This book made available by the Internet Archive.

r

To the Readers; especially ail Faithful Minifters of Chrift hi England*

T endeavours to fave Men from the Libertine ( called Antinomian ) Errors? having led me to a diftin-tier handling of fome Points, than I had before found in the Authors I bad read > and my firft Conceptions of them (exprejfed in a fmalt Book^ called Aphorifme's, &c») being yet etude and defe&ive, for want of Time, and ule of Writing (which as the Lord BacOn faith-, muft make Men accurate) that being my Firft, fome fufpUed it of Error in Vottrine, fome of Novelty, and fome only of divers undigefted Expreflions , and fome overvaluing it, received thofejmf erfeUions with the reft * tVhereupn fublijhing my dtfire of my Friends Ani~ fnadverfions? 1 received (as I have elfe-where with Thanks acknowledged) fuch as were very learned? judicious , and friendly > •/ which thofe of Mr* Lawfon, Dr. Wallis, Mr. Jo. Warren , and Mr* Ch. Cartwiight, were the chiefs by which if I bad not very much frofited > J had been very dull- Of

To the Reader^

*hefe One fpahefo agreeably to my Thoughts, (Vr* W.) *h«t I had nothing &**Thanks to return him ; And the reft having fhewed me the Incongruity of fome Exprep fions , and the crudity of fome Paffages , received friendly my Aufaers in the little Matters that we differed in, which were rather about the Aptnefs of Notions, than the Truth of Matter. None of thefe were intended for Public^ view, nor on my part were fit for it ; for 1 wrote but in order to my further Learning* But at laft, my Friend, Mr. Sound, who interceded between us for Communication of Pa' pers, made me thinly, that Mr. Cartwright was not willingjbat fo large Pains^as he had ta\en, Should he fo buried: But I could not return him his Exceptions as he defired, becaufe they were loft, (and I had no mind to be very inquifitive after them, in order to a Publicl^view) But fome years after his death, they were found again.

Being fomewhat clearer jn thofe Matters by all thefe Helps and Studies, 1 published my Sufpenfion of the Aphorifms, and my Explication and Defence of their VoUrine in my Covfefjion, and my fuller Explication and defence in my Apologie,^ Dilputa-tions of Juftificuion,pro^i»g againft them,thatwould take fkSufpended Book/or my Cleared-fenfe without the Confcflijn. To all thefe I remember no Anfwer that 1 have had, fave fome-what ofUr* Owens ( Dr. Kendales and many others, were on other Accounts j and Mr* Crandons, Eyres, &c. were to the Apho-rifms before,: fo that twenty years Silence made me thinly my Brethren pretty wellfatisfied, and the great fall of Antinotr.anilm made me thinkjhat my Labour had not been in vain. But lately Dr. Tully in a Bj(\ called Juftificatio Paulina bath Written, as you may fee* Since

To the Reader.

Since all thefe Boo\s, and in twenty fours years time (from the firfi) my conceptions of tbefe Matters {nnlefs I were very (Inpid) muji needs be much ripen -ed and ordered: I better difcern what Notions are to be left out, and what Method is to be ufedasmoft apt for true Elucidation > I more difcern than heretofore, how much of the Controverfie is real-, and how much verbal, which Le Blank and G. Forbes have ufeful-ly opened, be fides many others \ and which in my Cathol. Theol. / have partly fhewed, and more exactly in a Method us Theologian not Printed: It was therefore many ways a trouble to me, that Dr. Tully Jhould fall upon the Aphorifms without taking notice of any of the forefaid Explications err Defences \ much more that he did it in fuch a manner.

Suppofing that a particular Anfwer to M bU Words would be but ufekfl) to do a little of that, which I bad fullier done before, having returned here fo much as I thought neceffary, I have publijbed my Papers and Mr. Cartwrights inftead of the reft: And I have given yon entirely Mr. Cartwrights laft 5 though I anfwer but the Summe of them, fo far as we differ, meerly left Ifhould wrong the Dead, by fupprejjing fo learned and elaborate a T'reatife, which I thinly be defirei jhould not be fuppreffed* And if any thinly that he U "unanfwered, I leave them to pr oft by what-ever they fjhall find i# him, which they thinks U again]} me, and pafled by. lie was a very %earne$, peaceable, Godly Man, kpowhbybis Rabbinical Commentary, and his Defence of King Charles I. againji the Mar quefs of Worcefler, Succejfor to MrW. Fenner in the Staf-ford-lhire Lefiure againji Popeyy, and after Mini-fter in York. Tou may fee that bis acquaintance with Proteftant Writers was very great, wfafejieps in rx-

frefftons he was loth to leave, however he went not with . the fart that was for the Im putation o f t he Adtive Right eou fnefe^K^/rff/y differeth infome other things* "the firfi piece [of Imputed Righteoufnefs^j was written hajiily on another occafien about three or four years ago ; But for the brevity of the argumentative fart was caft by, with an intent to perftft it if 1 bad time: Which being never like to have, upon this re-newed aftault from Dr. TulJy, I thought it beft to let it go as it U \ this latter part which anfwereth him being newly annexed) as alfo the Anfwer to bis an* gry Letter.

My (trait U very great in dealing with thtf worthy Man: It grieveth me unfeignedly to dijhonour or grieve him : But bad his Book^ been as much againji my Perfon only, and as little touched the Dodfrine and Intereft of the Church, as Bijkoj? Morley'/ againji me did {to whom he dedicateth it) perhaps Sdf-de-ftyal had commanded me filently to bear all, for the fa^e of Peace. But where Truth, Love and Peace are joyntly interejied, Refpefi to Man will not warrant me to defert them: And it greatly troubleth me thai hii Words are fitch, as cannot be truly opened and anfwered as they are, without fomewhat which will difpleafe : And Guilt is tender, and Self-love jirongy and few Men judg of their own caufe and words, as they would do of anothers '•> but if 1 have let fall any where any fuch words as his Letter hath many, or if I repeat the [Interns, deliras, ccc] asoftasBzzz did againji Illyricus, or ufe fuch words as Calvin did , againji Baldwin, or.af other fuch Terfons have ordinarily ufed,with whom lam not wortlyy to be named, and 1 who are defervedly honoured by him and me, when 1 ||ind tbem> J (ball repent of therr n and I defire him

tb<L

To the Reader^

that feetb any unwarrantable. Sharpnefs, vchich I fee not, not to imitate it '<> but in judging ft ill to obferve the NecefTity of the Caufe. Though I lay not the Churches Concord and Mens Salvation upon Logical Definitions and Methods h yet I take Method , and well-interpreted apt Names and Notions to be of very g rea * u f e t0 mr c ^ ear dijlinft undemanding of the Matter, and I fear no Cenfure move from my Brethren, than of Overdoing in that part : And 1 oft wonder at my felf, to find how 1 grow more and more in Love, both with the Primitive fimpHcity, and with accuratenefs of Notions and Method, which feem to fome to be contrary. But I find that it n the former that I more and more value, as our Bread and Drink, our Food and Work, which muft principally take up Mind and Life, and be the Matter and Means of our Peace with our felves and one another, our comfort in Life and Death, and the terms of the Churches Peace and Concord, // ever we Jhall fee fich a bleffed day, and be delivered from proud unreafonable Men. And it ti principally for Ornament, and greater Clearnefs,j«^ the ending^/ many Controverfies, and the perfecting of our Minds with a delightful ufeful higher knowledg, and the more skilful managing facred things, that I value and defire the latter. And while we agree in the former, I J ca* differ from any in the latter, with a Salvo ' to Chrijiian Love and Peace.

