A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

Animadversion.

That Righteousness which the Gospel doth not hold unto us, is our Evangelical Righteousness, and that is a Righteousness without us in Christ. It is Christ's Righteousness which is imputed to us, and made ours to Justification. Christ's Satisfaction may be called both our Evangelical Righteousness, as being revealed and offered in the Gospel, Rom. 1. 16, 17. and also [our Legal Righteousness,] as being that which the Law requireth, and whereby it is satisfied, Christ being the end of the Law for Righteousness to everyone that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. But otherwise the Scripture excludes Legal Righteousness, and sets up Evangelical Righteousness, as that by which we must be justified, Rom. 10. 5, &c. Phil. 3. 9.

Reply.

You speak my own words; yea, speak more for Legal Righteousness than I will. For I do not think, that Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction, is that which the Law required (for it required supplicium delinquentis, & non Mediatoris;) nor yet that the Law was satisfied strictly by it (except quoad finem remotum: For it is an Act of the Rector as above Laws, to admit Satisfaction, which is redditio aequivalentis; and it supposeth a Relaxation of the Law, and the Law cannot relax itself:) And yet you seem to oppose me for speaking of a Legal Righteousness. In what respect I called Christ's Satisfaction a [Legal Righteousness] I told you fully; even the same in sense, as you allow here.

Animadversion.

This seems to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the main thing wherein you mistake. I should distinguish betwixt the Righteousness of the New-Covenant, and the Condition required of us that we may partake of it. The Righteousness of the first Covenant is personal Righteousness performed by us, Rom. 10. 5. The Righteousness of the New-Covenant, is the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us; but not e • cept we believe in him, Acts 13. 39. I speak (as you do) of such Righteousness as whereby we are justified.

Reply.

1. Can you give any tolerable Reason, why I may not (at least) as fitly denominate Righteousness from the several Covenants prescribing it, and to which it is conform, that is, from the most immediate Foundation; as you may denominate it from the mere Offer or Discovery in the Gospel to be Evangelical (that is, ab accident) when you confess it is Legal in my sense (and more?) And yet this tota lis est de nomine.

If you say, Why do not I lay down litem de nomine, by speaking as others?

I answer, 1. Because Scripture speaks so before me. 2. It is necessary to the right unfolding the main Doctrine. 3. The Scripture-phrase is become so odious, and so great breaches are made in the Church, by deepest censuring those that use it, that it is necessary to reassume it, and vindicate it. 4. It tends most potently to heal our breaches, &c. By the way here bear witness, that where you give as much to Faith as I (to be the Condition) and so the tota lis est de nomine justitiae, yet you say, this seems to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : So that my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of no higher a nature than de nomine, if it be an error, as you deem.

2. But why speak you nothing to discover this Master-falsehood? yea, when I laid so plain a ground for it, which you deny not, viz. from the very description of Righteousness, of one sort, and in the most usual sense? But I think I have said enough before to vindicate it.

Animadversion.

All this follows, if Faith be our Evangelical Righteousness▪ Not if it be (as it is) our Condition to be partakers of that Righteousness. That Righteousness is to be sought by Faith, therefore it is called, [Righteousness which is of Faith,] Rom. 10. 6. Righteousness by faith, Gal. 5. 5. The Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, viz. as the object of faith, not as the subject, Rom. 3. 22.

Reply.

You confess all that I say de • ro, but deny it de nomine Justitiae. You confess, that all this Blasphemy follows, if we say, [Christ repented and believed for us. 2. For the name of [Righteousness,] the Texts you mention deny it not to Faith. It followeth not that the Condition of the New-Covenant is not Righteousness, because it is a Condition or means of our partaking of a further Righteousness. Yet this is all your arguing from the Scriptures cited; or else because [Christ's Satisfaction is our Righteousness, therefore there is no other subservient Righteousness] which is as weak.

Animadversion.

In the Scripture men are said to be personally righteous divers ways: 1. Comparatively, as being less unrighteous, Gen. 38. 26. 2. In some particular case, Psal. 7. 8. & 18. 20. 3. In respect of study and endeavor to conform to the Will of God in all things, Luke 1. 6. But that any are so personally righteous, as that by their own personal righteousness they are simply and absolutely justified in the sight of God, this the Scripture doth not teach us, but is against it, Psal. 130. 3, 4. & 143. 2.

Reply.

1. Nor did ever I teach it: And yet one would think you intimate that I did. [Simply and Absolutely] are great words. I do not think that Christ's Satisfaction doth justify us simply and absolutely: For then how can Faith be the Condition? It justifies no man for non- performance of the Condition finally: And he that doth perform it, needs no Justification for his non- performance; and therefore Christ's Satisfaction is not so far his Righteousness, and so not simply and absolutely his Righteousness. This is true, both of our Repentance, Faith, and sincere Obedience. Much less durst I ever think that our Faith is simply and absolutely our Righteousness, if thereby you mean as you seem to do, our universal Righteousness materially.

2. The comparative Righteousness which you mention, is indeed no Righteousness. And if you would make use of tropical terms, you might perhaps have found Unrighteousness itself, somewhere called Righteousness Ironically: Shall we therefore in Dispute say, Unrighteousness is Righteousness?

3. But your two last Concessions destroy your Cause: For both together make up the Righteousness of Faith which you deny. For, 1. It is justitia causae particularis, and not universalis; but then remember the distinction of justitia particularis, which I gave you before. It is such a justitia particularis, as our Salvation or Damnation will be determined by at Judgment. 2. And the matter of this justitia particularis, is sincere Obedience added to Faith; which Obedience consisteth in that endeavor to conform to God's Will, which you express.

Animadversion.

But this personal Righteousness (I say still) is not that whereby we are justified, but that whereby we are sanctified; being indeed one and the same with Holiness: And therefore Righteousness and Holiness, or righteous and holy, are divers times in Scripture joined together, as terms equivalent one to the other: Though in some respect they may be distinguished, Luke 1. 75. Ephes. 4. 24. Psal. 145. 17. Rev. 22. 11.

Reply.

1. I thought all this while you had denied the name of [Righteousness] to belong to it: But now I perceive you confess both the name and nature, viz. that it is Righteousness: Only you deny, that we are justified by it; whereby you have saved me the labor that I intended of proving it further to be Righteousness.

2. But is it not a strange Righteousness that will not justify? either you mean, that [we are not universally justified by it;] and that I know no man that will affirm. Or you mean, that we are not justified by it against the Accusation of being breakers of the first Law: But so we are justified by it only as the Condition of our interest in Christ. Or else you mean, that we are not at all justified by it, that is, not against the Accusation of non-performing the Conditions of the New-Covenant; (and this you must mean, or you speak not to me:) And this is very untrue. For, 1. If you mean it of Justification constitutive, then to say, [It is Righteousness, but will not justify,] is all one as to say, [It is whiteness, but makes not white.] [It is paternitas vel filiatio, sed non constituit patrem vel filium; sanctitas, sed non constituit sanctum] [est forma, sed non informat] But [formam sequi debet nomen.] If you mean it only de Justification per sententiam judicis, then it is as much as to say, [We are constituted righteous hereby, but shall not be judged to be so;] i. e. the Judge will not judge the righteous to be righteous, so far as he truly is righteous. He that saith to the righteous, [Thou art wicked,] is not the Judge that must judge the World.

3. You will oppose [that whereby we are justified,] to [that whereby we are sanctified,] as if the same thing might not do both. It constituteth us holy, as it is a sanctifying quality. It denominateth us Righteous, as it is the subjectum primum, or matter of our non-Reatus.

4. The Texts cited make not Righteousness and Holiness so far separate as you confess; nor yet equipollent terms; but only to be concomitant, and both together a fit description of God's people: Scripture doth not so ordinarily tautologize, nor is it to be imagined.

5. Righteousness and Holiness are not all one, so much as materially. For the matter of our Righteousness is our fulfulling of the Condition as such; which is done by the sincerity of Faith and Obedience, if there were no more: But the matter of our Holiness lieth in our qualities and actions as they respect the Precept or Rule; and so they may contain in them more than mere sincerity.

Animadversion.

You mean, that our personal inherent Righteousness is imperfect; and truly I am sorry that any Learned Teacher should dislike this. This personal Righteousness is the same with Holiness, however you would make them to differ; and Holiness here is but in perfecting, it is not perfected, 2 Cor. 7. 1.

Reply.

I mean as I speak; and that was, [that any should say, That the godly are denominated Righteous (personally) only because their Sanctification and Goodworks have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works:] And so that we are legally righteous in ourselves.

2. I think I have plainly shown you, that Holiness and Righteousness differ toto coelo formaliter; and much, though not wholly, materialiter. Why did you not manifest the unsoundness of the differences which I expressed, but barely deny it? Holiness is imperfect, but Righteousness is formaliter perfect, or none at all: Yea, the forma subjecti primi, called the materia, is perfect too; for it lieth in the Metaphysical Truth of our [performing the Condition as such;] and therefore is convertible with the entity of that performance. But the actions whereby we so perform the Condition, are not perfectly holy, that is, they are not perfectly conform to the Precept, though they are perfectly, that is, truly a performing of the Condition, and so conform to the act of the Law which constituteth that Condition.

Animadversion.

I see not but that an imperfect Conformity to the Rule, may denominate a man righteous, though not perfectly righteous; as well as imperfect Qualifications (which you grant) may denominate one holy, though not perfectly holy: These two [Qualification] and [Conformity to the Rule,] being indeed the same. For what is the Qualification of the Soul, which makes it holy, but the Rectitude of it, and its Conformity to the Rule? which makes it righteous? And are not the wills of the Regenerate made conformable to the will of God, in some measure, and yet not in full measure? W •• there not some Conformity to the Law in Paul, when he could say, I delight in the Law of God after the inward man? But was this a perfect Conformity when he was forced to say, But I see another Law in my members, &c. Rom. 7. 22, 23.

Reply.

1. That which you say you see not, is very discernible, if you will well consider what is before said. As Schibler saith, de Similitudine, in the place I cited, if you speak strict & Philosophice viz. de ipsa relatione, relatio non intenditur nec remittitur: And so imperfect Conformity is a contradiction, as is imperfect Similitude: But if you speak vulgarly and laxly, not de ipsa relatione, sed de relationis subjecto, quando fundatur in qualitate, you may say, Relatio recipit magis & minus, because that Quality doth so: And in this sense I grant, that Paul's good actions (and all the Saints) are conform in part (that is, draw near to Conformity to the Law of Works;) when speaking properly, they are Inconform. Vide Schibler. Met. l. 2. c. 8. punct. 2. n. 199. &. c. 9. Tit. 7. Art. 2. he saith, it is but Locutio popularis & non Philosophica to say, Similitude is intended and remitted: And saith, that aequalitas consistit in indivisibly & quasi centro. Vid. Topic. c. 22. Vid. Suar. Metaph. Disp. 48. §. 18, 34. Aquinas saith, (though the contrary laxer speech may pass) Relations non recipiunt magis & minus, 12 ae. q. 82. a. 4. c.

3. But you must further remember, that this relation of [Righteous,] in the sense of the Law of Works, fundatur non solum in Qualitate, sed & in Quantitate: Et relata quorum fundamentum est quantitas non recipiunt magis & minus, inquit Alsted. Metaph. & omnes Metaphysici uno ore. This Righteousness is quaedam Aequalitas: And Equality is founded in Quantity. Bellarmine himself could confess (de Justif. l. 1. c. 1.) Porro justitia unde Justificatio nomen habet, nihil aliud est nisi ordinis Rectitudo: Id enim est justum quod rectum & Adaequatum & cum sua regula optime congruens.

If therefore our Question be but of one action, that action is not strictly Conform to the Law of Works (the Precept) which is not perfectly Conform: But when we speak not of one action, but of the Righteousness of the person which is denominated from all his actions together, I thought the case had then been unquestionable, That there is none righteous, no not one. Do you indeed hold, that a sinner is truly righteous according to the Law of Works? If he be: 1. It is either with that Righteousness which is a Conformity to the Precept as Precept, and is opposite to Reatus culpae: (But that is utterly untrue, because though the actions admit of magis & minus; yet Conformity and relative Equality do not, but stand in centro. And it is a perfect conformity, which that Law will call a Conformity, and doth expressly require.) 2. Or it is with that Righteousness which is in the performing of the Condition, and is opposed to Reatus non praestitae conditionis: (But that's as untrue; for in that Law, the Precept and Condition are both of an extent: The Condition is only perfect Obedience.) 3. Or it is with that Righteousness which consisteth in non-dueness of Punishment, and is opposite to Reatus poenae: (But if that were but materially in imperfect works, according to the tenor of that Law, then Christ died in vain: And it is the person, and not the actions, that is the subject of that.)

4. You say, [Qualification and Conformity] is the same. Even as Albedo and Similitudo, or as Subjectum & Accidens, or as Quantity and Relation are the same.

You ask, [What is the Qualification which makes it holy, but the Rectitude and Conformity to the Rule, which makes it righteous?]

