A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

Postscript.

TO the two Great Points in difference, let me speak this word more:

1. Those that make Faith to justify as an Instrument, or as Apprehensio Christi, do set up the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere which they cry down. For that which they call Instrumentality, is the Apprehensive Act: And Apprehendere and Credere are here all one; and therefore if the Apprehension of Christ justifieth qua Apprehensio, or qua Acceptatatio, then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere qua talis justifies.

2. And those that teach this Doctrine, do contradict themselves in saying, that Paul excludes all Works; because Faith (say they) justifieth not as a Work: For to justify qua Instrumentum vel qua Apprehensio Christi, is to justify as a Work, or as this Work. For they cannot speak de Instrumenti materia: For, 1. Faith (the act) can be no material Instrument. 2. The whole formal nature of instrumental Cause, lieth in its actual Application by the principal cause: And before that Application it is only an Aptitudinal Instrument, or apt to be an Instrument; but is not one formally and indeed. Now the Causation of Instruments is per Operationem vel Actionem: And therefore if Faith justify as an Instrumental Cause, then it must needs justify as Opus or Actio.

3. And so this Doctrine sets up Justification by Works, against which the Authors seem so zealous: (The unhappy fate of many Errors, to set up what they are the extreme opposers of;) and that in an unlawful sense: For it makes the formal reason of Faith's justifying to be its Apprehension, that is, that it is such an Action; or its Instrumentality, which is an Operation. Whereas I only affirm (with Scripture) that Obedience to Christ justifies, not qua Obedience, or qua Opus, but as the Condition to which the free Lawgiver hath been pleased to annex Justification.

2. Against yours (and the common) conceit, [That there is such a difference between Justification and right to Salvation, that Faith alone procures one, and Works concur to the other.] Besides all that I have said, let me desire you to observe, that Paul speaks as fully and directly of right to Salvation, as of Justification; and excludes Works as much (and more) from the one as from the other.

1. Rom. 3. 23, 24. Justification freely by Grace, is opposed to [coming short of the Glory of God.]

2. Rom. 4. 4. Paul expressly speaks of [the Reward given of Grace, and not of Debt;] and therefore excludeth those Works. But, 1. Savaltion is the Reward as well as Justification; and therefore this Reason equally excludeth Works from saving as from justifying. 2. Yea, if their Doctrine were true, that say it is only Salvation, and not Pardon and Justification, that is given per modum premii, as a Reward, then this Text would not concern Justification at all, but only Salvation. (But doubtless it doth concern Justification also; and therefore this is another good Argument, that Faith justifieth not qua Instrumentum vel Apprehensio, proxime, sed qua Conditio praestita, because Justification is given as a Reward; and Rewards are given on Moral Considerations, and not merely Physical.

3. Rom. 4. 13. Paul speaks of the Inheritance: If they which be of the Law be Heirs, then Faith is made void, &c.

4. Rom. 4. 16. It is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, &c. But doubtless this Promise is the Promise of Salvation.

5. So Rom. 5. 17, 18. [Reigning in Life by Jesus Christ,] is opposed to Death reigning by Adam: And lest there should be any room left to doubting, he expressly calleth it, [Justification of Life.] And ver. 21. Even so might Grace reign through Righteousness to eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Object. But Vers. 9, 10. the Apostle distinguisheth Reconciliation and Salvation, and maketh the latter follow.

Answ. 1. But he saith not so de statu salutis, or of right to Salvation, but only of actual Salvation itself.

2. He still makes them both the fruits of the free Grace of Christ, and so excludes Works as much from Salvation as Justification: Nay he saith, [Much more shall we be saved by his Life.]

6. Rom. 6. 23. The free Gift is (not only Righteousness) but eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. And Life as free as Righteousness.

7. Rom. 8. 1, 2, 6. Freedom from the Law of Death as well as sin, is made equivalent to [no Condemnation:] And as Christ Jesus is the meritorious Cause, so that you 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 may see that only Faith is not the Condition. Vers. 1. it's said, [To be spiritually-minded is Life and Peace:] Life as well as Righteousness. So Vers. 13, 14, 17.

8. Hebr. 11. throughout, speaks more expressly of Salvation by Faith, than Justification: And therefore the very Definition more respecteth Salvation, verse. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And verse 13. which you take to contain a Definition of it, saith, These all died in Faith, not having received the Promises, but, &c. These Promises, i. e. the thing promised is certainly more in Salvation than Justification (which they then had.) I could name a multitude more plain Texts, but I willl add but two, wherein the Apostle of purpose extolleth Free-Grace, and excludeth Works, and expressly doth it as to our Salvation, equally as to our Justification.

9. The one is, Tit. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7. But after the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, &c. that being justified by his Grace, we should he made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life.

10. And Ephes. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, hath quickened us together with Christ: By Grace ye are saved. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come, he might show the exceeding riches of his Grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: Not of Works, lest any man should boast.

Did ever the Apostle more fully and and expressly exclude Works from Justification, than here he doth from saving us? or make Justification of free Grace, more than here he doth Salvation? I shall therefore take leave still confidently to conclude, That it is no more wrong to Christ and Free-Grace to say, That Obedience justifieth as a Condition; than to say, It saveth as a Condition: And that as oft as Scripture makes it a Condition of Salvation, it certainly giveth us proof, that it is a Condition of final Absolution or Justification: And that it never was the mind of Paul or the Holy Ghost, to distinguish so far between the way to Justification, and the right to Salvation, as you do; or to make one more free than the other.

Exceptions against a Writing of Mr. R. Baxter's, in Answer to some Animadversions upon his Aphorisms.

HOw Relations should be inter Entia & Nihil I cannot see; For Nihil is Non ens; & inter ens & non ens non datur medium.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indeed for most part so taken, [ 4] as to include Love and Good-will; yet it seems to be otherwise taken Matth. 11. 26. and Luke 10. 21. as Dr. Twisse observeth. And it is true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Beneplacitum express one the other: yet if we consider the propriety of the words, both of them may well signify the Will and Pleasure of God concerning anything whatsoever. It is observed, that the Lxx Interpreters devised the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express the Hebrew Ratsa, which is as much as Velle; though it be often used for Benevolum esse. The Members of that distinction, [Gratia gratum faciens, & Gratia gratis data] fall one into another, as well as the Members of this, [Voluntas Beneplaciti, & Voluntas Signi] yet the distinction, though not so exact, may be useful.

1. What you intended, I know not; but you seem to speak alike of all the Signs mentioned, Aphor. p. 3. 2. I find Aquinas express for this, that Voluntas Signi, is but Signum Voluntatis; so that according to him Voluntas Beneplaciti seems indeed to signify the whole Will of God, properly so called; and Voluntas Sign, the whole Will of God also, so far forth as there is any signi •… cation of it. But however, I see not how you can •… ence infer, [then impletio voluntatis beneplaciti de •… entu, non est signum voluntatis beneplaciti de jure]. This seems but a mere evasion; it sufficeth, that Impletio 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 is Signum Voluntatis de eventu, as Praeceptum is Signum Voluntatis de Officio.

1. When you say, that God doth permit, and more than permit the Wicked to amend; I suppose you mean, he doth command them: But is not this to take the word [permit] morally? Yet pag. 5. you say, That you speak all the while of Permission Natural, not of Moral Permission. 2. Permission is only made Signum Voluntatis Dei de malo. Thus Aquinas, Permissio ad malum refertur, operatio autem ad bonum. And Maccovius, Objectum Voluntatis Permissivae Dei est peccatum. Ita quidem est. Nam bonum, quod vult, vult Voluntate effectivâ, non permissivâ. 3. That Permissio Mali, is certum signum voluntatis Dei de malo quoad eventum, I think is not to be denied. [The Permissive Decree (saith Bp Davenant) concerning Sinful Actions, implieth an infallibility of the Events so permitted]. And he cites Ruiz, saying, Positâ permissione, certissima est futuritio peccatt, quod permittitur & omnium circumstantiarum, quae permittuntur in illo. So Dr. Twisse, Posito • ecreto permittendi peccatum, non potuit homo à peccato abstinere: haec tamen necessitas ex hypothesi cum libertate convenit. Cameron makes this the reason, why God doth foreknow evil, because he doth decree to permit it; which were no reason, if the Event did not certainly follow Permission. Stat igitur sententiae mea, Deus novit peccatum fore, quia decrevit permittere peccatum. And he speaks divers times to this purpose. So Maccovius, Deus praescit futura peccata. Ergo decrevit permittere. Nam quae Deus praescit fore, ea praescit fore ex •• , quiae decrevit. The same Author also gives another reason; Permissionem necessario sequitur eventus: hoc est, quod permittit Deus, necessario evenit—Ratio etiam hoc ipsum evi • eight. Nam si Permissio nihil aliud est, quam gratiae Dei substractio, sive privatio, quà posita peccatum impediretur, ut à nobis ante ostensum est, fieri non potest, ut Creatura n • n labatur ubi Deus eam non sustentat: in Deo enim Movemur, vivimus, & sumus. And again; Non agitur de Permissione Ethicâ, quae nihil aliud est quàm Concessic, sed de Physicâ, hoc est, de 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non-impedire. Quid vero sit disquiritur; Nos cum Whitakero dicimus, quol sit privatio auxilis divini, quo posito pecedtum impediretur.—Necessario ergo sequitur Permissionem Lapsus: interim tamen Permissio non est causa Lapsus, sed antecedens solùm. 4. Austin's saying, which I cited, seems to hold out thus much, That as well God's Permittere as his Facere, is a sure sign of his Will concerning the Event. 5. I see not, that the Opinion of the necessity of Physical Efficient Predetermination doth deny God's Permission, seeing that Predetermination is de Bono, or de Actione quà tali; but Permission is de Malo, or de obliquitate Actionis. Dr. Twisse in that very Digression which you mention, after a tedious Dispute against that Proposition, grants as much as (I think) Perkins did, or any need desire. For he grants, Manifesto sequi peccati existentiam ex permissione ejus Divinâ: He adds indeed, Nequaquam sequitur ex naturâ Permissionis in genere, quod non paucis Theologis visum est, ut in superioribus accepimus, sed ex peculiari modo permissionis divinae, constante sc. negatione gratiae, quippe sine quà peccatum à nomine vitari potest. But this is that Permission which Divines speak of, as I have shown. What he further adds, de peccato definite sumpto, viz. that a bare Permission doth not infer the existence of it, seems little to the purpose. To his Instance about Formation, I Answer: There is a Restraining Grace as well as a Renewing; God vouchsafes the one to many, to whom he doth not vouchsafe the other; see Gen. 20. 6. I grant, that besides a mere Permission, there must be (as he speaks) aliqua alia rerum administratio, secundum quam actus aliquis naturalis patretur, quae sit proxima materia talis deformitatis: and that quoties juxta Permissionem Divinam res aliqua sortitur effectum, toties Dei permissio non est solitaria, sed aliam Divinam Providentiae gubernationem concomit antem obtinet. But I suppose, that Perkins and others comprehend all under the name of Permission, that being it upon which Sin indefinitely considered, as Twisse himself confesseth, doth follow, though for the specification of the sin something more be required. The reason is, because malum is privatio, and so in alieno fundo habitat; therefore there cannot be Permissio Mali, but there must also be Effectivus Concursus ad id, in quo Malum existit. But for the thing itself Twisse is as dear (I think) as any. Nec (inquit) minùs efficax esse dicimus decretum Dei de Permissione Mali, quam de Effectione Boni.