If this worthy Perfon be ovcr-tngry with me, it is my duty to fe that Idtferve it not, and that I be not ever-angry with him : Alas, the opening of each cithers Ignorance is a (mall fart of our fuffering from one another here. (Nay why till notour gain, and matter of thanl/, if Pride and Sclhfhuels prevail A 4. not?

To the Reader.

tot: 4nd if they do, alas, we have greater tvih to lament!) If I cannot love thofe,that have endeavoured utterly to ruine me in the IVprld, and taken from me more than Food and Rayment, evened much as in them lieth, thirteen years of my moft mature and ufe-ful Age, wo unto me \ for my want of love to Enemies will hurt me a thoufand fold more than their moft implacable Malice. Far then be it from u$, to he caft into any Faffions unbefeeming Brethren^ by the different conceptions of fincere Men.

I know that it is my duty, as much as in me lietb % to live peaceably with all Men : But if God have called me to call the Militant Clergiefrom thofe Contentions, which for many Ages have been the fin and mifery of the Cburches,and hath intruded me with any reconciling Means, which have a fpecial aptitude to quench the Flames, to clear up Truth, and recover Love and fhriftian Concord, I muftnot be falfe to fitch a truft 9 hecaufe fome miftahing Oppofers are dijpleafed: If it be I that have plunged my felf, needle fly into a Contro-verfie, which I am really a granger to, and then in the pride of my heart am angry with him, who difco* vereth my Ignorance and Temerity, I hefeecbyou freely call me to repentance : But if any other be moft confident, where they moft err, or are leaft acquainted, we are not for their fahgs to wrong the Church : That Truth and Falfhood, Good and Evil? fhould go under right Chara&ers, and that Mens conceptions of them be juft filth •as they are, is a matter of great importances the World: It is a fort of falfe Dodhine, to reprefent falfe Dodhine (for the Perfons fake) kfs hurtful or monftrous than it is: And if Men will take the deteUion of the deformity of their faults and errors^ to be aDiQnonoux and Injury to themlelyts,

To the Reader•

who can help it ? and who can fave Men from them-fe'yes, or preferve bit honour , who will maculate it bimfelf?

I tal^e it to be no finatl advantage to many doubting Readers-) that (for all the heat) the two firftCon-troverfies raifed by this worthy Perjon (of our Guilt of Parents (in, and of my Rule for preferring the judgment of thofe that God hath moft illuminated in cafes of difficulty) have bad fo good an iffue: For who will now diflent, when he confentcth,wbo fought to raife in Men fuch apprehensions of fome dreadful danger ? Nothing ftands fo fafe,as that which U firm after the greatefi ajfaults. If the ftrongeft Winds overthrow not the Houfe, it is not lil^e to fall by lefs. And I hope this w\U be finally the ijfue of the reft.

One thing I am afhamedof, but cannot help^ viz. 'that in this and all my Wriings, the fame things are fo oft repeated : But it U partly for want of time to be duly accurate, and more becaufe Mens renewed Importunity calletbfor it (taking all at unfaid, which wasfaid before), and chiefly becaufe that the Communication of ufeful 'truth U my end, and I find that a few words will not ferve with moft ', and that U the beft Means, which beft attaineth the End : And if all together procure a due reception, I have what I defiredy it bang not the Perfection of a Book, or the Authors honour which I intend, but the edification of the Reader j to whofe Capacity,*** weU as to the Matter, we muft fit our words*

If any thinly that I Jhould have recited all the Dolors words which I confute, I tell him, that I fup-pofe him to have the Book^it felf before him ', and thai I doubt I have already been to) long.

I have been long employed in Controversy while I

write

To the Reader.

write again]} unneceffary Controversies \ but it hath been to end them, either by removing the Miftakes which continue them> or by (hewing Men that Jee it *oU how far Contenders are agreed. I profefs my felf one who ( diftinguijbing of REAL and SIGNAL or ORGANICAL Knowledg) do take Words to be fi f ar ufefitl as they help us to htiow Things, and to communicate that fytewledg *, and therefore value ■\ Words but as adapted to Things and Minds; And 1 have but low thoughts of that Knowledg which reach* eth no further than Words, or that which extendeth (or pretendeth) to Things by no other medium than Words V in comparifon of that which perceiveth them as in themfelves, or at leaji in their Iikenefs, or eflfedis. And therefore though I would have Words improved to tl?e beji advantage for Knowledge I am fo deeply fen-ftbleof the great imperfection of Mankind in the Art of Speaking, as that I greatly abhor the laying too much of the Peace of Souls or Churches there-upon, and making Words and forms of Speech, the engins of Cruelty or Vivifton : (And I have long perceived too many forreign Criiicks and Grammarians to have been (like Paracelfians in Pbyfick^) more proud and boafiing far than the worth of their Learning would jujiifie-) and to have too much vilified the School-Mens frt of Learning* (which was more real than moji of theirs) while they rofe up again(l their barbarous words) But whether (if Words in this Controvert fie muft needs be more regarded than I have faid) it be my faying?, or thofe that I write againft, which have reed of this charitable Cover/ 1 leave you to judg^ i. By the Covfequences of the unfound fenfe of Imputation hereafter opened. 2 • And by tbti Catalogue of fome of the DoUrines which I have long gain~faid> viz.

To the Reader?

I. 'thai the Perfon of the Mediator was Legally w in Gods account the very Perfon of every fingle elect Sinner (even before that Sinner was a Perfon).

II. That every fuch Sinner (before he was) didin Law-jenfe^ or in Gods reputation, perftftly fulfil all Gods Law in and by Chrilh

III. And therefore the Law of Ltnocency dotbjufii*

fie him as fulfilling it by another, and as an innocent V ferfon, a/sfrom his firji Being to his Death.

IV. T'bafihefiamt Perfon dVdJnmfelf Reputatively

or in Law~fenfe, Juffer in and by Chriji, all the />*»-./^ %i ijhment due to him as afinner, by the Threatning of the L* w of Innocency, or of any Law of God > and that the Law did repute him both Innocent as fulfilling it KK ) by another, and a Sinner as breaking it himfelf.

V. That therefore no Elect perfon fufereth any Pu-nifhment in his own perfon-

VI. And that our fins were f imputed to Chrifl,as that he was accounted of God really a finner, taking to him the Reaturn culpse & non tanturn poena:, vel Culpa? folum quo ad paenam : And fo that he had really as much Guilt of fin it felf as all the Eletty and was in true Guilt the worfi Perfm that ever was in the World.

VII. That he was accordingly hated of God, as the yrorft guilty finner.

VIII. That he fufcred the fame pains of Hell which vpe deferved, (vu. Tormmt of an accusing Confidence,privation of Gods Love and Spirit, under fin,&c)

IX. That his Righteoufaefs was not only a fulfilling of the Law as it obliged him, and his Suffering, the transited punijhment of finners due to him by Affumption and by the Law which impofed it on bim > but the one wjs the perfed fulfilling of all

Gods

To the Reader;

Gods Law, as it obliged every Ele& perfon > and the other the perfett fulfilling of the threatning of Gods Law* as it threatned the Perfons of all the Ele&>

X. That therefore Chriji s fuffering was not fat is fa-diion to the Law-giver injieadof the faid fulfilling of the Law, hut the fulfilling it felf by m in Cbrift.