I reply, 1. If you take Holiness (as now we do) for a Quality, then no relation doth constitute it certainly. But that Quality may be part of the matter or subject of the relation. 2. It's true, that the Subjectum primum, or the materia of our Righteousness (now pleaded for) is the Conformity of our actions and dispositions to the Rule. But the Question (you well know) is, To what Rule? And I say, 1. Not to the Law of Works. 2. Not to the Precept of the Gospel as such, in its fullness. 3. But to the New-covenant, as instituting the Condition of our participation of Christ. Our Holiness is the matter (as it is sincere, not as in this or that further degree) as it consisteth in Faith and Repentance, and sincere Obedience, which is conform to the New-Law quoad Conditionem; but it is not the Conformity itself, much less is it the Righteousness of the person, that is formaliter the non-Reatus poenae Legis novae: Least of all is it a Conformity to the Law of Works, perfect or imperfect (for such there is none.) Y • t i • you will say, In sensu populari & impropriâ (as Schibler calls it) & non Philosophica, that our Holiness is imperfectly conform to the preceptive part of the New or Old Law, I will not contend about it. Only I must still desire you to know, that by [Evangelical personal Righteousness,] I mean, not Holiness in that sense; but I mean, formaliter our non-Reatus poenae Evangelicae: Et fundamentaliter, 1. Our Conformity to that Law, as requiring the Condition only: And, 2. The ipsa Conditionis praestatio, wherein that Conformity doth consist: In a word, that we are not rei non-praestitae Conditionis.

But because you so verily think, that the Law of Works doth call all Saints truly righteous, though imperfectly, I desire you to tell me these things: 1. Doth not Christ justify the unrighteous, as to Legal Righteousness? How then do you prove them righteous according to that Law? 2. If the Law of Works call them truly righteous, then it will justify them: For it cannot but justify the just. 3. Doth not James say, he that offendeth in one, is guilty of all? How then can that Law know such a thing as imperfect Righteousness? 4. Doth not God say, Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked, [Thou art righteous] Nations shall curse him, &c. And he that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the righteous, even they both are abomination to the Lord. But if the Law pronounce an imperfect Obeyer righteous, and yet condemn him to Hell, it condemneth the righteous. 5. May not the damned and Devils be pronounced righteous by the Law of Works in your sense? If any degree of (or rather towards) Conformity, give that title? And so also of all that perish. For they do somewhat, in some respect, which the Law requireth: For I hope you will not say as the Pharisees, that the person is righteous, if most of his actions were good; and unrighteous, when most are bad, as Paulus Burgens. reprehends them (Addit. in Lyram in Jacob. against Rab. Moses, and other of his Countrymen.) And Burgens. thinks James wrote purposely against that Doctrine. However you know, that the best man hath more faulty actions than faultless; nay, the best man never did one work which the Law of Innocency will call just, Vid. Melanct. Loc. Com. de bonis operib. p. 311. Piscat. Calv. Bulling. Pelican. Brochmond. &c. in Jac. 2. 10. Dr. Twisse saith, Vindic. Grat. l. 2. part. 1. c. 15. p. mihi 214. Col. 2. Ad bonitatem moris quod attinet, falsum est actus istos bonos esse. Bonum enim non nisi ex integra causa constat: At ex quolibet defectu malum. Et quomodo dicantur illi, per se boni quos agnoscimus aeternae damnationis meritorios? Falsum est eum qui dat Eleemosynam vanae gloriae studio, bonum actum praestare, ut probatum est. Quod vero addit [sed perverse] perverse facit. Hoc enim innuit, eundem actum posse esse & moraliter bonum, & moraliter malum: quod falsum est. Christ doth not out of the same mouth send forth Blessing and Cursing. There is no middle here with us, between Guilty, and Notguilty, that is, Righteous. Indeed, as Dissimilitude and Inequality have degrees, though strictly Similitude, Equality and Conformity have none; so Unrighteousness hath degrees. The action also of a Devil may be just, and justified secundum quid, in some respect; but that denominateth not the action righteous, much less the Actor. I conclude with two Learned men's words: Neque putandum est fieri posse 〈◊〉 per Legem, saltem aliqua ex parte justificemur; (therefore we are not aliqua ex parte justi.) Nam aut Legem transgressus es, aut non. Si non es Legem transgressus, Lege Justificaris: si transgressus es, Condemnaris. Inter Legis transgressionem & nontransgressionem, nihil potest esse medium. Ita{que} aut omnino, aut nullo modo Lege Justificamur (vel justi sumus.) Placaeus Thes. Salmuriens. Vol. 1. p. 29. §. 13.

And Wotton saith (de Reconcil. part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16.) The Righteousness, whereof the Law is the Rule, is not the Righteousness of him that hath once transgressed the Law. And ibid. n. 4. [Where Righteousness, which is the way to life eternal, is the same, the Covenant of God concerning the obtaining eternal life must be the same. For the Covenant is divers, according to the nature of that Righteousness which is understood to be its Condition; seeing it is evident, that the Covenant doth depend upon its Condition, and from it, as it were, borrows its nature. But in the Law and the Gospel, there is not the same Covenant for obtaining eternal life, Gal. 3. 17. How therefore can the same Righteousness be said to be required in the Law and the Gospel, when it is most evident that the Covenants are divers, or rather opposite. So far Wotton.

Animadversion.

But do these Orthodox Writers say, that we are justified by this Righteousness? Both imputed Righteousness and inherent (which is the same with persnal) Righteousness, is Evangelical; i. e. such as the Gospel doth teach and require, though not both in a like manner; but the one unto Justification, the other unto Sanctification.

Reply.

1. But the present Question is, By what Rule we are denominated inherently righteous? A man would think that here you grant, that it is not by the Law of Works, but of Grace.

2. It is preposterous to say, the Law of Christ requireth Righteousness to Sanctification (in the common sense of the word Sanctification;) that is, the form to the matter, the relation to the subject: Albedinem ad parietem, similitudinem ad albedinem, paritatem ad numeros, equalitatem ad quantitatem. I should put the other end first.

3. He that affirms a man righteous, and yet denieth that he may thereby be justified, so far as he is righteous, contradicteth himself. If you think, that by the words [so far,] I yield to different degrees of Righteousness: I answer, Not formaliter, but only subjective, vel materialiter; and that only when a man hath many causes, or his Cause many parts; he may be righteous in one Cause, or one part of his Cause, and guilty in the rest. But take every Cause, or part of his Cause singly, and he is as to that either Guilty or Not-guilty, that is, Righteous. But as to the Law of Works, we are all guilty, and in respect of every action, though not each respect of each action: So that neither person nor action can by it be pronounced righteous. And our Righteousness, or non-Reatus poenae, according to the Law of Grace, doth neither admit of degrees formaliter, vel materialiter immediate, sed tantum quoad materiam remotam. For the materia immediata is another relation (Conformity to the Law as instituting the Condition:) and so it is relatio fundata in relatione. And this Condition again consisteth not in the degree of Holiness or Faith; but in the sincerity or truth of it. So that though quoad sanctitatem, a man may have more or less Faith and Obedience, yet quoad impletionem conditionis (which is not, to have so much Faith, but to have Faith in that degree as may constitute its sincerity) there is no degree: either we do fulfil it, or we do not, there is no medium.

Animadversion.

None are so under the Law or Old-Covenant, as to have no relief from the Gospel, if they will fly to it, and embrace it. But all that remain in unbelief, are so far under the Old-Covenant, as to have no benefit by the Gospel or New-Covenant, because the benefit is only to those that believe: Faith being the Condition of the New-Covenant, and no benefit is to be had by it, without performing the Condition of it; I speak of the Covenant as conditional; for otherwise it is also absolute, so as to promise that which it requireth, Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10.

Reply.

I think we differ not in this in sense. But, 1. I speak here (and most usually) not of the Covenant as it is accepted by man, and so is mutual: But as it is propounded and enacted by God, and offered, and so is the same with the New-Law, consisting of Precept and Sanction. 2. So that here I included that Mercy, which in order to the special blessings of the Covenant, the Mediator of the Covenant doth offer and give to men. And so, 1. The very Law or Covenant itself is a mercy to wicked men, however their abuse or rejection may make it their ruin. The matter of it containeth unspeakable mercies, even Pardon and Salvation; and for the extent of it, it is universal, and excludeth none: Though the Promulgation extend not to all, the tenor of the Covenant or Promise in itself doth. All have there a conditional Pardon and Grant of Salvation freely given them under the hand of God: And though their unbelief deprive them of the actual enjoyment, yet the Grant (conditional) is even to the wicked an unspeakable mercy; or else the rejecting of it would not be so great a sin, nor so torment them forever. 2. And there are other benefits subservient and additional, which the worst may receive. As to live among the godly, and have their teaching, and examples, and prayers; to have the preaching of the Word, to have external and internal common mercies, leading to Repentance. These are not given merely to Believers, or on Condition of Faith. 3. The like may be said of those great mercies which are the foundation of the New-Covenant; viz. The Death of Christ, which was a Satisfaction sufficient for the sins of the whole World, and in some sort was made for all. 4. Yet I agree with you fully (and often so expressed myself) that Unbelievers are under the Curse of the Law, and unpardoned, and without right to Salvation.

Animadversion.

Faith is the Condition whereby we obtain Evangelical Righteousness: Which Righteousness is indeed Christ's Satisfaction; only Faith is required of us, that this Righteousness may be imputed to us.

Reply.

Enough is said to this before, 1. Christ's Satisfaction is strictly our Legal Righteousness, as you confessed; because it is a Satisfaction to the Law of Works (as you speak) or to God as Legislator and Judge according to that Law: But accidentally it may be called our Evangelical Righteousness, because the Gospel revealeth and conferreth it.

2. Faith is no part of this Legal Righteousness, nor tends to satisfy God's justice, nor deserves anything of him; but is (as you truly say) the Condition only of our enjoying it.

3. This Condition is imposed by a New-Law, which was made for the right conveyance of the fruits of Christ's Satisfaction: And so is the Righteousness of that New-Law, as the performance of the Condition of a Law-Testament or Covenant, is that which it denominateth Righteous. And so you confess Faith to be our Evangelical Righteousness, whenever you confess it to be the Condition of that Law or Covenant. And when the case in question is, Whether we have performed or fulfilled the Condition of Christ's New-Law or Covenant? then Faith is that Righteousness by which materially we must be justified, or we perish. This is the sum of all in brief.

Animadversion.

Well, yet not properly the accepting Christ, but his Satisfaction accepted of us, and imputed to us, is that whereby we are justified: As it is not properly the accepting of a gift, but the gift itself that doth enrich; though it must be accepted that it may do it. This similitude seems more suitable, than that of the pepper-corn which you use.

Reply.

Why did you not set against the Distinction and Explication that I gave, p. 127, 128? In point of Satisfaction, Merit or Value, Acceptance, i. e. Faith; is no part of our Righteousness. But God resolved there should be some Condition of our personal performance to make that ours, which naturally was none of ours, but performed by another: And so in that respect, Faith itself is imputed to us instead of the personal performance of perfect Obedience, that is, it shall as fully serve to our Justification. In our perfect personal Obedience to the Law of Works, these two would have been conjoined, the Value, and the personal Performance: But now Christ's Satisfaction is the whole in point of value or merit; but he bought us to his service, and he resolveth that somewhat of our own performance shall intercede as a Condition. And so Faith is as effectual or sufficient a Condition under the New-Covenant, as perfect Obedience would have been under the Old; and Christ's Satisfaction is of as full a value now, as that Obedience would have been then. I thought this had been plain, easy, true Scripture-Doctrine. And so I see no unfitness in my similitude of a Pepper-corn, so be it you will do me that Justice, as to understand that I do by it only include the necessity of the Act of Homage, or acknowledgment of the Redeemers Dominion, and our subjection thereto, and that I exclude the rationem pretii. And if the valuableness of a Pepper-corn should make you think otherwise (contrary to the express words of my Application) you shall change the name to a grain of Sand, or a verbal Acknowledgment. And yet (be it spoken in your ear) when we preach ad populum of the necessity of Striving, Running, using Violence for Heaven, working out our Salvation, forsaking all for Christ, suffering with him that we may reign with him, &c. we do not so scrupulously avoid all that may possibly intimate rationem pretii, as a poor Pepper-corn comes too. I well remember you once preached a Sermon with me at Bridgnorth, on that in Ephesians, [See that ye walk circumspectly;] wherein you (learnedly, honestly and soundly) spake as much in the commendation of Holy-walking, as any phrase of a Pepper-corn intimates at least.

2. And for your fitter similitude, I say, it is easy to apprehend, that the Gift enricheth quoad Dignitatem; but the Acceptance ut medium fruitionis. But you must distinguish between a gift absolutely given, (wherein accepting is but naturaliter necessary, and in some cases not necessary at all;) and a gift conditionally given, Acceptance being the Condition (and given by a Law or Act of Grace;) wherein Acceptance is also moraliter necessary to the actual fruition. For in this latter case, the trial of his Title in Law, depends mainly on the trial and proof of this his Acceptance.

Animadversion.

And by this value of Christ's Satisfaction imputed to us, are we justified; not by our own personal performance of Faith properly, but only as it serves to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, whereas without Faith we have nothing to do with it.

Reply.

Your [but only as] contradicts your [not properly.] For it is proper to say, [We are justified by Faith] as a Condition; as it is to say, [We are justified by Christ's Satisfaction] as the meritorious Cause. Or else Paul (and all the Scripture) speaks oftener improperly than properly. For they never speak of being justified by Christ's Satisfaction (though there be that which is equivalent in other terms) but many a time they speak of being justified by Faith. See Wotton of this.

Animadversion.