1. I make Voluntas Signi, as put for Signum Voluntatis, [ 5] to be but metaphorically Voluntas; yet I hold, that there is Voluntas proprie dicta, quae Signo indicatur. 2. When I say [so far forth as the Signum is praeceptum] it is only (as you might see) to show, that Voluntas Signi (not Signum Voluntatis, but voluntas cujus signum est Praeceptum) is the same with that which you call [Will of Precept]. 3. If Dr. Twisse do not extend it to the whole Law, but only to Precept, it may be he had not occasion to extend it further. Neither do you speak so fully in your Aphorisms as in this Writing. You mention indeed Legislative Will, but so as to call it also Praceptive, and to make the Object of it our Duty, Apher. pag. 4. 4. That he doth take notice of the Immanent Will de debito, whereof Praeceptum is Signum, is clear by the words which I cited, viz. Precepta non indicant quid Deus velit esse Nostri Officii, &c. Yea yourself here say, p. 4. That he makes Praecipere & Vetare to be the Objects of God's Will; and that this clearly implies, that he took in the Immanent Acts, of which they were the Objects. You add indeed, That he so often contradicteth it by speaking otherwise, that you doubt it fell from him ex improviso: but I see no cause for any such surmise.

1. Those words of yours [to bestow good upon a Man] [ 6] I know not how I omitted; perhaps because I thought there was no need of expressing them. For however they must be understood; because God's Word and Truth is else engaged in a Threatning as well as in a Promise. 2. You say, Append. p. 48. That the absolute promise of a New Heart is made to wicked Men: where you seem to speak of a Promise properly taken, as distinct from Prophesy or Prediction: Yet Aphor. p. 9. you say, That Absolute Promises are but mere Predictions; so that you seem not well reconciled to yourself. But you best know your own meaning, only I think it meet that you express it so, as that none may have occasion to stumble at it.

I see indeed, that you call it Legislative Will: But, 1. you make Legislative and Preceptive both one, and make the Object of it Man's Duty, Aphor. p. 4. So that you rather seem to restrain the word [Legislative] by the word [Preceptive], than to enlarge the word [Preceptive] by the word [Legislative]. 2. When you take the word [Legislative] largely, you make Precept and Promise distinct parts of it: So that still it is strange to me that you should say; That Promises fall under the Will of Purpose, not of Precept. For if the Will of Precept be taken strictly and properly, it is superstuous to say, That Promises do not fall under the Will of Precept: Neither on the other side is it true, if the Will of Precept be taken largely and improperly, viz. for the whole Legislative Will, which doth contain both Precept and Promise.

These two Questions (as you now make them) you comprise in one Aphorism, p. 15. and equally determine of both. For you say, That the Life promised in the First Covenant, was in the judgment of most Divines (to whom you incline) only the continuance of that Estate that Adam was in in Paradise: So that according to this Opinion, Adam was both to have continued in the same place, and also in the same Estate. I think still, he should have been changed in respect of both. In Adamo (inquit Barlous) omnes in universum homines jus ad Coelum habebant, & si • pse stetisset, ipsum Coelum unusquisque habuisset; adeo ut jus ad Coelum in Adamo habutmus primaevum, à Christo jus rest tutum Adam 's continuance in the same Estate, is most clearly expressed by those whom you seem to follow; and how then can you say, That you did not meddle with that Question? And if he were to continue in the same Estate, no question he was also to continue in the same Place; For Heaven is no place for such an Estate as Adam had in Paradise.

I shall wonder if any will be so bold as to affirm, That Adam was Created in Patriâ, and not in Viâ. How [ 7] was he to be tried by his Obedience, if he were not Viater, but Comprehensor? It seems also strange that any doubt should be made, whether Adam being Created after the Image and Likeness of God, were capable of Heavenly Blessedness.

The Reasons which I alleged, notwithstanding any thing you say against them, seem cogent. 1. By the Second Death, you might see, I meant not the same degree, yet the same kind of punishment. The Scripture seems to speak of several degrees of Hell-Torment, yet all is called the Second Death. And this Second Death, viz. Hell-Torment, Adam by his sin became liable unto: therefore if he had not sinned, he should have enjoyed a Life directly opposite to that Death, viz. Celestial Glory. The perpetual Death which Adam (without a Savior) should have suffered, was not a perpetual abiding in the Estate of Death, viz. a perpetual separation of Soul and Body, or a mere privation of that Life he had before his Fall, but an enduring of eternal Torment; and so consequently the Life promised upon condition of Obedience, was not a perpetuating of his earthly Life, but the fruition of Heavenly Happiness. 2. I grant, God was able to change Adam 's State, not changing his Place; but it seems rather, that both should have been changed. And though we know not the Nature of the Life to come, yet we know it is not such a Life as Adam had in Paradise, to Eat, Drink, Marry, &c. 3. It is not in vain to say, How in an ordinary way of Providence should there have been room for Men upon Earth, if Adam and his Posterity, still increasing and multiplying in infinitum, should there have continued forever? Your Friend and mine Mr. Blake, having urged this Argument, seems to enervate it when he hath done, saying, [But a thousand of these God can expedite, when we are at a stand]. But yet that without a Miracle it could be done, he doth not say, and he there professedly opposeth you in this Point. Whereas you add, [Especially seeing God knew there would be no place for such difficulties] I know not to what purpose it is. For the Opinion, which I impugn, doth suppose that upon which such difficulties do arise. 4. How should Paradise be a Type of Heaven, if Man should never have come to Heaven? If Heaven had not belonged unto him upon condition of his Obedience? Whereas you say, That you little know where or what that Paradise was; I do not well know what you mean. By [that Paradise] I suppose you understand (as I and others do) the Garden wherein Adam was placed: a place upon Earth for certain it was, and very pleasant; yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life, far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of.

Those words [Thou shalt die] being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed, but also of eternal torment; it follows, That the Life implicitly promised, is to be understood, not only of the continuance of that Life, but of Eternal Blessedness

I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works; but that some are so under that Covenant, that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant, nor are guilty of contemning it, being utterly ignorant of it.

To whom God doth not say, [Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved] to them in effect he doth say [Obey perfectly and live]; or, [If thou sin, thou shalt die eternally]. But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say [Believe, &c.] that Promise is altogether unknown unto them, they live and die without ever hearing of it, so that to them it is as if it had never been. Consider (I pray) what the Apostle saith to this purpose, Ephes. 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death? Do not many continue in the same Condition? I yield, that none are so under the Covenant of Works, but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy, and that by virtue of the New Covenant: but that which I stand upon is this, That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised, being not revealed unto some, nor any way dispensed unto them, they cannot be said to be under it, nor shall be judged as transgressors of it.

Add, 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never [ 8] been, yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy, (setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant) might have been enjoyed. Add, 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchsafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance, yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience, consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God. Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made, Man after his Fall, though plunging himself into sin continually more and more, yet had contracted no more Guilt, nor incurred any greater Condemnation, than he did by his first Transgression. Add, 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him; and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation. Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects; but as rebelling (I conceive) only against the Law, not against the Gospel, they being such as never were acquainted with it. Add, 4. There are common Mercies, (which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been) the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn; yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save. If such Mercies as mere Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery, How then are such said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Ephes. 2. 12.

Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose, to show, That as they that sinned without the Law, shall perish without the Law; even so they that sinned without the Gospel, shall perish without the Gospel. That 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also of such as know not God. The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts, viz. such as know not God; so he describes the Gentiles, 1 Thess. 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel, &c. that is, such as having had the Gospel preached unto them, would not receive it, either not at all, or not sincerely. Yet Christ (he saith) will in flaming fire take vengeance on both, as well on the former as on the latter. And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me, and so, as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do. Infidels (saith he) that were never under any other Covenant than that of works, and Covenant-breaking Christians, are in the same condemnation; there are not two Hells, but one and the same for those that know not God, and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ, 2 Thess. 1. 8.]

You pass by that which I alleged from Rom. 6. ult. viz. That death, which is the wages of sin, is opposed to Eternal Life, which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven. Ergo, Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell; and that (you know) is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death. I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say, [Call it the first or second Death, as you please]?

The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul, I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection. Tertullian surely thought so, or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument. Age (inquit) scindant adversarii nostra carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione, ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione. Negent operum societatem, ut merito possint tiam mercedem negare. Non sit particeps in sententia caro, si non fuerit in causâ. And again, Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum. And again also, Non possunt separari in mercede (caro & anima) quas opera conjungit. And surely that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 10. [That every Man may receive the things done in the Body] doth imply, That as the things were done in the Body, so also the Reward must be received in the Body. As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of, it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked, until the Resurrection. Therefore it is not probable, that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the Fi ••• Covenant. Whatever some new Philosophers may say, true Philosophy (I think) doth tell us, That it is the Body, which by the Sensitive Soul doth feel pain; even as it is the Eye, which doth see by the Visive Faculty.

You observe not (it seems) that I did but answer your Queries, which you made Append. p. 10. To the second, [When should he have risen?] I thought, and still think it sufficient to answer, That Adam, and so others, should either have risen in the end of the World, as now they shall, or when God should please to raise them. It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other.

How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection, which he speaks of, unto all, when he expressly [ 9] limits it to those that are Christ's? verse. 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory? Express resurrectio Christi est causa resurrectionis corum, qui ad Vitam Eternam suscitabuntur, 1 Cor. 15. 20, 21, 22. To the same purpose also is that 1 Thess. 4. 14, &c. What the other Texts you speak of be, when you show, I may consider then. This I grant, That the Wicked shall rise by the Power of Christ as Mediator, John 5. 28, 29. But that is not enough to prove, That had not Christ been Mediator, there should have been no Resurrection; no more than it follows, that otherwise none should have been condemned for sin, because now all Judgment is committed unto Christ, John 5. 22, 27.

I see no such difference betwixt them. For slaying before the foundation of the World, cannot be meant of actual slaying, but only of fore-ordaining to be slain.

I mean Christ's Sufferings, as in obedience to his Father he submitted unto them. This Commandment have I received of my Father, said he, John 10. 18. Sufferings simply considered without Obedience, find no acceptance with God. No need therefore to except against the Phrase commonly used, [Passive Obedience] i. e. Obedience in Suffering. Christ had a Commandment to lay down his Life, it was the Will of his Father that he should do it, and in obedience thereto he did it.

