusation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty; So all the Angels in Heaven may possibly be capable of Absolution: Justification is ordinarily so used, but Absolution seldom by Divines. And his words show that this is not his sense, if I understand them. But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Christ, and yet Justification is our Absolution from the Curse, then no Man is justified that is Righteous by that Imputation.

3. And how unable is my weak Understanding, to make his words at peace with themselves? The same Man in the next lines saith, [Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat: and all Justification before God must be legal or none]; so that no Man is justified but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law: And yet Justification is our Absolution from the Punishment and Malediction of the Law; As if he said, No Man is justified but by the pardon of that sin which he is reputed never to have had, and Absolution from that Curse and Punishment which he is reputed never to have deserved or been under. Are these things reconcilable? But if really he take Absolution for justifying or acquitting from a false Accusation, and so to be absolved from the Malediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that never deserved it, or was under it, then it's as much as to say, that there is no pardon of sin, or that no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Pardon, is justified.

4. All this and such Speeches would persuade the Reader that this Learned Disputer thinketh that I took and use the word [Legal] generally as of that which is related to any Law in genere, and so take Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, that (speaking in the usual Language that I may be understood) I take [Legal] specially (and not generally) for that Righteousness which is related to the Law of Works or Innocency, (not as if we had indeed such a Righteousness as that Law will justify us for; But a pro-Legal-Righteousness, one instead of it, in and by our perfect Savior, which shall effectually save us from that Laws condemnation): And that by [Evaugelical Righteousness], I mean, that which is related to the Law of Grace, as the Rule of Judgment, upon the just pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but justify us. If he knew this to be my meaning, in my weak judgment, he should not have written either as if he did not, or as if he would persuade his Rsaders to the contrary: For Truth is most congruously defended by Truth: But if he knew it not, I despair of becoming intelligible to him, by anything that I can write, and I shall expect that this Reply be wholly lost to him and worse.

5. His [Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat] is true; and therefore no Man is justified by the Law, But his next words [& praestitam omnes in Christo agnoscunt] seemeth to mean that [It was performed by us in Christ]; Or that [It justifieth us, because performed perfectly by Christ as such]: Which both are the things that we most confidently deny. It was not Physically, or Morally, or Politically, or Legally, or Reputatively, (take which word you will) fulfilled by us in Christ: it doth not justify us, because it was fulfilled by Christ, (as such, or immediately, and eo nomine). It justified Christ, because he fulfilled it; and so their Law doth all the perfect Angels. But we did not personally fulfil it in Christ; it never allowed vicarium obedientiae to fulfil it by our selves or another: Therefore another's Obedience, merely as such, (even a Mediators) is not our Obedience or Justification: But that Obedience justifieth us, as given us only in or to the effecting of our Personal Righteousness, which consisteth in our right to Impunity, and to God's Favor and Life, freely given for Christ's Merits sake, and in our performance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace, or that free Gift, which is therefore not a co-ordinate but a sub-ordinate Righteousness (and Justification) to qualify us for the former. This is so plain and necessary, that if (in sense) it be not understood by all that are admitted to the Sacramental Communion, (excepting Verbal Controversies or Difficulties) I doubt we are too lax in our admissions.

§. 5. Next he tells us of a threefold respect of Justification: 1. Ex parte principii. 2. Termini. 3. Medii: (I find myself uncapeable of teaching him, that is a Teacher of such as I, and therefore presume not to tell him how to distinguish more congruously, plainly, and properly, as to the terms). And as to the Principle or Fountain whence it floweth, that is, Evangelical Grace in Christ, he saith, It is thus necessary, that in our lapsed State all Justification be Evangelical].

Answ. Who would desire a sharper or a softer, a more dissenting or a more consenting Adversary? Very good: If then I mean it ex parte principii, I offend him not by asserting Evangelical Righteousness: The Controversy then will be only de nomine, whether it be congruous thus to call it. And really are his Names and Words put into our Creed, and become so necessary as to be worthy of all the stress that he laycth on them, and the calling up the Christian World to arrive by their Zeal against our Phrase? Must the Church be awakened to rise up against all thos • that will say with Christ, [By thy words thou shalt be justified]. And with James, [By Works a Man is justified, and not by Faith only], and [we are judged by the Law of Liberty], and as Christ, Joh. 5. 22. [The Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son]; and that shall recite the 25th Chapter of Matthew.

Even now he said at once, [There is no Justification in foro Dei, but Absolution, &c. The Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us, &c. Here is no mention of any Justification but Legal]. And now [All our Justification ex parte principii, is only Evangelical]. So then no Text talks of Evangelical Justification, or of Justification ex parte principii: And Absolution which defineth i • , is named ex parte principii. And yet all Justification is Evangelical. Is this mode of Teaching worthy a Defense by a Theological War?

2. But Reader, Why may not I denominate Justification ex parte principii? Righteousness is formally a Relation: To justify constitutively, is to make Righteous. To be Justified, (or Justification in sensu passivo) is to be made Righteous; And in foro, to be judged Righteous: And what meaneth he by Principium as to a Relation, but that which other Men call the Fundamentum, which is loco Efficientis, or a remote efficient? And whence can a Relation be more fitly named, than from the fundamentum, whence it hath its formal being? Reader, bear with my Error, or correct it, if I mistake. I think that as our Righteousness is not all of one sort, no more is the fundamentum: 1. I think I have no Righteousness, whose immediate fundamentum is my sinless Innocency, or fulfilling the Law of Works or Innocency, by myself or another: and so I have no fundamentum of such. 2. I hope I have a Righteousness consisting in my personal Right to Impunity and Life; and that Jus or Right is mine by the Title of free Condonation and Donation by the Gospel-Covenant or Grant: And so that Grant or Gospel is the fundamentum of it: But the Merits of Christ's Righteousness purchased that Gift, and so those Merits are the remote fundamentum or efficient: And thus my Justification, by the Doctor's confession, is Evangelical. 3. I must perish if I have not also a subordinate personal Righteousness, consisting in my performance of those Conditions on which the New-Covenant giveth the former. And the fundamentum of this Righteousness is the Reality of that performance, as related to the Irrogation, Imposition, or Tenor of the Covenant, making this the Condition. This is my Heresy, if I be heretical; and be it right or wrong, I will make it intelligible, and not by saying and unsaying, involve all in confusion.

§. 6. He addeth, [Ex parte Termini Legalis est, quia terminatur in satisfaction, Legi praestandâ: Liberavit me à Lege mortis, &c. And hence, he saith, the denomination is properly taken.

Answ. 1. The Reader here seeth that all this Zeal is exercised in a Game at Words, or Logical Notions; and the Church must be called for the umpirage, to stand by in Arms to judge that he hath won the Day: What if the denomination be properly to be taken from the Terminus? Is it as dangerous as you frightfully pretend to take it aliunde? • . But stay a little: Before we come to this, we most crave help to understand what he talketh of: Is it, 1. Justificatio, Justificans (active sumpta)? Or, 2. Justificatio Justificati (passive)? 3. Or Justitia?