XI. That therefore every Ele8 perfon (fay fome) or every Believer (fay others) U as Righteous as Chriji was* by that perfeft fulfilling of the ham h all his Kighteoufnefs being ours it ftlf as full pr oprietors, becaufe of our union with him ; and not only ours in Caufality, as meriting and procuring us Kighteoufnefs and Life*

XII. That therefore purification and Kighteoufnefs isprfeQ at thefirji Injianu

XIII. That this Kighteoufnefs of Chriji fo imputed tout, as wholly our own in itfelf* Uimputed to us as OVK SOLE KIGHTEOVSNESS.

XIV. That Faith is not imputed to us for Kighteoufnefs*

XV. That Chriji is the only Perfon covenanted with by God: Or that it is the fame Covenant and Law which is made with and for Chriji , and which is made with and for us*

XVI. That we are not Juftified by Faith in God, the father , or in the Holy Gho[h

XVII. That we are net Juftified by believing in Chriji as Chriji intirely* or as our Teacher* Owner* King* Judg* or Intercejfor in Heaven* nor by any of tbeje, but only by that A& of Faith, which receiveth his Righteoufnefs as imputed to us.

XVIII. That this Receiving k& is but one in Specie Phyfica (fay fome): but wh ether ■ Aflent ? or Confent, or Affiance, and to what one fole Verity >— T~ " " ~. or

To the Reader;

or Objed, is not a^reed A and what fatuity it fnuft be in, and whether in one or two, and how one A<5k can be in two Faculties 8cc) yea (fay others) it U but one Individual Ad, becaufe we are jujiified perfeUly fimul & femel, and fo we are jujiified by a Faith of one moment only.

XIX. That believiug in God the Father, or the Holy Ghoft, and in Chrift as Teacher, &c. and all Faith in Chrift , fave the receiving his imputed Righteoufnefs, as alfo Repentance, defiring Chrift, confefling our unrighteoufnefs, praying for Pardon, For the Spirit, for Heaven, hearing the Word, thankfulnefs for Chrift, &c. are all of them^ thofe WORKS which St. Paul mofetb to F aith as to Jufti-fleation : And therefore he that lookew to be Jujiified by any of theft, falletbfrom Grace by expefting Jujii-fication by Work*. JtoJi) yi& %/*5Q>t***£>tf >

XX. Therefore all Chrifiians^ who will befure tbat they truft not to Works, and fall not from Grace, muji hjiow (among a multitude of Atts, which [believing in Chrift as Chrift^ doth contain) which ONS it is that juftifietb : (Which yet I never met with two Divines that agree in the exaft defcription of).

XXI. That this ONE Justifying A3, doth jufti-fie only as an Inftrument, even the injirumental efficient Catife of our Jufiification.

XXII- Tbat to expett J unification by that ONE Aft of Faith under any other notion than that of fuch an Inftrument, ps to expett Justification by Works^ even by Faith as a Work, and to fall from Grace.

XXIII. That we (hall be judged at the great Day only by the Law of Works, as fulfilled by Chrift for the Eleft and not for Reprobates i and not by the Law of Grace, m fulfilled or not fulfilled by our felves,

To the Reader*

ds it prefcriktb the conditions of Life and Death*

XXIV* That the A8s or Habits of Faith, Reperi-tance, Love, Obedience, or any fart of out fulfilling the conditions of Life in the Go/pel, called commonly our Inherent Righteoufnefs, are no part of the Matter of any true Evangelical Justification ; That is? that either we need no Justification againfi the charge of Infidelity, Impenitency, Rebellions, Unholinefs, Hypocrifie \ or if we do, we are^ not t ojbe juliified / againfi thefe particular Charg es by our Faith, Repen-p* tance, Obedience,Tldlineis*, and Sincerity.

XXV. that our find Graces, Holinefs and Obedience, have no other uje as to our Jujlification at Judgment, but as Si&fis of the Inftrumental Aft of Faith-, proving it to ourfthes and others : And this is [to be judged according to our works^-

XXVL "that ^though our Jus ad impunitatem & ad Gloriam be guy Ri 6 bteoufnefs, (in part at leafi,) and our Juftification at Judgment be the juftify-v ing that Right, yet) though Holinefs, Obedience? and Perfeverance, be Conditions of our Glorification, they are no Conditions of our final Jafiification, or light to Glory.

Thefe are the Opinions, this U part of the Body of Notional Divinity, which I have written againfi thefe twenty eight years > be fides the reft of grojfer Amino-mianifm defcribtd in my CorifJJion. And I am confident that this bonejl Dottor having neither mind nor leifure to fee what it is indeed that I am doing, was (Jome-biw) induced to take afnatch, where he thought by a (hott view he faw advantage, and to write againfi he bjtew not whom or what.

If you as 1 ^ what thai Dotitine is, that t fit up in** (lead of this, Imufi not Jiill repeat ; I refer you to a

kief

To the Reader,

hrief fum of it in the Treface to my Vifputation of Justification.

Or in a very few words ^ it mayfuffice plain Men to bold, I. fbatChrijl in tbe<Perfon of a Mediator? ^ hath by his perfeB Holinefs and Obedience^ and a* a fatisfattory Sacrifice for Sin> Merited a Free-(jiftof Himfelf as our Head, and of Pardon, Spirit and -X* Glory with and by Him > and as our Interceffor, our Owner and Ruler, doth communicate what he merited*

2. That be hath made a Covenant and Law of Grace to be his Donative {and Condonative) Aft and Inftrument,which is our Title/<? the given Benefits*> (or our Fundamentum Juris.

3. That this Law and Covenant prefcribeth a Condition of the [aid Right, to be performed by our felves by the help of Grace (which is our Conditio Juris).

4. That this Condition is our Faith, or Chriftia-nity, as it is meant by Cbrift in the Baptifmal Cove* nant<> viz. To give up our felves in Covenant be-lievingly to God the Father* Son, and Holy Ghoih renouncing the contraries*

5. That though true Confent to this Cbriftian Covenant (called Faith alone^) be the full Condition of our firft Right to the benefits of that Covenants (of which Juftification is one) yet Obediential perform* ance of the Covenant , and Conquefi of temptations and Ferfeverance , are Secondary parts of the condition of our Right as continued and confummate.

6* That our Righteoufnefs, which mujt be the Mat* ter of our full and final Juftification^ hath thefs parts, 1. Chrifts perfett Righteoufnefs and Sacrifice, as the Meritorious Caufe of the Free-Gift: 2. Our Right to Impunity andGXoiy (and the Spirit) as being the

Righ-

To the Reader;

Righteoufnefs given. 3. And our fincere performance of the Conditions of Judication and Life, *u betng a neceffary fubordin^te Righteoufnefs.

7. That becaufe C'hrifi will come in Judgment, not to judg Himfelf, but us, and will judg U4 according to the Law of C race, as performers or not performers of lots prefer ibed conditions of Pardon and Ltfe, therefore hi* Righteoufnefs and free conditional Donation being prefuppofedy the Scripture through* cut defer ibeth the lafl Judgment as judging {that s*, Justifying or Condemning) Men according to our (Evangelical) Workj*, or Preparations, and calleth tt* to Cafe and prepare accordingly: I conclude with the words of our worthy and great Dtvtnes.

