Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sense [sic] sound Protestants…Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants…

you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists, about the Necessity of Good works, which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them, viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification, the other not, but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness, where it ought to keep]. Answ. Wonderful! Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification, brought your own, and as you say, the Protestants difference to this? Will none of your Readers see now, who cometh nearer them, you or I? 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method, and Order, and Expression? What meaneth a distinction between [First-Justification,] and [Inherent Holiness]? Do you difference them Quoad ordinem, as First and Second? But here is no Second mentioned: Is it in the nature of the things [Justification, and Inherent Holiness]? What signifieth the [First] then? But Sir, how many Readers do you expect who know not, 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all, but to that which they call the Second or Increase, that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works? See what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer. 13. pag. 267. &c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity, and as our English ⟨p. 32⟩Divines do constantly preach for, and the Synod of Dort at large assert; though they disown the name of Merit, as many of the Papists do. They ordinarily say with Augustine, Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum, non praecedunt Justificandum. 2. But, I hope, the word [First] here overslipped your your Pen, instead of [Second]: But suppose it did so: What's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification, and the Protestants Inherent Holiness? None that ever I heard or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness? And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants, which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging? viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification, that is, Inherent Holiness; and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness? Are you serious, or do you prevaricate? The Papists and Protestants hold, that there are some Duties and common Grace, usually preparatory to Conversion (or Sanctification);

you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists, about the Necessity of Good works, which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them, viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification, the other not, but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness, where it ought to keep]. Answ. Wonderful! Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification, brought your own, and as you say, the Protestants difference to this? Will none of your Readers see now, who cometh nearer them, you or I? 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method, and Order, and Expression? What meaneth a distinction between [First-Justification,] and [Inherent Holiness]? Do you difference them Quoad ordinem, as First and Second? But here is no Second mentioned: Is it in the nature of the things [Justification, and Inherent Holiness]? What signifieth the [First] then? But Sir, how many Readers do you expect who know not, 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all, but to that which they call the Second or Increase, that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works? See what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer. 13. pag. 267. &c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity, and as our English