1. The first is Actio, and the Terminus of that Action is twofold. 1. The Object or Patient (a believing Sinner). 2. The Effect, Justificatio passive, neither of these is the Law, or its Malediction. But which of these is it that we must needs name it from?

2. The passive or effective Justification is in respect of the Subjects Reception called Passio: In respect of the form received, it is as various as I before mentioned.

1. The Effect of the Donative Justification of the Law of Grace, is Justitia data; a Relation (oft described).

2. The Effect of the Spirits giving us Inherent Righteousness, is a Quality given, Acts excited, and a Relation thence resulting.

3. The Effect of Justification per sententiam Judicis, is immediately a Relation, Jus Judicatum.

4. The Effect of an Advocates Justification, is Justitia & persona ut defensa seu vindicata.

5. The Effect of Executive Justification, is Actual Impunity or Liberation. And are all these one Terminus, or hence one name then? These are the Termini of Justificatio Justificantis, ut Actionis; and nothing of this nature can be plaandiacute;ner, than that, 1. Remission of sin (passively taken) the Reatus or Obligatio ad poenam, (the first ad quem, and the second à quo) are both the immediate Termini of our Act of Justification. 2. That the Terminus Justitiae, as it is the formal Relation of a Justified Person, as such, is the Law as Norma Actionum, as to Righteous Actions, and the Law or Covenant, as making the Condition of Life, as to those Actions, suh ration Conditionis & Tituli. And the Promissory and Minatory part of the Law, as Justitia is Jus praemii, & impunitatis. First, The Actions, and then the Person are Just in Relation to the Law or Covenant, by which their Actions and they are to be judged. But the remoter Terminus is the malum à quo, and the bonum ad quod. And as à quo, it is not only the evil denounced, but also the Reatus, or Obligation to it, and the efficacious Act of the Law thus cursing, and the Accusation of the Actor or Accuser, (real or possible) that is such a terminus.

II. But when he saith, Ex parte Termini Legalis est, either still he taketh legal generally, as comprehending the Law of Innocency, of Works, and of Grace, or not. If he do, I must hope he is more intelligent and just, than to insinuate to his Reader, that I ever mention an Evangelical Justification that is not so legal, as to be denominated from the Law of Grace, as distinct from that of Works: If not, he was indebted to his intelligent Reader for some proof, that no Man is justified against this false Accusation; [Thou art by the Law of Grace the Heir of a far sorer punishment, for despising the Remedy, and not performing the Conditions of Pardon and Life. And also for this thou hast no right to Christ, and the Gifts of his Covenant of Grace]. But no such proof is found in his Writings, nor can be given.

III. But his [Quia Terminatur in satisfaction Legi praestanda]. I confess it is a Sentence not very intelligible or edifying to me. 1. Satisfactio proprie & strict sic dicta differt à solutione ejusdem quod sit, solutio aequivalentis alias indebite: Which of these he meaneth, Satisfaction thus strictly taken, or solutio ejusdem, I know not: Nor know what it is that he meaneth by Legi praestandà: Indeed solutio ejusdem is Legi praestanda, but not praestita by us (personally or by another): For we neither kept the Law, nor bare the full Penalty; And the Law mentioned no Vicarium Obedientiae aut poenae; Christ performed the Law, as it obliged himself as Mediator, and as a Subject, but not as it obliged us; for it obliged us to Personal performance only: And Christ by bearing that Punishment (in some respects) which we deserved, satisfied the Law-giver, (who had power to take a Commutation) but not the Law: unless speaking improperly you will say that the Law is satisfied, when the remote ends of the Law-giver and Law are obtained. For the Law hath but one fixed sense, and may be itself changed, but changeth not itself, nor accepteth a tantundem: And Christ's suffering for us, was a fulfilling of the Law, which peculiarly bound him to suffer, and not a Satisfaction loco solutionis ejusdem: And it was no fulfilling the Penal part of the Law as it bound us to suffer: For so it bound none but us; so that the Law as binding us to Duty or Suffering, was neither fulfilled, nor strictly satisfied by Christ; but the Law-giver satisfied, and the remote ends of the Law attained, by Christ's perfect fulfilling all that Law which bound himself as Mediator.

Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Punishment, or both, and what by satisfaction I am not sure: But as far as I can make sense of it, it seeneth to mean, that Poena is satisfactio loco obedientiae, and that Punishment being our Due, this was satisfactio Legi praestandâ, (for he saith not Praestita). But then he must judge that we are justified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfect Obedience. And this will not stand with the scope of other Passages, where he endureth not my Opinion, that we are not justified by the fac hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Reatus Culpae in se, but by Christ's whole Righteousness from the Reatus ut ad paenam.

2. But if this be his sense, he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus à quo, that Justification is properly denominated from. And why so? 1. As Justitia and Justificatio passive sumpta, vel ut effectus, is Relatio, it hath necessarily no Terminus à quo; And certainly is in specie, to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quem. And as Justification is taken for the Justifiers Action; why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus ad quem, as à quo? Justificatio efficiens sic dicitur, quia Justum facit: Justificatio apologetica, quia Justum vindicate vel probat. Justificatio per sententiam, quia Justum aliquem esse Judicat: Justificatio executiva, quia ut Justum eum tractat.

But if we must needs denominate from the Terminus à quo, how strange is it that he should know but of one sense of Justification?

3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, [In satisfaction Legi praestitâ, though he say praestandâ, and so denominateth from the Terminus à quo: But if so, 1. Then it cannot be true: For satisfacere & Justificare are not the same thing, nor is Justifying giving Satisfaction; nor were we justified when Christ had satisfied, but long after: Nor are we justified eo nomine, because Christ satisfied, (that is, immediately) but because he gave us that Jus ad impunitatem & vitam & spiritum sanctum, which is the Fruit of his Satisfaction. 2. And as is said, if it be only in satisfaction, then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it bound us: for to satisfy for not fulfilling, is not to fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is justified, for no Man hath satisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law, by himself or another: But Christ hath satisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for sin.

His Liberavit nos à Lege Mortis, I before shown impertinent to his use, Is Liberare & Justificare. or Satisfacere all one? And is à Lege Mortis, either from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the sole malcdiction? There be other Acts of Liberation besides Satisfaction: For it is [The Law of the Spirit of Life] that doth it: And we are freed both from the power of indwelling-sin, (called a Law) and from the Mosaical Yoak, and from the Impossible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.

§. 7. He addeth a Third, Ex parte Medii, quod est Justitia Christi Legalis nobis per sidem Imputata: Omnem itaque Justificationem proprie Legalem esse constat.