I think there is no question to be made, but that the imperfection of Holiness, which doth proceed from admixture of contrary qualities (as immediately before you grant this doth) is sinful. For what qualities but sinful, are contrary to Holiness? And is not Imperfection sinful, which doth proceed from the admixture of sinful qualities? Let us cleanse ourselves (saith the Apostle) from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, 2 Cor. 7. 1. It is filthiness which abiding still in us, doth make our Holiness here imperfect: From which filthiness therefore we must still cleanse ourselves, that our Holiness may be more and more perfect.

Reply.

1. Concedo totum. I never intended to speak otherwise: When I said, [It is a question which will be decided, when I speak of the extent of the Command or Rule,] I intended the confuting more fully of them that are otherwise-minded, and not to make it doubtful.

2. Yet upon review, as the words lie, I must maintain the Negative in some sense. For the doubt is, Whether all this Imperfection be sinful? But as it is imperfect participative & efficienter, so it is not sinful: For so it is considered only as an imperfect work of God's Spirit, that is, a work which he hath begun, but not yet finished: And as so related to him it is not sinful; for he was not bound to perfect it sooner, or to sanctify us all at once in perfection.

Animaedvers.

For anything I yet see, a thing may be more or less conformed to its Rule; and Righteousness (being understood of that which is inherent and personal) is really the same with Holiness, as I have noted before. Neither should you (as you seem to do) appropriate Righteousness more than Holiness to our Actions: There is habitual Righteousness, as well as actual, and actual Holiness, as well as habitual. Righteousness and Holiness equally agree, both to our persons, and to our actions, Ephes. 4. 24. & 1 Pet. 1. 15.

Reply.

1. If we speak of Conformity to a Rule in general, when that Relation is founded in Quality, which admitteth of Intension and Remission, then subjective vel materialiter, the Relation may be said to be intended or remitted; but not formaliter, vel quoad esse relationis. I cannot more fully express this, than in Schibler's words, Metaph. l. 2. c. 9. Tit. 7. A. 2. Dico 2. quod etiam relata ex parte sui, hoc est, secundum esse relationis ipsius, non suscipiunt magis & minus. Intensio (n.) facit ut entitas subjecto conveniat perfectiore modo, & remissio ut modo imperfectiore. At similitudo & aequalitas; v. g. consistunt in indivisibly: veluti si quae convenient simpliciter in forma aliqua dicuntur similia: & si habeant eandem! quantitatem dicuntur paria: & hinc paritas vel aequalitas adeo exactam convenientiam significant, & nullam prorsus latitudinem admittat illa aequalitas. At{que} hinc imprimis hoc dictum Aristotelis intelligendum est juxta popularem modum loquendi (viz. Relata suscipere intensionem & remissionem) quo Arist. in Categoriis saepius usus est, prout interpretor Tolet. Conimbric. Fonseca, &c. Potest autem istud loquendi genus fundari in similitudinibus, v. g. discretis: veluti convenient alicui rei plura attributa: veluti homini, esse, vivere, intelligere, &c. Hinc igitur homo, v. g. est similior Deo quam lapis, quia pluribus attributis Deo convenit quam lapis: sic siqui conveniant in eadem aetate & statura & doctrina, aequaliores sunt quam si in sola aetate aequentur. 2. Potest ea aequalitatis (de ea enim potissima est difficultas) intensio & remissio fundari in majori recessu ab extremo. Etsi (n.) aequalitas praecise sit quasi in centro posita, tamen isto populari genere loquendi illud censebitur aequalius alii quod ab extremo magis ad centrum vergit. Veluti, si numerus aliquis sit, ut decem, in duobus extremis est aequalitas, &c. Hic numerus ad novem aequalior est istis quam numerus ad quatuor: quia novem magis recedunt ab extremo, h. e. ab uno, quam quatuor. Cum alias absolute & Philosophice loquendo, hic nulla simpliciter sit aequalitas.

2. If you speak of Conformity to the Rule of Precept as such, the same Answer serves: It may be conform in pluribus vel paucioribus partibus materiae, but those are formaliter conformitates discretae. But yet though de posse I say, [it may be] de facto.] I say, in our case it is not so: For the Act is not divisible into parts conform, and parts inconform; and no man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works, or (I think) to the preceptive part of Christ's Law as such. But if this were otherwise, it were nothing to our business: For this is not our Righteousness.

3. But (as I have told you) our Righteousness is formaliter non reatus poenae; And is there any degrees of that? Every man is Guilty, or Not-guilty. Guilty is varied, both as to the several causes or parts thereof, and the several degrees of penalty due: But when the cause is one, and it is one penalty that we are accused to be liable to, we can be but Notguilty; and if we are not so, we are Guilty. 2. This Not-guiltiness, as it respecteth the penalty of the Law of Works, is fundamentaliter from the gift of the Law of Grace. And there is here no degrees, either Christ and his Righteousness is imputed and given to us, or not; but not with a magis or minus. 3. This Righteousness is materialiter in Christ's Satisfaction; and that also is not varied, though he might have satisfied for some sins or persons only, yet he hath done it fully: And between satisfying and not-satisfying, there is no mean; nor is this the Righteousness now in question.

4. This Righteousness is conditionaliter in our Faith; or rather, our Faith is the Condition of it. And this admits not of degrees: For it is the least degree of sincere Faith that is the Condition; and the highest degree is no more, nor will justify more. The strongest Believer doth believe more than the weakest; but doth not more perform the Condition of Justification. For it is the verity of that Faith, which the Gospel hath made the Condition, which is our sincerity; and this is convertible with the Entity.

5. And for the Righteousness which is opposed to Reatus poenae novae Legis, it is a relation founded in another relation (Conformity;) and that Conformity is not to the Precept as such, but to the Law as requiring the Condition (which great Divines call the specific form of the Covenant or Law;) and this Condition is our Righteousness in the sense explained, and admits not of degrees as a Condition, as is last said.

Though if you go yet further from the form, and consider our Gospel-Righteousness neither in esse non Reatus poenae, nor in esse relativo Conformitatis ad Legem conditionem instituentem, nor in esse reali Conditionis-praestitae, but in esse Officii, as related to, or measured by the Precept, and that only quoad materiam Praeceptam; so I confess that our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees. And I think this Answer is plain, and the distinction necessary, and not vainly nice.

2. And where you still say, that Holiness and Righteousness is all one; I have told you (I think sufficiently) a wide difference. If you take Holiness for passive Dedication to God, or the Relation of a thing consecrated or separated to God; so I told you it is indeed a Relation, but not the same with Righteous: If you take it for the Quality of our new-spiritual life; or the Habits of Grace, so it is materially the same thing with part of our Evangelical Righteousness in question, but not formally; nay, nor materially, as it is considered in any high degree, but merely as Sincere. If you consider it as those actions which are commanded, it is materially another part of our Righteousness: For it is the same act which the Law makes a Condition, which it also makes to be Officium; and it is first Officium in order of nature, and then Conditio. But there is more made Officium, than is made the Condition properly and per se. But you after seem to take [Holiness] formaliter in a sense yet differing from all these, that is, as it is the Conformity perfect or imperfect) of Habits or Actions to the Rule: The same with bonum Morale, as opposite to sin. And so it seems to me, you make all the good actions of the Heathens holy: for you think, that an exact Conformity is not the only true Conformity. But in this sense (if it be good) Holiness and Righteousness much differ: It is indeed the same with that Righteousness which is opposed to Reatus culpae; (if any man were found that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works, when indeed the best are but less unrighteous.) But it is not the same with [performance of the Condition] formally; much less the same formally with our non-Reatus poenae. Holiness in your sense as bonum, is denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept: But I hope you will acknowledge a wide difference between those two Acts of the New-Law, instituere Officium, and instituere Conditionem; between; [Do this,] simply taken; and, [Do this, and live.]

3. Your Charge (of my placing Righteousness only in Acts, and Holiness in Habits) is utterly against my oft express words. I say of Righteousness, p. 132. that [it is the relative consideration of these Qualities, &c.] p. 134. that [it may be materially considered in Holiness,] and divers the like. Yet let me tell you, that (though the Precept do require Habits, whatsoever L. V. in Crellio Refutato say to the contrary, yet) he that should maintain against you, that it is not habitual Faith, but actual, which is properly & in se, the Condition of the Covenant, would put you hard to it; and perhaps not cross your own, or the common Principles; though I am not now of that opinion which excludes the Habit.

Animadversion.

True: Our Righteousness whereby we are justified must be perfect. But our Divines you know hold, that the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is not our personal Righteousness, but the Righteousness of Christ through faith imputed to us; neither do I as yet see any cause to desert this Doctrine.

Reply.

I must say, that I like not the saying that our Justification is perfect, for many Reasons: But you grant as much as I desire for the major Proposition, [That the Righteousness whereby we are justified must be perfect:] And I think I have proved the minor already, [But the performing the Condition of the New-Covenant, is a Righteousness by which we must be justified;] viz. in subordination to Christ's Righteousness; that is, against the Accusation of being rei poenae novae Legis, for non- performance of its Conditions. And methinks it should need no proof: But yet I am willing that this phrase be be cast aside, lest it be misunderstood.

Animadversion.

Sincerity is such perfection as doth consist with imperfection: For one is more or less sincere, as more or less free from admixtures of Hypocrisy, and so more or less perfect. Neither can you (I think) evade by your distinction which you add immediately after; viz. That sincere Faith as such, is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection; but formally, as it's relatively our Conformity to the said Rule. For (so far as I can yet discern) Conformity to a Rule doth not consist in such an indivisible point, but that there may be degrees of it: So that one may be more or less (personally) righteous, as well as more or less holy. And so much may be understood by that, Rev. 22. 11. Let him that is righteous, be righteous still; and let him that is holy, be holy still; i. e. Let him not only continue righteous and holy, but also labor to be more righteous and holy: And doth not the Apostle require of those that are righteous and holy, that they be renewed in the spirit of their mind, and put on the new-man, which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness? Ephes. 4. 23, 24.

Reply.

1. I doubt not but sincerity of Righteousness consisteth with imperfection of Holiness, or of the matter of that Righteousness. Sincerity is taken by Divines: 1. For a Moral Virtue (or if you will, a spiritual Grace.) 2. For the Metaphysical Verity of that Grace which we have. And thus they doubly use the word [Hypocrisy:] 1. For that Vice, which makes a man desire and endeavor to seem better than he is. 2. For a seeming or appearing better than we are, or to do what we do not, though without affectation or dissimulation: For the falsity of that seeming-sincerity as a Virtue, is opposed to the first kind of Hypocrisy, viz. as a particular Vice; and thus you seem to take it: And so no doubt but Sincerity may be more or less, as it hath less or more Hypocrisy mixed with it. If you take it in the second sense, so Sincerity is no particular Virtue (nor the opposite Hypocrisy any particular Vice) but the Metaphysical Truth of our Virtues, which is nothing really distinct from them. But thus it is not very proper to speak of the admixture of Hypocrisy, q. d. a mixture of Verity and Falsity, Entity and non- Entity. But let that pass.

This last Sincerity is, 1. Either the Sincerity, or Truth of the Habit or Act in its Physical Consideration: (And so the Acts or Habits may be increased, but the Metaphysical Truth of each particular or degree is still a Concomitant modus of the Being, not capable of Intension or Remission in itself immediately, but as the Entity is intended or remitted.) 2. Or it is the truth of their Vertuousness or Goodness-Moral, which is their Denomination, as they are suited with the Precept, [Do this:] And so neither the Sincerity, nor the Goodness or Conformity have formaliter any Degrees; but materialiter vel subjective (they may, and commonly be, so spoke of, because vel plures, vel pauciores materiae partes sunt conforms regulae:) But in our case, as to the Divine Rule, I have told you before, how inconform we are, and all our actions. But yet this is not the Sincerity that I speak of. 3. Sincerity therefore is taken here by me, for the Metaphysical Truth of our performance of the Condition of the Covenant. And therefore I said, [It is our Conformity to the Rule; viz. the Covenant as a Covenant,] to distinguish it from Conformity to the preceptive part as such. This is the Sincerity of our Graces or Duties, not Physically, as Habits or Acts (that is presupposed) not morally, quoad praeceptum only, as virtuous or good: 4. But savingly, quoad conditiónem: As I have more fully opened to you in Cbap. 11. of my Treat. of Rest, Edit. 2, & 3. whither I must refer you for a fuller Explication of my sense of this. Now in this sense Sincerity admits of no degrees; for there is no medium between ens and non-ens: And this Sincerity is but the Metaphysical Verity of that Faith (whether in kind or degree differing from other Faith, is nothing to this Controversy) which the Covenant hath made its Condition. Every man is either a sincere, that is, true performer of that Condition, or he is not; and no man is more truly a performer of it than other.

2. I have therefore over and over shown you, that Conformity to the Rule of the Condition doth consist in such an indivisible punctum, that though one may praest are conditionem fortiùs & alacriùs than another, yet none doth more truly perform it, or is more a performer of it, and consequently not more righteous in that sense. As our Divines use to say, A weak hand may as truly receive a Pearl, as a strong; and a weak Faith as truly receive Christ. If a Pearl be given to ten men, on condition they take it; he that takes it feebly, hath as good right to it, as he that grasps it hard: And if their right be called in Question, it will prove that the Titulus or Conditio was not strong apprehending, but •… pprehending; and therefore the case will not be, •… Whether he strongly, but whether he truly took •… t?] And there will be no more, but a Guilty, or Not-guilty in that point of Verity, to turn all. •… f the truly took it, his cause is righteous, and therefore he is in that righteous, and therefore shall be justified.