The Rule (Aquatenus ad omne, &c.) doth not here make for you, because it was not Christ's suffering merely as obedience, but as such obedience, viz. Obedience in suffering, that was satisfactory. So that neither Suffering without Obedience, nor Obedience without Suffering would avail. Sed qua non prosunt singula, juncta juvant.

If only such Obedience be meant Rom. 5. 19. as is opposed to Adam 's disobedience, and therefore Active Obedience is meant, it will follow that only Active Obedience is meant, which you will not admit, because Adam 's Disobedience was only Active. But Christ's Obedience in Suffering, may be opposed to Adam 's Disobedience in Acting; and Christ's Passive Obedience (suffer me to speak so) may stand in opposition to Disobedience in general, as working a contrary effect, viz. Whereas Disobedience doth make Sinful, Christ's (Passive) Obedience doth make Righteous; and in that respect only doth the Apostle oppose Christ's Obedience to Adam 's Disobedience.

1. The Apostle saying, That Christ was made under [ 10] the Law, it seems to be without doubt, That it was the Will of God that • e should observe the Law. For is it not the Will of God that his Law should be observed by such as are under it? Yet Christ might observe the Law for some ends peculiar to himself, as for those ends he was made under it. Christ according to the flesh was a Jew, therefore meet it was he should observe the Jewish Law, otherwise he had been an offense unto them. 2. As Christ was not made Man for himself, so (it is true) he was not bound to observe the Law for himself. But thus you should not limit it to some Works; for all his Works were so for us, as he was nobis natus, nobis datus, Isa. 9. 6. Yet being made Man, as Man he was bound (I think) to perform that Obedience which God did require of Man. You say, That he used the Legal Ceremonies to show his subjection: So say I; and this (I think) is against you, it being meant of such subjection as the Law required of all those that were under it. 3. If Christ were sub Lege, as the Apostle saith he was, then it was ex Lege that he observed those legal rites. Yet, I grant, it was ex vi sponsionis propriae; so all that he did, so his very being made Man was. Whereas you say, [Else the Law would have obliged him to the act and end together]; I Answer, The Law doth oblige, according to the Will of the Law-giver, who might oblige Christ to it otherwise than he did others. I think the Ceremonial Observances, besides the Typical Nature of them, are to be considered as Religious Rites, whereby God was honored and worshipped; and so Christ as Man was obliged unto them, Man being bound to honor and worship God, so as God doth require of him. That which you add of the burden of Penal Actions, seems impertinent; For Penal Actions (I think) have the nature of Sufferings, and so they concern not the Point in Controversy betwixt us, which is only concerning Actions as Pious, not as Penal.

Your Reasons drawn from the Actions of Christ, receiving their chief Dignity from his chief Nature, &c. will reach further (I think) than you intend or desire, even to make all Christ's Active Righteousness to be satisfactory for us. And so indeed you seem to hold, Aph. p. 61. where you say, [The Interest of the Divine Nature in all the Works of Christ, maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and satisfactory]. Yet here, p. 10. you seem to restrain it to Penal Actions, and the burden of tedious Ceremonious Worship, as you call it. For my part, I yet think, That as the Holiness of Christ's Nature, so also the Holiness of his Life was requisite to qualify him for suffering, and (by suffering) satisfying for us. Him that knew no sin, God made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. ult. Such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, &c. Heb. 7. 26. Mr. Blake (whose Judgment I do much value, though I cannot force mine own further than I am convinced) in this Point, concerning the Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness, seems to differ both from you and me; he saith, [Christ had been innocent, though he had never come under the Law to have yielded that obedience]. But how Christ could have continued innocent, without yielding obedience to the Law; or how being Man, he could be exempt from that Law, whereby the Creature is to show his subjection to the Creator, I cannot see. He adds, [His Person had not been as ours under the Law, unless of his own accord he had been made under the Law]. He was not made Man (say I) but of his own accord; yet being Man, I conceive it was necessary that he should be under that Law which God imposed upon Man, and so both under the Moral Law, as the eternal Rule of Righteousness; and also under the Ceremonial Law, as the prescribed Rule of Worship. He adds further, [Somewhat might be said for the subjection of the Human Nature in Christ, the Manhood of Christ, which was a Creature, but the Person of Christ, God-Man, seems to be above subjection]. This I confess seems strange to me; for the Human Nature of Christ, though personally united to the Divine Nature, being still a Creature, must needs be in subjection to him that made it; and therefore the Person of Christ, God-Man, though not as God, but as Man, must be under subjection. He goes on saying, [We know the mortality of the Human Nature, yet Christ had never died, unless he had made himself obedient unto death; neither needed to have served, unless he had humbled himself, Phil. 2. to take upon him the form of a Servant]. But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Human Nature, as subjection unto God is; and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man, did co nomine take upon him the form of a Servant; for Man must be Servant unto God, the Creature to the Creator. He bids, [See the Assemblies Confession of Faith, Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies Speeches upon it]. These Speeches I cannot now see, but I have seen them long ago, and was not satisfied with them. The words of the Assembly are such, as that some question may be made of the meaning of them, viz. Whether by [Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself] be not meant one and the same thing, so that the latter words are exegetical to the former. But to return to you, who say, [The Question should be, Whether it be only Poena Christi, or Obedientia also, that satisfieth and meriteth]? I think it is not simply Poena, or Obedientia, but Poena Obedientialis, and Obedientia Panalis.

1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature, [ 11] and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious. 2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious, though less properly. 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect, yet if absolutely due, it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious.

The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions: Yet I see not how Christ's good Actions (I speak of mere Actions, which have no penality or suffering mixed with them) could properly be meritorious, they being otherwise due, supposing Man had not sinned, and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him. Though I am not of their mind, who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate, though Man had never sinned; yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been: Now hoc supposito, all Christ's mere Active Righteousness would have been due, but not his Passive Righteousness.

I have divers times told you, That when we speak of [ 12] Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory, we are not to consider them merely as Penal, but as Obediential also; so that your long Section hath nothing against me.

My interpretation of these words, [The Father judgeth no Man] containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father, neither can I admit any such exclusion; but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain. He that doth a thing, yet not immediately by himself, but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it, may be said in some respect not to do it. When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread, he bad them go to Joseph, &c. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things, Joseph is to do all such matters. Yet Pharaoh indeed did all, though not immediately, but by Joseph. Your Arguments, p. 13. press not me, who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ' • Mediatorship, and namely to his Kingly Office, to judge the World; only I shown what I took to be the meaning of those Texts, John 5. 22. & 27. Wherein I followed Jansen and Maldonado, no absurd Expositors, though Papists. And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father, v. 22. In • atre nihil mutatum est, &c. Est enim ipse in Filio, & in eo operatur, saith Calvin. And so Beza, Negat Christus à Patre administrari hunc mundum, ita, viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur; qui Patrem à Filio separabant, cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filis manifestati in carne mundum regat.

You seem to make the present death of Adam a part [ 14] of the rigorous execution of the Law, when you say, Aphor. p. 33. [That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full, or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat, In the day that thou catest, &c. I do not think; for that would have prevented both the Being, the Sin, and the Suffering of his Posterity]. How would this have been prevented, if Adam 's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence, i. e. in the rigorous execution of it? Therefore though you argue, That the words of the Threat were not so meant, as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full, yet your very Argument supposeth, That if the Sentence should have been so executed, Adam should presently have died. Now though Christ had not died, yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended, and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been: against this (so far as I see) you say nothing.

I desire to be as favorable an Animadverter as Truth will permit: but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say, I do not see. If you had used the word [Chastisements], it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion. For I show that Chastisements are Punishments. And whereas you speak of my great oversight, it is indeed your great mistake; for I did not take those words to express your Opinion, only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments; this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion.

You might see, that I make the Afflictions of God's [ 15] Children in their Nature to be Evil, and a Curse, though not so to them, they being sanctified and working for their good. And I presume, those Divines whom you oppose, meant as both you and I do, though you interpret them otherwise. The difference here betwixt you and me is this; You allow their Expression, and dislike their meaning; I allow their Meaning, and dislike their Expression. They distinguish betwixt Chastisements and Punishments, which distinction in your Aphorisms you seem to allow, only disliking the Application of it. The distinction itself I dislike, though I think that some who used it, did not err in that which they intended in it. In the Contents of Isa. 27. there are these words, [God's Chastisements differ from Judgments], which words I hold incongruous. I like not that of Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, Chap. 4. p. 139. [Punishment aimeth chiefly at the satisfaction of Justice, Correction at the amendment of the Offender]. That is not true of all Punishments, see Geld. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of those that used them, was not (I think) erroneous.

I would give you no cause to quarrel with me. But is not this your own Argument? Do you not thus oppose the Common Judgment as you call it? [They are ascribed to God's anger, &c.] Aphor. p. 70. Do you not there oppose God's Anger to his Love? Whereas Love and Hatred, not Love and Anger are truly opposite, God may be angry with us, and yet love us; yea therefore angry with us, because he loveth us. R •• . 3. 20. There i • Ira Paterna & Castigans, as well as Ira Hostilis & Exterminans, Davenant i • Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are, which you say I almost repeat, I do not know. I expressed mine own sense in mine own words; and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger, though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger, and say That there is no Hatred, though there be Anger. My chief design in those Animadversions was, Tha • in your Second Edition, which you promised, you might have occasion, if not to confirm your Assertion • , yet to clear your Expressions.

I know you oppose their sense that so distinguish, but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit; if you say that you do not, I am satisfied.

Your words were of Affliction as Affliction, therefore of Affliction in general. You say, Aphor. p. 70. [The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment, &c.] But you confess now, that you should have said [Chastisement]; and so I have my desire in this Particular, viz. your better expression.

God is not the Father of the Unregenerate, though Elect, in respect of Actual Adoption: But you know that Ephes. 1. 5. [Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons, &c.] God having loved such with an everlasting Love, viz. Benevolentiae, though not Complacentiae, no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion, viz. in order to their Conversion. But (you know) I speak of Reprobates, and that it is written, [Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated]; Whether that import the Election of Jacob, and the Reprobation of Esau, I now dispute not; but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect, and his hatred of the Reprobate. Deus omnes homines diligit (inquit Aquinas) & etiam omnes Creaturas, in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum: non tamen quodcunque bonum vult omnibus. In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna, dicitur eos odio habere, & reprobare.

Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se & suâ naturâ; and so I think do they, against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms: but though Suffering as Suffering be evil, yet as Sanctified it is not evil. It is good for me that I was afflicted, Psal. 119. 71.

Afflictions were then indeed to be loved, if they were [ 16] good of their own Nature: but being only good as sanctified, we are not simply to desire them, but a sanctified use of them, and in that respect to rejoice in them, Jam. 1. 2, 3. Rom. 5. 3, 4, 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus, [That which worketh for our good, &c.] Where do I argue so? Rather thus; That which is sanctified to us, doth work for our good: and so though it be evil in itself, yet it is good to us. But Affliction is sanctified, &c.