Answ. 1. When I read that he will have but one sense or sort of Justification, will yet have the Denomination to be ex termino, and so justifieth my distinction of it, according to the various Termini; And here how he maketh the Righteousness of Christ to be but the MEDIUM of our Justification, (though he should have told us which sort of Medium he meaneth) he seemeth to me a very favorable consenting Adversary: And I doubt those Divines who maintain that Christ's Rignteousness is the Causa Formalis of our Justification, (who are no small ones, nor a few, though other in answer to the Papists disclaim it) yea, and those that make it but Causa Materialis, (which may have a sound sense) will think this Learned Man betrayeth their Cause by prevarication, and seemeth to set fiercly against me, that he may yield up the Cause with less suspicion. But the truth is, we all know but in part, and therefore err in part, and Error is inconsistent with itself. And as we have conflicting Flesh and Spirit in the Will, so have we conflicting Light and Darkness, Spirit and Flesh in the Understanding; And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book, that in one line the Flesh and Darkness saith one thing, and in the next oft the Spirit and Light saith the contrary, and seeth not the inconsistency: And so though the dark and fleshy part rise up in wrathful striving Zeal against the Concord and Peace of Christians, on pretence that other Men's Errors wrong the Truth, yet I doubt not but Love and Unity have some interest in his lucid and Spiritual part. We do not only grant him that Christ's Righteousness is a Medium of our Justification, (for so also is Faith a Condition, and Dispositio Receptiva being a Medium); nor only some Cause, (for so also is the Covenant-Donation); but that it is an efficient meritorious Cause, and because if Righteousness had been that of our own, Innocency would have been founded in Merit, we may call Christ's Righteousness the material Cause of our Justification, remotely, as it is Materia Meriti, the Matter of the Merit which procureth it.

2. But for all this it followeth not that all Justification is only Legal, as Legal noteth its respect to the Law of Innocency: For 1. we are justified from or against che Accusation of being non-performers of the Condition of the Law of Grace; 2. And of being therefore unpardoned, and liable to its sorer Penalty. 3. Our particular subordinate Personal Righteousness consisting in the said performance of those Evangelical Conditions of Life, is so denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace, (as it instituteth its own Condition) as the measure of it, (as Rectitudo ad Regulam). 4. Our Jus ad impunitatem & vitam, resulteth from the Donative Act of the Law or Covenant of Grace, as the Titulus qui est Fundamentum Juris, or supposition of our Faith as the Condition. 5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judicis, by which we shall be judged at the Last Day. 6. The same Judge doth now per sententiam conceptam judge of us, as he will then judge per sententiam prolatam. 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law, this same Law of Grace, which in primo instanti doth make us Righteous, (by Condonation and Donation of Right) doth in secundo instanti, virtually justify us as containing that regulating use, by which we are to be sententially justified. And now judge Reader, whether no Justification be Evangelical, or by the Law of Grace, and so to be denominated: (for it is lis de nomine that is by him managed). 8. Besides that the whole frame of Causes in the Work of Redemption, (the Redeemer, his Righteousness, Merits, Sacrifice, Pardoning Act, Intercession, &c.) are sure rather to be called Matters of the Gospel, than of the Law.

And yet we grant him easily; 1. That Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency, and was justified thereby, and that we are justified by that Righteousness of his, as the meritorious Cause. 2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death, according to the tenor of that Law, and that Guilt being remitted by Christ, as aforesaid, we are therefore justified from that Law, (that is, from its Obligation of us to Innocency as the necessary terms of Life, and from its Obligation of us to Death, for want of Innocency): But we are not justified by that Law, either as fulfilled or as satisfied by us ourselves, either personally or by an Instrument, substitute or proper Representative, that was Vicarius Obedientiae aut poenae. 3. And we grant that the Jews were delivered from the positive Jewish Law, which is it that Paul calleth, The Law of Works. And if he please, in all these respects to call Justification Legal, we intend not to quarrel with the name, (though what I called Legal in those Aphorisms, I chose ever after to call rather, Justitia pro-legalis). But we cannot believe him, 1. That it is only Legal; 2. Or that that is the only (or most) proper denomination.

§. 8. He proceedeth thus, [And it will be vain, if any argue, That yet none can be saved without Evangelical Works, according to which it is confessed that all men shall be judged: for the distinction is easy (which the Author of the Aphorisms somewhere useth) between the first or Private, and the last or Public Justification. In the first sense it is never said, That Works justify, but contrary, That God justifieth him that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5. In the latter we confess that Believers are to be justified according to Works, but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Justification maketh men just before God, but only so pronounceth them.

Answ. 1. This is such another Consenting Adversary as once before I was put to answer; who with open mouth calls himself consequentially what he calleth me; if the same Cause, and not the Person make the Guilt. Nay let him consider whether his grand and most formidable Weapon [So also saith Bellarmine, with other Papists] do not wound himself: For they commonly say, That the first Justification is not of Works, or Works do not first justify us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papists? If not, let him use better Arguments himself.

2. But why is the first Justification called Private? Either he meaneth God's mak • ng us just constitutively, or his judging us so: and that per sententiam conceptam only, or prolatam also.

1. The common distinction in Politicks, inter judicium Privatum & Publicum, is fetched from the Judge, who is either Persona privata vel publica: a private Man, or an authorized Judge judging as such: And so the Judgment of Conscience, Friends, Enemies, Neighbors, mere Arbitrators, &c. is Judicium privatum; and that of a Judge in foro, is Judicium publicum, (yea, or in secret, before the concerned Parties only in his Closet, so it be decisive): If this Learned Doctor so understand it, then, 1. Constitutive Justification (which is truly first) is public Justification, being done by God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who sure are not herein private authorized Persons. 2. And the first sentential Justification, as merely Virtual, and not yet Actual, viz. as it's virtually in the Justifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is public in suo genere, being the virtus of a Public Law of God, or of his Donative Promise. 3. And the first Actual Justification, per Deum Judicem per sententiam conceptam (which is God's secret judging the Thing and Person to be as they are) is (secret indeed in se, yet revealed by God's public Word but) public as to the Judge. 4. And the first sententia prolata (the fourth in order) is someway public as opposite to secrecy, (for, 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven; 2. And in part by Executive demonstrations on Earth): But it is certainly by a public Judge, that is, God. 5. And the first Apologetical Justification by Christ our Interceding Advocate, is public both quoad personam, and as openly done in Heaven: And if this worthy Person deny any Justification per sententiam Judicis, upon our first Believing, or before the final Judgment, he would woefully fall out with the far greatest number of Protestants, and especially his closest Friends, who use to make a Sentence of God as Judge to be the Genus to Justification.

But if by [Private and Public Justification]; he means [secret and open]. 1. How can he hope to be understood when he will use Political Terms unexplained, out of the usual sense of Politicians: But no men use to abuse words more than they that would keep the Church in flames by wordy Controversies, as if they were of the terms of Life and Death. 2. And even in that sense our first Justification is public or open, quoad Actum Justificancantis, as being by the Donation of a public Word of God; Though quoad effectum in recipiente, it must needs be secret till the Day of Judgment, no Man knowing another's Heart, whether he be indeed a sound Believer: And so of the rest as is intimated.

Concerning what I have said before, some may Object, 1. That there is no such thing as our Justification notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2. That the Sententia Concepta is God's Immanent Acts, and therefore Eternal.