3. I see not what the two Texts cited make against this: Rev. 22. 11. either speaks not of increase of Righteousness, but perseverance (and yet it may of Holiness; for you know it is usual to vary the sense of the same Adjunct or Precept, according to the variety of subjects:) Or, 2. If it speak of Righteousness in esse materiali & non formali, that is nothing against what I say. I am sure it proves, that there is a true personal Righteousness in the Saints, and that cannot be in sensu Legis operum.

Ephes. 4. 23, 24. 1. The Apostle seems not to press on them a duty de novo, but to suppose that already done which he mentioneth: [If so be that ye have heard of him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus, that ye put off the old man, &c.

2. If it be not so, yet [putting off the old man, and putting on the new,] is usually spoke to those that yet have not put on the new. And Paul wrote to more than sincere Christians, though to none but Professors.

3. If you were sure he spoke to none but the Saints, yet the words imply not any increase of their Righteousness, but of that new-man which is created in Righteousness and Holiness; that is, whose nature and excellency consisteth in being righteous and holy: One of which may yet increase, and not the other.

4. If yet this were otherwise, all that you can think to prove is, that the word [Righteousness] is used for the matter, and not the form of Righteousness.

5. Righteousness is oft taken in Scripture for that Virtue which consisteth in tribuendo suum cui{que}. And so especially, as it respecteth God; giving to God the things that are God's, and to men, that which is men's; and consequently obeying him. But this is not the Righteousness now in question.

Animadversion.

The end of our Faith is to be the Condition of our Justification; but not considered as it is our Righteousness, viz. a part of our Inherent Righteousness, but as it receives Christ the Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23. 6. viz. whereby we are justified.

Reply.

This is very true, as to the first Justification, from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum: For so Faith justifies only as the Condition of our participation in Christ and his Righteousness (which I am glad you grant:) But as to the second Justification, from the Accusation of Reatus poenae novae Legis ob non praestitam conditionem, Faith is materially that our Righteousness. The confounding these two Justifications, and the confounding the Rule of Duty (Precept) and the Rule of the Condition, or the Law as instituting the Condition, and so the praestatio Officii, and praestatio Conditionis, is the thing that bringeth all this darkness into your discourse (as it appears to me.)

Animadversion.

1. Inherent Righteousness may be true, and yet imperfect, and that formally considered in relation to the New-Covenant. For the New-Covenant as it accepts of sincere Righteousness; so it requires an increase of it, which needed not, nor could be, if it were perfect.

2. You speak of that Righteousness whereby we are justified, and suppose it to be Faith; whereas Faith is a hand to receive that Righteousness, that we may be justified by it.

Reply.

I will not molest you with repeating anymore the former Reply: only consider, how Reatus, vel non-Reatus poenae can be formaliter increased. And lest you think me singular in making Righteousness (of this sort) to consist in that, hear our Learned Gataker (specially well studied in these points) cont. Lucium Vind. part. 1. sect. 2. n. 34. In re judiciariâ insons omnis pro justo habetur, Sons & insons sunt ex oppositis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So he interpreteth Deut. 25. 1. (ibid. n. 21. pag. 32.) Si controversia inter aliquos extiterit & ad judciium res delata fuerit, justificent (judices soil.) eum qui justus (hoc est insons) fuerit, eum vero qui improbus (hoc est sons) fuerit condemnent. Vid. & n. 19, 20. &c. p. 31. Et idem contra Gomarum, pag. 35, 36. Non hoc dioitur, Deum apud se judicare illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christ us satisfecit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse: Sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis Reatum & jus ad vitam aeternam, ac si nihil vel mali admisissent, vel boni debiti omisissent.

Let me add the words of Placaeus, Thes. Salmuriens. Vol. 1. p. 27. Justus sumi potest vel morali vel forensi signification. Morali, ut opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , eum{que} significet qui praeditus est virtute ea quae justitia dicitur, &c. Forensi ut opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , eum{que} significet in quem Lege agere non licet; qui jure condemnari non potest à judice, nedum puniri: sic nos, &c.

I have heard some object merely from the name, that this is to make Righteousness to be only a Negation of guilt: But let them change the name, and call the guilty, Non-justus, or Non-absolvendus, and then they are pleased.

And let me note one thing more here, lest you should think this to be Righteousness nimis improprie sic dicta; viz. that as Righteousness is most strictly in sensu forensi opposed to guilt, so guilt of punishment is so properly called guilt, as well as Reatus culpae is; that the Reatus culpae alone is seldomer mentioned by Divine or Human Writers, but they commonly define guilt (as if they took notice of no other sort) thus, Reatus est obligatio ad poenam.

Animadversion.

Here you grant, that Righteousness (i. e. personal inherent Righteousness) is the same with Holiness, and so imperfect. For your distinction of Materiality and Formality of Righteousness, I have said some • hing to it before. Neither do I see but Holiness also may admit the same distinction. For though Holiness materially considered be a quality (as you say it is, page 132.) and so also is habitual Righteousness, which is as you acknowledge, materially considered, nothing but Holiness; yet Holin • ss as well as Righteousness formally considered, is a Conformity to the Rule, viz. the Law of God. For Holiness is opposite to sin, and sin is a deviation from the Rule, therefore Holiness is a Conformity to it.

Reply.

I answered this particularly before. Holiness (in your sense, as you take it for Goodness) is a Conformity (imperfect quoad partes vel respectus materiae conformis) to the Law, as it doth constituere Debitum officii: Righteousness is, 1. Non-Reatus poenae. 2. A Conformity to the Rule, as it constituteth Conditionem praemii obtinendi, & poenae vitandae; or, as Divines use to say, as it is a Covenant, or respecteth the Sanction.

Animadversion.

I think those Divines mean thus: That in and through Christ, first our persons are accepted of God, and then out Performances: And in this I see nothing improper, much less unsound and dangerous. God hath made us accepted in the Beloved, Ephes. 1. 6. and as us, so also our services: Our spiritual Sacrifice is acceptable to God through Christ, 1 Pet. 2. 5. And the acceptation of our persons, is before the acceptation of our performances: The Lord had respect to Abel, and to his Offering, Gen. 4. 4. First to Abel, and then to his Offering. Non Abel ex muneribus, sed ex Abel munera pla • u • runt, saith Gregor).

Reply.

1. I never doubted of the acceptance of our duties; but I am far from thinking yet, that Acceptance is properly justifying.

2. I shall in reply to your next Section, recant part of this; but not to your mind.

3. I am not now of your opinion (if generally understood of all works or duties) that God first accepteth our persons, and then our works. 1. If you mean by [Accepting our persons,] election of them to Acceptance and Life, I confess it is Antecedent, but not causal of the Acceptance of our duties. 2. The like I yield of his Philanthropy, if that be called [Accepting our persons.] 3. But if you mean (as doubtless you do) the accepting our persons as Members of Christ, and reconciled to him, and so the lawful Objects of his special Love, I deny your Affertion; and I affirm, That the Act and Habit of Faith are accepted of God, in order of Nature, before our persons are so accepted: 1. For Faith is the Condition of that Acceptance of our persons; and I know, I need not prove to you, that the Condition and its Acceptance, go before the benefit given on that Condition. The Acceptance of our persons, is the same as Reconciliation, Justification, Adoption in effect: For it is God's accepting us, as reconciled, justified, adopted ones. And is not the Acceptance of Faith, yea, and Knowledge, Repentance, before these? The Question is in effect the same with that which we commonly debate with the Antinomians, Whether we are reconciled, justified, adopted, before we repent and believe? 2. The contrary opinion makes God an Accepter of persons, in the sense that is so oft disclaimed by him in Scripture.

If any ask, How can he accept the faith of a person not accepted, and unreconciled?

I answer, For his Christ, his Covenant and Promise sake; and also, that Faith is the work of his Spirit, bringing the person into an acceptable state: And this leads me to a third Concession.

4. I yield that there is such a preparation to our acceptance made in the Satisfaction of Christ, as paid to God and accepted, that (the great impediments being removed) all men may be said, to be conditionally accepted before they believe: God is so far reconciled to Mankind in general, that he treats with them on new-terms, and offers them actual Peace and Acceptance on very reasonable Conditions, consistent with the freeness of his gift.

5. And I grant you also, that our persons must be justified and reconciled, before our external obedience can be accepted, such as Abel 's Sacrifice was; but not before our Faith, Repentance, and Love can be accepted. The general effect of Christ's Death, extendeth so far, as to procure Acceptance of our Faith, (in order of nature, but not of time) before the Acceptance of our persons, by special Reconciliation. I like not therefore Gregory's phrase, though his sense be good: I should say, Nec Abel ex muneribus, nec ex Abel munera, sed ex Christo & foedere Gratiae, & Abel & munera placuerunt.

But by the way (from your instance) take notice, that it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works, that Abel 's Works were accepted; for the Text expressly saith, It was by Faith that Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain; by which he obtained witness that he was righteeus, God testifying of his gifts, Heb. 11. 4.

Animadversion.

Justifying, as the Scripture doth use the Word, is the acquitting of us from all sin. For he is justified, to whom the Lord doth not impute sin, Rom. 4. 8. Whoshall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect? (viz. when they are justified?) 'tis God that justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. Now all sin is a breaking of the Law, 1 John 3. 4. Your selves say, p. 147. [There's no sin prohibited in the Gospel, which is not a breach of someone Precept in the Decalogue.] But what all this which you here say, is to your purpose; viz. To prove that the forementioned saying of Divines is improper, I confess I cannot well see. For though (as you say) Justifying in Scripture is the acquitting of us from the Charges of breaking the Law, and not from the Charge of violating the New-Covenant, may it not yet properly be said, that Christ first justifieth our persons, and then our duties and actions? You hold, that the New-Covenant is not violated but by final Unbelief; and I suppose it to be true, if it be rightly understood. But for anything I can see, though none be acquitted from such Violation of the New-Covenant, yet first our persons, and then our duties and actions may properly be said to be justified; that is, accepted as just, and acquitted from all Accusation brought against them, though in themselves they be not such, but that sin doth deave unto them.

Reply.

1. I must first tell you, that I do recant these words, and the following Reasons of them, as all weak. I think it not improper to say, God in judgment will justify our Faith from the Accusation of unsoundness, and our obedience too. And I think James and other places use the word Justifying to such a sense; viz. against the Accusation that we are Unbelievers or Hypocrites, and so no performers of the Condition of the New-Covenant. And I think most Christians are more solicitous, how to answer that Accusation in Judgment (and good reason) than the Accusation of their being sinners, and deserving God's wrath for that in general. And the esteeming a righteous action to be righteous, may imply Accusability; and the sentencing it Righteous, implieth Accusation. And the person cannot be accused, but by accusing his actions. So much against myself.

2. Yet I maintain still the dangerousness of this speech, that our Actions are justified (through Christ's merits) by the Law of Works, or from the Accusation of sinfulness; and I stand to the Reasons thereof.

Now to your words: 1. And first I like not your equivocal definition of Justification, [the acquitting of us from all sin:] For it seems to imply, that God esteemeth us not sinners, but freeth us à Reatu culpae qua talis: which is impossible. But I confess he acquitteth us from all sin, as it induceth an Obligation to punishment (as Gataker in the fore-cited words distinguisheth.) 2. But remember once more, that God hath made two distinct Covenants or Laws, and that each Law hath his proper Obligation; or else it is no Law: And that to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old-Law, is one Justification, consisting in Remission of sin; and the acquitting us from the Obligation of the New-Law, is not by dissolving it, and pardoning it, which is never done, but by justifying us against the Accusation of being so obliged: And this is another Justification. Pardon my so oft repeating the same thing.

3. When you say, [Justifying is the acquitting from all sin.] If by [Acquitting,] you mean [Pardoning,] then you must extend it only to all sin against the Law of Works, except that excepted by the Law of Grace; or all sin which Believers were guilty of, but not all species of sin. Not the sin against the Holy Ghost, not the final non- performance of the Conditions of the New-Covenant, which leave no remedy.

4. I am glad of your Concession, that the Covenant is not violated, but by final unbelief.

5. But I am heartily sorry that you think our actions as well as our persons are accepted as just, and acquitted from all Accusation brought against them (and that as to the Law of Works) though in themselves they be not such, but that sin doth cleave unto them (as you say.) Against this Doctrine I intended that Thesis; and I confess my heart detesteth it. I will bring an Accusation against my own actions and yours (our Prayers, Alms, &c.) viz. They are sinful, they are breaches of God's Law. How will you be justified from this Accusation? You will not plead, Not-guilty I hope, and say, You do not sin! You will say, God doth accept your actions as just. But how? Doth he take them really to be not sinful? and call evil, good? and say, sin is no sin? God forbid we should think it. Doth he make the factum to be infectum; or the word spoken to be unsaid again? Absit. Nam sicut quicquid est, necessario est, dum est: ita quicquid fuit, vel praeteritum est, necessario fuit. The Language of Divines is, it cannot be undone ne per divinam potentiam: But is it morally undone? How? As I said, God doth not esteem it [not to have been done,] much less [not to have been ill done:] And as quod fuit, necessario fuit (necessitate existentiae, ut aiunt:) ita quod male fuit, necessario male fuit: The Reatus culpae therefore cannot possibly be removed or remitted; that is, the man cannot be, or justly esteemed to be, a man that [sinned not.] But only the Reatus poenae is taken away: God so forgiveth all our sin, that as they induce the Debitum poenae, he destroyeth them; and by dissolving the Obligation, freeth us as much from the effects (Eternal Wrath) as if they had never been committed. Is not this enough? But how you will be free from all Accusation of being a sinner, I know not.