I am apt to oversee: but neither I, nor they (I think) whom you first opposed, deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction, if that were all you aimed at in your Question.

What I mean by Conformity unto Christ, you might see by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited: I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing, which is acceptable with God, 1 Pet. 2. 19. Yet I grant, sin is the Root of all suffering; so it was o • Christ's suffering, though not his sin, but ours. Only I thought it meet to put you in mind, that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin, which the places alleged do show, and so other places.

The Object of Love is not only present Good. There is a Love of Desire, as well as of Delight. The Spouse wanting Christ, was sick of Love, Cant. 5. 8.

I did not say, That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil, but that it is not evil as sanctified. Suffering, though sanctified, is suffering still, and so evil; but as sanctified, it is good, and not evil.

Those Arguments prove nothing against me, nor (I am [ 17] persuaded) against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms. It is granted, That Death in itself is Evil, an Enemy, a Punishment, to be feared, avoided, &c. Yet as it is sanctified, it is good, a Friend, a Mercy, to be desired, embraced, &c. 2 Cor. 5. 6, 7, 8. Phil. 1. 21, 23.

It is evil, 1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good. 2. To them also to whom it is so managed, but not as it is so managed.

Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi, saith Grotius. Well, but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words, as what they that use them do mean by them.

That which you speak of our discharge before believing, might have been omitted, the question being about Believers, and so believing presupposed.

Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law, this (I think) is a sufficient [ 18] reason, Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law, &c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto, Condidus imperti.

The Law so concurs to the constitution of Guilt, as were there no Law, there were no Transgression. In the other two Particulars, which follow, we do accord also.

1. Neither did I mean so, as if there were no explicit threatening to Unbelievers, but only this, That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing, it implies that death is only threatened in case of unbelief. And though there be an express threatening to Unbelievers, (viz. Mark 16. 16.) yet not only to Unbelievers. The threatening of death only to Unbelievers, is (I think) only implied in the promise of Life made to Believers. 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8. than what you express. 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith, the Fruit whereof is Obedience; it will condemn the disobedient, i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law, while they remain in that estate, though it hold out Mercy upon condition, that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance.

Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar; but his reasons for that Position I do not know. If no Law, no sin; for sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 John 3. 4.

Your saying, Aphor. p. 89. [Whosoever will believe to [ 19] the end, shall be justified], may seem to imply, That though a Man believe, yet he remains unjustified, (as well as unglorified) until he go on and hold out unto the end: otherwise (I suppose) all will yield, That a Man must believe unto the end, that he may be justified unto the end.

1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply; yet what your meaning was, or is, you do not clearly show. 2. You seemed to make the Life promised to Adam, only a continuance of his present enjoyments, which were as all upon the Earth, so many of them earthly, and none comparable to the happiness of the Saints in Heaven.

1. Though there be several degrees of Damnation, yet all being the damnation of Hell, I do not think that there is such difference between one degree of Damnation and another, as there is betwixt the scratch of a Pin, and the pulling off a Man's flesh with Pincers. 2. If Adam had not sinned, he should have had that happiness which all those Privileges that you mention tend unto; and by his sin he forfeited all that happiness. Besides, when I spake of the identity of Punishment for kind, though not for degree, I meant it of P • na sensus; 〈◊〉 that (I conceived) was your meaning also.

No question but the Confirmation, Radication, and further degree of Grace is comprehended in those Promises, [I will put my Law in their inward parts, &c.] as a further degree of Spiritual Circumcision is promised, Deut. 30 6. and a greater measure of the Spirit, Luk. 11. 13. But though the Circumstances of those Texts do so limit the Promises contained in them, (which yet may be questioned concerning Deut. 30. 6.) yet so do not (that I see) the Circumstances of that in Jer. 31. 33. and Heb. 8. 10. And therefore there is no reason to restrain these in that manner. Ampliandi favores. Besides, it is certain, Man can perform no condition required of him, except God work it in him, 2 Cor. 3 5. Phil. 2. 13.

By Relative Change you mean Justification and Adoption: Now I think it is no hard matter to prove a real change in any, in whom this relative change is, i. e. That they that are justified and adopted, are also sanctified. 1. They that are justified and adopted, are Christ's, Gal. 3. ult. Ergo, they that are justified and adopted, are sanctified. For so are they that are Christ's, Rom. 8. 9. Take the Syllogism, if you please, thus; They that are Christ's, are sanctified: But they that are justified and adopted, are Christ's. Therefore they that are justified and adopted, are sanctified. 2. They that are in a state of Salvation, are sanctified, 2 Thess. 2. 13. John 3. 3, 5. But they that are justified and adopted, are in a state of Salvation, Tit. 3. 7. Rom. 8. 17. Ergo. Hear one, with whom you are acquainted, and whom I shall have occasion to cite afterward, viz. Wotton, Ut regni (inquit) coelestis hereditatem adipiscamur, & veniâ peccatorum, & sanctimonia opus est,—Quâ enim ration heres esse vitae aeternae intelligatur, qui immundus est? And lest you should put this off, and say, That Sanctification indeed is requisite before any can enter into the possession of Eternal Life, but not before they can have a right unto it; he adds, Remissione igitur sive condonatione opus est ad haereditatis jus obtinendum: Sed nequaquam in illâ sunt omnia. Etenim (ut paulo ante significavi) accedat etiam oportet regeneratio, per quam sanctimoniâ imbuamur. Quare Christus factus est nobis & justitia, & sanctificatio, 1 Cor. 1. 30. For the Arguments which you mention in Mr. Bedford 's Book, if you had propounded any of them, I should have considered how to answer them. Now as you only refer me to that Book for Arguments against my Opinion, so shall I refer you to another Book for answer to those Arguments, viz. Mr. Gataker 's lately published.

Nay indeed, if Baptism be a Seal of remission of sins, [ 20] then remission of sins (I think) is not the end of Baptism. For the thing must be, before it be sealed, i. e. confirmed. Though Baptism therefore be ordained to this end, to seal remission of sins, yet none can make this use of it, until they believe, and so have their sins remitted. Neither doth this make for Anabaptists, for Circumcision was of the same nature, Rom. 4. 11. Yet were Infants circumcised. [Not all that are baptized (saith Bp. Downam) are truly justified]. And again, [It is not necessary, that everyone baptized, should presently be regenerated, or justified: but Baptism is a Seal to him of the Righteousness of Faith, either to be applied by the Holy Ghost to the Elect dying in infancy, or to be apprehended also by Faith in them, who living to years of discretion, have grace to believe]. Again also, [The Papists themselves teach, That the Sacraments do not confer Grace ponenti obicem mortalis peccati; but all that come to Baptism, are guilty (if not justified before) of mortal sin, not only adulti, who to their original sin have added their own personal transgression, but Infants also, who besides their original corruption, in respect whereof they are mortally dead in sin, stand guilty of Adam 's most heinous transgression]. 2. Baptism is as well a Seal of Sanctification, as of Remission of Sins; for it seals the whole Covenant, and all the Promises contained in it. And as Circumcision signified and sealed the taking away of the Foreskin (or superfluity of naughtiness, as St. James speaketh, Chap. 1. 21.) of the Heart, so doth Baptism signify & seal the washing away of the filthiness, as well as of the guiltiness of it. Indeed Mr. Mede in one of his Diatribae, would have the thing signified in Baptism, to be only the sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost; wherein I cannot subscribe unto him. Whereas you speak of an External Covenant, as some call it; some may express themselves one way, some another, yet all mean the same thing. For my part, I do not use to speak of an External Covenant, but of an External Being in the Covenant. which is all that ordinarily we can be assured of in respect of others, and which is enough for admittance to the Sign and Seal of the Covenant. The People of the Jews, until by professed unbelief they fell away, were generally in the Covenant, Rom. 9. 4. even in that Covenant, which they that were Aliens from, had no hope, Ephes. 2. 12. Yet many of them were but externally in the Covenant, Rom. 9. 6, 27, 29. You labor in vain, when you seek to evade that Text, Rom. 8. 9. How should any be actually Christ's, except they be united to him? And how united, but by the Spirit? 1 Cor. 6. 17. And if you meant (as you say) only of Saving Relations, Can a Saving Relation be put upon any, and yet no Saving Work wrought in them? Neither truly is a mere profession such a real change, as I supposed you did mean, viz. a change of the Heart, whereby one is made a new Creature.

I think that properly there are not distinct Laws, from [ 23] whose distinct condemnations we must be freed: That the Gospel doth not condemn any, but only leave some to [Ad. 1] the Law to be condemned by it, though their Condemnation by reason of the Gospel, as of every Mercy neglected, or abused, will be the greater.

The Father (as I have said before) doth judge, though by Christ, see Acts 17. 31. And however, I see not how [Ad. 2] you can conclude anything to the purpose by this Argument.

If for every several Accusation there must be a several [ 24] Righteousness, then there will be need of infinite Righteousnesses, [Ad. 3] seeing there may be infinite accusations. But one Right • ousness, viz. that of Christ's Satisfaction for us, will take off all Accusations brought against us; else how doth the Apostle say, Who shall lay anything to the charge, &c. Rom. 8. 33, 34. Indeed the Promise is made upon condition of believing, and therefore the not performing of the Condition, debars from benefit of the Promise. But this (I conceive) is not properly a new Accusation, but only a making good of the former accusation, we having nothing to show why it should not stand in force against us. Your self did well distinguish p. 22. betwixt a Condition as a Condition, and a Condition as a Duty. Now Faith as a Condition, is required in the Gospel, but as a Duty in the Law; For the Law requires us in all things to obey God; that is comprehended in the first Precept, therefore it requires us to believe in Christ, God commanding it. Else not to believe, were no sin; for sin is a transgressi • n of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. Now as Believing is a Duty, so not-believing doth afford matter of Accusation, and cause of Condemnation: But as Believing is a Condition, so Net-believing doth only leave the Accusation otherwise made in force against us; and for sin, whereof we are accused and found guilty, leaves us to condemnation. Thus (I think) are those Texts to be understood, John 3. 18. and ult. Whereas you say, That the Accusation may be three-fold, truly in that manner it may be manifold: But indeed the Accusation is but one and the same, viz. that we are Non-credentes: For Pagans do not so much as appear, and Hypocrites, and Solifidians do but appear to be Believers.

For the several Sentences from whence you argue; 1. You urged Joh. 5. 22. to prove that God Creator judgeth [Ad. 4] none. 2. How are any freed from the Sentence of the first Law, but by the benefit of the New Law? therefore I see no ground for that which you seem to insinuate, viz. That we must first be freed from the Sentence of one Law, and then of another. Indeed I do not see, That the Gospel hath any Sentence of Condemnation dis • inct from the Law; only it doth condemn Unbelievers, in that it doth not free them from that condemnation which by the Law is due unto them.

