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
peccata missa facere which the Scripture he saith following the Metaphor further calls peccata in mare proâ—icere Mich. 7. 19. It is true Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment Remittere or missa facere peccata as Grotius saith is as much as punire nolle Yet this hinders not but that sin or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned yea I think it doth confirm it For if it be proper to say That God will not punish sin and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin then it is proper to say That God doth remit or pardon sin In a word therefore my words about which you make so much adoe are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them They do not import that our Actions even the best of them if strictly examined are not sinful or that God doth not see any sin in them but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them and accept them in Christ who is the High-Priâ—st that doth bear and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things Exod. 28. 38. as if they had no sin in them Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions and yet grant the justifying of our Persons Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions Surely if the Action be sinful the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too And though you pass over the next because you reverse your former Assertion yet in that which I there said you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me 1. You grant what I say 2. I have said before That though in mine Opinion sin may properly be said to be remitted yet this is in reference unto punishment 3. You had no reason to imagine that I should think that my Actions or the Actions of the best upon Earth can be justified against all Accusations as if they were absolutely good and perfect when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions and how it is through Christ covered and not imputed unto us Yea and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture viz. Eccles 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8 9. Job 9. 4. Exod. 28. 38. to prove that neither our Persons nor our Actions are so righteous but that we may be accused of and condemned for sin in them and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be It is strange how you should pass by all this it being directly before your eyes and should raise a suspicion as if I should mean quite contrary 1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ afterward they may be justified by our Works when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it viz. That first it is meant only of good Works and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them Illud semper retimeatur inquit Davenantius hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant Deus neque ipsos neque eorum opera grata haberet nisi hos illa in Christo magis quà m in seipsis amplexaretur What you say of Chamîer and others as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ might well have been spared as being nothing at all against me who am far from making our Works meritorious when I make even the best of them imperfect and to need pardon 2. It is evident by this very Section to which you now reply that I spake only of good Actions For how absurd and sensless were it to say that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous as I there say that our Works are not The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere 1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing though it be that and somewhat more 2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of I speak for my self 3. I take all sin to be against the Law as it is distinguished from the Gospel though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel Of that Law I suppose St. John spake saying Sin is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. And again I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not know lust or as the Margent hath it concupiscence viz. to be sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments 4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief and neglect of the Sacraments c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue The first precept requires us to have the Lord and him only for our God and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath Part. 2. Chap. 4. § 21 22 23. What you add after makes all for me in this particular only some things seem meet to be observed 1. This I confess to me is strange Philosophy That the Earth of which Man's Body was made ceased not to be Earth still when it was made Man As well may you say That Adam's rib of which Eve was formed ceased not to be a Rib still and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies 2. The Precept and Threatning you say are parts of the New Law though they be common with the Old Here you seem to grant That nothing is commanded or threatned in the New Law which is not commanded or threatned in the Old Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness and a Two-fold Justification one in respect of the Old Law another in respect of the New The Precept believe belongs to the Old Law but as it is not only a Precept but also a Condition upon performance of which Salvation is promised Believe and thou shalt be saved so it belongs to the New Law So this Threatning If thou dost not believe thou shalt perish belongs to the Old Law as threatning death for every sin and consequently for unbelief which is a sin and it belongs to the New Law as leaving an Unbeliever under
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