Answ. To the first, I say, 1. It is certain by Luk. 15. 10. that the Angels know of the Conversion of a Sinner, and therefore of his Justification and publicly Rejoice therein. Therefore it is notified to them. 2. But I refer the Reader for this, to what I have said to Mr. Tombes in my Disputation of Justification, where I do give my thoughts, That this is not the Justification by Faith meant by Paul, as Mr. Tombes asserteth it to be.

To the Second, I say, Too many have abused Theology, by the misconceiving of the distinction of Immanent and Transient Acts of God, taking all for Immanent which effect nothing ad extra. But none are properly Immanent quoad Objectum, but such as God himself is the Object of, (as se intelligere, se amare): An Act may be called indeed immanent in any of these three respects; 1. Ex parte Agentis; 2. Ex parte Objecti; 3. Ex parte effectus. 1. Ex parte agentis, all God's Acts are Immanent, for they are his Essence. 2. Ex parte Objecti vel Termini, God's Judging a Man Just or Unjust, Good or Bad, is transient; because it is denominated from the state of the Terminus or Object: And so it may be various and mutable denominatively, notwithstanding God's Simplicity and Immutability. And so the Sententia Concepta is not ab Aeterno. 3. As to the Effect, all confess God's Acts to be Transient and Temporary. But there are some that effect not (as to judge a thing to be what it is).

3. Either this Militant Disputer would have his Reader believe that I say, That a Man is justified by Works, in that which he called [making just, and the first Justification], or not: If he would, such untruth and unrighteousness (contrary to the full drift of many of my Books, and even that which he selected to oppose) is not a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness: nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest. If not, then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me, in a militant strain, persuading his Reader, that I savor of Socinianism or Popery, or some dangerous Error, by saying the very same that he saith. O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for supposed Orthodoxness, that like noctambuli, will rise in their sleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an Alarm on their Drums, and cry out, The Enemy, The Enemy, and will not let their Neighbors rest!

I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings (upon such repeated importunities of others) these following, Assertions about Works.

1. That we are never justified, first or last, by Works of Innocency.

2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law (which Paul pleadeth against).

3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of Commutative Justice, or of distributive Governing Justice, according to either of those Laws (of Innocency, or Jewish).

4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man, which are set against or instead of the least part of God's Acts, Christ's Merits, or any of his part or honor.

5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangelical Works of Love, Gratitude or Obedience to Christ, as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance.

6. Nor are we justified by Repentance, as by an instrumental efficient Cause, or as of the same receiving Nature with Faith, except as Repentance signifieth our change from Unbelief to Faith, and so is Faith itself.

7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act, or moral good Work.

8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification.

9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men, as are without true love to God.

10. And least of all, by Popish bad Works, called Good, (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Austerities, &c.)

But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS, and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith, but the belief of the Promise (as some) or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or imputed to us, as in se, our own (as others) or [the Recumbency on this Righteousness] (as others) or all these three Acts (as others); and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the proper Instrumental Cause; and next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul, or by this Faith in any other respect, is to trust to that Justification by Works, which Paul confuteth, and to fall from Grace, I do detest such corrupting and abusing of the Scriptures, and the Church of Christ. And I assert as followeth;

1. That the Faith which we are justified by, doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person, Office, Death, Resurrection, Intercession, &c. as of the Promise of Imputation.

2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching, Government, Intercession, as to Imputation.

3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spirit, and promised Glory, as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ.

4. Yea, that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Initial Love to God, to Christ, to Recovery, to Glory; that is, of Volition; and so of Desire.

6. That it containeth all that Faith, which is necessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant; even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and is our Christianity itself.

7. That we are justified by this Faith, as it is [A moral Act of Man, adapted to its proper Office, made by our Redeemer, the Condition of his Gift of Justification, and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject, or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Recipientis]: Where the Matter of it is [An adapted moral Act of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio formalis of its Interest in our Justification is [Conditio praestita] speaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva] speaking logically; which Dr. Twisse still calleth Causa dispositiva.

8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith, (in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo (principally).

9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued, as well as initially justified by its first Act.

10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to future Obedience, (that is, Subjection) so the performance of that consent in sincere Obedience, is the Condition of our Justification as continued (Secondarily) as well as Faith (or consent itself) primarily: And that thus James meaneth, that we are Justified by Works.

11. That God judging of all things truly as they are, now judgeth Men just or unjust, on these Terms.

12. And his Law being Norma judicii, now virtually judgeth us just on these terms.

13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by, we shall at the last Judgment also be judged (and so justified) thus far by or according to our sincere Love, Obedience, or Evangelical Works, as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace, which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified, by and for the Merits, perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ, which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justification and Adoption, before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever.

Reader, Forgive me this troublesome oft repeating the state of the Controversy; I meddle with no other. If this be Justification by Works, I am for it. If this Doctor be against it, he is against much of the Gospel. If he be not, he had better have kept his Bed, than to have called us to Arms in his Dream, when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words. For my part, I think that such a short explication of our sense, and rejection of ambiguities, is fitter to end these quarrels, than the long disputations of Confounders.

4. But when be saith, [Works make not a Man just, and yet we are at last justified according to them], it is a contradiction, or unsound. For if he mean Works in the sense excluded by Paul, we are not justified according to them, viz. such as make, or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt: But if he take Works in the sense intended by James, sincere Obedience is a secondary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent personal Righteousness, required by the Law of Grace, in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness; And what Christian can deny this? So far it maketh us Righteous, (as Faith doth initially). And what is it to be justified according to our Works, but to be judged, so far as they are sincerely done, to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life?

5. His [According] but not [ex operibus] at the Last Judgment, is but a Logomachie [According] signifieth as much as I assert: But [ex] is no un • pt Preposition, when it is but the subordinate part of Righteousness and Justification, of which we speak, and signifieth (with me) the same as [According].

6. His Tropical Phrase, that [Works pronounce us just] is another ambiguity: That the Judge will pronounce us just according to them, as the foresaid second part of the Constitutive Cause, or Matter of our Subordinate Righteousness, is certain from Matth. 25. and the scope of Scripture: But that they are only notifying Signs, and no part of the Cause of the day to be tried, is not true, (which too many assert).

§. 9. He proceedeth, [If there be an Evangelical Justification at God's Bar, distinct from the legal one, there will then also be in each an absolution of divers sins: For if the Gospel forgive the same sins as the Law, the same thing will be done, and a double Justification will be unprofitable and idle. If from divers sins, then the Law forbids not the same things as the Gospel, &c.]

Answ. It's pity such things should need any Answer.

1. It's a false Supposition, That all Justification is Absolution from sin: To justify the sincerity of our Faith and Holiness, is one act or part of our Justification, against all (possible or actual) false Accusation.

2. The Law of Innocency commanded not the Believing Acceptance of Christ's Righteousness and Pardon, and so the Remnants of that Law in the hand of Christ (which is the Precept of perfect Obedience de futuro) commandeth it only consequently, supposing the Gospel-Promise and Institution to have gone before, and selected this as the terms of Life; so that as a Law in genere (existent only in speciebus) commandeth Obedience, and the Law of Innocency in specie commanded [personal perfect perpetual Obedience, as the Condition of Life]; so the Gospel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer, as the new Condition of Life: on which supposition, even the Law of lapsed Nature further obligeth us thereto: And as the Commands differ, so do the Prohibitions.