That there is a sorer punishment, as of a distinct kind, than that Death threatened Gen. 3. you do not prove, [Ad. 5] neither (I presume) can it be proved. There are (I grant) several degrees of that Death, yet all of the same kind, viz. The loss of Heavenly Happiness, and the enduring of Hell-Torment. And if there must be a several Righteousness for every several degree of Punishment, there must be more Righteousnesses than you either do o • can assign.

I say as before, I do not think this, [Thou art an Unbeliever] (I speak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the [Ad. 6] Gospel-Condition) to be a new Accusation, but only a Plea why the former should stand good, viz. that we are sinners, and so to be condemned by the Law, because the benefit of the Gospel which we lay claim to, doth not belong unto us, we not performing the condition to that end required of us.

Whereas you say, [We are devolved to the New Law before our Justification is complete]. Are we not devolved to it for the very beginning of our Justification? So again, [Christ's Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righteousness, &c. But the New Covenant gives the personal Interest]. Doth not the New Covenant give Christ also, in whom we have interest? I note these Passages, because your meaning in them perhaps is such as I do not sufficiently understand.

I say still, Here is no occasion properly of a new Accusation, but only of a removens prohibens, a taking away of that which would hinder the force of the former Accusation. And so there is no new Righteousness of ours required unto Justification, but only a Condition, without which we cannot have interest in Christ's Righteousness, that thereby we may be justified.

In your Aphorisms you speak only of a Two-fold Righteousness requisite unto Justification; now you speak of a Two-fold Justification necessary to be attained. But the Scripture speaks of Justification by Christ, and Justification by Faith, as of one and the same Justification, Acts 13. 39. Rom. 5. 1.

The Second Cause, (as you call it) viz. [Whether the [ 25] Defendant have performed the condition of the New Covenant] is indeed this, Whether he have anything truly to allege, why upon the former Accusation he should not be condemned? And so he must be justified indeed by producing his Faith, (and so his sincere Obedience to testify his Faith) yet not as a new Righteousness of his own, but only as intitling him to Christ's Righteousness, as that whereby he must be justified.

Whereas you speak of a Three-fold Guilt, viz. [1. Reatus culpae. 2. Reatus non praestitae Conditionis. 3. Reatus poenae propter non praestitam conditionem]. 1. As Omne malum est vel Culpae, vel Poenae, so omnis reatus seems to be so too. 2. The not-performing of a Condition, as a Condition, brings no new guilt of Punishment, (if it did, surely it were Culpa, and so the second Member falls in with the first) but only the loss of the Remedy, or Reward promised upon the performing of that Condition; though the not performing of the Condition as a Duty, will bring a new guilt of Punishment. 3. Therefore the Reatus poenae is not properly ob non praestitam Conditionem, but ob culpam admissam, which Reatus doth remain in force, because the Condition required for the removing of it, is not performed.

We must take heed of straining Law-terms too far in [ 26] Matters of Divinity. I see not how the firmness of my title to Christ's Righteousness for Justification, may properly be called my Righteousness, whereby I am justified, though the firmness of that title may be questioned, and must be proved; yet if it prove false, it is not that properly which doth condemn, (I speak of the Meritorious Cause of Condemnation) but sin committed against the Law, is that which doth put into a state of Condemnation, and for want of that Title, there is nothing to free from Condemnation.

The Obligation unto Punishment is not dissolved by Satisfaction made by Christ, as to Unbelievers, because for want of Faith, the Satisfaction of Christ is not imputed unto them.

1. For that far greater Punishment, which you speak of, I have said enough before. 2. Is that Non-liberation from former misery a distinct punishment from that misery? Though the former misery may be aggravated by neglect of that which would procure a liberation from it. If God had never made a New Covenant, there had certainly been a Non-liberation from that misery, which the breach of the first Covenant did bring upon us; and under that misery they must lie forever, who neglect the Remedies provided for them; and as their neglect doth aggravate their sin, so will it increase their Condemnation.

The Immunity doth result from the New Covenant, the Penality from the Old, unto which Unbelievers are left, the New Covenant affording them no Remedy by reason of their unbelief: and the Penality of the Old Covenant is accidentally increased by the New Covenant, in that by neglect of its Remedy sin is increased.

I am of this opinion, That the New Covenant hath no other Penality, but that it doth leave Unbelievers to the Penality of the Old Covenant, and by accident increase the same.

If that Penality be but the same Death, it hath no more than the former; neither can that Act of Grace be properly said to appoint a new Punishment, but only to leave to the former Punishment, as not delivering from it. You speak indeed of Double Torments appointed by that Act for such as do reject it; but so (I think) the Similitude doth not hold. For I see not, that the Covenant of Grace doth so, but only (as I have said) leave some upon their not performing the Condition required of them, to the Punishment appointed by the Covenant of Works; which Punishment will be the sorer, as Sin by neglect of Grace offered is the greater.

3. Though our Mediator do not believe, repent and obey for us, but we ourselves must believe, repent and obey, yet it doth not follow that our believing, repenting and obeying, is that Righteousness by which we are justified.

4. Though we be not guilty of not performing the [ 27] Condition of the New Covenant, yet this is not properly our Righteousness, by which we are justified, though without it we cannot be justified, because not partake of Christ's Righteousness.

5. The rejecting of Christ may be considered; 1. As the receiving of Christ is a Duty Commanded. 2. As the receiving of Christ is the Condition of Pardon and Salvation offered. In the former respect, the rejecting of Christ is properly a sin, and so against the Law, though aggravated by the Gospel, in that Christ is rejected notwithstanding all the benefit to be obtained by him. That the Law doth not speak of Christ, is nothing; for it speaks of obeying God in all his Commands, and so implicitly it speaks of receiving Christ, when God doth command it. In the latter respect the rejecting of Christ (I think) doth not properly bring a new guilt, but only continue and aggravate the former.

6. But recurrit questio, viz. Whether the New Law doth require the Condition as our Righteousness: it seems to me to require it only to that end, that Christ's Righteousness may be imputed unto us, and that so by that Righteousness we may be justified.

7. Faith, as a Duty, is a Conformity to the Law, though a partial and imperfect Conformity unto it, and so there's no being justified by it. As a Condition, it is a conformity to the Gospel, but no Righteousness by which we are justified, though a Condition upon performing of which we are justified by Christ's Righteousness.

8. I deny that there is any other condemnation of the Gospel, but only a not-freeing in some case from the condemnation of the Law.

9. The Condition being considered merely as a Condition, and not as a Duty, to object that we have not performed the Condition, is not to bring a new Accusation, but only to take away the Plea, why the old Accusation should not prevail against us.

10. The performance of the Condition of the New Covenant, being designed to that use, which you mention, viz. [to be the sinners self-denying acknowledgment of his sin and misery, and insufficiency to deliver himself] it doth hence rather follow, that properly it is not our Righteousness, by which we are justified, though it be required of us to that end, that we may be justified by Christ's Righteousness.

11. That the Condition is not of so large extent as the Duty commanded, seems not to the purpose, the Question being of the Condition as a Condition, not as a Duty. Faith as a Duty (I grant) is part of our Personal Righteousness; but that is not it by which we are justified.

12. As the Condition is a Condition, and no more, so the performing of it is no Justitia at all: as it is a Duty, so indeed the performing of it is Justitia particularis, & secundum quid, as the performing of every Duty is: but such a justitia I dare not rely on for Justification. Whereas you say, That Christ's Righteousness is not simply our Universal Righteousness; it is true, if by [simply] you mean [absolute, & nullâ interpositâ conditione] otherwise our Universal Righteousness it is, so that we have no need of any other Righteousness for our Justification, though we have need of something to that end, that we may partake of Christ's Righteousness, and be justified by it.

13. The Gospel as distinct from the Law, doth show [ 28] us our Remedy; the Law as distinct from the Gospel, doth prescribe unto us our Duty. Or if the Gospel also doth prescribe unto us our Duty, yet no other Duty, though upon other terms than the Law doth prescribe. However, thought the performing of the Duty be in some sort our Righteousness, yet it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified. Still I distinguish of Believing considered as a Duty, and considered as a Condition. As a Duty, it is our Righteousness, but not that whereby we are justified; as a Condition, it is that whereby we are justified, but not our Righteousness; it is only that whereby we receive Righteousness, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, that Righteousness indeed by which we are justified. Whereas you say, [The difference of the two Laws or Covenants, is the main ground which shows the necessity of a Two-fold Righteousness]. The necessity of a Two-fold Righteousness is not denied, but only the necessity of a Two-fold Righteousness unto Justification.

This Two-fold Justification seems to be a new conceit. I remember not that you spake anything of it in your Aphorisms; neither (I think) will it easily be granted because of your Positions and Suppositions, but rather they will be rejected, as inferring that which is not to be admitted. For truly where the Gospel doth speak of more Justifications than one, (in that sense as we treat of Justification) I am yet to seek.

From a Two-fold Covenant you infer a Two-fold Justification. But is there a Two-fold Covenant, by which we are or may be justified? I conceive, we are justified only by the New Covenant. For by the Deeds of the Law (the Old Covenant) shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3. 20. See also Acts 13. 39.

1. To be accused as an Unbeliever, and a Rejecter of Christ, &c. is to be accused as a sinner, and as one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them. For else Unbelief and rejecting of Christ were no sin; that Christ is not spoken of in the Law, is nothing, as I have shown before. 2. That Accusation (that a Man is an Unbeliever, and a Rejecter of Christ) if it be made good, doth leave a Man to the Law, and makes all its Accusations to be in force against him, with aggravation of his Sin for contempt of Mercy.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

For the Authors which you cite, I can examine but few of them, because I have them not. Bradshaw (so [ 29] far as I see) makes nothing for you. He saith, Bonae opera quodammodo justificare dicuntur, quod fidem, ipsamque adeo justificationem nostram arguendo, ac comprobando, utramque ista ration justificent. This is but what others say, That Faith doth justify the Person, and Works justify the Faith: and that is indeed no more than what all Protestants do say, viz. That Works declare and manifest Faith to be such as whereby the Person is justified: and that therefore a Man is said to be justified by Works, because thereby he appears to have Faith, whereby he is justified.

Again he saith, Obedientia non minus quàm ipsa (ex quâ oritur) fides ad salutem aeternam est nobis necessaria, utpote sine quâ justitiam Christi imputatam prodesse nobis posse spes nulla existat. This is but what Prote • tants generally acknowledge, That Obedience is necessary as a Fruit of J • stifying Faith; so that without Obedience it is in vain to think of being justified by Christ's Righteousness: Yet is not our Obedience therefore a Righteousness, by which we are justified.

Again he saith, Cujuslibet Christiani, quicum actu Deus in gratiam rediit, duplex est Justitia; Imputata una, Inhaerens altera. But he doth not say, That we are justified by Inherent, as well as by Imputed Righteousness: He is as far from that as other Protestants generally are; and other Protestants generally are as ready to assert the necessity of that Two-fold Righteousness, as he is.