Dr. Prefton^ the Attributes, p*g-Ji. [No Man believes Juftification by Chrift, but his Faith is mainly grounded on this Word of God: For in Scripture we find that Jefus Chrift is come in the Flefh, and that he is a Lamb ilain for the Forgiveness of Sins: That he is offered to every Creature: That a Man mult thirft after him 5 and then take up his Crofs and follow him. Now come to a Believer going out of the World, and ask him, what hope he hath to be faved : He will be ready to fay, I know that Chrift is come into the World, and offered up, and I know that I am one of them that have a part in Him : I know that I have fulfilled the Conditions, as that I fhould not continue willingly in any known fin, that I ftiould love the Lord Jefus, and defire to ferve Him above all: I know that I have fulfilled thefe Conditions ^ and ior all thi^ I have the Word for my ground, S$V»

Id. Trail, of faith, pag. 44, 4?. If I fhould define Jufti-fying Faith to you., it muft be thus defcribed •, It is a grace or habit infufed into the Soul, whereby we are enabled to believe, not only that the Meffiah is offered to us, but alfo to rake and receive Him as a Lord and Saviour^ that is, both to be faved by Him, and obey Him, Vsd. c&t.

But I have e it ed enough fuch dfe-where. fee Dr. Field'/ Append, to the ^d Book^of the Church, and Mufculus On Gen. 2i. \6. p;tg. 530. and*Gen.i$. 6. fag. 351%

The Loid forgive ourWeahnefs, and teach his Minifiers the way of Peaces and make them as skilful in reconciling^ as thej have been m dntdtng.

OF THE

IMPUTATION

O F

ChrifVs Righteoufheis

BELIEVERS:

In what fence found Protefbnts bold

it 5 And,

Of the falfe devifed fence, by which Libertines fubvert the Gofpel.

With an Anfwer to fome common Objections, efpecially of DuThomas Tuty, whofe -fufiif. Paulina, occafionech the publication of this.

fey

Richard Baxter*

A companionate Lamenter of the Churches wounds, caufed by hafty judging and undigeikd conceptions, and by the Theological Wars which are hereby raifed and managed i by perfwading the World that meer verbal or notional Differences are material^nd iuch as our Fairh,Love,Concord and Communion muft bemeafured by,for want of an exa<3: difcuflion of the ambiguity of words.

London, Printed for NtVti Stmons and 'Jonathan Robinfcn^ at the Kings-Arms and <3olden-I ion in St. P*wU Church-yard, 1675.

The Preface.

Reader^

IF thou blame me for writing again, on a Subject which I have written on fo oft, and fo lately (fpccially in my Life of Faith, and Difputations of Juftification) I fhali not blame thee for fo doing • but I (hail excufe my felf by telling thee my reafons, i. The occasion is many loud accufations of my felf, of which I have before given an account. I publifli it, be-caufe I fee the Contention ftill fo hot in the Church of Chrift, and mens Charity de-ftroyed againft each other ; one fide calling the other Socinians^txd the other Libertines, (who are neither of them Cbriftians)nnd if I miftake not, for the moft part in the dark about one Pbrafe ^and that of mens devifing> rather than about the fence: But if indeed it be the fence that they differ about, it's time to'doour belt to redtifie fuch Fundamental Errours.

I find that all of us agree in all the Phrafes

of Scripture. And a Mans Sence is no

way known but by his exprciiions: The

A 2 que-

the PREFACE. £Weftionis then, Which is theneceffqryJPhrafc ^/hich we mull: exprefs our ft nee by ? We all fay tha* to Believers, Chrifi is made our Righteoufnefs > ]Ve are made the Righteoufnefs of God in him; He hath ranfomed, redeemed u$) as a Sacrifice for our fins 7 a price; He hath merited and obtained eternal Redemption for us r thai Sin is remitted, covered, not imputed*, that Righteoufnefs is Reckoned or lm« puted to us; that Faith is Imputed to us for Righteoufnefs 7 and any thing elfe that is in the Scripture. But all this will not ferve to make us Chriftians ! What is wanting * Why, we muft fay that Chrifis Righteoufnefs is Imputed to us as ours, and that Chrifi Satisfied for our fins / Well; The thing fig-nified feemeth to us true and good and heedful, ("though the Scripture hath as good words for it as any of us can invent.) We confent therefore to ufe thefePhrafes,fo be it you put no falfe and wicked fence on them by ether words of your own: Though we will not allow them to be neceffary, becaufe not In Scripture-, (And we are more againft adding new Fundamental Articles of Faith to the Scripture, than againft adding new Orders, Forms or Ceremonies). But yet it y/ilinot ferve : what is'yet wanting? why, we mutt hold thefe words in a right fenfe i What? yet are not your own devifed * r> * ? words

the PREFACE.

words a fufficient expreflion of the matter ! When we have opened thofe words by ether words, how will you know that we ufe thofe other words in a right fence, and fo in infinitum. Our fence is 5 that Righteoufnefs is Itffc putedto us ? that is, we are accounted Righteous , becaufe for the Merits of Chrifis total fulfilling the Conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father^ by his Habitual Hc-linefsy his Actual Perfect Obedience^ and his Sacrifice^ fatisfattory Suffering for our fins in but fie ad 7 freely without any merit or Conditional act of marts ^ God hath made an Act of Oblivion and Deed of Gift, pardoning all fify juftifying and adopting and giving Right to the Spirit and Life eternally to every one that believingly accepteth Chrifi and the Gifts with and by and from him. And when we J accept them they are, all ours by virtue of this purchafed Covenant-Gift. This is our fhort and plain explication. But yet this will jiotferve: Chriftianity is yet another thing. What is wanting ? Why, we rauft fay,that Chrifi was habitually and actually pefect/y Holy and Obedient\ Imputatively in our particular Perfons, and that each one of us did perfectly fulfil that haw which requireth perfect Habits and Acts in and by Chrifi impu-tatively^ and yet did alfo in and by himfufer bur [elves Imputatively for net fulfilling it,and A l lm£u*

The PREFACE.

Imputative/? did our felves both fatisfy God's Zfuflice and merit Heaven -, and that voe have our felves Imputatively a Righteoufnefs of perfect Holinefs and Obedience as finlefs^ and muft be jujtified by the Law of Innocency^ or Works\ as having our felves imputatively ful* filled it in Chrifi^And that this is our foleRigh-tecufnefs ; and that Faith it [elf is not imputed to us for Righteoufnefs-, no not a meerparticular fubordinate Righteoufnefs ', anfrvering the Conditional part of the new faflifying Covenant^ its neceffary to our participation of Chrifi^ and his freely given Righteoufnefs. And muft all this go into our Chriftianity! But where is it written i who devifed it t was it in the an-tient Creeds and Baptifm ? Or known in the Church for five thdufand years from the Creation ? I profefs I take the Pope to be no more to be blamed for making a new Church-Government ,than for making us fo many new Articles of Faith : And I will not juftifie thofe that Symbolize with him, or imitate him in either.

But yet many of the men that do this 5 are good men in other refpe&s : and I love their zeal that doth all thi: evil, as it is for God and the honour of $efus Chrifi^ though I love it not as blind, nor their Errour or their Evil. But how hard is it to know what SpiriC. we are of I But it is the doleful

mif-

Ihe PREFACE. mifchief which their blind zeal doth, that maketh me fpeak ^ That three or four of them have made it their pra&ice. to backbite my feif, and tell People, He holdeth dangerous opinions; He is erroneous in the pint ofjuflijication. And bis Books are unbound and have dangerous Doctrines ; He lea-veth the old way of^uftification, he favoureth Socinianifm> and fuch-like: this is a fmall matter comparatively. Back-biting and falfe reports, are the ordinary fruits of bitter contentious Zealy and the Spirit of a Sect as fuch doth ufually fo work(yea to confufion and every evil work,)when it hath banifhed the Zeal of Love and of Good Works. Jam. 3. 14,15, 16. Tit. 2. 14. And I never counted it any great lofs to their followers, that they dtflfwade them from the reading of my writings (as the Papifts do their Profe-lytes) as long as God hath bleftour Land With fo many better.