2. Do you not fully hereby set up Justification by the Works of the Law? For if all your works can be justified from the Accusation of being sinful, or breaches of the Law, then why may not the Law justify you (were it not only for Original sin (or perhaps you will except your sins before Conversion.)

3. Is not this the way that the Papists go? though they will not plead for Merits without Christ, yet they think that Christ hath merited the Meritoriousness of their works. So you think that Christ hath merited, that your works shall be justified from the Accusation of sinfulness.

4. And I will bring this Accusation against your works, from the Law of Works: They are not so far meritorious of Everlasting Life, as that Law requires they should be. How will you acquit them from that Accusation? Do you think Christ hath made them so meritorious▪

5. Yea further, I will bring this Accusation against your works. They are such as deserve Eternal Damnation; yea, and for them you are obliged thereto, immediately upon the doing of them. How will you answer this Accusation? I hope not by denying it. For if you are not first obligatus ad poenam, you are not capable of Remission. For Remission is nothing else but the dissolving of that Obligation. And indeed, I know nothing else that I have to say against that Accusation, but (confessing the desert, and that I was so obliged) to plead, that For Christ's Satisfaction the Obligation is dissolved, by the Grant of the New-Covenant, ut per Legem remediantem.

Animadver.

You might also as well say, The esteeming of a righteous person to be as he is: But neither our persons nor our actions are so righteous, but that we may be accused of, and condemned for sin in them, and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be. There's not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not. Eccles. 7. 20. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we consiss our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us, &c. 1 John 1. 8, 9. If God shall contend with us, we cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job 9. 3. Aaron was to bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel did hallow in all their holy gifts, Exod. 28. 38. So that even in our holy things there is iniquity, which Christ the true High Priest doth bear, that so it may not be imputed to us.

Reply.

This speech I have already reversed; and therefore will say no more about it.

Animadversion.

But not if it be understood, as I suppose it should be, That through Christ the imperfection and iniquity of our actions (though otherwise holy) is covered, and not imputed to us. This doth not overthrow, but establish Christ's Righteousness.

Reply.

Becaue this is but to assert the Remission of sin; and Remission is nothing but the remitting the Obligation to punishment: But if you think that the sin is remitted, or not imputed absolute ut peccatum, as well as respective quoad poenam, and that your actions may be justified against all Accusations, then I know not how the hard consequences forementioned will be avoided.

Animadversion.

This I grant would follow, if God did justify our works for their own sake, as being fully and perfectly righteous; but not if he do it (as he doth) for Christ's sake, pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them. That which hence doth follow, is not that our works are just; (viz. fully and perfectly as they must be, that we may be justified by them) but that they through Christ, are accepted as such; not that we are justified by our works, but that we are justified, notwithstanding the iniquity that is in them. And it seems strange unto me, how you should infer from that saying of some Divines, that we are justified by our works, when-as the very saying itself is this, That first our persons are justified, and then our works: So that it should rather follow, That our works are justified by us, than that we are justified by our works; though indeed neither doth follow, but that both we and our works are justified by Christ, though first we, and then our works; all which (as I have shown) is agreeable to the Scriptures.

Reply.

1. It will follow indeed, that our persons were first justified by Christ, but that afterward they may be justified by our works, when once our works themselves are all justified. You may find full Answers to this in Chamier, Pareus, Ames. and the rest, against the foresaid Doctrine of [Meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ.]

2. And you should have told us, Whether it be all our works that are thus justified, or but some. If all, then our sins are justified (as David 's Adultery, &c.) which I think you will not say. If some (as our Duties) then the justifying is nothing but the pardoning of their sinfulness: Which pardon supposeth them sinful, and it is to the person that the pardon is given, and not to the work; and the pardon only destroyeth the obligation to Punishment (commonly called Guilt) and not the evil of the work.

Animadversion.

I see not how final Unbelief, or any sin whatsoever, can be against the Gospel only, and not also against the Law; sin, as sin, being a transgression of the Law, 1 John 3. 4. And there being no sin prohibited in the Gospel, which is not a breach of some Precept in the Decalogue, as yourself confesses, p. 147.

Reply.

1. You do not put a right name on my Assertion, to call it [my Confession] unless you had accused me with contradicting it (which methinks you should not.)

2. Though you be of my judgment in this, yet others are not.

3. I know sin is a transgression of the Law; but our Question is, Of what Law? Old or New? and how far?

4. It is not so easy a matter to conceive suddenly how unbelief and neglect of Sacraments, &c. are sins against the Law of Works, or the Precepts of the Decalogue, as belonging to that Law. 1. As to the Decalogue and perceptive part of the Law of Works, as it is merely in nature, and was delivered at the first, I conceive it doth command obedience in general, and specify all natural duties, and so forbid the contrary sin: But it doth not specify each particular duties that after were added. I conceive that the Law of Nature, or Works, doth leave room after the first Institution, for the adding of new -positives, without making a new -form of the Law as to the Sanction. Else every positive that Moses added, should have made a New-Law: So of sacrificing before Moses, &c. the sense of the Law was, [Obey God in all that he now doth, or hereafter shall command;] and Nature speaks so plainly. And whenever the Positive-Command is added in any age, it is a fresh discovery of God's will, which Nature obligeth us to obey: The Obligation is as much from the general Precept in Nature, as from the particular superadded: And though the general Precept, [Obey all God's Will,] could not oblige to the particular till it was in being; yet when it is in being it doth oblige even to that particular, mediante Revelation, which enableth us to assume, [but this is God's Will.] The same I say of the Sanction of the Law of Nature: It threateneth Death to all sin, even against a Command that was not at the first Institution in being. It saith, [Whosoever sinneth shall die.] So that it is evident that the Law of Nature in its general Precept, extendeth to all particulars that hereafter shall be revealed to be God's Will. But because I said in my Aphoris. [That as Faith is to such an end required, so it is not specially commanded by the Law of Works.] I must partly explain, and partly recant that. For now I think that all duties, with all their ends, are required by the Law of Nature, or that Law obligeth to them; and so to Faith, as it is a means of Remission, though this seemed strange to me heretofore. But here you must distinguish still, 1. Between the Precept, as it is a Precept, and maketh duty; and the Institution of that duty to be the Condition of Life. 2. Between these two Notions, [The Law of Nature,] and [The Law of Works;] for it is called, [The Law of Works,] in reference to the Sanction, as Works are made the Condition of Life or Death: But it is not called, The Law of Works, when you consider the Precept alone, though it command perfection. 3. You must distinguish between the Law of Natures obliging Man in Innocency, and the same Law as continued, obliging man fallen; and also obliging man redeemed, and in hopes of Pardon and Life restored. The change of man's state may cause the same Law to oblige him to new-duties. 4. You must distinguish between [The preparing and giving Christ, Grace, Hope, &c. and revealing them to Mankind in the Gospel,] and, [The obliging hereupon to the duty of Believing and Receiving them.] And so I conclude thus for the Solution.

1. That (as is said) the Law of Nature binding us to Do all that God shall make known to be his Will, doth oblige us to each particular, when it is made known, as it doth generally oblige to obedience before. And so it obligeth even to Faith, Repentance, &c.

2. The Law of Nature doth not reveal Christ, or Grace and Pardon, and Life by him; nor did it make the preparation, by giving Christ to satisfy for sin. This is proper to the Law of Grace, to publish Grace and Christ.

3. The Law of Nature doth not make man any promise of Pardon, Justification and Salvation, if he repent and believe.

4. The Law of Nature did not oblige man in Innocency to repent, or return to God, or believe in Christ. For there was not the matter of, or capacity in us, for such an Obligation.

5. But as soon as ever Man was fallen, (even before Christ was promised) the Law of Nature obliged fallen Man to repent and return to God. But it gave him no hope of pardon on his Repentance: So that it would have been but a despairing Repentance. Yet hereby it is apparent, that the Law of Nature maketh us new-duties, as our case changeth; and some duties proper to fallen Man, which to the Innocent it made not.

6. Though the Law of Nature neither give nor reveal Christ, Hope, Pardon, and restored Life, yet when God by Grace hath redeemed us, and given us up to Christ, and revealed Him, and Hope, and Life by him, then the Law of Nature commandeth us to believe God's Revelation, and accept God's gracious offer, and repent and return, and love him that bought us, and be thankful, &c. Who feeleth not in himself, that Nature and common Reason obligeth to, or requireth this on the foresaid suppositions? So much of the Precept of Natures Law.

7. The Law of Nature continueth to pronounce Death due to every sin, and the greatest punishment due to the greatest sins. And therefore by that Law, Death is due to Unbelief; yea, a far sorer punishment than was due to ordinary sins, in that it hath such aggravations. And though it condemned Man for the first sin, and provided him no remedy, yet a remedy being aliunde provided, it further condemneth him if he reject it.

8. Though the form of the Law of Works was not altered by God; yet the Obligation (as it were) of the promisory or premiant part is ceased, upon Man's first sin, through the utter incapacity of Man to receive it. For it promised Life only to the perfect or innocent; and the first sin made us all nocent, and unmeet subjects. And so Divines use to say, That the Law as a Covenant is dissolved; not that the whole Sanction is dissolved, but per cessation • m, the promissory part is void, or the Promiser disobliged by us.

9. That therefore which is proper to the New-Law is, that it, 1. Be built on a new foundation, viz. Redemption; and so the Legislator is Deus-Redemptor, and not only Deus-Naturae, vel Deus-Creator as such. 2. That it reveal Christ, and his Sacrifice, and Hope, Pardon and Life, &c. 3. That it promise and give all these. 4. That it institute the Condition on which they shall be given, or be ours. All these the Law of Nature meddleth not in; though when the Condition is instituted, it obligeth us not only in general to obey, but in special to obey, and use it to these ends appointed.

10. Yet no man must think, that all the New-Law consisteth in these only, and that the Precept and Threatning are no true parts of the New-Law, because they are common with the Old: For even these are still true parts of it. Even as the earth that man's body was made of, ceased not to be truly earth when it was made man, nor ceaseth to be a proper or essential part of man, because it is earth. Or as a cup of water taken out of the River, and made Beer, ceaseth not to be water, nor yet can be denied to be Beer. Only it ceaseth to be mere or common water, as our bodies do to be mere common earth. So here the preceptive part of the Law of Nature, is comprehensive of the Law of Grace, and all Laws that ever will be (supposing those alterations in rerum Natura which lay the grounds:) But yet, as the Specification of the Covenants or Laws, is (as Cameron oft, and others) from the Condition and Sanction, and so the New-Law is specified from thence: So it hence assumeth into its nature, even that which is part of the Law of Natu •• . Only as man's body is now no common earth▪ so the Precepts of Faith, Repentance, &c. as tending to recovery, are not common Legal Precepts; But may be considered as belonging to the Law of Grace, and also to the Law of Nature. So that as man's Soul is specifically distinct from earth, and his Body in itself not so, but as pars à toto; but yet is made an essential part of man: So the preceptive part of the Law of Grace, is distinct from the Law of Nature, but as pars à toto; and yet is made an essential part of that Law, whose Promise and Institution of a Condition qua talis, is specifically distinct from the Law of Nature; and from the whole is denominated as specifically distinct.

And hence it is that the Law of Christ is oftener called, a Testament, Covenant, Gospel, &c. than a Law: Which hath occasioned the Lutheran Divines (some of them) against Scripture, and all Antiquity, to deny it to be properly a Law, and confine its whole nature to the foresaid proper parts, which in specie differ from the Old. It must be known, that as the Righteousness of Faith (in itself, as the Condition of the New-Law) is but subservient to Christ's Righteousness, and required for it; so the New-Law is a subservient Law to the Law of Nature, being but Lex remedians, to destroy the Obligation of the Old (ad poenam) and conduce to the attaining of its ends.

And so much for explication of my thoughts on this point; which I write to satisfy myself as I go on in reviewing my Writings. I think the right stating, and clear apprehension of this point (of the difference between the Law and Gospel, and how far the Law of Works is abrogated) to be of greater moment and difficulty by far, than your Animadversions take notice of; or than anything (as to difficulty) that you deal with, as far as I remember.