Again he saith, Per justitiam Christi nobis imputatam non possimus dici absolute sive omni modo justi, &c. He means, We are not freed from future Obedience, though we be freed from the guilt of Disobedience. This (except Libertines) none, I presume, will deny. But all this, as to the Controversy betwixt us about a Twofold Righteousness requisite unto Justification, is (that I see) just nothing. But concerning Bradshaw, and the places which you point at in him, I observe, that §. 21. is twice so figured, and therefore which of the two you did intend, may be a question. I before noted what is in the former; but in the latter there is something, which peradventure you intended, though I judge it as little to your purpose as the rest. He saith, Nova Nostra Obedientia pro gradu suo, & mensurâ, etiam justitia nostra dicitur, quâ & formaliter, inherenter, habitualiter, sive ex operibus justi (pro ipsius modulo) coram Deo etiam vere dicamur, utpote cujus ration pro justis ex parte à Deo ipso censeamur, cujusque intuitu etiam in foro divino aliquo modo (si id opus esset) justificari possimus. But, 1. you see what mincing of the matter here is; [Pro gradu suo & mensurâ: Pro ipsius modulo: ex parte: Aliquomodo: si id opus esset]. This is not to the Point we have in hand, who speak of universal and entire Justification. 2. Here he makes against you; for he clearly makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect, [cujus ration pro justis ex parte à Deo censemur] whereas you hold all Righteousness to be perfect, or none at all. What you mean by citing Wotton de Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. I cannot imagine, for nothing do I there see for you, but much against you, though touching other Particulars in debate betwixt us. As in the very beginning of the Chapter; Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides, quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus. And the title of the Chapter is, Quomodo Fides Causa Instrumentalis Justificationem Nostram operetur. And pag. 100. he cites and approves that of Downam, Fides sola est, quae nobis jus tribuit ad omnes Dei promissiones in Evangelio consequendas, &c. And pag. 103. that of our Church; Nihil ex hominis parte flagitatur ad ipsius justificationem, praeter veram & vivam fidem. And immediately after he adds; Neque tamen haec Fides spem, dilectionem, timorem, panitentiam excludere censenda est, quasi ad eum, qui justificandus est, non pertinerent, sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi (N. B.) significantur penitùs excludi. Atque hoc quidem justificandi munus soli Fidei convenire, his rationibus ostendo, &c. The rest of the Chapter is taken up with those Reasons. Now what there is for your purpose, judge you. The next place which you refer me to, is more punctually cited, viz. part 2. lib. 2. cap. 35. pag. 383. but neither there do I find anything that makes for you. He there answers Bellarmine 's Arguments, whereby he would prove, That Fides est solus assensus, non etiam fiducia: But what is this ad rhombum? I know not whether you may lay hold on those words, Fidem Justificantem, sive quatenus Justificat, non esse unam virtutem, nec ullam quidem virtutem, sed justificare omnino, & solummodo ex officio & loco, quae Deus misericors illi sponte & libere concessit, ut dixi parte 1. lib. 2. cap. 28. So it is painted, but it should be cap. 18. for there are but nineteen Chapters of that Book. What you can gather from this (if this were it you aimed at) I cannot tell, especially he referring us to the other place before mentioned, where there is much against you, but nothing (I think) for you. And as little for your purpose do I meet with in part 2. li • . 1. cap. 7. pag. 144. where he only saith, Accedat etiam oportet, ut idonet simus, quibus aditus ad Coelum pateat, habitualis justitia sive Sanctitas, de quâ, &c. Mat. 5. 8. Denique vitae ettam sanctimoniâ, & bonis operibus opus est, ut Regnum Caleste comparemus, Heb. 12. 14. Matth. 25. 34, 35. P 〈…〉 doth he say, That this Habitual Righteousness (which he maketh all one with Holiness, therein opposing you as I do) is requisite unto Justification? Otherwise that it is requisite, Who doth question? Whereas you next cite part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 127. n. 3, 4. I doubt whether you did well observe what the Author there meaneth. He only answereth an Argument of Hemingius, denying that which (he saith) Hemingius supposeth, viz. Eandem justitiam esse viam ad vitam aeternam, cum in Lege, tum in Evangelio. But of a Two-fold Righteousness he there makes no mention; not (I say) of a Two-fold Righteousness required of us at all, much less required of us, that thereby we may be justified. He saith indeed, Quid enim si Lex Det in decalogo sit norma illius justitiae, quae et via Vitae Eternae? Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta, quid impediet, quo minùs justificetur quisptam sine Legis implettone? He doth not mean, That the Righteousness prescribed in the Law, is one Righteousness, and the Righteousness constituted in the Gospel another Righteousness, whereby we are justified; but that we are justified only by this latter, and not at all by the other. He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteousness, as b • ing both necessary unto Justification: he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect, which Righteousness he makes to consist merely in remission of sins. See part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 12. & cap. 3. per totum. To the very same purpose (i. e. nothing at all to yours) is that Ibid. cap. 6. p. 138. n. 2. where he taxeth Hemingius for taking it as granted, Nullam esse justitiam, vel injustitiam, nisi in Lege praestitâ, vel non praestitâ: And then he saith, Nam si alia sit justitia, quae Lege non contineatur, fieri potest, ut alia etiam sit vta Aeternae Vitae consequendae. He doth not grant (as you seem to understand him) that Justitia, quae in Lege continetur est una justitia, quae ad Justificationem à nobis requiritur; for that indeed he denies, and saith, That there is another Righteousness now in the Gospel ordained for that end; and remission of sins (as I said) he makes to be that Righteousness, even the only Righteousness by which we are formally justified. Immediately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow; Verum nec peccatum quidem Legis in Decalogo cancellis circumscribitur. This is not directly to the Point now in hand; yet because it may reflect upon it, and somewhat we have about it afterward; I therefore think meet to note it by the way, and say, That if it be as he saith, then (it seemeth) St. John did not give us a full definition of sin, when he said, Sin is a transgression of the Law; but of that more hereafter. Wotton 's Argument is of small force; Fides (inquit) in Christum crucifixum non praecipitur in Lege: but I have before him, shown that it is otherwise. He himself presently after cites that, 1 John 3. 23. [This is his Commandment, That we believe, &c.] Now the Law contained in the Decalogue, requires us to do whatsoever God commandeth; for if we do not so, we do not make him our only Lord God, as the Law requireth. That the Apostle doth oppose (as he saith) Faith to the Law, Gal. 3. 12. makes nothing for him. For Faith, as a Duty, is required in the Law, though as a Condition it be required only in the Gospel. Neither doth that advantage him, which he also objecteth, That the Law hath nothing to do with Christ as Mediator, Gal. 5. 4. For though the Gospel only hold out Christ as Mediator to be believed in; yet Christ being so held out, the Law doth require us to believe in him. For the Law doth require a belief of every Truth that God doth reveal, and a performance of everything that God doth enjoin. Now for Lud. de Dieu, If the Justification which he speaks of, Quâ ut sanctificati ac regeniti absolvimur à falsis Diaboli & improborum criminationibus, be meant of some particular Acts, of which we are accused, it is but such a Justification as the Reprobates themselves may partake of, who may be accused of some things whereof they are not guilty. See Bradshaw de Justis. cap. 25. If it be meant of our estate in general, (as I suppose it is) then this is indeed no distinct Justification, but only a confirming of the other. For in vain do we pretend to be justified by Faith, (by which alone de Dieu grants we are justified) so as through Christ to be freely acquitted from the guilt of our sins, if yet we remain unregenerate and unsanctified. By the way I observe, That de Dieu 's words are against you, [Jacobus non agit de Justification, quae partim side, partim operibus peragatur]. Thus much I had said in reference to this Author before I had him upon the Epistles; but now that I have him, I shall speak more fully to him, or to you of him, from that other place to which you remit me. viz. his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he speaks likewise of a Two-fold Righteousness, and of a Two-fold Justification, yet so as but little to patronize your Cause. Besides Imputed Righteousness, which we have in Christ, there is also (he saith, and who doth not?) an Inherent Righteousness which we have in ourselves. The former Righteousness (he saith) is that, Quâ nos Deus, etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes, plene tamen, ipsius etiam Legis Testimonis, justificat, e • que pro omnino conformibus habet in capite Christo: de quâ justificati • ne Apostolus supra, cap. 3. & 4. & 5. multis disputavit. Altera est, de quâ, Rom. 6. 13. Ephes. 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. Quâ nos Deus per regenerationem in nobis etiam ipso Lege ex parte conformatos, ex parte nunc justificat, & indies j • s •• ficat magis ac magis, prout incr • mentum capit regeneratio, ac justificabit plene, ubi perfecti • adven • rit, de quâ Ju ••• fication agitu • , Jac. 2. 21, 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justification in Opera •• gis ing • e ••• ntur; ut pri 〈…〉 • nstituit sol • Fi • es, i. e. 〈…〉 Christi side imp 〈…〉 , n • n opera; si • alte •• m c • n 〈…〉 nt opera, non fi • es. 〈…〉 . 1. he makes Inh 〈…〉 Righteousness imperfect, and so also the Justification •• ich doth arise from it. By 〈…〉 Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conforma •• ▪ & ex parte nunc justificati: But Imputed Righteousness, and Justification by it, he acknowledgeth to be perfect: hereby we are plene justificati; tanquam Legi plene conforms in capite Christo. 2. He makes Faith only, i. e. (as he explains it) the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith, that whereby we are fully and perfectly justified. Now you make all Righteousness, as such, perfect: for otherwise you make it to be no Righteousness if it be imperfect. And you make Faith and Works to concur unto the same Justification, though you distinguish of the Inchoation, Continuation and Consummation of it. You also make Faith properly taken to be the Righteousness (though not the only Righteousness) by which we are justified. So that de Dieu 's Opinion and yours are much different.

Again, Sola Fides (inquit) amplectens islam obedientiam (sc. Christi) imputatur in justitiam, Ibid. p. 104.

And pag. 105. Fidei imputatio est in justitiam perfectam, qualis est Obedientia Christi. Operum imputatio in imperfectam, qualia sunt ipsa Opera in hâc vitâ.

And pag. 109. he cites Bucer in Colloq. Ratisb. as agreeing with him, and saying thus, Dixeramus nos, secuti Aposiolum, & omnem Scripturam, duplicem esse Sanctorum justitiam, quâ justi sunt coram Deo & hominibus. Unam Christi, perfectam, quâ illis spes omnis gratiae Dei, & salutis vitaeque sempiternae tota nititur. Alteram in ipsis per Spiritum Christi inchoatum, quâ consider non debent, proptereà quod ea imperfecta semper est, dum hî • vivunt, & Deo non nisi ex liberali & infinitâ ejus misericordià, & merito Christi probari non potest. Hâc justitia nemo justificatur coram Deo justification vitae.—Justitiam hanc Inchoatam sentimus esse quidem veram & vivam Justitiam, Dei praeclarum & eximium donum, vitamque novam in Christo hâc justitiâ constare, omnesque Sanctos hac ipsâ quoque justitia justos esse, & coram Deo, & coram hominibus, & propter eam Sanctos quoque à Deo iustificari justification Operum, i. e. comp • obari eos à Deo, laudari, & remunerari. Attamen quamlibet haec justitia sit vera ac viva, & suo etiam modo (N. B.) justificans, tamen non esse ejusmodi, non sic veram vivam & solidam, ut quisquam Sanctorum justificars ea possit Justification vitae, multo minus ut sit ipsa justitia vel justificatio vitae.