There is a certain sort of sin excepted from pardon, by the pardoning Law, viz. Final non-performance of its Conditions: And to judge a Man not guilty of this sin, is part of our Justification, as is aforesaid.

§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical Justification are specie distinct, then so are the Courts in which we are justified.—If distinct and subordinate, and so he that is justified by the Law, is justified by the Gospel, &c.]

Answ. 1. No Man is justified by the Law of Innocency or Works, but Christ: Did I ever say that, [That Law justifieth us], who have voluminously wrote against it? If he would have his Reader think so, his unrighteousness is such as civility forbids me to give its proper Epithets to. If not, against what or whom is all this arguing?

2. I call it [Legal] as it is that perfect Righteousness of Christ our Surety, conform to the Law of Innocency; by which he was justified (though not absolved and pardoned): I call it [pro Legalis justitia], because that Law doth not justify us for it (but Christ only) but by it given us ad effecta by the New-Covenant; we are saved and justified from the Curse of that Law, or from Damnation, as certainly as if we had done it ourselves: I call Faith our Evangelical Righteousness, on the Reasons too oft mentioned. Now these may be called Two Justifications, or (rather) two parts of one, in several respects, as pleaseth the Speaker. And all such Word-Soldiers shall have their liberty without my Contradiction.

3. And when will he prove that these two Sorts, or Parts, or Acts, may not be at once transacted at the same Bar? Must there needs be one Court to try whether I am a true Believer, or an Infidel, or Hypocrite; and another to judge that being such, I am to be justified against all Guilt and Curse, by virtue of Christ's Merits and Intercession? Why may not these two parts of one Man's Cause be judged at the same Bar? And why must your Pupils be taught so to conceive of so great a business, in itself so plain?

§. 11. He proceedeth, [The Use of this Evangelical Justification is made to be, that we may be made partakers of the Legal Justification out of us, in Christ: And so our Justification applieth another Justification, and our Remission of sins another.

Answ. No Sir; but our particular subordinate sort of Righteousness, consisting in the performance of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz. a believing suitable Acceptance) is really our Dispositio receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that Pardon and Glory, which for Christ's Righteousness if freely given us. And our personal Faith and Sincerity must be justified, and we in tantum, before our Right to Christ, Pardon and Life can be justified in foro.

2. And to justify us as sincere Believers, when others are condemned as Hypocrites, and Unbelievers, and Impenitent, is not Pardon of Sin. These Matters should have been put into your (excellent) Catechism, and not made strange, much less obscured and opposed, when laying by the quarrels about mere words, I am confident you deny none of this.

§. 12. He addeth, [Then Legal Justification is nothing but a bare word, seeing unapplyed; as to the Matter it is nothing, as it is not called Healing by a Medicine not applied; nor was it ever heard that one Healing did apply another].

Answ. Alas, alas, for the poor Church, if this be the Academies best! sorrow must excuse my Complaint! If it be an Argument it must run thus: If Legal (or pro-legal) Righteousness (that is, our part in Christ's Righteousness) be none to us (or none of our Justification) when not-applied, than it is none also when it is applied: But, &c.

Answ. It is none till applied: Christ's Merits, or Legal Righteousness justify himself, but not us till applied: (Do you think otherwise, or do you wrangle against yourself?) But I deny your Consequence: How prove you that it is none when applied therefore? Or the Cure is none when the Medicine is applied?

Perhaps you will say, That then our Personal Righteousness, and subordinate Justification, is ours before Christ's Righteousness, and so the greater dependeth on, and followeth the less.

Answ. 1. Christ's own Righteousness is before ours. 2. His Condition, Pardon to fallen Mankind is before ours. 3. This Gift being Conditional, excepteth the non-performance of the Condition; And the nature of a Condition, is to suspend the effect of the Donation till performed. 4. Therefore the performance goeth before the said Effect, and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any cause of it, but a removal of the suspension; nor hath the Donation any other dependence on it. And is not all this beyond denial with Persons not studiously and learnedly misled?

But you say, It was never heard that one Healing applied another.

Answ. And see you not that this is a lis de nomine, and of a name of your own introduction for illustration? If we were playing at a Game of Tropes, I could tell you that the Healing of Men's Unbelief is applicatory for the healing of their Guilt; And the healing of Men's Ignorance, Pride, and Wrangling about words, and frightning Men into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death, is applicatory as to the healing of the Churches Wounds and Shame. But I rather choose to ask you, Whether it was never heard that a particular subordinate personal Righteousness (even Faith and Repentance) was made by God the Condition of our Right to Pardon, and Life by Christ's Righteousness? Did you never teach your Sholars this, (in what words you thought best?) And yet even our Faith is a Fruit of Christ's Righteousness; but nevertheless the Condition of other Fruits.

If you say that our Faith or Performance is not 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 to be called Righteousness, I refer you to my Answer to Mr. Cartwright; And if the word Righteousness be not ofter (ten to one) used in Scripture for somewhat Personal, than for Christ's Righteousness imputed, then think that you have said something.

If you say, But it justifieth not as a Righteousness, but as an Instrument. I Answer, 1. I have said elsewhere so much of its Instrumentality, that I am ashamed to repeat it. 2. It justifieth not at all, (for that signifieth efficiency); but only maketh us capable Recipients. 3. We are justified by it as a medium, and that is a Condition performed (as aforesaid): And when that Condition by a Law is made both a Duty and a Condition of Life, the performance is by necessary resultancy [a Righteousness]. But we are not justified by it, as it is a Righteousness in genere; nor as a mere moral Virtue or Obedience to the Law of Nature; but as it is the performance of the Condition of the Law of Grace; and so as it is this particular Righteousness, and no other.

§. 13. [In Legal Justification (saith he) taken precisely, either there is Remission of sin, or not: If not, What Justification is that? If yea, then Evangelical Justification is not necessary to the application of it; because the Application is supposed, &c.]

Answ. 1. What I usually call [Evangelical Righteousness] he supposeth me to call Justification; which yet is true, and sound, but such as is before explained.

2. This is but the same again, and needeth no new answer; The performance of the Condition is strangely here supposed to follow the Right or Benefit of the Gift or Covenant: If he would have the Reader think I said so, he may as ingeniously tell, that I deny all Justification: If not, what meaneth he?

§. 1. CAp. 8. pag. 79. he saith, [Because no Man out of Socinus School, hath by his Dictates more sharply exagitated this Imputation of Righteousness, than the Author of the Aphorisms; and it is in all men's hands, we think meet to bring into a clearer Light, the things objected by him (or more truly his Sophistical Cavils) whence the fitter Prospect may be taken of almost the whole Controversy].

Answ. That the Reader may see by what Weapons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace, and profligate brotherly Love; let him consider how many palpable Untruths are in these few Lines, even in matter of Fact.

1. Let him read Dr. Gell, Mr. Thorndike, and by his own confession, the Papists (a multitude of them) and tell me true, that [No Man out of Socinus School hath, &c.] To say nothing of many late Writings near us.