The sum of all is, That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige, but is destroyed, not by an Abrogation, but Cessation, cessante materia vel capacitate subjecti: But the Precept ceaseth not (except some Positives, which may be added or taken away without alteration in the nature of the Law;) nor the Threatning (because nec abrogatur, nec cessat materia:) That the Precept of the Law of Grace is now under the general Precept of the Law of Nature. Yet is it not fit to call Faith and Repentance, and Sacraments, &c. [Precepts of the Law of Nature,] without Explication; because they have now a super- added new-form, by conjunction with the Doctrine and Promise of Grace (as the water hath a new-form by commixtion, when it is made B • er; and the Body of man, when of earth it was made man, and yet retaineth the form of water, and earth still: But the denomination must follow the new super- added form.) And so the Denomination of Faith and Repentance must be from the super- added form, and they must be called, [Parts of the New-Law.] Yet the whole bulk of the Precepts of the Law of Nature, remain in conjunction with the Threatenings of that Law: But the Promise of the New-Law is a remedy at hand to dissolve it. And the Threat of the New-Law hath in it somewhat common to it with the Old; (viz. The Institution of the dueness of Punishment to Impenitency and Unbelief, proportioned to their nature) and something proper to the New-Law; viz. in the Negative, not to institute the penalty due to each particular sin; Positively, to make its Obligation to Punishment for final Unbelief and Impenitency, to be remediless, and irreversible, and peremptory, determining not only de Debito (as the first Law doth, and all Laws do;) but also by Prediction de Eventu which is a thing super- added to the strict nature of a Law as such. Besides, that it incorporateth the common part of the Threat also into its own body, and maketh it essential to itself; viz. the Debitum non▪liberationis, & majoris poenae.

Animadversion.

Not so indeed threaten death, as not withal to offer life upon Condition of repenting and believing: Which also the Gospel doth even to the ungodly, Acts 3. 19. & 13. 38, 39. But the Gospel establishing, and not repealing the Moral Law (as you confess, pag. 154.) doth threaten death to all Unbelief, and to all sin, that so the Grace and Mercy offered to men in the Gospel, may be accepted of them.

Reply.

The [Moral Law] is usually taken for the mere Preceptive part of the Law of Nature, as absolutely considered without the Sanction: And so the same thing which is the Law of Nature, may be also the directive or preceptive part of the Law of Grace: (Though I am unsatisfied, whether it be sit to say, The Law of Christ doth constitute that duty a-new, and take in the Moral Law as part of itself; or only suppose it, and make use of it.) But you here take the [Moral Law] for the Precept, as conjunct with the Threatning (else you would not say, it threateneth death:) But so I take it to be no true part of the New Law, though not dissolved or abrogated by it. Else I think we shall make the first Law of Nature, and Christ's Law of Grace all one.

Animadversion.

This seems more acute than solid. For may not the Conditions of the Covenant be broken, though they be not finally broken? The Conditions of the New-Covenant are, to repent and believe. Now if they to whom the New-Covenant is tendered, be impenitent and unbelieving; so long as they are so, they break the Conditions of the New-Covenant, whether it be only for a time, or to the end. Indeed if the Covenant-Conditions be at length performed, they are not absolutely broken; but yet broken they are, whilst they are not performed, and yet ought to be performed. The New-Covenant you grant, may be neglected; but it is not neglected, if the Conditions of it be performed: And to distinguish between not-performing the Conditions of the Covenant, when it is tendered, and breaking the Conditions of it; I think is not sound.

Reply.

1. You seem (by your silence) to grant the main thing I here intend; viz. Thes. 33. That Christ died not to satisfy for the Violation of the Covenant of Grace, but of Works only.

2. I did explain what I meant by [Violating the Conditions] in the last word of the Thesis, [So as that the offend • should fall under the Threat]: But more fully in the Appendix.

3. By [the Threatning,] I mean not [every discovery of an imminent danger;] but that proper act of the Law, which is obligare ad poenam.

4. I still confess, that for Unbelief and Impenitency, men remain obligati ad poenam per Legem naturae, till they believe, and so that Obligation be dissolved.

5. But still I deny it, as to the proper Obligation of the New-Law: For I conceive that is peremptory, remediless and undissolvable. And therefore I think it both sound and necessary to distinguish between the proper Violation of the Covenant, and the temporary non-performance of the Conditions. Yet I resolve not to contend about the Word or Name: If you think the one is as properly to be called a Violation as the other, and I think not, this is a matter of no great moment. But as to the thing intended by that word, I say, that Unbelief not final, is no such Violation of the New-Law, as to make us obligati ad poenam hujus Legis propriam, or that this Law should oblige us to punishment. For else we must say, that Christ came to satisfy his own Law, and be a Mediator between himself, as Mediator, and sinners, which I am loath to say. Indeed the Gospel-Covenant doth non-liberare, while men continue their unbelief. But I conceive it doth not obligare ad poenam proprie, viz. ad non-liberationem & ad poenam majorem, but for final non- performance. For if it do, it is either absolutely, or conditionally: Not absolutely (which you here confess;) for then there were no remedy: For the absolute Threat of the New-Law is irrevocable and remediless. And if but conditionally, then it is no Obligation: For it were no Condition, if it suspend not the Act of the Law. If a King say to a company of imprisoned Murderers, He that will promise a new-life shall be pardoned; and he that will not, shall not be pardoned, but at the Assizes suffer a double torment. Here the Condition of present Liberation indeed is present, promising amendment; and for want of present promising, he shall want present Liberation. But the Condition of Liberation or Condemnation at the Assizes, is promising any time between this and then. And so here: The Gospel doth not remediare, dissolve the Laws Obligation, as long as we continue impenitent. But it obligeth us not to Condemnation at Judgment, but upon final Unbelief. If yet any say, that this present non-Liberation is poena novae Legis, and so far it may be said obligare: Though I should rather say, it doth non dissolvere obligationem, yet I shall confess, that this non-Liberation may in some sort be called poena, and I will not stick at this. Only remember that this is nothing to the Obligation, to sentential Condemnation de futuro, which we speak of. 2. And that Christ need not die for this: For this non-liberatio dum non credo, is a penalty that I bear myself (non enim liberor;) and therefore Christ need not bear it for me.

But I come so lately from a fuller handling this point with another, that I must say no more of it now.

Animadversion.

It's true: He only shall be damned as a Transgressor of the New-Covenant, who is a final Unbeliever; yet all the time that any refuse to believe, they are liable to Damnation, as •• ansgr • ssing all that time the New-Covenant, and breaking the Condition of it.

Reply.

If by [Lyable,] you mean [actually obliged to Damnation,] I deny it. If you mean, they are in danger of it, because God may cut them off when he will; or that supposing their Unbelief to be final, they would be obliged; or that there wants nothing but the finality to oblige them; or that they are obliged even for that sin, to death per Legem naturae, and are non liberati per Legem gratiae, I grant all this.

Adnimadvers.

Perhaps this place is mis-printed: Otherwise I do not see how these words make for the proof of that which went before; viz. [The sins of Believers against the Gospel-Precepts have need of pardon, and are properly said to be pardoned, in reference to their deserved punishment.] Is Punishment therefore deserved, because it is not threatened? Or do you mean (as perhaps you do) by those words, [which is naturally and implicitly due to them,] that Punishment is deserved, but not threatened? But if Punishment be not threatened, there s •• m, no need of pardon. Because what need is there to fear that which is not threatened? As what ground is there to hope for that which is not promised? Somewhere before yourself sa • s, What God doth not threaten, we need not fear.

Reply.

The mis-printing is, that there should have been a Parenthesis to enclose six lines, from [1. Both.] till [because:] And so the word [Properly] I intended only to join with the second Section; and intended the first as improperly, called Pardon, arguing, not as you suppose, [It is not threatened, therefore not deserved;] but thus, [It was threatened by the Old-Law, and is not so much as threatened by the New; therefore it may improperly be said to be remitted.]

Animadversion.

Every Act is an accident, and therefore must have a subject: for it cannot subsist by itself. And whereas transient Acts are subjected in the Patient, immanent Acts are subjected in the Agent, because here the Agent is also the Patient.

Reply.

Because I will not vainly enter into a Logical Dispute with you, I will only answer you in the words of Schibler, Metaphys. l. 2. c. 10. Art. 4. Tom. 3. punct. 1, 2. §. 51. 54, 55. Accidens est in alio loquendo per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Omne scil. accidens est in alio sensu negativo quatenus non habet esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sive per se subsistens. Alias autem loquendo de generalia essentia accidentis, non est ea inhaerendo, si rigorose loquamur; sed in eo, quod id quod accidens est, afficit substantiam extra-essentialiter, sive extra essentiam, aut rationem ejus existendo, &c. vid. ultra. Et n. 54. Quod ad actionem immanentem attinet, dicitur immanens ab immanendo quia in agent maneat. Existimo tamen eam non esse intelligendam positive sed negative. Nempe actio immanens qua talis est in agent hoc sensu, quia non transit ad patiens. In ipso autem agent non est per modum adjuncti, sed simpliciter ad ipsum comparatur ut ad causam. Unde haec propositio, homo intelligit vel disputat, non est ut adjuncti de subjecto, sed ut effecti de causa: Et patet. Nam actio transiens nullum habet subjectum, ne quidem ipsum patiens, ut visum est: ergo etiam actio Immanens à fortiori non postulat subjectum. Consequentia firma est: quia actio transiens magis est ex subjecto, & magis postulat subjectum, quam actio immanens. Sed actio transiens in esse actionis nullum habet subjectum ut visum est, ergo idem à fortiore est in action immanente. Et confirmatur, quod actio ut sic, non dicit nisi egressum à virtute activa alicujus agentis. Egressus autem opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse in. Et hinc relinquitur, generatim loquendo de action ut sic, eam non postulare subjectum, &c. I think it fitter to say, Actio est agentis, than Actio est in agent. Yet I confess myself in doubt about Scotus Doctrine, that [Immanent Acts in their perfection, are not in the predicament of Action, but of Quality:] And if that be so, you may well say they are in Agente ut subjecto.

Animadversion.

Immanent acts (as that very word itself doth show) abiding in the agent (for therefore they are called immanent.) Lither God's imman • n • Acts must be eternal, or there must be some • hing in God which is but temporal: Whereas quicquid est in De • est Deus: oath • wise he should not be a most pure and simple Essence, as he is.

Reply.

I use to speak as you do; and thus oppose those that think otherwise: But let me profess, it is but my Opinion, and not my Faith. I have no such clear knowledge of the Divine Essence, as peremptorily to conclude these things as certain. I know God is eternal, and that he is perfect: But whether his perfection lie, in having no Acts but his Essence; or whether God do agere at all; or whether his Acts have extrinsic objects; or whether those Acts which have such extrinsic objects, are properly immanent, as those are whose object is God himself, &c. I dare not conclude as certain, though I think as you. Oh how little know I of God's Essence!

Animadversion.

Why then is Relation put among the Predicaments? Is there not a • e • l Relation betwixt the Father and the Son? a Relation which hath its being in Nature, and not in man's int •• le • t 〈…〉 ?

Reply.

I am so far from believing all the Predicaments to be real Beings, that I doubt whether any two of them wholly are so, as much as Carpenter did. Yet I take them to be as Burgersdicius speaks, aliquid inter nihil & ens reale: And I think that Scotus his formalitates or modi, and ens rationis, contain much that now commonly goes under another Name. I think the subjectum & fundamentum Relationis, is sometimes quid reale (usually, but quid modale is the fundamentum.) I think that the comparing or collating act of understanding is not a mere fiction, or false, when it makes Relation. But whether when the Foundation is laid, the Fabrication of the Essence of the Relation ut sic, be not by the Intellect, is my question. If Peccatum be but ens rationis (which is accounted a real Relation of Disconformity to the Rule) as is ordinarily said: And if veritas be but ens rationis (as Durand saith) why may I not say so of others? Relation-terms are as properly ascribed to God, as any terms of Human Language, I think. But was God from Eternity a Creator? If yea, then there was a Creature, or a Relation without a correlate. If no; then it begun in time. If so, then if it were any real Being (remember your last arguing) it must be God himself, and so eternal, or God not eternal. But I am resolved not to dispute this with you: Only that Relation is not vere ens (of which I am more confident, than what it is) save me the labor of transcribing, and read Burgersdicius, l. 1. c. 5. &c. 6. and Hereboord, Disp. Phil. 5. per tot. (I will not refer you to Carpenter) vid. & quid de Relat. Rationis dicit Twissus Vind. Grat. l. 2. part. 1. §. 13. pag. (minor. volun • .) 208. praecipue ex Vasquio.

Animadversion.

Properly none can be more or less justified, because he that is justified is freed from all Condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. & 33. Justification therefore at the last Judgment, is not a more full Justification, but only a Justification more fully made manifest. Neither do I see how you should deny, that our Justification here is perfect, so as to procure full and perfect freedom, viz. from Condemnation, if (as you grant) our Righteousness whereby we are justified be perfect: And so indeed it is, though that Righteousness be not (as you suppose) a Righteousness of our own within us, but only the Righteousness of Christ through faith imputed to us.

Reply.

1. Negatur sequela. One man may be more perfectly freed from all Condemnation than another, though both be freed from all. It is not only the Terminus à quo that is to be considered, but the degree of the Liberation therefrom. One man may be freed from Condemnation only quoad Donationem & Constitutionem Legis, and another also quoad sententiam judicis.

2. Justification also freeth against Accusation, as the means, as well as from Condemnation, the end: And we are not yet freed against all Accusation.

3. And for the Autecedent, we must distinguish of the word [freed from:] either you mean, that our Liberation is completed (which I deny;) or that it is so effectually begun, that it shall certainly he perfected (which serves not your turn.) The Apostle only saith, [There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ:] But as this Text doth not say, [There shall be none,] nor promise that they shall never be out of Christ again (though I think others do;) so it saith not that their deliverance from future Condemnation (or which would else be future) is perfected. They are not now under Condemnation, nor ever shall be; (Is not that all you can hence gather?) and yet they would be tomorrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. I will be bold to tell you, how far short you are yet from Perfection, even in this matter of Justification.