Thus then de Dieu in the Matter itself doth not differ from other Protestant-Writers, who generally hold, That the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, is that by which we are fully and perfectly justified; and yet we must also have Inherent Righteousness, which will justify us in some sort, but not fully and perfectly, because itself is imperfect.

For Placeus I have him not; but because you allege his words, I will say something to him. He speaks indeed of a Two-fold Accusation, and of a Two-fold Justification. But, 1. he seems to differ from me and others only modo loquendi. For he saith, Ab accusatione priore (qua sc. objicitur nos esse peccatores) sola fide justificamur; qua Christi gratiam & justitiam amplectimur: à posteriore, (qua objicitur nos esse infidels) justificamur etiam operibus, quatenus its Fides (N. B.) ostenditur. This seems to be in effect the same with that of Maccovius, Conciliationem hîc (inter Paulum & Jacobum) hanc ponunt Theologi, & quidem ex Scriptura, sola Fides nos justificat apprehensive, opera declarative. 2. To speak properly, they are not (I think) two distinct Accusations. For to omit this, That to be Infideles, is to be Peccatores; and so the one Accusation doth include the other: To omit this (I say) the latter Accusation is but a re-enforcing of the former. Thou art a Sinner, saith the Accuser, and therefore to be condemned. Not so, saith the Party accused, for I am a Believer, and therefore justified. Hereupon the Accuser replies, Nay, it is not so as thou pretendest, thou art indeed no Believer, therefore the guilt of thy sins is upon thee, and thou art under condemnation. All this is but one Accusation, prosecuted and confirmed against a Plea made against it. If they were distinct Accusations, then we might be freed from the one, and yet be condemned by the other: but it is here quite otherwise. For the force of the former Accusation doth depend upon the latter; neither are we freed from the former, except we be freed from the latter; whereas you seem to carry it so, as if we were first justified from the former Accusation, and then were again to be justified from the latter: this seems to be the result of your Opinion.

1. Because I grant Faith to be required of us, that so [ 30] Christ's Righteousness may become ours, do I therefore make Faith itself to be our Righteousness, viz. that whereby we are fully justified. A part of Inherent Righteousness (I grant) Faith is, by which we may be justified in some measure; but that is not the Justification here inquired of. 2. You should not put me to prove, That your Assertion is without Scripture; it is sufficient for me to say it, until you allege Scripture for it. 3. Christ's Satisfaction is solely and wholly our Righteousness, whereby we are justified from all Condemnation, though except we believe in him, we cannot enjoy that benefit by him; See 2 Cor. 5. ult. and Acts 13. 3 • . 4. The New Covenant doth hold out unto us Christ's Righteousness to be made ours by Faith, that so we may be freed from the Condemnation of the Old Covenant, to which Condemnation we are left, if we believe not; and our Condemnation will b • so much the sorer, by how much the sin in neglecting so great Salvation is the greater. 5. I confess indeed that there is more than Faith in the Condition of the New Covenant, but not as to Justification. For that which you add, [James saith, We are justified by Works, and Christ by our Words]; the question is not, Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words; but how and in what sense we are said to be so justified. There is a Particular Justification, and a Declarative Justification; thus we are justified by our Works and Words: but a full and formal Justification is only by Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us. 6. To say, That we are healed partly by the Medicine, and partly by the Application, I still think to be improper; neither do you bring anything, whereby to show the propriety of it. The Application of the Medicine is indeed requisite, yet it is the Medicine properly that doth heal, though not except there be an Application of it. Common Speech is not always Proper Speech; neither can any that are acquainted with Scripture, and know how to distinguish between Proper and Improper Speeches, think it strange that there are improper Speeches found in Scripture. What will you say of those, [This is my Body] [The Rock was Christ] and a hundred such-like? For Rules of Logic, if you had made use of any, I might have considered of them. 7. May not a Similitude illustrate, though there be such a difference as you speak of, betwixt that from which it is fetched, and that to which it is applied? But why do you join Repentance and Obedience with Faith in point of Justification; I speaking only of Faith, and you as yet having said nothing for the joint interest of the other? 8. In your Aphorisms you plainly assert two distinct Righteousnesses, as requisite unto Justification; that there you make them subordinate, is more than I observe. but though Faith be subordinate unto Christ's Satisfaction in the matter of Justification, yet that we are justified by Faith as a distinct Righteousness, I cannot yield, no more than that the Application of a Medicine i • a distinct Medicine by which one is healed. I am glad that you plainly disclaim a Coordination of Christ's Righteousness and Faith in the Work of Justification: But if they be but subordinate, then (methinks) they should not be two distinct Righteousnesses, by which we are justified. I see not how we can be justified (I speak of an Universal Justification, opposite to all condemnation, that which Bucer calls Justificationem Vitae) both by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and also by our own personal Righteousness. You say, [A Man having a Medicine, and not applying it, may properly be said to die for want of Application]; but to speak properly, I think, It is not the want of Application of the Medicine, but the Disease that doth kill the Man: So though a Man wanting Faith shall be condemned, yet take Faith merely as a Condition, not as a Duty, it is not properly the want of Faith, but Sin that is the cause of his Condemnation; though his want of Faith may as aggravate his Sin, so increase his Condemnation.

That I speak your words, is more than I do know. How Christ's Righteousness may be called our Legal Righteousness, I shown by Rom. 10. 4. viz as serving us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us, and for want of which the Law otherwise would have condemned us. Neither did I blame you meetly for calling Christ's Satisfaction our Legal Righteousness, but for making another Righteousness of our own, which you call our Evangelical Righteousness, necessary unto Justification. Now also you overlook that, which I alleged about Christ's Satisfaction, as being our Evangelical Righteousness.

1. Doth the Old Covenant prescribe Christ's Satisfaction as our Righteousness? You said a little before, [I do not think, that Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction is that which the Law required]; as if I said, That the Law did require it; whereas I meant only this, That the Law required Satisfaction, and Christ made it for us, so that Christ's Satisfaction serveth us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us, and so may be called our Legal Righteousness. But the New Covenant doth hold out Christ's Righteousness to be apprehended by us, and made ours by Faith, that so thereby we may be justified. Where the Scripture speaks of a Two-fold Righteousness so as you do, or how this makes for the unfolding of the main Doctrine, or tends to heal our Breaches, I do not see: You affirm these things, but do not prove them. 2. What plain ground you laid down in your Aphorisms for that Two-fold Righteousness, I do not know: What I could observe any way Argumentative, I was willing to examine, and so am still.

1. If it imply Blasphemy, to say, That Christ repented, [ 31] and believed for us; Doth it follow that Faith or Repentance is our Righteousness, by which we are justified? Can nothing be required of us, and performed by us, but it must therefore be our Righteousness, and by it as our Righteousness we must be justified? 2. The Scriptures which I alleged, (viz. Rom. 9. 29. & 10. 6. Gal. 5. 5. and Rom. 3. 22.) do sufficiently distinguish Faith from that Righteousness, whereby we are justified, and show it to be only a means, whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, and so by that Righteousness of Christ are justified. The Argument (I think) is good, notwithstanding anything you say unto it. Faith is only a means whereby Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto us unto Justification: Therefore it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified, Rivet speaking of the Remonstrants saith, Volunt igitur Fidem cum operibus ventre in partem justitiae debitae, & Fidem justificare, non R • lative, ut organum apprehendens objectum, sed Inherenter, &c. Ho • iniquitatis mysterium, &c.

1. You might easily know what I meant by [Simply and Absolutely justified in the sight of God], if you did well consider the other Members of the distinction, viz. to be wholly freed from all Condemnation; the same that Mr. Bradshaw meant by Universal Justification: You know sufficiently the distinction betwixt Simpliciter or Absolute, & secundum quid. Bradshaw having said, Hoc modo (sc. justification particulari) non Electi soli, sed & Reprobi ipsi coram Deo Justificari possunt: Adds immediately, Neutri vero eorum absolute hoc modo justificari possunt.—Hoc modo justificari non est penitùs à peccati reatu, sed ab hujus vel illius peccati imputatione injustâ liberari. 2. Comparative Righteousness I shown to be but a less degree of Unrighteousness: but Ironical Righteousness is down-right Unrighteousness, whereas a less Unrighteousness in comparison of a greater, is a kind of Righteousness. Minus malum respectu majoris habet rationem boni. 3. I do not deny the Righteousness of Faith, though I deny Faith to be that Righteousness by which we are justified. Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith, and sincere Obedience, yet are we not therefore justified by Obedience, but Declarative, as it is the fruit of Justifying Faith; nor by Faith, but Apprehensive, as by it we apprehend and receive Christ's Righteousness.

