Page 266
Reply.
Your Answer would much confirm me in my judgment, if I doubted: 1. I reasoned from the common Argument that is brought against me, as being invalid (which is, That it is an encroach∣ing on the honour of Christ and his Righteousness, and free Grace, for a man to be justified by sincere Obedience to Christ, as the secondary part of the Condition of continued and sentential Justificati∣on) thus: If it be not derogatory to Christ's Righ∣teousness that we be saved by such Works, then it is not derogatory to it that we be justified by them: But, &c. therefore, &c. To the minor only you answer, [True if we be saved by the merit of them.] A true and sound Answer! But why say you not so of Justification also, nor yet give a Reason of the difference? If we were justified by the merit of Obedience, then it would be derogatory to Christ's Righteousness: But we are not justified by the merit of it; therefore, &c. 2. I would I knew what you mean by via Regni. Sure via is more than an Antecedent. And if a means, you should tell us, what it is less than a Condition. 3. Must not Obedience go as much before Justification at Judgment, as before Salvation? Or must you in∣deed be first justified at Judgment before you obey? If you should insist on it, that Justification at Judg∣ment per sententiam judicis is no proper Justifica∣tion, but a Declaration of it, you will have all the World of Lawyers and Divines against you, and I need not say more. Indeed it is not such a constitu∣tive Justification as that per Legem, but it is more, a proper and full Jutification of another kind, to which this is but a means.