1. There is a great deal of guilt which will lie on you, from which you are not yet justified ne quidem constitutive. You will sin every day, hour and moment; Will you need no Justification from the guilt of these sins? They will condemn you, if you have none. Perhaps a man may have the guilt of ten times more sins to be freed from after his first Justification, than before. If Justification be the same with Remission of sin (as very many say, and I know no real difference, as to constitutive Justification;) then sure you have need of a particular Justification upon the renewal of sin, as well as of a particular Remission, besides the universal Justification and Remission foregoing: Yea, though they be not the same, yet being so near akin, this will follow. I suppose you will not say, sin is remitted before committed; or guilt removed before it is guilt! If you fly to Amese's, [Virtualiter & in subjecto,] Medul. l. 1. c. 27. § 24. that is sure less than Actualiter & in se (and indeed is not Remission;) and therefore not perfect.

2. Your Justification either is yet only constitutive, and not per sententiam judicis, or else only quoad sententiam aliquam minus publicam; & non ab omnibus (scil. futuris) peccatis: Whereas your Justification will be per sententiam judicis, at that great day, and that from all sin. How could the Apostle say, [That your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refressing comes, &c. Acts 3. 19.] if no more be done then to it than now?

3. Our present Justification freeth us not from God's Paternal Sentence, and castigatory punishment; but our future Justification will.

4. The continuance of Justification while we are here, is but conditional, and de futuro neither absolute nor actual. And a conditional Justification is not so much as an absolute. That it is but conditional▪ is evident from the full tenor of the Covenant: It saith not, [He that believeth once, shall be forever justified; but, [He that believeth, is or shall be justified;] that is, as long as he believeth.

If you say, [It is certain they shall believe.]

I answer, That altereth not the tenor of the Promise: Predestination giveth not Legal Right. It was certain, vel futurum ab aeterno, that you should believe and persevere; and yet you were not therefore justified. And God only justifieth us pro praesenti, and not pro futuro. And then it is evident, that conditional Justification is not actual, nor true Justification: for conditionale nihil ponit, donec praestetur conditio. Where there is much means to be used, and conditions yet to be performed, for the Continuation and Consummation of our Justification, there it is not yet continued or consummate; nor that person so perfect as to Justification, as he that is past all conditions and means, and so hath his Justification consummate, and is in his immutable state. That much means is yet to be used to this end, that our Justification may be continued and consummate, and sentential Justification and Judgment added, if I thought I needed, I could easily and fully prove. Both Prayer, Obedience, &c. are means to that end: (of which more toward the end.) And that Conditions are yet to be performed to that end, I will argue on the common Principles (lest you deny Repentance or Obedience to be such Conditions.) If it be not only the first act of Faith by which men are justified, then their Justification is not so consummate at the first, but that they are still to be justified every day. But it is not only the first act of Faith by which men are justified; therefore, &c.

For the Antecedent; As it were a wild fancy to exclude all the Faith of a man's life, except the first act; so Abraham 's example, as mentioned by the Apostle, contradicteth it expressly. And for the Consequence, If following acts of Faith justify, either by concurring to our first Justification, or by the continuing our universal Justification, and procuring the daily addition of particular Justification and Remission: But it cannot be by concurring to our first Justification; for it is against Scripture and Reason, that I was justified twenty years ago, by believing today. It is therefore by continuing our universal Justification, and procuring the addition of daily particular Justification: And all this by way of Condition. Now though Perseverance add nothing ad rei naturam, yet it is a moral Addition, which must have its Cause; and therefore such Promises are made to Waiting, Patience, Perseverance, &c. And that man that must have all these Conditions yet to perform, that he may be continuedly and consummately justified, is not in so perfect and full a sense justified, as he that hath done all. I still profess, that every sort or act of Justification is perfect in its kind, and as to its proper end; but not of the perfectest kind, nor absolutely perfect. He that is in the beginning of the fight, unwounded and safe, is as perfectly safe quoad naturam rei, as he that hath gone through all the rest of the dangers, and suffered twenty more particular charges, and overcome all: But he is not safe in so perfect a sense (though you suppose him by a spirit of Prophecy to be sure to scape;) because he hath yet much hazard and labor to go through for the attaining of his safety: And yet we may say as Paul, If th • se abide not in the ship, ye cannot be saved. The end is not perfectly enjoyed, while so many means are yet to be used for it. I refer you to Mr. Burgess of Justification, Lect. 29. which is wholly to prove the point I insist on.

5. There is yet the solemnizing of all wanting: And a Marriage not-solemnized is not all so perfect as that which is.

But the main thing that I stand on is, that both Christ's Apologetical Justification of us qua Advocatus vel Patronus, and his sentential public Justification at Judgment, do not only differ from ours now; but so much differ, that I think we should fierce be called justified now, but in Relation to the Justification then.

But you think otherwise, that [it is not a more full Justification, but a Justification more fully made manifest.] Many men, many minds: I have sore contest with Mr. L. and all will not convince him, that any but sentential is properly Justification: And that which I call Constitutive, & in sensu Legis, is but Right to Justification. I easily yield to you, that the Law or Grant of Grace doth its own work perfectly, in constitutive Justification. But yet I make no doubt to affirm, that though Justification constitutive be proper Justification; yet the word is more commonly used by Lawyers and Protestant Divines, for Justification by sentence: And so the Law justifieth but virtually, and not properly and actually at all (as to this sentential Justification.) To absolve from a Crime and Penalty, and adjudicare premium, contra actoris accusationem, is the most full, perfect Justification of all. And it's exceeding strange, that you should think it nothing but a Justification made manifest, when it is another sort of Justification toto coelo, different from constitutive: Or if you mean, it is but a fuller Manifestation of some sentential Justification, which we have now by Faith; you should have said so, and should show what that Sentence is, & in quo foro? per quem judicem? & quinam sint actus judiciales? & cujus generis sit decisio absolutoria? when I had brought that so far into question. But I conceive there is more in the Sentence of the Judge, than Manifestation. Sententia Judicis est pars decisionis litis, quae est causae controversae per judicem determinatio: Without it there is ordinarily no full jus in re & possessio of the Privilege or Reward in question: It is more fully ours after the Judgment than before. Nor is there a perfect Liberation from the Crime and Penalty which we are charged to be guilty of: Haec enim pertinent ad sententiae executionem, quae sententiam ipsam praesupponit. Decretum est pars secunda judicii. Decernere est post causae cognitionem statuere. Statuere est quid majus quam manifestare. Manifestant testes, evidentiae, ipse reus, &c. Sed non statuunt, decernunt, nec per sententiam absolvunt. That Adjudication of everlasting Reward or Punishment at the Judgment-day, will be more than mere Manifestation: It will be the most full, proper, perfect Justification which then we shall receive; which I think Scripture more respecteth in this point, than some observe; and I think it is in order to that great Justification that our present Justification obtains the name.

Again, I would argue thus: If Justification be opposed to Condemnation, and the Condemnation by public Sentence be quite different in kind from Condemnation now in Law (or any sentential Condemnation that I know of) then Justification by public Sentence, is as different from Justification in Law: But the former is true; therefore so is the latter. I say therefore as Cameron, Praelect. de Verbo Dei, pag. 462. (operum fol.) [Authoritas judicis propria jus facit; Ita{que} judicis sententia effectiva p • tius est quam declarativa.]

But suppose the Sentence did only declare: It may yet be as true and proper a kind of Justification as constitutive; if we consider, that it is not the Declaration of a private person, but of the Supreme Judge: And a Declaration in opposition to Accusation (ne succedat) and Condemnation (ne sit;) and which must determine the case finally, Whether we shall be in Heaven or Hell.

But you say, [You see not how I can deny our Justification to be perfect, when I say our Righteousness is perfect.]

I answer you by two necessary distinctions:

1. I deny not but our constitutive Justification is perfect; and that's all that can be gathered from the perfection of our Righteousness. But I deny that our constitutive Justification is the most perfecting, complete sort of Justification; or yet that our sentential Justification is now perfect.

2. You must distinguish of Perfection, as it respecteth the present subject, and as the same thing materially is compared to another subject, or to the future state of that subject: And so I say, that we are perfectly justified constitutive the first day we believe, considering it as the present Righteousness of us in that present state: And yet that is not materially so perfect a Justification, as that which we have of the same kind at our death: For we are then justified from millions of sins more than before, and all the Conditions are performed. If therefore we had but the same Justification materially at death, which we had at our first believing, that is, were justified from no more sins, it would be no perfect Justification to us, but a partial and particular one. A Childs shoe is meet for his foot, and a man's is no more: But the same shoe which was meet for him when he was a Child, will not be meet when he is a man: Yea, if it be the skin on his foot, it must grow as he grows, or it will not be meet; and yet Meetness formally is one and the same thing. This is it that I told you before, that the matter of our Righteousness; viz. Our gracious inclinations and actions (commonly called Holiness) hath degrees, though Righteousness as such, hath none.

Animadversion.

The Apostle saith, He that is jo • ned to the Lord, is one spirit▪ 1 Cor. 6. 17. i. e. he is spiritually one with Christ, as being partaker of Christ's Spirit, and thereby united to him, a • d made one with him. And this I think you mean, when you say, that we are his Body Mystical, but not Natural.

Reply.

This is mere Ambiguity, and no resolution of the Question. The Question is, Whether he that is spiritually one with him, or one Spirit with him, be one Spirit essentially, or one personally, in sensu physico; or only one person in sensu morali vel politica, as a Corporation and their Bailiff, a City and their Mayor, a Republic and their Sovereign, are one Body? or, Whether Union be largely taken for Conjunction? But I am willing to let this Mystery pass with a reverend admiration and acknowledgment of my ignorance, rather than rashly to determine in the dark: Only I resolve to keep off from their error, that tell us we are deified, or made one essence or person with Christ properly. I am afraid of soaring too high in proud aspiring strains, in my thoughts of our Union with Christ, and our participation of the Divine Nature; and lest while I seck to be more than man, I become less; knowing that aspiring to be as God, is the way to be a Devil. Cameron in Praelect. hath said more of this point of Union, than any I know; but he extendeth the sense of [Union] somewhat far.

Animadversion.

I think they mean so, and no more, who call Faith the Instrument of our Justification, because by Faith we receive Christ, by whom we are justified.

Reply.

I commend your charitable Interpretation: But the vehement asserting and arguing for Faiths proper, direct Instrumentality in justifying, which from multitudes I have heard, and which in multitudes I have read, forbiddeth me so to judge. And if it were so, their speech is improper.

Animadversion.

1. The act of Faith doth justify, not in respect of itself as it is our act, though so it • e requisite, but in respect of its Object, viz. Christ; whom Faith acting, doth receive, even as it is the gift that doth enrich, though not except i • be received.

2. The act of the hand is the actual receiving a gift; Is not the hand therefore the Instrument whereby the gift is received? and consequently whereby one is enriched?

Yet I shall not be unwilling to yield unto you, that to speak exactl • , Faith may better be called a Condition, than an Instrument of our Justification. But because it is as a hand to receive Christ (for to receive him, and to believe in him a • e •• e same, John 1. 12.) and the hand is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a prime Instrument: therefore (I conceive it is) that Faith is usually called an Instrument. Besides, yourself observes, page 221. that some so extend the use of the word [Instrument,] as that anything almost may be called an Instrument, viz. which is requisite, but yet is less principal in the action.

Reply.

1. We are not justified by the act of Faith absolutely, or as the meritorious Cause, or the matter of our principal Legal Righteousness; if that be it that you mean by, [in respect of itself:] Nor are we justified by Christ as a Performer of the G • spel-Conditions for us, or a Satisfier for final non performance. Christ hath his own work, and Faith hath its own office in our Justification. We are justified by Faith itself, as the Condition, and not so by Christ.

Here I give you notice, that though the act of Faith be most directly the Condition, yet I think the habit is so intimately included in the true, serious, intense act, and is so little different in nature from it, that even the habit may be also called the Condition, and we be said to be justified by it. And indeed I think that the Scripture, when it speaks of being justified by Faith, doth in the word [Faith] include both act and habit. And I am conceited, that they less differ in their nature (an act and an habit of the Soul) than many Philosophers think: especially this would be evident, if Scotus were in the right, that intellectio & volitio completed, which we call immanent Acts, are not in the predicament of Action, but of Quality, in the same species as Habits: Or if some others opinion be true, that Habits are but in the intellect the Species or Images deeply imprinted, and in the Will either none (besides the intellectual) or only a continued action, though sometimes so imperfect and obscure, that it is not perceived or felt, as being less vigorous and express than other actions which then are felt. Sure I am, if other men be no wiser than I, their apprehensions of the true nature of Habits, with their difference from Powers and Acts, is not so clear as may embolden a man with confidence, to reject Habits from being the Condition, and so having a hand with the act in our Justification. And whether it can truly be said, that the Habit is required only for the act, and not for itself, I cannot tell: I rather think otherwise. This I write, partly in Explication, and partly in Recantation of some things before delivered on this point, Thes. 57. which I think myself bound to do on more through Consideration.