1. I never doubted, much less denied Faith to be a part of Inherent Righteousness. 2. It is indeed a strange Righteousness, that will not justify so far forth as it will reach: but it is not strange to Protestant-Divines, that Inherent Righteousness cannot reach so far as to justify in that sense as we speak of Justification. Illud concedimus, (inquit Daven.) esse in omnibus justificatus justitiam quandam inherentem, quam si formalem causam statuant Justifactionis, (liceat enim vocabulum procudere) non repugnabimus: sed predictae Justificationis, quae respondet strict • examini Coelestis Judicis, nec formalis, nec meritoria esse ullo modo potest. And he lays down these two Positions; 1. Christi Mediatoris, in nobis habitantis, atque per Spiritum sese nobis unientis, perfectissima Obedientia, est formalis causa justificationis Nostrae, utpote quae ex donatione Dei, & applicatione Fidei fit nostra. 2. Justitia per Spiritum Christi nobis impressa & inherens, non est formalis causa, per quam stamus justificati, hoc est, per quam liberati judicamur à damnatione, & acceptati ad vitam aeternam, tanquam eâdem digni per hanc qualitatem nobis inherentem. That you may not catch at the word [digni], he afterward expresseth it thus; Atque hic ne inanem de vocabulis velitationem instituamus, illud praemittendum nos per formalem causam Justificationis nihil aliud intelligere, quam illud, per quod stamus in conspectu Dei à damnatione liberati, innocents, gratificati, & ad vitam aeternam acceptati. And the whole Chapter is to prove that Inherens Justitia non est formalis causa Justificationis Nostra coram Deo. But it is a needless labor to cite Authors to this purpose. For what more common with our Divines (I speak of such as are of chief note) than to acknowledge Inherent Righteousness, and yet to deny that we are justified by it? What you mean, when you yield that we are not universally justified by Faith, I do not well understand. For if you mean (as you seem to do) that we are not freed by it from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, but only from the Punishment of the New Covenant; 1. I know no Punishment of the New Covenant, but a leaving to the Punishment of the Old Covenant, with an aggravation of it for contempt of Mercy offered. 2. Faith, though not as our Righteousness, yet as the means whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, doth free us from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, viz. Death. For the Just shall live by Faith, Rom. 1. 17. And in that sense Faith doth universally justify us. For being justified by Faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 1. Whereas you speak of justifying against the Accusation of Non-performing the Condition of the New Covenant; I must still tell you, That taking the Condition merely as a Condition, the Accusation of non-performing it, is but a confirming a former Accusation of being guilty of the breach of the Old Covenant, and therefore to be condemned, as having no relief from the New Covenant, the Condition of it being not performed. 3. If I do ill oppose the Righteousness whereby we are justified, and the Righteousness whereby we are sanctified, as if the same thing might not be both; then welfare the Papists, who confound Justification and Sanctification. Duraeus the Jesuit, in his Defense of Campian, saith, Nova haec, Whitakere, Theologia est, nos per gratiam infusam, vitae novitatem ac sanctificationem adipisci, minime tamen justificari. At quae te, obsecro, Scriptura docuit Justificationem à Sanctificatione distinguere? The same Righteousness that doth sanctify, cannot also justify; because that Righteousness, which doth sanctify, doth it but in part; but that which doth justify, must do it fully, or else it is to little purpose. For (as Bradshaw observes) even the Reprobate as well as others, may have a particular Justification. 4. The Texts which I cited, (Luk. 1. 75. Ephes. 4. 24. Psal. 147. 17. Apoc. 22. 11.) seem to me to make the terms [Righteousness and Holiness, Righteous and Holy] equipollent: and that Text, Psal. 145. 17. speaks not of God's People, but of God himself, which (it seems) you did not observe. And why should you call it tautologizing, when two words are joined together as Synonim • 's? What is more • equent in Scripture than this? It hath more show of tautology, when divers sentences importing the same thing, are joined together; which yet is very usual. And as the Scriptures, so also our Divines do promiscuously use the words [Righteousness] and [Holiness]. Davenant, Hanc ergo qualitatem justitiae, sive Sanctitatis, quam Deus imprimit hominibus renatis, negamus esse causam formalem justificationis, &c. So Ames. Non excluditur justitia, seu Sanctitas inherens, &c. 5. The Matter of our Righteousness, is that which is conformable to the Law: Justum est, quod est secundum Legem; Injustum, quod contra Legem; and so by your own confession is the matter of our Holiness.

1. They are no vulgar Divines, that say, Our Inherent [ 32] Righteousness is imperfect; yea, and make this one principal Argument to prove that we are not justified by Inherent Righteousness. Vides, & s • es, & Charitas (inquit Whitakeru • ) nos justos aliquo modo saciunt, sed inchoate, non absolute. Lud. de Dieu, and in him Bucer were cited before. Hear now Davenant; Ipsa (inquit) justitia inherens, in se considerata, qualis reperitur in viatoribus, imperfecta est, atque ca • e • illis perfecti • n • s gradibus, qui ad justificationem perfectam necessario requiruntur. Vide etiam Ibid. cap. 23. ad Arg. 6. Thus also Ames; Justitia quâ justificatur homo coram Deo, debet esse perfecta: Sed justitia nobis inherens, non est talis. Ergo. Woe • ton speaks not only for himself, but also for others, even our chiefest Divines; Lutherus, Melancthon, Calvinus, & Chemnitz, eá potissimum causâ (N. B.) nos insusâ & inherente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt, quod illa in nobis ita imperfecta sit, ut in Dei conspectum, cum ad judicandum accedat, prodire non audeat.

And again; Nihil profecto causae erat, cur Vasquez in 1. 2. Disp. 202. n. 26. tantopere huic argumento confideret, ut illo potissimum niteretur; Perfectio nostrae justitiae (inquit Vasques) non debet probari ex quibusdam Scripturae testimonits, in quibus commendatur perfecta & integra charitas, sed potiùs ex illis, in quibus docemur nobis inesse justitiam. Nam justitia non est, quae vera, & perfecta non est.

And again; Justitia nostra habitualis nobis à Deo infusa, non est perfecta. And again; Respondent nostri Theologi justitiam illam habitualem esse imperfectam. I will add one more, whom both you and I reverence, viz. Mr. Blake, He having spoken of some (he names none, but you know, I suppose, whom he meaneth) who grant Holiness to be imperfect, but will have Righteousness (our Personal Righteousness) by all means to be perfect; he adds, [This and much more to affert a personal perfect Inherent Righteousness, as is said] all which, as it is here held out, to me is new, and I must confess myself in ignorance all over. I never take Imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction, no more than Imperfect Holiness. Isaiah (I am sure) saith, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, &c. See more afterward.

2. I take Righteousness, to be a Conformity to the Law, which Conformity may be more or less perfect, as one may more or less come up to the Rule set before him. If I over-slipped anything in your Aphorisms, you might have directed me to it; otherwise to search for it, may prove both a tedious and a fruitless labor.

That one thing may be more or less like another, is most evident, so that if all the wit in the World should conspire against it, yet one might as easily demonstrate it, as he did, who to prove dari motum, when one had disputed against it, rose up and walked. Is not the Similitude sometime more, sometime less, that is betwi • t Parents and Children, and betwixt Children of the same Parents, especially Twinns? and so in other things? To deny this, what is it but to put out men's eyes, or to bid defiance unto common sense? Relata recipiunt magis & minus, saith Burgersdicius. Yet he saith, Rccipere magis & minus non convenit omnibus Relatis. Surely there is great difference betwixt Similitudo and Aequalitas, so that neither Scheibler nor any Man else must think to carry it so, as if there were eadem utriusque ratio; so that because Aequalitas consistit in indivisibly; therefore similitudo must do so too. Perfect Righteousness indeed is quaedam Aequalitas, not simply all Righteousness. That an Action cannot be conform to the Precept, except it be perfectly conform, you must prove as well as assert, before I can assent. I could yet see no reason to doubt of that which Mr. Blake saith, [As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar, is an Image; so Conformity imperfectly answering to the Rule, is Conformity likewise].

1. You do not well to confound Conformity and [ 33] Equality. And though the Law require perfect Conformity, which none can perform, it doth not follow that imperfect Conformity is none at all. If a perfect Conformity to the Law could be performed by us, then we should be justified by the Law, which we cannot be: yet the Regenerate conform to the Law in some measure, and so it behooves us to do; For then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Ps. 119. 6 I let pass your Second and Third. Ad 4. I do not speak of Qualification considered absolutely, but in reference to the Rule. Mr. Blake saith well, [Neither do I understand how Holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and Righteousness perfect, taken formally, in reference to a Rule. We may (for ought I know) as well make Holiness formal, and refer it to a Rule, and Righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any Rule at all. And in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in Holiness or Righteousness; it is as they come up, or fall short of the Rule, that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection]. Holiness and Righteousness are opposite unto sin: therefore formally considered, they are a Conformity to the Rule, as Sin is a deviation from it. The Conformity therefore of our Actions and Dispositions to the Rule is not (as you say) the matter of our Righteousness, but (as I conceive) it is the form; and our Actions and Dispositions themselves are the matter of it, viz. of our Personal and Inherent Righteousness; and so of our Holiness. The Rule of Righteousness (to which as we conform more or less, we are more or less righteous) is the Law, the sum whereof is contained in the Decalogue: therefore it is said, That Believers are under the Law as a Rule, though not under it as a Covenant. For Poena Evangelica, of which you speak, I have said enough of it before.

To your Queries and Objections, I answer, Ad 1. Christ doth justify the Unrighteous, God doth justify the Ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. But how? They were unrighteous and ungodly before they were justified; they are not so when they are justified, though it is not their Personal Righteousness or Godliness whereby they are justified. Know ye not that the Unrighteous shall not inherit, &c. And such were some of you, but you are washed, &c. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. That of Tarnovius, cited by Mr. Ball, is useful here; In Scriptura saepe res dicitur quod paulo ante suit, ut caeci vident, surdi audiunt, claudi ambulant, &c. Ad 2. The Law doth not justify any but such as are perfectly righteous; therefore they that are imperfectly, though truly righteous, cannot be justified by it. Sumus vere justi, (saith Davenant) non putative, si respiciamus justitiam nostram habitualem: sed haec vera justitia est adhuc inchoata & imperfecta. And again, Sanctificationem nostram non putativam & fictitiam, sed veram & realem statuimus. Bellarmini autem Dialecticam, qui inde concludit nos justificari justiti • inherente, putativam arbitramur, & fictitiam. And why should not Imperfect Righteousness be acknowledged True Righteousness, as well as Imperfect Holiness is acknowledged True Holiness? That of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 24. [in Righteousness and true Holiness]; or, as the Original hath it, [in righteousness and holiness of Truth], attributes Truth as well to Righteousness, (though imperfect) as to Holiness. Genitivus Veritatis (saith Calvin on the place) l • co Epitheti positus est, qui tam justitiae, quam sanctitati convenit. Ad 3. You seem quite to mistake the meaning of that in James 2. 10. It makes nothing against an Imperfect Righteousness, but only shows, That respect must be had to one Precept as well as to ano • her▪ because though a Man should keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, viz. so as wholly to wave it, and to have no respect unto it, he were guilty of all, his Obedience were indeed none at all. For to obey, is to do that which is commanded, because it is commanded. Now he that doth any one thing co nomine because it is commanded, will endeavor to do everything that is commanded. A Quatenus ad omne, &c. That this is the meaning of the words, is clear by v. 11. See Calvin on the place. Ad 4. The Law doth pronounce an imperfect Obeyer imperfectly righteous; and therefore if he be left to the Law, to stand or fall by it, he shall not be justified for his Righteousness, but shall be condemned for his Imperfection. Ad 5. The Damned and Devils cannot be pronounced Righteous according to the Law, as the Saints may. Is there no difference betwixt Imperfect Obedience, and Perfect (if it may be called Perfect) Disobedience? The Unregenerate do something that, but nothing as the Law requireth: the Regenerate do something both that, and as, though not so perfectly as the Law requireth. L • cet modus agendi (inquit Daven.) bonus sit, quta agunt ex side & charitate, tamen gradus in hoc modo desicit, quia non agunt ex tanta fi • e & charitate quanta ab ipsa Lege praecipitur. It is granted, That the best action of any upon earth is not good and just according to the rigor of the Law; for the rigor of the Law requires it to be perfectly good and just, which it is not. But it follows not, that therefore it is not good and just at all. Nam aliud • st (saith the same learned Author) actionem esse vere bonam, all ud esse pure bonam, & ab omni vitio liberam: sicut aliud est aurum ve • um, aliud aurum purum, ab omni sace depuratum. That Rule therefore, Bonum non nisi ex integrà causa c • itur, malum ex quolibet d • f • ctu, must be taken cum gram salis, viz. so as that the Defectus must be either in the s •• stance of the Act, or in some material Circumstance: And of such Actions Dr.