2. If I have, 1. never written one word against [Imputation of Righteousness] there or elsewhere; 2. Yea, have oft written for it; 3. And if those very Pages be for it which he accuseth; 4. Yea, if there and elsewhere I write more for it than Olevian, Ursine, Pareus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Piscator, and all the rest of those great Divines, who are for the Imputation only of the Passive Righteousness of Christ, when I profess there and often, to concur with Mr. Bradshaw, Grotius, and others that take in the Active also, yea and the Habitual, yea and Divine respectively, as advancing the Merits of the Human; If all this be notoriously true, what Epithets will you give to this Academical Doctors notorious Untruth?

3. When that Book of Aphorisms was suspended or retracted between twenty and thirty years ago (publicly), because of many crude Passages and unapt Words, and many Books since written by me purposely, fully opening my mind of the same things; all which he passeth wholly by, save a late Epistle; what credit is to be given to that Man's ingenuity, who pretendeth that this being in all men's hands, the answering it will so far clear all the Controversy.

§. 2. Dr. T. [He hence assaulteth the Sentence of the Ref • rmed; because it supposeth, as he saith, that we were in Christ, at least, legally before we believed, or were born. But what proof of the consequence doth he bring?] (The rest are but his Reasons against the Consequences, and his talk against me, as pouring out Oracles, &c.)

Answ. 1. Is this the mode of our present Academical Disputers, To pass by the stating of the Controversy, yea, to silence the state of it, as laid down by the Author, whom he opposeth in that very place, (and more fully elsewhere often)? Reader, the Author of the Aphorisms, pag. 45. and forward, distinguishing as Mr. Bradshaw doth, of the several senses of Imputation, and how Christ's Righteousness is made ours, 1. Beginneth with their Opinion, who hold, [That Christ did so obey in our stead, as that in God▪s esteem, and in point of Law we were in Christ dying and suffering, and so in him we did both perfectly fulfil the Commands of the Law by Obedience, and the Threatenings of it by bearing the Penalty, and thus (say they) is Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, viz. His Passive Righteousness for the pardon of our sins, and deliverance from the Penalty; His Active Righteousness for the making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the Kingdom; And some say the Habitual Righteousness of his Human Nature, instead of our own Habitual Righteousness; Yea, some add the Righteousness of the Divine Nature].

The second Opinion which he reciteth is this, [That God the Father accepteth the sufferings and merits of his Son, as a valuable consideration, on which he will wholly forgive and acquit the Offenders, and receive them into his favor, and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness, so they will but receive his Son on the terms expressed in the Gospel.

And as distinct from theirs, who would thus have the Passive Righteousness only imputed, he professeth himself to hold with Bradshaw, Grotius, &c. that the Active also is so imputed, being Justitia Meriti, as well as Personae, and endeavoreth to prove it: But not imputed in the first rigid sense, as if God esteemed us to have been, and done, and suffered our selves in and by Christ, and merited by him. Thus he states the Controversy; And doth this Doctor fight for Truth and Peace, by 1. passing by all this; 2. Saying, I am against Imputed Righteousness; 3. And against the Reformed? Were not all the Divines before named Reformed? Was not Cameron, Cappel, Placeus, Amyrald, Dallaeus, Blondel, &c. Reformed? Were not Wotton, Bradshaw, Gataker, &c. Reformed? Were not of late Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Truman, to pass many yet alive, Reformed? Must that Name be shamed, by appropriating it to such as this Doctor only?

2. And now let the Reader judge, with what face he denieth the Consequence, (that it supposeth us to have been in Christ legally, &c.) When as I put it into the Opinion opposed, and opposed no other. But I erred in saying, that [most of our ordinary Divines] hold it; But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed.

§. 2. Dr. T. [2. Such Imputation of Righteousness, he saith, agreeth not with Reason or Scripture: But what Reason meaneth he? Is it that vain, blind, maimed, immeasurably procacious and tumid Reason of the Cracovian Philosophers?—Next he saith, Scripture is silent of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; what a saying is this of a Reformed Divine? so also Bellarmine, &c.

Answ. Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended? Is this the way of vindicating Truth? 1. Reader, my words were these, (just like Bradshaws) [It teacheth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense, as will neither stand with Reason, nor the Doctrine of the Scripture, much less with the PHRASE of Scripture, which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righteousness]. 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righteousness imputed? Or only of that intolerable sense of it? 2. Do I say here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteousness, or only that strict sense of it? 3. Do I not expressly say, It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture, and the unsound sense, but not the sound?

2. And as to the Phrase, Doth this Doctor, or can any living Man find that Phrase in Scripture, [Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us]? And when he knoweth that it is not there, are not his Exclamations, and his Bug-bears [Cracovian Reason, and Bellarmine] his dishonor, that hath no better Weapons to use against the Churches Peace? To tell us that the sense or Doctrine is in Scripture, when the question is of the Phrase, or that Scripture speaketh in his rigid sense, and not in ours, is but to lose time, and abuse the Reader, the first being impertinent, and the second the begging of the Question.

§. 3. Dr. T. The Greek word answering to Imputation, is ten times in Rom. 4. And what is imputed but Righteousness? we have then some imputed Righteousness. The Question is, only what or whose it is, Christ's or our own? Not ours, therefore Christ's: If ours, either its the Righteousness of Works, or of Faith, &c.

Answ. 1. But what's all this to the Phrase? Could you have found that Phrase [Christ's Righteousness is imputed], why did you not recite the words, but Reason as for the sense?

2. Is that your way of Disputation, to prove that the Text speaketh of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, when the Question was only, In what sense? What kind of Readers do you expect, that shall take this for rational, candid, and a Plea for Truth?

3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced, it is most plain, that Paul meaneth by [imputing it for Righteousness] that the Person was or is, accounted, reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Righteousness is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Believer: so that whatever be the matter of it (of which next) the formal Relation sure is our own, and so here said: And if it be from the matter of Christ's Righteousness, yet that must be our own, by your Opinion. And it must be our own, in and to the proper Effects, in mine. But sure it is not the same numerical formal Relation of [Righteousness] that is in Christ's Person, and in ours: And it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not in Christ, that is called Abraham 's Reputed Righteousness in the Text: I scarce think you will say the contrary.

§. 4. Dr. T. [But Faith is not imputed to us for Righteousness.

Answ. Expresly against the words of the Holy Ghost there oft repeated. Is this defending the Scripture, expressly to deny it? Should not reverence, and our subscription to the Scripture sufficiently rather teach us to distinguish, and tell in what sense it is imputed, and in what not, than thus to deny, without distinction, what it doth so oft assert? Yea, the Text nameth nothing else as so imputed, but Faith.

§. 5. If it be imputed, it is either as some Virtue, or Human Work, (the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere) or as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ's Righteousness? Not (the first)—If Faith be imputed relatively only, as it applieth to a Sinner the Righteousness of Christ, it's manifest that it's the Righteousness of Christ only that is imputed, and that Faith doth no more to Righteousness, than an empty hand to receive an Alms.