2. In your second note: 1. You quite forget what you were to prove: It was not that the Habit of Faith is the Instrument, but the Act: For that is the common Doctrine, and that which I was there opposing. The act of the Hand, and and not the Hand, is it that you should prove the Instrument. You will not get all to confess, that the act of Faith is not the Instrument of receiving Christ, nor yet of Justification. 2. And if the Habit were granted to be the Instrument of receiving Christ, yet could it with no fitness be said, in the sense of our Divines, that Faith justifieth as an Instrument, because they say, It is not the habit of Faith that justifieth, but the act: And you say, It is not the Act that is the Instrument, but the Habit; therefore it plainly follows, that (according to this Doctrine) Faith cannot justify as an Instrument. 3. I do not think that the Habit is properly the Souls Instrument. It is nothing but the Perfection of the Faculty; and its Perfection is too near to itself, to be properly its Instrument. Though in some sort we may say, that the inferior Powers are the Wills Instruments in imperate Acts; yet I do not think that the elicit Acts (such as are the acts of Faith) are performed by Instruments, except we may call the Body, the Spirits animal or vital, the Souls Instruments: (For though the Soul be inorganical, and depend not on the Body subjective & efficienter, yet I think it doth objective & occasionaliter, as Heereboord explains it (Dispute. Philos. 43. §. 6. p. 615.) If we must not allow the Soul exterior organs, as efficients of its elicit Acts, I think we should have better grounds before we assert these intrinsic organs. We must make no unnecessary Composition in the Soul. Your similitude therefore of [the Hand enriching] is not to the purpose: For the hand is an integral part of the man, but no essential, and therefore may be called his Instrument: But Faith in the Habit, is the Perfection of his most essential part: And we think it not proper to say, that the soundness or perfection of the Brain or Heart are their Instruments. Or if it might be so said of the Body, yet must we be more cautelous in ascribing Divisions, Compositions and Instrumentality to the Soul. If anything therefore (according to your similitude of a Hand) must be called the Instrument of receiving Christ, it must be that part of the Soul which receiveth him: But the Soul receiveth him not by parts, but entirely: The receiving Faculties are the Understanding (introductorily) and the Will (perfectively:) And to say that these are our Instruments of receiving, is to say, that the Soul is the Soul's Instrument, or Man's Instrument. If the meaning be, that the Soul is God's Instrument, I confess so some Philosophers and Divines usually say of all second Causes, that they are the Instruments of God the first Cause: But I know this is not your meaning, and therefore it might seem injurious or unnecessary to load it with the absurdities which follow it in our case.

3. Besides, it must be considered, that Faith is not a proper natural receiving, but a moral imputative receiving only. It is indeed a physical Act, but not a physical Reception. For, 1. Credere est agere, sed recipere est pati: ergo credere non est recipere, sensu physico & proprio. 2. The Object is not naturaliter receptible by our Faith: For, 1. If you say it is Christ's Satisfaction that is the Object. I answer, 1. That it was given to God, and not to us; it being God, and not we that was to be satisfied: It is only given to us in its fruits or benefits procured thereby, and not in itself. 2. If it were, yet it is not physically receptible. 2. If you say, It is [Righteousness] as ours, procured by Christ's Satisfaction: I say, Righteousness is a Relation, and not physically receptible agendo vel apprehendendo. 3. If you say that Christ himself is the Object; who knows not that our Faith doth not physically receive Christ himself? So that it's undeniable, that Faith is actio physica, sed receptio tantum moralis vel imputativa: And therefore (if all were granted, that before is gainsaid) the Habit of Faith could be no other Instrument of receiving, but moral or imputative.

4. Lastly, Let it be considered also, that the proper justifying Faith is not the direct receiving of Righteousness, but the receiving of Christ himself, as he is offered to us in the Gospel; that so Righteousness and other benefits may follow thereupon. So that it is but remotely, that justifying Faith receiveth Righteousness: So that as it is unmeet to say, that a Woman's Habit of consenting, is the Instrument of enriching her, because she marrieth a man that is rich; so much more is it here. Indeed it is a phrase that containeth a whole heap of Metaphors and Metonymies in it.

But what need I contest any further with you, who are of the same judgment as I, and yield so willingly to all that I desire; that is, [That to speak exactly, Faith may better be called a Condition, than an Instrument of our Justification:] Why then do you except against my Exceptions against the improper phrase? If it satisfy you that I bear with the phrase, acknowledging itself improper (which I think is all you desire) then you may be satisfied in the words of mine you last cite: For I love not word-quarrels. But if you think, that I should have overlooked that impropriety, and not have gain-said it: I answer, indeed so I willingly would, but for these Reasons which forbid me: 1. Our Divines ordinarily use the phrase, as if it were exact and proper in their strictest Disputes. 2. They make the Instrumentality of Faith to Justification, the common refuge against many Objections, and the inlet of other mistakes. 3. They are impatient with any that deny it. 4. But that which chiefly moved me was, that they make this a main Fundamental difference between us and the Papists, as if for this one thing (if you join also their denial of the Imputation of Christ's personal active Righteousness, as our formaliter, & non tantum meritorie) which you and I deny as well as the Papists, and so doth every Divine save one, that hath yet afforded me their Animadversions; and what that one doth, I know not:) I say, as if for denying this, they were certainly damned. I confess it deeply troubleth me to read so ordinarily in our most famous Writers, so much of the Reformed Cause to be laid on a plain Error. 5. And when Papists read this in ours Writings, it so hardeneth them in their Religion, that they think presently, that all the rest of our Doctrine is like this, and they cast away all in prejudice, and insult over us, and cleave the faster to all the rest of their Errors, to their souls hazard. Judge impartially, Whether these Reasons were not sufficient to constrain me to find fault with this phrase of Instrumentality? 1. Specially if you do but add, that it is no phrase of the Holy Ghost, but of man's devising; and therefore I know not why I should in such a case be so tender of it.

Animadversion.

I think few or none make Faith to justify, merely because it apprehendeth Christ; but because it apprehendeth Christ as he is held out and offered in the Gospel for Righteousness to everyone that believeth; and in this, as yet, I see no danger.

Reply.

1. I would they meant as well as you charitably interpret, or understood their own meaning as well as you would have them.

2. Your meaning can be no other than this, according to the proper importance of your words, that [Faith justifieth quoad rationem formalem, because the Gospel giveth Christ to Believers, that is, on Condition of believing; and quoad rationem materialem vel aptitudinalem, because Faith is the acceptance of Christ:] If this be not your meaning, I neither understand it, nor perceive how your words are explicatory.

Animadversion.

I think I have before disproved that which you say concerning this twofold Righteousness; neither can I as yet see any nocessity, nor indeed congruity of it. One Righteousness, viz. that of Christ imputed to us, is sufficient to justify us; and therefore to make Faith, which is only requisite to that end, that Christ's Righteousness may be imputed to us, a distinct Righteousness whereby we are justified, to me seems very incongruous.

Reply.

Enough of this already, I think.

Animadversion.

1. In like manner do Papists stand upon hoc est Corpus meum, and dispute against our Exposition of those words.

2. The meaning of the Holy Ghost is to be gathered, by comparing one place of Scripture with another. Now as it is said, that we are justified by Faith, Rom. 3. 28. & 5. 1. so is it said, By him (i. e. by Christ) all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.

3. Therefore we are justified indeed by Christ, by his Righteousness imputed to us: Only Faith is required of us, that this benefit by Christ may be obtained; as the Medicine indeed doth heal, but yet it must be applied that it may do it.

Reply.

1. I hold fast the literal sense of Scripture, not as opposed to figurative (as the Papists in that point do;) but as it signifieth the plain meaning of the words, opposed to far-fetched forced Interpretation. For the figurative is oft the plain express sense, which is to be received according to the common use of those words, Again, if the Papists had divers express Texts of Scripture for their opinion, and we had none against them, I would be of their mind. It is a desperate thing to forsake the plain sense of God's Word, because Papists adhere to the literal sense of one Text, against the plain more obvious figurative sense, when also other Scriptures contradict them. If express Scripture be no proof, whenever men can put a forced sense on it, or cannot reconcile it with other, what is a proof?

2. I agree to your Rule of Interpretation. But as to the Application, 1. You confess we are said to be justified by Faith; and I confess we are justified by Christ. But doth it follow, that therefore we are not justified by Faith, because we are justified by Christ? we are not fed by our hands or teeth, because we are fed by our meat? 2. But the Question was about [imputing for Righteousness.] The Scripture saith, [Faith is imputed for Righteousness,] but it no-where saith, Christ or his Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness. Now the Question is, Whether by [Faith,] the Scripture mean (not Faith, but) [Christ, or his Righteousness] and that only? He that will affirm this, must prove it. And do you indeed think, that when Scripture saith, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness,] James 2. 23. Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. that by [it] is meant [Christ,] or [Christ's Righteousness?] Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker, and Jo. Goodwin, have said enough of this. Do you by [Faith] mean [Christ,] when you say, We are justified by Faith? Do not you confess that we are truly justified by Faith itself, as the Condition, as well as by Christ as the meritorious Cause? Why then do you oppose the same in me? It may you will say, Because I say, Faith justifieth as our Righteousness. I answer, 1. That is not the Question now under hand; but, Whether it be Christ only, and not Faith. 2. In regard of that Justification which I believe you mean, viz. from the Accusation of the Law of Works as such: I say, Faith is but a Condition, and no otherwise justifieth. But because it is made that Condition by a New-Law, per legem remediantem, and we must be judged by that Law; therefore when the case is, Whether we have performed the Conditions of that New-Law or not? then Faith is materially that Righteousness by which we must be justified, against all Accusations of non-performance.

3. I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu; (that is, 1. Per Donationem ejus fructus: And, 2. Per Adjudicationem justitiae, nobis inde promeritae;) but yet I see no such evidence in your Consequence, that should force me to leave the plain sense of any Text. The Antecedent I embrace, [All that believe in Christ are justified;] But I see not how it follows, [therefore they are justified only by Christ's Righteousness imputed, and not by Faith imputed;] (for that's it you must say, or you say nothing to the point.) Indeed you must interpret Imputation very fairly, before you can hence prove Imputation itself, much less the sole Imputation.

Animadversion.

1. They that make Faith the Instrument of Justification, understand it so, as that Faith is a Condition requisite to Justification. B. Davenant de Just. habit. c. 22. p. 312. saith, Luther doth always acknowledge Faith instrumentalem causam Justificationis; yet de Just. Act. c. 30. p. 387. he saith, that to believe, requiritur u • conditio praevia.

2. They that make Faith the Instrument of Justification, so deny that we are properly justified by Faith, as they deny Faith to be that Righteousness whereby we are justified: and hold, that we are said to be justified by Faith, because by it we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, which is the formal cause of our Justification. Thus B. Davenant, de Just. habit. c. 22. p. 312. At inquit Bellarminus, Lutheri sententia est formalem causam Justificationis esse fidem. Resp. instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem, nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum; q. d. Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae non latuit hoc ipsos Papistas: Nam Vasquez scribit, Quando apud Lutherum fides asseritur esse justitia nostra formalis, ideo fides appellatur justitia, quia per eam apprehendimus Christi justitiam, qua Justificamur. Secundum sententiam illorum commemorat qui Christi obedientiam & justitiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem causam Justificationis. At haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia: Ne{que} quod ad ipsam rem attinet, quisquam e nostris aliter aut sensit aut scripsit. I do the rather ci • e the words of this Reverend and Learned Author, because I find him highly prized by you, and that not without good cause, as I suppose.

Reply.

1. Your first note is little to the matter.

2. Your second is too favorable an Interpretation, as to those men that by their express voluminous contradictions do confute you: Do they not maintain, that the Scripture by [Faith imputed,] means [Christ's Righteousness is imputed?] and do they not thereby exclude [Faith] wholly, as to the sense of that Text? My Question was not, Whether it were Faith in this or another sense? but, Whether it were Faith at all in any sense? or, Whether it were Christ's Righteousness only which Faith apprehendeth, and not at all Faith itself. Now if they do therefore exclude Faith, because they think the words, [impute for Righteousness,] would else make it our Righteousness; then they do exclude it wholly as to that Text? For if by [Faith,] be meant [Christ's Righteousness,] then what word doth signify [Faith?] What ground soever they go on, it is evidently an unsound and forced Interpretation.

3. The words of Davenant which you cite, and divers others of his show, that he was not of your mind or mine about the Righteousness imputed. It seems he discerned not the mistake of them that affirm the active Righteousness formally as such, to be our Righteousness.

4. I do highly reverence Davenant, and shall anon give you enough of his for the main point in question (about Works:) But far am I from owning this Doctrine which he makes to be communis nostrorum sententia; viz. That Christ's Righteousness is formalis causa Justificationis. I hold it to be causa efficiens meritoria, quae est quasi materialis; but not formalis. For if you speak of constitutive Justification active, that is formally actio Dei justificantis, viz. Donatio justitiae, called by Divines, Imputation. If you speak of constitutive passive Justification, it is nothing but the Relation of [Justified,] or [Righteousness,] or [non obligatus ad poenam,] and [non condemnandus:] And Christ's own Relation of [non condemnandus,] or [just] is not formally made ours; though materially it is. Accidents perish, if removed from their subject. If you speak of Justification sententially, surely none can imagine that the Righteousness of Christ is the form of that. But yet perhaps Davenant speaking less cautelously, might mean by [Form,] the same thing that I do by [matter, or merit.]