But there are other effe&s that command me once again to fpeak to them. 1. One is, that I have good proof of the lamentable Scandal of fome very hopeful Perfons of quality, who by hearing fuch language from thefe men 5 have bin ready to turn away from Religion* and fay, If they thus fet againft and condemn oneanother^ away with them all.

the PREFACE. 2. Becatife divers great Volumes andioutlier fad Evidence tells me that by their invented fence of Imputation, they have tempted man> Learned men to deny Imputation of Chrift's Righteoufnefs abiblutely, and bitterly revile it as a moft Libertine Irreli-gious Do&rine.

3 i But above all, that they do fo exceedingly confirm the Papifts.I muft profefs that be fides carnal Inter eft and the fnareofill Education^ 1 do not think that there is any thing in the Wot Id that maketh or hardneth and confirmeth Papifts more, and hindreth their reception of the Truth,than thefe fame well-meaning people that are moft zealous againft them, by two means: i. One by Diviji-ons and unrulinefs in Church-refpe&s, by which i hey perfwade men,efpecially Rulers, that without fuch a Center as the Papacy, there will be no Union, and without fuch Viderce as theirs,there will be no Rule and Order. Thus one extreme doth breed and feed another. 2. The other is by this un-found fence of the Do&rine o£ Imputation of Chrifis Righteoufncfs 7 {with an unfound De-fcripion cf Faith ) laying that every man is to believe it as Gods word (or fide divind) that his own fins are pardoned % which when j the Papifts read (that,thefc men.make it one of the chief Points of our difference from

Rome?)

the PREFACE.

Rome,) doth occafion them to triumph and

reproach us, and confidently diffent from

us in all the reft. I find in my felf that my

full certainty that they err in Tranfubftan-

tiation and fome other points, doth greatly

refolve me to negletf: them at leaft,or fufpeft

them in the reft which feem more dubious.

And when the Papifts find men moil grofly

erring in the very point where they lay the

mainftrefsof the difference, who can ex-

pedt otherwife, but that this fhould make

them defpife and caft away our Books, and

take us as men felf-condemned and already

vanquiiliedjand difpute with us with the pre*

judice as we do with an Arriaft or Sociman ?

They themfelves that caft away our Books

becaufe they dijfent from us^ may feel in

themfelves what the Papifts are like to do

on this temptation.

4. And it is not to be difregarded, that many private perfons not ftudied inthefe points, are led away by the Authority of thefe men (for more than Papifts believe as the Church believeth) to fpeak evil of the Truth, and finfully to Backbite and Slander thofe Teachers, whom they hear others (lander : and to fpeak evil of the things which they know not. And to fee Gods own Servants feduced into 'Difaffetlion and abufeandfalfe Speeches againft thofe Ministers

the PREFACE.

fters that do moft clearly tell them the truths is a thing not filently to be cheriihed by a ny that are valuers of Love and Concord a-mong Chriftians,and of the truth and their Brethrens Souls, and that are difpleafed with that which the Devil is moft pleafed and God difpleafed with. Thefe are my Reafons, fubmitted to evety Readers Cen-fure •, which may be as various as their Capacities, Interefts or Prejudices.

My Arguments in the third Chapter I have but briefly and haftily mentioned, as dealing with the lovers of naked Truth, who will not refufe it when they fee it in its felf-evidence* But they that defire larger proof, may find enough in Mr. Gataker and Mr. Wotton dc Keconcil. and in John Goodwin of Juflification^ ( If they can read him without prejudice).From whom yetl differ in theMe* ritorious Caufe of our Juftification,and take in the habitual and adiual Holinefs of Chrift as well as his Sufferings 5 and equal in Merits; and think that pardon it [elf is rneri-tedby his Obedience as well as by his Satisfaction:! o fay nothing of fome of his too harfh expreflions, about the Imputation of Faith,; and non- imputation of Chrifts Obedience* which yer in forne explications he mollify-eth, and fheweth that his fence is the fame with theirs that place all our Righteoufnefs

the PREFACE.

in remiflion of Sin; fuch as^befides thofe after-mentioned) are Mufcuius ^ Chamier^ and abundance more : And when one faith that Faith is taken properly, and another that it is taken Relatively in Imputation, they feem to mean the fame thing : For Faith properly taken is etf entiated by its Object; And vjh&tChri/t's Office island whatF^/>^\r Office is, I find almoft all Proteftants are agreed in fence, while they differ in the manner of expfeffion, except there be a real difference in this point of fimple Perfonating tts in his perfect Holinefs^ and making the Perfon of a Mediator to contain effentially in fenfu Civ Hi the very Perfon of every elect fin-ner^andevery fuch one to have verily been and done^ infenfu civili^tvhat Chrifl vqo* and did.

I much marvel to find that with mofl: the Imputation oi Satisfaction is faid to be for Remiffion of the penalty •, and Imputation of perfect Holinefs for the obtaining of the Reward Eternal Life; and yet that the far greater part of them that go that way fay, that Imputation of all Chrifts Rightecufnefs goethjirfi as the Caufe^ tind Remijjion of Sin follovoeth as the Effect : So even Mr. Robo-rw'gh pag. 5 5 and others. Which feemcth to me to have this Sence, as if God faid to a Believer, \l do repute thee to have perfectly fulfilled the Law in Chrijl, andfo to be no Jin-

ner^

The PREFACE. ner> And. therefore forgive thee all thy Jin.'} Iij our fence it is true and runs but thus {I do repute Chrifi to have been perfectly ]uft habitually and actually in the Perfon of a Mediator in the Nature of Man y and to, have fujfered as if he had been ajinnerjn the Perfon of a Sptn-for y by hisownConfenty and that in the very place 7 &nd fteadofjinners ; and by this to have fatisfyed my Juftice, and by both to have merited free $uflification and Life^ to be given by the new Covenant to all Believers : N And thou being a Believer ^ I do repute thee juflijied and adopted by this fat is factory and meritorious Righteoufnefs of Chrifi^ and by this free Covenant- Gift^ as verily andfurely as ^ if thou hadfi done it andfujferedtkyfelf

For my own part 1 find by experience^ that almoft all Chriflians that I talk with of y jit, have juft this very notion of our Juftifi-r cation which I have expre(fed ; till fome particular Difputer by way of Gontroverfie hath thruft the ether notion into their mind. And for peace-fake I will fay again, what I have elfewhere faid, that I cannot think but that almoft all Proteftants agree in the fub-ftance of this point of Juftification (though fome having not Acutenefs enough to form their Notions of if rightly, nor Humility e-nough to fufpeft their Underftandings, wrangle about Words, fuppofing it to be a-

bou£

m PREFACE.