Answ. 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving hand, and not as a mere empty hand. And voluntary grateful Reception may be the Condition of a Gift.

2. You and I shall shortly find that it will be the Question on which we shall be Justified or Condemned; not only whether we received Christ's Righteousness, but whether by Faith we received Christ in all the Essentials of his Office, and to all the essential saving Uses: Yea, whether according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant, we first believingly received, and gave up ourselves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and after performed sincerely that Covenant.

3. But let me defend the Word of God: Faith is imputed for Righteousness, even this Faith now described; 1. Remotely, ex materiae aptitudine, for its fitness to its formal Office; And that fitness is, 1. Because it is an Act of Obedience to God, or morally good, (for a bad or indifferent Act doth not justify). 2. More specially as it is the receiving, trusting, and giving up ourselves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to the proper ends of Redemption, or a suitable Reception of the freely offered Gift; and so connoteth Christ the Object (for the Object is essential to the Act in specie). 2. But proximately Faith is so reputed, or imputed, as it is the performance of the Condition of the Justifying Covenant or Donation.

And to be imputed for Righteousness, includeth, That [It is the part required of us by the Law of Grace, to make us partakers of the Benefits of Christ's Righteousness, which meriteth Salvation for us instead of a legal and perfect Righteousness of our own, (which we have not). Or, [Whereas we fell short of a Righteousness of Innocency, Christ by such a Righteousness hath merited our Pardon and Salvation, and give • n title to them by a New Covenant of Grace, which maketh this Faith the Condition of our Title; and if we do this, we shall be judged evangelically Righteous; that is, such as have done all that was necessary to their right in Christ and the said Benefits, and therefore have such a Right].

This is plain English, and plain Truth, wrangle no more against it, and against the very Letter of the Text, and against your Brethren and the Churches Concord, by making Men believe that there are grievous Differences, where there are none.

Reader, I was going on to Answer the rest, but my time is short, Death is at the door: Thou seest what kind of Work I have of it, even to detect a Learned Man's Oversights, and temerarious Accusations. The weariness will be more to thee and me, than the profit: I find little before, but what I have before answered here, and oft elsewhere; And therefore I will here take up, only adding one Chapter of Defense of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book of the Two Covenants, and this Doctor, like an Enemy of Peace, assaulteth.

§. 1. WHile Truth is pretended by most, that by envious striving introduce Confusion, and every evil Work, it usually falleth out by God's just Judgment, that such are almost as opposite to Truth, as to Charity and Peace. What more palpable instances can there be, than such as on such accounts have lately assaulted me: Mr. Danvers, Mr. Bagshaw, &c. and now this Learned Doctor. The very stream of all his Opposition against me about Imputation, is enforced by this oft repeated Forgery, that I deny all Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: Yea, he neither by fear, modesty, or ingenuity, was restrained from writing, pag. 117. [Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem] [He derideth all Imputation]. Judge by this what credit contentious Men deserve.

§. 2. The conciliatory Propositions which I laid down in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book, I will here transcribe, that the Reader may see what it is that these Militant Doctors war against.

Lest any who know not how to stop in mediocrity, should be tempted by Socinians or Papists, to think that we countenance any of their Errors, or that our Differences in the point of Justification by Faith or Works, are greater than indeed they are; and lest any weak Opinionative Persons, should clamour unpeaceably against their Brethren, and think to raise a name to themselves for their differing Notions; I shall here give the Reader such evidences of our real Concord, as shall silence that Calumny.

Though some few Lutherans did, upon peevish suspiciousness against George Major long ago, assert, That [Good Works are not necessary to Salvation]: And though some few good Men, whose Zeal without Judgment doth better serve their own turn than the Churches, are jealous, lest all the good that is ascribed to Man, be a dishonor to God; and therefore speak as if God were honored most by saying the worst words of ourselves; and many have uncomely and irregular Notions about these Matters: And though some that are addicted to sidings, do take it to be their Godly Zeal to censure and reproach the more understanding sort, when they most grossly err themselves: And though too many of the People are carried about through injudiciousness and temptations to false Doctrines and evil Lives; yet is the Argument of Protestants thus manifested.

1. They all affirm that Christ's Sacrifice, with his Holiness and perfect Obedience, are the meritorious Cause of the forgiving Covenants, and of our Pardon and Justification thereby, and of our Right to Life Eternal, which it giveth us. And that this Price was not paid or given in itself immediately to us, but to God for us; and so, that our foresaid Benefits are its Effects.

2. They agree that Christ's Person and ours were not really the same; and therefore that the same Righteousness, which is an Accident of one, cannot possibly be an Accident of the other.

3. They all detest the Conceit, that God should aver, and repute a Man to have done that which he never did.

4. They all agree that Christ's Sacrifice and Merits are really so effectual to procure our Pardon, Justification, Adoption, and right to the sealing Gift of the Holy Ghost, and to Glory, upon our Faith and Repentance; that God giveth us all these benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness, as if we had satisfied him, and merited them ourselves: and that thus far Christ's Righteousness is ours in its Effects, and imputed to us, in that we are thus used for it, and shall be judged accordingly.

5. They all agree, that we are justified by none, but a practical or working Faith.

6. And that this Faith is the Condition of the Promise, or Gift of Justification and Adoption.

7. And that Repentance is a Condition also, though (as it is not the same with Faith, as Repentance of Unbelief is) on another aptitudinal account; even as a willingness to be cured, and a willingness to take one for my Physician, and to trust him in the use of his Remedies, are on several accounts the Conditions on which that Physician will und • rtake the Cure, or as willingness to return to subjection and thankful acceptance of a purchased Pardon, and of the Purchasers Love and future Authority, are the Conditions of a Rebel's Pardon.

8. And they all agree, that in the first instant of a Man's Conversion or Believing, he is entered into a state of Justification, before he hath done any outward Works: and that so it is true, that good Works follow the Justified, and go not before his initial Justification: as also in the sense that Austin spake it, who took Justification, for that which we call Sanctification or Conversion.

9. And they all agree, that Justifying Faith is such a receiving affiance, as is both in the Intellect and the Will; and therefore as in the Will, participateth of some kind of Love to the justifying Object, as well as to Justification.

10. And that no Man can choose or use Christ as a Means (so called, in respect to his own intention) to bring him to God the Father, who hath not so much love to God, as to take him for his end in the use of that means.

11. And they agree, that we shall be all judged according to our Works, by the Rule of the Covenant of Grace, though not for our Works, by way of commutative, or legal proper merit. And Judging is the Genus, whose Species is Justifying and Condemning: and to be judged according to our Works, is nothing but to be justified or condemned according to them.

12. They all agree, that no Man can possibly merit of God in point of Commutative Justice, nor yet in point of Distributive or Governing Justice, according to the Law of Nature or Innocency, as Adam might have done, nor by the Works of the Mosaical Law.

13. They all agree, that no Works of Mans are to be trusted in, or pleaded, but all excluded, and the Conceit of them abhorred.