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 finner 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 shewed 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 For the Authors which you cite I can examine but few of them because I have them not Bradshaw so far as I see makes nothing for you He saith Bona opera quodammodo justificare dicuntur quôd fidem iâ—samque 〈◊〉 justificationem nostram arguendu accomprobando utramque ista ratione justificent This is but what others say That Faith doth justifie the Person and Works justifie 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 minùs quà m ipsa ex quâ oritur sides ad falutem aeternans est nobis necessaria utpote sine quâ justitiam Christi imputatam prodess nobis posse spes nulla exist at This is but what Protestants generally acknowledge That Obedience is necessary as a Fruit of Justifying 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 absolutè 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 Controversie betwixt us about a Two-fold 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 judg it as little to your purpose as the rest He saith Nova Nostra Obedientia pro gradâ— suo mensurâ etiam justitia nostra dicitur quâ formaliter inherenter habitualiter sivè ex operibus justi pro ipsius modulo coraâ— Deo etiam verè dicamuâ— utpote cujus ratione 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 exparte Aliquomodoâ—e si id â—pus 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 ratione 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 consequenà s 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 hac 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 Atqut hoc quidem justificandi munus solâ— Fidei convenire his rationibus ostendo c. The rest of the Chapter is taken up with those Reasons Now what there is for your purpose judg 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 any thing that makes for you He there answers Bellarmine's Arguments whereby he would prove That Fides est solus assensus non etiam siducia But what is this ad rhomâ—â—â— 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 omninò solummodò ex officiò loco quae Deus misericors illi sponte liberè concessit ut dixi parte 1. lib. 2. cap. 28. So it is printed 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. lib. 1. cap. 7. pag. 144. where he only saith Accedat etiam oportet ut idonei simus quibusaditus ad Coelum pateat habitualis justitia sive Sanctitas de quâ c. Mat. 5. 8. Denique vitae etiam sanctimenâ—â bonis operibus opus est ut Regnum Coeleste comparemus Heb. 12. 14. Matth. 25. 34 35. But 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 aternam 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 Dei in decalogo sit norma illius justitia quae eâ—t via Vitae Eternae Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta quid impediet quo minùs justificetur quispiam sine Legis impletione 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 being both necessary unto Justification he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect which Righteousness he makes to consist meerly 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 via 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 shewed 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 every thing that God doth enjoyn 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 Justif 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 Justificatione quae partim fide 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 our selves The former Righteousness he saith is that Quâ nos Deus etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes plenè tamen ipsius etiam Legis Testimonio justificat eique pro omninò conformibus habet in capite Christo de quâ justificatione 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 ipsis Lege ex parte conformatos ex parte nunc justificat indies justificat magis ac magis prout incrementum capit regeneratio ac justificabit plenè ubi perfectio advenerit de quâ Justificatione agitur Jac. 2. 21 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justificationem Opera Legis ingrediuntur ut primam constituit sola Fides i. e. justitia Christi fide imputata non opera sic alteram censtituunt opera non fides Here 1. he makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect and so also the Justification which doth arise from it By this Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conformati ex parte nunc justificati But Imputed Righteousness and Justification by it he acknowledgeth to be perfect hereby we are plenè justificati tanquam Legi plenè conformes 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
confute this Assertion As our Justification is begun so it is continued viz. by Faith only and not by Works as concurrent with Faith unto Justification afterward though not at first seem to be of no force I answer therefore Ad 1. How do I contradict it by saying As it is begun so it is continued by Faith What though there be divers Acts of Faith yet still it is Faith and Faith without the concurrence of Works by which we are justified as well afterward as at first which is all that I assert Because a continued Act of Faith is requisite to the Continuation of Justification doth it therefore follow that Works have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of Justifying Ad 2. Do you think Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification and not also to the Inchoation of it Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons than is requisite unto Justification Your Similitudes are no Proofs and you still suppose that there is one Condition of Justification at first and another Condition thereof afterwards that though at first we are justified only by Faith yet afterward by Faith and Works But though Works are required of Justified Persons as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are justified yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Justification which as it is begun by Faith only so is it also continued Your self observe That Abraham's Believing mentioned Gen. 15. was not his first Act of Faith So then he was justified before by Faith and so was be also afterward even by Faith only as the Apostle from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works viz. as having a co-partnership with Faith in Justifying Abraham was justified both at first and afterward 1. Do you think that Abraham was justified from the guilt of those many sins which he committed after his first Justification by his Works Credat Judâ—â—â— for my part I cannot but detest such Doctrine I know no way whereby he could be