bout the Matter) •, Becaufe I find that all are agreed, i. That no Elecft Perfon is Justified or Righteous by Imputation while he -is an Infidel or Ungodly (except three or four that fpeak confufedly^and fupport the Antinomians)z .That God doth not repute us to have done whatChrift did in our individual natural Perfons PhyJicallyiTht Controver-fie is about a Civil personating. 3. That God judgeth not falfly. 4. That Chrift was not our Delegate and Inftrument fentbyusto do this in our ftead, as a man payeth his debt by a Servant whom he fendeth with the frioney. 5. That therefore Chrift s Righte- m s* oufnefs is not Imputed to us 3 as if we had^grf done it by him as our Inftrument* 6. That all the fruits of Chrifts Merits and Satisfaction are not ours upon our firft believing ("much lefs before). But we receive them by degrees : we have new pardon daily of new )C fins: We bear caftigatory punifhments, e-ven Death and Denials, or lofs of the grea-ter afliftance of the Spirit: Our Grace is all *\ imperfeft, 8cc. 7. That we are under a Law (and not left ungovemed and lawlefs) and that Chrift is our King and Judge : And this Law is the Law or Covenant of Grace, >( V containing, befides the Precepts of perfedt Obedience to the Law natural and fuperad-dedj, a Gift of Chrift with Pardon and Life ;

but

^:

the PREFACE. but only on Condition that we thankfully and bclievingly accept the Gift; And threat-w^ nin § non '^beration5and afar forer punifh-ment,to all that unbelievingly and unthank-fully reject it. 8. That therefore this Te-ftament or Covenant-Gift is God's Inftru-ment, by which he giveth us our Right to Chrift and Pardon and Life : And no man hath fuch Right but by this Teftament-Gift. 9. That this, (called a Teftament, Covenant% Promife> and Law in feveral re-fpe&s) doth, befides the Conditions of our firft Right, impofe on us Continuance ^in the Faith, with fincere Holinefs, as the neceftary Condition of our continued Juftification, and our adual Glorification. And that Heaven is the Reward of this keeping of the new Covenant, as to the order of Gods Gol/ation,though as to the value of the Benefit, it is a Free G/y>,purchafed,merited and given by Chrift. io. That we (hall all be judged by this ^/ Law of Chrift. 11. That we (hall all be, judged according to our deeds; and thofe that have done good (not according to the Lawoflnnocency or Works, but accord-w X ing to the Law of Grace) {hall go into ever-laftinglife^and thofe that have doneevil(not by meer fin as fin againft the Law of Inno-cency) but by not keeping the Conditions

the PREFJCE,

of the Law of Grace, fhall go into ever-lafting puniihment. The fober reading of thefe following texts may end all our Con-troverfie with men that dare not grofly make void the Word of God. Rev. 20. 12, 13. 22. 12, dr 2. 23.) 12. That to be Jufti-fied at the day of Judgment, is, to be &d-judged to Life Eternal^ and vet condemned to % Hell. And therefore to be the caufe or condition that we are Judged to Glory y and the Caufe or Condition that we are $uHi-fied then, will be all one. 13. That to he Judged according to our deeds, is to be , SfuHified or Condemned according to them.

14. That the great tryal of that day (as I have after faid) will not be, whether Chrift hath done his part, but whether we have partinhim, and fo whether we have believed, and performed the Condition of thac Covenant which giveth Chrift and Life.

15. That the whole fcope of Chrift's Ser-mons,and all the Gofpel,calleth us from fin, a

on the motive of avoiding Hell, (after we^fe*** are reputed Righteous,) and calleth us to '

Holinefs, Perfeverance and overcoming 5 on the motive of laying up a good Foundati- -? on, and having a Treafure in Heaven, and s^ getting the Crown of Righteoufnefs. 1 6. That the after-fins of men imputed R ighte-pus deferve Hell, or at lead temporal

puniih-

ml

The PREFACE.

punifhments, and abatements of Grace and Glory. 17. That after fuch fins,efpecially hainous, we muft pray for Pardon, and repent that we may be pardoned, (and not fay I fulfilled the Law in Chrift as from my y/ birth to my death, and therefore have no more need of Pardon.) 18. That he that faith he hath no fin, deceiveth tumfelf, and isalyar. 19. That Magiftrates muft pu-nifh fin as God s Officers •, and Paftors by Cenfure in Chrifts name; and Parents alfo, in their Children. 20. That if Chrifts Eo-linefs and perfect Obedience-) and Satisfaction and Merit, had bin Ours in Eight and Imputation^ zsfimply and absolutely and fully as it / was his orvn,we could have no Guilt\m need I of Pardon, no fafpenfion or detention of the y/jjjA proper fruits of it, no puuifhmen? for fin, ^ ' \ (fpecially not fo great as the with-holding v of degrees of Grace and Glory); And many of the confequents aforefaid could not have followed.

All this I think we are all agreed on t and none of it can with any face be denied by a Chriftian. And if fo •, 1. Then whether Chrifts perfect Holiness and Obedience^ and Sufferings,Merit and Satisfaction* be all given us, and imputed unto us at our firft believing as Our ovon in the very thing it felf, by a full and proper Title to the thing:

Or

■

the PREFACE. Or only fo imputed to us 7 as to be judged a jujl caufe of giving us all the effefts ip the de- */** Y* grees and time forementioned as God pleafeth) let all judge as evidence fhall convince them, 2, And then, whether they do well that thruft their devifed fence on the Churches as an Article of Faith, let the more impartial judge.

I conclude with this confeffipn to the Reader, that though the matter of thefe Papers hath been thought on thefe thirty years, yet the Script is hafly, and defective in order and fulnefs; I could not have leifure fo much as to affix in the margin all the texts which fay what I affert: And feve-\ ral things, especially the ftate of the Cafe, j are oft repeated. But that is, left once reading fuffice not to make them obferved and underftood; which if many times will do, I have my end. If any fay, thatlfliould take time to do things more accurately, I tell him that I know my ftraights of time, and quantity of bufinefs better than he doth; and I will rather be defe&ive in the mode of one work, than leave undone the fub-fiance of another as great.

y*/;, 20. i&ji. 'Richard Baxter*

B The

The Contents.

CHap. i. The Hiftory of the Controverfe r In the Apojiles days : In the following Ages. Augutline and bis followers Opinion., the Schoolmen* Luther : Illebius : 'the Lutheran! : Andf.Ofiander; The latter German Divines vcho were againji the Imputation of ChrijFs Attive Righteoufnefl \ Our Englijh Divines: Davenant's fenfe of Imputation. Wotton. de Reconcil. Bradfhaw, Gataker, Dr. Crifp, Jo.Simpfon, Randal, Towne,^. And the Army-Antinornhns checkf by the rifing of Ar-minianifm there againji it* Jo. Goodwin, Mr* Walker, and Mr* Roborough * Mr* Ant. Burges> My Own endeavours, Mr. Cranden, Mr. Eyres, &c. Mr* Woodbridge, Mr. Tho. Warren, Mr* Hotchkis, Mr* Hopkins, Mr. Gibbon, Mr. War-ton, Mr* Grailes, M'JefTop : What I then af* ferted: Corn, a Lapide, Vafquez, Suarez, Gro-tius de Satisf. Of the Savoy Declaration v Of the Faith of the Congregational-Divines : Tlxir faying that Chrifts Afiive and Pajftve Obedience is imputed for our fole Righteoufnefl^ confuted by Scripture. Gataker, Uftier, and Vines read and approved my Confeffion of Faith. Phceus his Writings and trouble about the Imputation of Adam'/ Sin. Dr. Gell, Mr* Thorndike, &c* vehemently accuftng the doclrine of Imputed Righteoufnefl* The Confent of all Cbriftians? ejpecially Vrotejiants^ a-bout tl)e fenfe of Imputed Righteoufnefl i. The form of Baptifm. 2. The Apojiles Creed* 3. The Nicene and Ccnftantinopolkan Creed. 4. Athanafius'j Creed. 5. The Fathers fenfe : Laurentius his Colltflions : Damafus his Creed. 6. The Augu-B 2 itan

( 5 )

if

Of the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs (Material or Formal) to Believers:

Whether we are Reputed perfonally tobavefufferedon the Crofs, and to have fatisfied God^s Jujiicefor our own fins,and to have been habitually perfeEtiy Holy^ and Attually perfettly Obedient, inChriji, or by Cbrijt) and jo to have merited our ownjuftification and Salvation. And whether CbrijFj Righteoufnefs Habitual A&ive and Pajjive, be ftriCily made our own Righteoufnefs, in the very thing it felf fimply Imputed to m->or only be made ours in the efletts,*nd Righteoufnefs Imputed to m when we believe^ bc-caufe Cbrift hath fatisfied and fulfilled the LaWj and thereby merited it for us. The laji is affirmed* and the two firft Quejlions dented*

Have faid fo much cf this fubjed already in my Confeffion^ but cf-pccially in my Difputatioqs of Judication, and in my Life o£ Faith that I thought not to have meddled with it anymore > But fcmebccafiotis tell me that it is not yet needlefs, though thofe that have moil need will not read if. But white fome of them hold* ♦hat nothing which they account a Truth abput the Form zi\dManner ofjforfhip is to be filenced for the Churches peace, they fhould grant to me that Real

B 3 truth

(6) Truth fo near theFoundationf in their own account) is not to be (ileHced when it tendeth unto Peace.