1. As they are seigned to be against, or instead of the free Mercy of God.

2. As they are against, or seigned, instead of the Sacrifice, Obedience, Merit, or Intercession of Christ.

3. Or as supposed to be done of ourselves, without the Grace of the Holy Ghost.

4. Or as supposed falsely to be perfect.

5. Or as supposed to have any of the afore-disclaimed Merit.

6. Or as materially consisting in Mosaical Observances.

7. Much more in any superstitious Inventions.

8. Or in any Evil mistaken to be Good.

9. Or as any way inconsistent with the Tenor of the freely pardoning Covenant. In all these senses Justification by Works is disclaimed by all Protestants at least.

14. Yet all agree, that we are created to good Works in Christ Jesus, which God hath ordained, that we should walk therein; and that he, that nameth the Name of Christ, must depart from iniquity, or else he hath not the Seal of God; and that he that is born of God sinneth not; that is, predominantly. And that all Christ's Members are Holy, Purified, zealous of Good Works, cleansing themselves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, that they might perfect Holiness in God's fear, doing good to all Men, as loving their Neighbors as themselves; and that if any Man have not the Sanctifying Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, nor without Holiness can see God.

15. They all judge reverently and charitably of the Ancients, that used the word [Merit of Good Works], because they meant but a moral aptitude for the promised Reward, according to the Law of Grace through Christ.

16. They confess the thing thus described themselves, however they like not the name of Merit, lest it should countenance proud and carnal Conceits.

17. They judge no Man to be Heretical for the bare use of that word, who agreeth with them in the sense.

18. In this sense they agree, that our Gospel-Obedience is such a necessary aptitude to our Glorification, as that Glory (though a free Gift) is yet truly a reward of this Obedience.

19. And they agree, that our final Justification by Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pass upon the same Causes, Reasons, and Conditions, as our Glorification doth.

20. They all agree, that all faithful Ministers must bend the labor of their Ministry in public and private, for promoting of Holiness and good Works, and that they must difference by Discipline between the Obedient and the Disobedient. And O! that the Papists would as zealously promote Holiness and good Works in the World, as the true serious Protestants do, whom they factiously and peevishly accuse as Enemies to them; and that the Opinion, Disputing, and name of good Works, did not cheat many wicked Persons into self-flattery and Perdition, while they are void of that which they dispute for. Then would not the Mohammedans and Heathens be deterred from Christianity by the wickedness of these nominal Christians, that are near them: nor would the serious practice of that Christianity, which themselves in general profess, be hated, scorned, and persecuted by so many, both Protestants and Papists; nor would so many contend that they are of the True Religion, while they are really of no Religion at all any further, than the Hypocrites Picture and Carcass may be called Religion: Were Men but resolved to be serious Learners, serious Lovers, serious Practisers according to their knowledge, and did not live like mockers of God, and such as look toward the Life to come in jest, or unbelief, God would vouchsafe them better acquaintance with the True Religion than most Men have.

§. 3. One would think now that this should meet with no sharp Opposition, from any Learned lover of Peace; and that it should answer for itself, and need no defense. But this Learned Man for all that, among the rest of his Military Exploits, must here find some Matter for a Triumph.

And 1. Pag. 18. he assaulteth the third Propos. [They all detest the Conceit, that God should aver, and repute a Man to have done that which he never did].

And is not this true? Do any sober Men deny it, and charge God with Error or Untruth? Will not this Man of Truth and Peace, give us leave to be thus far agreed, when we are so indeed?

But saith he, [Yea, the Orthodox abhor the contrary, if [to have done it] be taken in sensu forensi, (for in a Physical and Personal, they abhor it not, but deride it): Doth the Aphorist abhor these and suchlike sayings, [We are dead, buried, risen from the Dead with Christ?]

Answ. 1. Take notice Reader, that it is but the Words, and not the Matter that he here assaulteth; so that all here seemeth but lis de nomine. He before, pag. 84. extolleth Chrysostom for thus expounding, [He made him sin for us]; that is, to be condemned as an Offender, and to die as a Blasphemer. And this sense of Imputation we all admit; (But Chrysostom in that place oft telleth us, That by [Sin] he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man by his Persecutors, [not by God] and one that suffered that cursed Death, which was due to wicked cursed Men: And which of us deny not Justification by Works as Chrysostom doth? I subscribe to his words, [It is God's Righteousness; seeing it is not of Works (for in them it were necessary that there be found no blot) but of Grace, which blotteth out and extinguisheth all sin: And this begetteth us a double benefit, for it suffereth us not to be lift up in mind, because it is all the Gift of God, and it showeth the greatness of the benefit]. This is as apt an Expression of my Judgment of Works and Grace as I could choose. But it's given to some Men to extol that in one Man, which they fervently revile in others. How frequently is Chrysostom by many accused as favoring Free-Will, and Man's Merits, and smelling of Pelagianism? And he that is acquainted with Chrysostom, must know, That he includeth all these things in Justification. 1. Remission of the Sin, as to the Punishment. 2. Remission of it by Mortification, (for so he calleth it, in Rom. 3. p. (mihi) 63.) 3. Right to Life freely given for Christ's sake. 4. And Inherent Righteousness through Faith: And he oft saith, That this is called the Righteousness of God, because as God, who is living, quickeneth the dead, and as he that is strong giveth strength to the weak; so be that is Righteous, doth suddenly make them Righteous that were lapsed into sin], as he there also speaketh. And he oft tells us, It is Faith itself, and not only Christ believed in, that is imputed for Righteousness, or Justifieth: And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Reward, [the Retribution of Faith]. And pag. 89. he thus conjoineth [Faith and Christ's Death] to the Question, How Men obnoxious to so much sin are justified, [he showeth that he blotted out all sin, that he might confirm what he said, both from the Faith of Abraham by which he was justified, and from our Savior's Death, by which we are delivered from sin]. But this is on the by.

2. But saith Dr. T. The Orthodox abhor the contrary in sensu forensi.

Answ. How easy is it to challenge the Titles of Orthodox, Wise, or good Men to ones self? And who is not Orthodox, himself being Judge? But it seems with him, no Man must pass for Orthodox that is not in so gross an error of his Mind, (if these words, and not many better that are contrary must be the discovery of it) viz. That will not say, that in sensu forensi, God esteemeth Men to have done that which they never did. The best you can make of this is, that you cover the same sense, which I plainlier express, with this illfavoured Phrase of Man's inventing: But if indeed you mean anymore than I by your sensus forensis, viz. that such a suffering and meriting for us may, in the lax improper way of some Lawyers speaking, be called, [Our own Doing, Meriting, Suffering, &c.] I have proved, that the Doctrine denied by me, subverteth the Gospel of Christ.

Reader, I remember what Grotius (then Orthodox, thirty years before his Death) in that excellent Letter of Church-Orders, Predestination, Perseverance, and Magistrates, animadverting on Molinaeus, saith, How great an injury those Divines, who turn the Christian Doctrine into unintelligible Notions and Controversies, do to Christian Magistrates; because it is the duty of Magistrates to discern and preserve necessary sound Doctrine, which these Men would make them unable to discern.