justified from those sins but by Faith in Christ even as he was at first justified Besides as I noted before and that as acknowledged by your self Abraham was justified before he produced that Act of Faith spoken of Gen. 15. and in the interim no doubt he committed some sins yet still by Faith and not by Works as Paul sheweth he was justified 2. You do but still affirm without any proof at all That Abraham's Justification could not be continued by the same means viz. by Faith alone works not concurring with it unto Justification as it was begun 3. For Sentential Justification at the Last Judgment I have said enough before Bucan having said that Abraham was Justified operibus tanquam testimontis Justificatienis Adds Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus And again Fides principium existentiae facit ut simus justi Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt ut cognoscamur justi Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fides quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum 4. I think the Argument is good and sound Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified is an everlasting Righteousness therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification This alwayes presupposed That this Righteousness of Christ be apprehended by Faith for otherwise there is no being justified at all by it 1. To be just quoad praestationem Conditionis is but to be just in some respect and in some respect just even the most unjust may be Yet it is true This praestatio Conditionis will be of force to procure Universal Justification not that it is it self the Righteousness by which we are justified but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ and so by his Righteousness are universally justified And though this performing of the Condition be required unto Justification yet nevertheless that remains good which I said in the Animadversions If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law we are fully justified For can we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law except we perform the Condition required in the Gospel And if we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law will the Gospel accuse us It is the Law that worketh Wrath Rom. 4. 15. The Gospel doth free from Wrath though not without performing the Condition for then it suffereth the Law to have its force and to inflict Wrath and that so much the more in that so great a benefit was neglected 2. The performing of a Condition as the Condition is a Duty is a Righteousness but such as cannot justifie as we now speak of Justification But as the Condition is meerly a Condition the performing of it is not properly Righteousness though by it we partake of Righteousness viz. the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 3. Therefore this is no contradiction to grant Faith to be the Condition of Justification and yet to deny it to be the Righteousness by which we are justified That which you think to be most clear Vignerius before cited thought most absurd An possibile est inquit ut sit Fides Instrumentum accipiendae justitia seu Conditio ad obtinendam justitiam requisita si ita loqui libeat simul sit ipsa quam quaerimus justitia Indeed you seem but to strive about words for here immediately you confess That it is but a Subordinate Righteousness meaning I think that which all acknowledg that it is but a means whereby to partake of Christ's Righteousness And you that charge others with Self-Contradiction seem not to agree with your self For here presently after you say This Personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis N. T. must be had before we can have that which freeth us from the Law yet elsewhere your Expressions are such as if being first justified from the Accusation of the Law by the Righteousness of Christ we should after be justified from the Accusation of the Gospel by Personal Righteousness However as I have said before this latter Accusation is but a further prosecution and confirmation of the former by taking away the Plea that some might make why the Accusation of the Law should not stand good and be of force to condemn them 4. Of what force is Satans Accusation against any if be cannot make good his Accusation so as to procure his Condemnation And are not Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ condemned by the Law Is it not for sin that they are condemned And is there any sin which is not against the Law The Gospel indeed may aggravate Sin and increase Condemnation and so those words which you cite The words which I speak shall judg you
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 yeeld that none are so under the Covenant of Works but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy and that by vertue 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 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 vouchasafeth 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 And 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 meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 12. Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose to shew 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 alledged 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 nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione Negent operum societatem ut merito possint etiam 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 First Covenant What-ever some new Philosophers may say true Philosophy I think doth tell us That it is the Body which by the Sensitive Soul doth â—eel 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 expresly limits it to those that are Christs vers 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory Expressè resurrectio Christi est
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
