20. There is Ira Paterna Castigans as well as Ira Hostilis Exterminans Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are which you say I almost repeat I do not know I expressed mine own sence 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 That in your Second Edition which you promised you might have occasion if not to confirm your Assertions yet to clear your Expressions I know you oppose their sence 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 quadcunque 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 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 it self 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 Comformity unto Christ you might set 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 of 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 alledged do shew 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 perswaded against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms It is granted That Death in it self 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 reason Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto Candidus 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 threatning to Unbelievers but only this That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing it implies that death is only threatned in case of unbelief And tho there be an express threatning to Unbelievers viz. Mark 18. 16. yet not only to Unbelievers The threatning of death only to Unbelievers is I think only implyed in the promise of Liâ—e 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 the end shall be justified may seem to imply That though a Man â—elieve yet he remains unjustified as well as unglorified until he go on and hold out unto the end otherwise I suppose all will yeeld 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
the condemnation of the Old Law both for that sin of unbelief and also for all other sins from the guilt of which he cannot be freed because he doth not perform the Condition which the New Law to that end doth require of him And as I have before noted the Condemnation of an Unbeliever is now increased as his Sin is by neglecting Salvation offered upon condition of believing 3. You say That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige But your Reason seems invalid Quia cessat materia vel capacitas subjecti You mean no Man can perform the Condition and so no Man is capable of the Promise made upon that Condition But why may it not be said That as the Precept which is also the Condition ceaseth not though none be able to obey it so the Promise doth remain though none can enjoy the benefit of it It may seem unreasonable that the Threatning should still be in force and the Promise be quite taken away 4. You say again That the Earth of which Man's Body was made doth still retain the form of Earth which surely doth need further Explication or Confirmation or both 5. The threatning of the New Law you say hath something proper to the New Law But for any thing I see the New Law doth threaten nothing which the Old Law doth not threaten though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of sin so there will be an increase of condemnation 6. Whereas you say that the right stating and clear apprehension of this part viz. of the difference between the Law and the Gospel and how far the Law of Works is abrogated is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadversions take notice of or than any thing as to difficulty that I deal with truly my desire was and so is only to give you some hints for the further clearing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphorisms But if you think that here in this Section which is somewhat long you have sufficiently explicated those Points I am not of your mind 1. All that you here say is nothing to my Animadversion only you strive a little about the acceptation of those words the Moral Law 2. Neither do I make the Moral Law as taken for the Precept conjunct with the Threatning a true part of the New Law yet the Moral Law so taken being not dissolved or abrogated by the New Law as you grant Unbelievers while they remain such both for their unbelief and for their other sins are under condemnation as belonging unto them by the Old Law there being no Remedy provided for them by the New Law which hath no other threatning I think but that it leaves Unbelievers to the Old Law and the condemnation of it 1. I do not dislike your Thesis That Christ died not to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Grace as you understand it viz. for final unbelief Yet I hold That such as profess the Gospel and live in those sins which are not consistent with true and sincere Faith do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace and for such violation of that Covenant Christ died or else all such are left without Remedy I am in this fully of Mr. Blakes mind As a wife saith he by adultery so they by sin forsake the Covenant by which they stand betrothed and by consequence it must needs follow that Christ died for breach of the Covenant of Grace as well as for breach of the Covenant of Works unless we will say That all Men by name Christians and found in any of these sins are in a lost and unrecoverable condition joyning with those that have said That there is no Grace or Pardon for those that fall into sin after Baptism That he died not for their sins that live and die in final impenitency and unbelief may be easily granted and that rises to no more than that he died not for those that finally and unrecoverably break Covenant with him 2. Whereas you confess That for unbelief and impenitency though it be not final Men remain obligati ad poenam per Legem Naturae but deny it as to the proper Obligation of the New Law I conceive that the New Law providing no Remedy for them while they remain such in this respect they are as well by the New Law obligati ad poenam for the time as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are for ever You grant the Gospel doth non-liberare while Men continue in Unbelief yet you conceive That it doth not obligare ad poenam propriè viz. ad non-liberationem ad poenam majorem Now I conceive that while it doth non-liberare it may be said obligare ad non-liberationem though I should rather like to say That it doth relinquere in statu non-liberationis and so majoris poenae ob contemptum gratiae misericordiae oblatae In your Similitude The Malefactor whiles he refuses to come in and submit to the Terms upon which Pardon is offered remains in a state of Condemnation though the sentence be not executed upon him except he continue in his refusal of the offer unto the term prefixed But you profess your self willing to acknowledg That this non-liberatio may in some sort be called Poena and truly I think that Poena Nova Legis non alia est quà m non-liberatio à poenâ veteris Legis hoc tamen semper addito poenam veteris Legis ob neglectum liberationis in Lege Novâ oblatae graviorem reddi I mean Actually in the state of Damnation and you grant as much as I desire viz. That they are obliged even for that sin unto death per Legem Naturae non liberati per Legem Gratiae Why then should you deny that they are actually obliged to Damnation Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation Or betwixt obliged and actually obliged He that believeth not is condemned already John 3 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation and so remains as long as he remains in unbelief The Wrath of God abideth on him John 3. 36. That the Sentence is not yet executed but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it is another thing The Parenthesis which you say is wanting in your Aphorisms might help to make the words more clear as they stand they seem obscure which is all that I would have observed Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Philosophical Disputes yet I am also unwilling to recede from received Opinions except I see urgent cause for it Now that an Accident must have a Subject to exist in as it is generally held so I am perswaded it is true Burgersdicius whose authority I may well enough oppose to Scheiblers saith Accidens est Ens substantiae inhaerens Indeed the saith Relationes non tam inhaerent alicui subjecto quà m adhaerent but he doth not deny that they do inhaerere For he