In opening my thoughts on this fubjedt I (hall reduce all to thefe Heads, i. I (hall give the brief Hiflory of this Controverfie. 2. I (hall open the true itateof it, and aflert what is to be aflerted,and deny what is to be denied. 3. I (hall give you the Reafons of my Denials. 4. I (hall anfwer fome Obje&rons.

-

CHAP. L

the Hijlory of the ContYoverfie.

§I.TN the Gofpel it felf; we have firft Cfoij¥ J s DoUnne delivered by his own mouth* And in that there is fo littk faid of this Subjedt that I find few that will pretend thence to refolve the Controverfie, for Imputation in the rigorous fence. The fame I fay of the A6tsT>f the Apoftles* and all the reft of the New Tcftament, except Pauls Epiftles.

The Apoftk Paul, having to do with the Jews* who could not digeft the equalizing of the Gentiles with them, and Specially with the fa&ious Jewifh Chriftians, who thought the Gentiles rtmR btcom*f Trofelytes to Mofes as well as to Chrift, if they would be juftified and Saved, at large confuteth this opinion^ and freeth the Confciences of the Gentile Chriftians from the Impofition of this yoke (as alfo <M all the Apofil^s,^5. 150And in his arguing

(7 )

guing,proveth that theMofaical Law is Co far fro to | being neceflary to the Juftification of the Gentile*? that Abraham and the Godly Jem themfelves \yere / not Juftified by it, but by Faiths And that by the works of it (and confequently not by the works of the Law or Covenant of Innocency, which no man ever kept) no man could ever be juftified: And therefore that they were to look for Juftification by Chrift alone, and by Faith in him, or by meet _g~ Chriftianity^ -, which the Gentiles might have as ^SH) well as the Jew*? the Partition-wall being taken down. This briefly is the true fcope of Paul in thefe Controverfies.

§ 2. But mTauVs own days, there were fome-things in his Epiftles which the unlearned and un-ftable did wfeft,as they did the other Scriptures, to their own deftru&ion, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. 2. And it feemethbythe Epiftle of James? that this was part of it: For he is fain there earned Jy to dif-. pute againft fome,who thought that Faith without Chriftian works themfelves, would juftifie, and flatly affirmeth, that we are Juftified by Works? and not by Faith only ? that is, as it is zPra&ical Faith? in which is contained a Confent or Covenant to obey? yS which firft putteth us into a juftified ftate , fo it is thztPrjftical Faith attually working by Love? and-the aVtnalperformance of our Covenant? which by way of Condition!* neceffary to our Juftification? as Continued and as Confummate by theSentence ofjudg- / ment. Againft which'fentcnce of James there is not a fyllable to be found in Paul. But all the Scripture agreeth that all men ftjall be Judged? that is, j + Juftified or Condemned, according to their works. But it is not this Controverfie (between Faith and B 4 mrkj)

( 8)

Workf) which I am now to fpcak to, having done it enough heretofore.

§3. From the* days of the Apoftles till Pfbgiw atod Auguftitte,this Controverfie was little meddled with ; For the truth is, the Paftors and Do&ors took not Chrifthnity in thofe days for a matter of Shcolaftick fubtiky, but of plain Faith and Tiety. And contented themfelves to fay that Chrift dyed for our fins,and that we are Juftified by Faith > and that Chrift was made unto us Righteoufnefs, as he y/ was made to us WKHopi* Sandiification and Re-"><>* demption. /^*/u*^^^/^^

§ 4. But withal thofe three firft Ages were fo in-tent upon Holinefs of Life, as that they addicted their Do6hine,their Zealand their conltant endeavours to it : And particularly to great aufterities to their Bodies, in great Faftings,and great contempt of the World, and exercifes of Mortification, to kill their flefhly Lufts, and deny their Wills, and Worldly Interefts } to which end at laft they got iu-to WildernefTes, and Monafteries, where, in Falling and Prayer,and a fingle life, they might live as it were out of the World, while they were in it> (Though indeed perfection firft drove them thither tofavethemfelves,)IntothefeDefcrtsand Monafteries thofe went that had mod Zeal, but not ufually moft Knotpledg : And they turned much of their Dodrine and difcourfes about thefe Aufterities,and about the pra&ices of a Godly Life,and about all the Miracles which were (Come really) done, and (fome feigned) by credulous foft people faid to be done among them. So that in all thefe ages moft

( of their writings are taken up, 1. In defending \ Chriftianityagainitthe Heathens, which was t^e

\ work

(p.)

work of the Learned Do&ors. 2. And in confuting fwarms of Herefiesthat fprung up. 3. And in matters of Church-order, and Ecclefiaftical and Monaftical difcipline. 4. And in the precepts of a Godly Life: But the point of Imputation was not only not meddled with diftin&ly, but almoft all the Writers of thoie times, feem to give very much to * Mans free-will, and to nwvjy of Holinefs, axidjujfer- /^ ings, making too rare and obfcure mention of the diftind: Interefts of Chrifts Merits in our Juftihcati-on, at leaft, with any touch upon this Controverfie: Yet "generally holding Pardon, and Grace and Salvation only by Chrifts Sacrifice and Merits * though they fpake mod of Mans Holinefs, when they called men to feek to make fure of Salvation.

§ 5. And indeed at the day of Judgment, the Queftion to be dccided,wi!l not be, Whether Chrift <Jyed and did his part,but,Whether we believed and obeyed bim and did our part: Not,Whether Chrift * performed his Covenant with the Fathers but, Whether we performed our Covenant with him: For it is not Chrift that is to be judged, but we by Chrift.

§ 6* But Pelagiiu and Auguftine difputing about the Power of Nature andFreewill and the Grace of Chrift, began to make it a matter of great In genu- *-A^ ity (as Erafmus fpeaketh) to be a Chriftian. ?e-lagtus (a Brittain, of great wit, and continence, and a good and fober life,as Aufiin faitb,E/>i/?. 120.) ftifly defended the Power of Nature andFreewill, and made Grace to confift only in the free Pardon • of all fin through Chrift, and in the Dottrine and Perflations only to a holy life for the time to come, with Gods common ordinary help. Auguftine copi-

* ©ufly

r 10)

oufly (and jufily) defended God's fpecial eternal f, /y*£le<5tion of fome,and his fpecial Grace given them yfxXto make them repent and believe, and prefevere ; (For though he maintained that fome that were true Believers, Lovers of God, Juftified and in aftateof X Salvation, did fall away and perifh, yet he held that none of the Eleft did fall cup ay and perifh > And he maintained that even the Juftified that fell a-way, had their Faith by a fpecial Grace above nature.) V%d. Attguft. de bnm Perfever. Cap. 8, & 9. & de Cor. & Grat. Cap. 8, & p. & alibi paffim.