Righteousness is for one that would say any thing so that he may but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As well might it be said That the New Man is created in Holiness but not in Righteousness 4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law to which we must labour to conform still more and more not only extensivè but also intensivè 5. The very conjunction of the words here as in other places shews that they are used as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides how we should give unto God the things that are God's and to Men the things that are Mens and not conform to the Law which doth prescribe our Duty towards God and towards Men I cannot see and surely Conformity to the Law is the Righteousness now in question 1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum What need is there of any other justification Vpon the Laws Convictions saith Mr. Blake there may follow Gospel-Aggravations but Conviction is the Work of the Law If Conviction then surely Condemnation If the Law do not condemn what can And what can the Law condemn for but for sin It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. 2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestiam Conditionem it is no new Accusation but a making good of a former Accusation and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Legis save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur 3. I confess I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of I did not find them in your Aphorisms but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification so I understood it But truly now that you lay open your conception more than before I can see no solidity in it We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith but not by Faith as being it self our Righteousness Faith is indeed required unto Justification yet not as our Righteousness but as a Condition Instrument or Means for I would not strive about words whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness I see not that the Scripture doth speak of such a Two-fold Justification one by Christ and his Righteousâ—ess another by Faith as our Righteousness but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith By him all that believe are justified Acts 13. 39. Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness of which I expresly spake I take it to be really the same with Holiness What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaeus is nothing against me I speaking of Righteousness in one sense and they in another Besides you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words for Sons is as much as reus culpae and insons as much as non-reus culpae whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae and Insons for Non-reus poenae how-ever his words are not to our purpose 1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe that which I said about the Materiality and Formality as well of Holiness as of Righteousness 2. As Holiness you grant is a Conformity to the Law as it doth constituere debitum officii so I conceive is Righteousness Inherent I still mean and not a Conformity to the Rule as it constituteth Conditionem praemit obtinendi poenae vitandae si nimirùm seclusà omni consideratione officii Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur 1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting as Righteous or Accounting just is I think as much as Justifying 2. I did not nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned speak so generally but to presuppose Faith whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ and then our Actions By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice c. Heb. 11. 4. At length after many words which touch not me in your 6th you grant as much as I did or do desire viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled before our external Obedience can be accepted Whereas you there add That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works that Abel 's Works were accepted I answer It was not indeed by the Law of Works yet as they were a sincere though imperfect Conformity to that Law as a Rule so they were accepted by the New Covenant The Law of Works directs the Covenant of Grace accepts though we come short of what the Law requires The Law as Mr. Blake saith still commands us though the Covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the Sentence of it And again A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience In this sence our Imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness c. He means the Law of Works which as before noted he saith is a Rule a perfect Rule the only Rule 1. I shall not deny but that our Faith and Obedience may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness Yet I think That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners For besides that the unsoundness of Faith and so of Obedience is sin besides this I say if our Faith be not sound it is in vain we are yet in our sins we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law there being no freedom for us without Faith 2. I know none that say Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works For my part I should say We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works i. e. from the condemnation of it God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions notwithstanding our imperfection for which the Law if we should be sentenced by it would condemn us But here by the way let me observe this That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms doth seem to manifest thus much That when you composed those Aphorisms you either knew not or liked not that Twofold Justification which now you so often speak of and somewhere say That my ignorance in this Point is it that doth mainly darken all my Discourse That common saying is not always true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For my words 1. I see not why those Acquitting us from all sin should offend you For you might see by what I there said That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us And so the Phrases used in Scripture of God not remembring our sins his covering them casting them behind his back into the bottom of the Sea c. they