though I use not to speak so yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction It is true Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae non simpliciter absolutè sed quoad istam causam but they that use that distinction mean I think only this that Works shew Faith to be sound and good yet it is Faith and not Works by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified Do not I pray here lay hold on the word absolutely it is referred to the word justified not to the word Faith I do not say That Faith absolutely considered doth justifie no it doth justifie as it is considered relatively Faith i.e. Christ apprehended by Faith is that whereby we are absolutely justified Though Works may justifie against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the Condition so I would say not Conditions in respect of the Justification of which we speak of the New Covenant yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justifie but only against that Accusation shewing that a Man did perform the Condition viz. believe and so is simply and absolutely justified not by Works which do but only declare him to be so but by Faith as the Condition or Instrument for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do of Justification Faith doth not justifie as Working i.e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works your self deny this in respect of our Justification at first yet Faith doth not justifie except it be of a Working-Nature i.e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context 1. All Works if good are Works of the Law viz. the Moral Law which as I said in the Animadversions is the eternal Rule of Righteousness And of that Law the Apostle speaks when he excludes Works from Justification as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10. Evangelii inquit Maccovius nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter Adversarii cum urgentur ex operibus legis non justificari hominem admittunt hoc dicunt ita quidem esse sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis Evangelii Sed si obtineat hac distinctio tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata quae committuntur in Doctrinam Evangelii Non ergo erit adaequarâ—a definitio peccati quam dat Spiritus Sanctus 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege Certè interim Evangelii Doctrinae praecipitur Lege Nam Deus postulat ut Evangelio credamus c. So Pemble Nor yet saith he hath this Distinction viz. Works of the Law and Works of the Gospel any ground in Scripture or in Reason For both tell us That the Works commanded in the Law and Works commanded in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them What Work can be named that is enjoyned us in the New Testament which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul c. What is there against the Gospel which is not a transgression of the Law You will say It doth not command Faith in Christ I answer Yea it doth For that which commands us in general to believe what-ever God shall propose unto us commands us also to believe in Christ as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him The Gospel discovers to us the Object the Law commands us the obedience of believing it The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant as it requireth that they which have believed be careful to maintain good works Tit. 3. 8 14. and to walk circumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuratè i. e. quam proximè ad Legis Dei praecepta as Beza doth well expound it Ephes 5. 15. But this is far and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification I see no strength in them and therefore I answer Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law For that Accusation being only made void by Faith where there is final Unbelief there that Accusation hath its full force Besides though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justifie than by manifesting a Man's Faith by which Faith indeed and not by Works he is justified Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of is against a true Charge and the same with Remission of sins as well as that which Paul doth speak of For can they that have but a dead Faith be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith such as James doth require can work that Effect Justification against a false Accusation is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of Nemo enim iniquus adco as Bradshaw speaketh aut injustus dari potest qui falsò accusari consequenter etiam eatenus merito justificari non possit Indeed Justification aginst the Accusation of final Unbelief is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith and not by Works which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith and so of Justification Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification are Competitors with Christ or Copartners with him so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith and partly by Works Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith which Faith both when Justification is first begun and when it is continued must be a Working-Faith i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require If our Divines affirm That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works means in point of merit as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose surely it is because they know no other Justification by Works but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious Hear one whom I and so I presume you also take for a good Divine viz. Mr. Blake This Justification saith he wrought freely by Grace through Faith Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent
yet what your meaning was or is you do not clearly shew 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 Priviledges 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 Poena sensus and 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 Christs Gal. 3. ult Ergo they that are justified and adopted are sanctified For so are they that are Christs Rom. 8. 9. Take the Syllogism if you please thus They that are Christs are sanctified But they that are justified and adopted are Christs 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 Vt regni inquit coelestis hereditatem adipiscamur veniâ peccatorum sanctimonia opus est Quâ enim ratione 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 ill â sunt omnia Etenim ut paulò antè significavi accedâ—t etiam oportet regeneratio per quam sanctimoniâ imbuamur Quâ—re 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 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 every one 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 signifie 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 paâ—t 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 Allens from had no hope Ephes 2. 12. Yet many of them were but externally in the Covenant Rom. 9. 6 27 29. You labour in vain when you seek to evade that Text Rom. 8. 9. How should any be actually Christs 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 meer profession â—uch 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 whose distinct condemnations we must be freed That the Gospel doth not condemn any but only leave some to 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 judg though by Christ see Acts 17. 31. And however I see not how you can conclude any thing to the purpose by this Argument If for every several Accusation there must be a several Righteousness then there will be need of infinite Righteousnesses seeing there may be infinite accusations But one Righteousness 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 any thing to the charge c. Rom. â— 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 shew 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 transgressiin of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. Now as Believing is a Duty so notbelieving doth afford matter of Accusation and cause of Condemnation But as Believing is a Condition so Not-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 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 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 distinct 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 threatned Gen. 3. you do not prove 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 or can assign I say as before I do not think this Thou art an Vnbeliever I speak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the 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 compleat 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 Defendant have performed the condition of the New Covenant is indeed this Whether he have any thing truly to alledge 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 testifie 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. Reatus culpae 2. Reatus non-praestitae Conditionis 3. Reatus poena propter non praestitam conditionem 1. As Omne malum est vel Culpae vel Poena 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 peenae 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 Matters of Devinity I see not how the firmness of my title to Christ's Righteous ness 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