difference is only in the termes. Faftification we muft know,is not taken only as oppofed to condemnation, which is the first kinde of righteousnesse, Rom.6.7. He that is dead, is freed from finne; if you look to the Greek or to the Margent, it is, he that is dead, is justified from finne; this is not took in the first sense as oppofed to condemnation, but in the other sense as it hath relation to final grace; The perfection of fanAtification is wrought in me; for where there is final grace, there is a fuperfedeas from all finne ; fo Rev.22. 11. Let him that is righteous, be righteous ftill; the Greek is, let him that is righteous, be justified still. See then the difference between Saint Paul, and Saint Fames. Saint Paul speaks of that which confifts in remiffion of finnes, as in comparing the Apostle with David will appear, Bleffed is the man whofe finnes are forgiven. Saint Fames fpeaks of justification in the fecond acception. You need not flie to that diftinction of juftification before God, and juftification before men, think not that Saint Fames fpeaks onely of ju ftification before men. Was not Abraham our father juftified by works, when he offered up Ifaac on the Altar? What juftified by killing his fon? this was a proper work indeed to juftifie him before man, to bea parricide, to kill his fonne,though it were not fo before God. So Pfal. 106, we read how God accounted the act of Phineas for righteousneß; thus you fee how works are accounted righteoufneffe in the fecond kinde of righteoufneffe. In the former righteoufneffe we are juftified by faith, for in righteoufneffe inherent there is a goodly chaine of vertues: Adde to your faith vertue, v. adde one grace to another; Adde to vertue knowledge;

ledge; faith is but one part of the Crown. Now this juftification in the firft fenfe whereby my finnes are forgiven, is called the righteoufneffe of God, becaufe of Chrift which is God, because its wrought by Chrift, Dan. 9. he is called an everlasting righteou(neffe, which continueth for ever world without end; for do not think the Saints in heaven have onely the fecond kinde of righteousneffe, for they have the fame covering by juftification by Chrift in heaven that they had before, God covers their fins not here onely, but there alfo; juftification follows them for ever.

Queft. But now what parts hath juftification in it? we are wont to say that there are two parts; one imputation of righteousness, the other forgivenese of finnes.

Sol. I answer, for my own part I think Fuftification is one fimple act of God, and that it is improperly diftinguifhed as parts; but rather as terminus a quo is diftinct from terminus ad quem. And this I fhall. fhew unto you both by reafon and authority, that faith is but one act.

ad

a

Let none fay that I take away the imputation of the righteoufneffe of Chrift; No: the bringing in of light, and the expulfion of darkneffe is not two acts, but one; but there is terminus à quo, and terminus quem. We are accounted righteous, and that is, we have our finnes forgiven. And the reafon is this; if finne were a pofitive thing, and had a being in it. felf, then the forgiveneffe of fin muft be a thing diftinct from the imputation of righteoufneffe. Scholars know the difference between adverfa and privantia; white and black are both exiftent; but darkneffe

and

and light are not, but only a privation one of another, Darkneffe is nothing of it felf but the abfence of light; The bringing in of light is the fuppreffion of it, you must understand finne hath no being, no entity; it's only an abfence of righteoufneffe, the want of that light which should be in the fubject, which want is either in our nature, and then it's call'd original; or in our perfon and actions, and then its call'd actual tranfgreffion. Sinne is an abfence of that positive being, which is, as I said, either in our nature,or works. Then thus I will refolve you in another point: viz. If fin were a pofitive thing, all the world cannot avoid it but God must be the Author of it; for there is nothing can have a being, but it must derive its being from the first being, God. Now how can we avoid Gods being the Author of fin: Why thus, it is nothing.

But what is finne nothing? Will God damne a man, and fend him to hell for nothing?

I anfwer; its not fuch a nothing as you make it; a man is not damned for nothing. It's a nothing privative, an absence of that that should be, and that a man ought to have. As when a Scholar is whip't for not faying his leffon, is he whip't think you for nothing indeed he hath nothing, he can't fay a word of his leffon, and therefore it is he is whip't, it is for a thing he ought to have, and hath not. Well, if you will fay there are two parts of juftification, do if you please; but this I take to be the more proper and genuine explanation.

Befides, it appears by teftimony of the Apostle, Rom. 4.6. As David defcribeth the blessednesse of the

How Chrifts righteousneffe is imputed to us. 401 man to whom the Lord imputeth righteoufneffe without works, &c. Saying, bleffed are they whofe iniquities are forgiven, and whofe finnes are covered. The Apoftle cites the Prophet David,Pfal. 42. Mark the Apostles conclufion, and how he proves it. His conclufion is, That man is bleffed unto whom the Lord imputeth righteoufneffe without works. His argument then must needs be thus framed.

He whom God forgives is blessed;

But, He to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without
works, bath his finnes forgiven him:
Therefore he is bleffed.

Now, how could this affumption hold, if imputation of righteoufneffe and remiffion of finnes were two diftinct acts for not imputing righteousnesse is not to bring in light,which keeps out darkneffe, but obferve, the Apostle to the CoLoffians and Ephefians, makes this forgiveneffe of fins, the whole work, way, foundation of our redemption. But here remember I deny not the imputation of righteoufneffe; for that is the foundation of the other; here's the point. How is Chrifts righteousneffe imputed to me that pofitive thing which expels the other? Not fo as if Chrifts righteoufneffe were in ne fubjectively, for it was wrought by his paffion as well as his action; TheApoftle calls it faith in his blood, by faith in Chrift Chrifts paffive obedience is imputed to me: What do you think the meaning is that God doth efteem me as if I had hang'd on the Croffe, and as if I had had my fides pierced? No, that would Fff

not

not stead me, or do me any good; that which was meritorious and fingular in him, did reach to us; fo that the meaning is this, as it is in the Articles of the Church of England, That for the merits of Fefus Chrift, God is well pleafed with the obedience of his Son, "both active and passive, as that he takes us to be in that ftate for his fake, as if we had fulfilled all his Laws, and never broken them at any time, and as if we ow'd him not a farthing; this is imputative righteousneffe, however the Papifts may fcoffe at it. And this kinde of juftification muft of neceffity be by imputation: why? because when a man hath committed a finne, it cannot be undone again; God by his abfolute power cannot make a thing done undone; for it implies a contradition. The act paft cannot be revoked, nor the nature thereof changed; murther will be murther ftill, &c. How then can I be juftified, the finne being paft, and the nature of it ftill remaining? I fay, how can I be juftified in the first fenfe any other way than by imputation its faid in 2 Cor.5.19. God was in Chrift reconciling the world unto himself, &c. This kinde of juftification which confifts in remiffion of finnes, cannot be but imputative; fin cannot be changed,nor the thing done, undone.

But now cometh a greater queftion; If by juftifi cation our finnes be forgiven us, what finnes are forgiven I pray finnes paft, or finnes to come we are taught that in the inftant of juftification,all our finnes paft and to come are remitted; which is in my mind an unfound doctrine: for if we look narrowly into it, we shall finde that in propriety of fpeech, remisfion of finnes hath relation to that which is paft; its faid therefore,