all import such an acquitting of us from sin as I intended not as if God did account us to be without sin which were false but that God doth not charge sin upon us viz. so as to exact satisfaction for sin from us I mean the very same with Mr. Gataker in the words which you cited p. 39. Non hoc dicitur Deum apud se judicare illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christus satisfecit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum jus ad vitam aeternam ac si nihil vel mali admisissent vel boni debiti omisissent Thus Christ speaks to the Church Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee What may some say Is there no spot in the Church No none in her so as to be imputed to her Sine maculâ deputatur quia culpa non imputatur as one doth no less truly than elegantly express it You your self yeeld as much as I desire or as my words import viz. That God acquitteth us from all sin so as it induceth an obligation to punishment 2. When you say That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law is one Justification and to justifie us against the accusation of being so obliged is another Justification I confess Davus sum non Oedipus I do not well understand what you mean for to my apprehension these are one and the same Me-thinks it must needs be That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law doth also eo nomine justifie us against the Accusation of being so obliged For how are we acquitted from the Obligation if not justified against the Accusation of being obliged 3. I marvel why you should trouble your self with speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost and of final unbelief when as you could not but know that I spake of all sin from which we may be justified Why might not one as well quarrel with those words of the Apostle Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things c. 4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief yet as I expresly added in that very place which you take hold on so that this be rightly understood For the right understanding of it I said something before and for further explication I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant Chap. 33. 5. But in the next you do most strangely even without any cause that I can see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as they say fluctus in simpulo excitare That first our Persons and then our Duties and Actions may properly be said to be justified that is accepted as just and acquitted from all accusation brought against them though in themselves they be not such but that sin doth cleave unto them why should this seem such horrid Doctrine as that your Heart should detest it 1. I speak of good Actions for it is absurd to say That evil Actions are accepted as just though we may be so accepted notwithstanding our evil Actions 2. I plainly say That sin doth cleave to our good Actions yet I say God doth accept them as just notwithstanding the imperfection of them and the sin that doth cleave unto them If this be offensive to you as well I think may you be offended at that Nehem. 13. 21. Remember me O Lord concerning this and spare me according to the greatness of thy Mercy And so at that 1 Pet. 2. 5. You also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual House an Holy Priesthood to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ Neither is there any reason why those words acquitted from all accusation brought against them should distaste you For what though an Accusation be true if yet in some other respect it be of no force May not they be properly said to be acquitted from all Accusation who notwithstanding the Accusation are freed from condemnation What matter is it how we are accused so long as we are sure not to be condemned Therefore the Apostle useth these Expressions as equipollent Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect and Who is he that condemneth Rom. 8. 33 34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon those words of the Apostle Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. as you do upon mine Might you not say Why I will lay this and that and that and ten thousand things besides to their charge Yea but when you have done all you can to what purpose is it For who is he that condemneth them notwithstanding all the Accusations brought against them These very words of the Apostle doth Amesius alledg in the former of those Sections which you cite And if as you say all may be there fully seen in Amesius that you would say in this then I see not that you would say any thing against me as indeed you do say nothing But what do you mean by those words and that as to the Law of Works which by a Parenthesis you thrust in among mine As if I meant that as well our Actions as our Persons are accepted as just and acquitted from all condemnation by the Law of Works Truly I think tà m quà m as well the one as the other that is indeed neither the one nor the other The Law doth convince of sin and as much as in it lies condemn for sin both us and our Actions even the best of them But by the New Covenant Through Faith in Christ we are accepted as just though guilty of manifold sins and our Actions are accepted also though full of imperfection When you say That the Reatus Culpa cannot possibly be removed or remitted though I think it is but a striving about words which I do not love yet I cannot assent unto it For I think it is truly and properly said to be remitted or pardoned neither doth that seem proper or pertinent which you add by way of Explication that is The Man cannot be or justly esteemed to be a Man that hath not sinned Quid tum postea Cannot therefore the guilt of sin be remitted Yea how should sin be remitted if it were not committed I think it is as proper to say Remittere culpam as Remittere poenam Surely if I may argue from the frequent use of Phrases and hence infer the propriety of them as you did there is nothing more usual in Scripture and so in other Writings and in common Speech then to say that Sins Faults Offences are remitted Grotius faith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Latin is Remittere is as much as missum facere and that the Greek Scholiasts usually expound it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to neglect not to regard to pass over as Prov. 19. 11. to pass over a transgression and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is