§ 7. In this their Controverfie, the point of Ju-ftification fell into frequent debate : But no Con-troverfie ever arofe between them. Wbettkr 'thrift's 1 perfonal Rigbteoufnefs considered Materially or For-f mally, was by Imputation made ours asPropnetors of the thing it felfjdiftindt from its effedtei or,Wh'e-ther God reputed us to have fatisfied and alfo perfectly obeyed in Chrift. For Auguftine himfelf, while he vehemently defend eth free Grace,fpeaketh too little even of the Pardon of fin : And though he fay,that Free Tar don of fins is part of Grace, yet he maketh Justification to be that which we call San-tfification, that makes us inherently Righteous or new-Creatures,by the operation of the Holy Ghoft: And he thinketh that this is the Juilification which Taul pleadeth to be of Grace and not of works j yet including P atdon ofJin ,and confeifing that fome-times to Juftifie, fignifieth in Scripture.not to make juft, but to )tidg juft. And though ia it felf this be but denomine^ and not den\ yet, j. no doubt but as to many texts of Scripture Au'tin was miftaken, though fome few texts Bezj and others confefs to betaken in his fence; 2« And the expofition of

many

(*I )

many texts lieth upon it. But he that took Juftification to be by the operation of the HolyGhoft giving us Love to God, could not take it to be by Impuration in the rigorous fence no queftion > nor doth de re.

§ 8. But becaufe, as fome that, it feems, fiever read A*guftine-> or underftood not plain words,havc neverthelefs ventured confidently to deny what I have faid of his Judgment in the points of Perfeve-rance (in my Tra6t of Perfeverance)fo,it's like fuch men will have no more warinefs what they fay in the point of Juftification h I will cite a few of An-guftitfs words among many,to fhow what he took Juftification to be, though I differ from him de nomine,

Nee quia recti funt corde^ fed etiam ut rettifint corderfretendit Juftitiamfuam, qua juftificat impinm

§)uo motu receditur ab illofonte vit£, cujusfo-

litts hauftu juftitia bibitur, bona fciU vita. Aug.de Spir. & Lit. Cap. 7.

Dew eft enim qui operator in eir & velle & operatic pro bonayoluntate. H<ec eft JuftitiaVei, hoc eft> quam Deus donat homini quum juftificat impium. Ham Dei jufiitiam ignor antes fuperbi Judti, & fit am

volentes conftituere* juftitU Dei non funt fubjecii. .

Dei quippe dixit JujUtiam, qu£ homini ex Deo eft, fuam vero, quam putant fibifitficere adfacienda man-data fine adjutorio & dono ejus qui legem dedit. His antem fimilesfunt qui cum profiteantur fe effe Cbrifti-anosj ipft gratis Chrifti fie adverfanturut fe humanis viribus divina exiftimem implere mandata.Epift, 120. cap. 21. e^22. e^Epift. 200.

Et de Spir, & lit. c. 26* Fad ores juftificabuntur:

• Non tanquamper opera. Hamper Gratiam jufli-

ficentur ;

( 12 )

ficentur : Cum die £ Gratis juftiftcari hominem per ft-dem fine operibm legis> nibilque aliud velit intelligijn to quad dicit (jtatUy nift quia juftiftcationem opera non precedent: Aperte quippe alibi dicit , fi gratia y jam non ex operibus : alioquin gratia non ejl gratia. Sed fie intelligendum eft, fattores Legis }uftificabuntur y ut fciammeosnon effe faft ores legts mft ju(iificentur > ut non juftificatio fsttoribus accedat, fed fattores legis juftificatio precedat: Quid eft enim aliud Jufiificati^ quam JujHfatli, ab illo fcilicet quijuftificat Impium,

ut ex impio fiat juftus ? Ant certe ita diftumeft,

Juftiftcabuntur^ acfi diceretur Jufti babebnntur, jufti deputabuntur.

Et ibid. cap. 29. (Rentes quanon feftabantur jufti-tism apprehenderuntjuftitiam,Juftitiamaut°m qu<e ex fide eftjmpretrando earn exVeo^on ex ferpfis prefumen-da > Ifirael vero perfequens legem ju\iiti£, in legem ju-ftitit) non pervenit: Qttare ? Quia non ex fide^ fed tanquam ex operibus : id e{i tanquam earn per feipfos operantes > non in fe credentes operari

Deum* J)em cjl enim qui operatur in nobis •

Finis enim legis Cbti\\us eft omni credemi. ^ Et ad-hue dubitamus qua fmt opera legis, qnibus homo non juftiftcatur \ ft ea tayiquamfua credederit fine ad-

]utori(h& dono Dei y quod eft ex fide Jeju Ckrifti .

Vtpoffit homo facer e bona & Santia y Veiu operatur in htmine per fidem JefuChrifti y quiftnis ad Juftitiam omni credenti: id eft\ per Spiritum incorporate fa-Qufque membrum ejus y pteft quifque illo incrementunp

intrinfecus dante, operari juftitiam* Juftificatio

autem ex fide impetratur Intantutn )u(ius-> in

quantum falvus. Per banc enim fidem credemus y quodetiam nosVtus a mortuis exciter-interim Spiritu> ut in novitate e]us gratice temperanter & \ufte & pie

viva-

( 13 )

vivamus in bocfeculo — qui in Refurrettione fibi con*

grua, hoc eft, in Juftificatione precedit: -c. 30.

Fides impetrat gratiam qua Lex impleatur. C

Cap. 28. pag. 315. Ibi Lex Vei,no?i ex omni parte delata per injufiitiam, profetto fcribitur, renovata^ fergratiam: Necijiaminfcriptionem, qu& Juftifica-tio ejirfdterat efficere in Jud&ii Lex in tabulisfcrijpta. Ibid. Cap. p. pag. 307,308. JuftitiaDeimani-feft at a eft : nan dixit,Juftitia bominis vel jujiitia propria voluntatis.fed jujiitia Dei i Non qua ~Deus juftur e(i h fed qua induit, bominem cum jujiificat impittm. H*c te(iificatur per Legem & Pwphetas. Hu'ic quippe teftimonium perbibent Lex & Propbet£. Lex quidem hoc ipfo, quodjubendo, & minando, & neminem ju-ftificando, fat is indicat dono Vei juftificari bominem

per Ad jutorium Spiricus Juliitia autem Dei per

fidem Jefu Cbrifti, boc eft, per fidem qua Creditur in Cbriftum : ficut autem ifta fides Cbrifli dicta non eft y qua Credit Cbriftus, fie & ilia Juliitia Dei non qua Juftus eft Deus. Vtrumque enim Nojirum eft fed ideo Dei&Cbrifti dicitur quod ejus nobis largitate donatur.

Juftkia Dei fine lege tft.quam Deus per Spiritual

Gratia? Credenti confert fine adjutorio legis. . Ju-

(iificati gratis per gratiam ipfius : non quod fine volun* tate nostra fiat, fed voluntas noftra oftenditur infirma per legem, utfanet Gratia Voluntatem, & fanata voluntas impleatLegem.— — Et cap. 10. Confugiant per fidem ad Jujiificantem Gratiam, '& per donum Spiritus fuavitate juftitU deledati, fcenarn liter* mi-nantis evadant. Vid. Ep. $?. q. 2. Et lib. 3. a d Boniface. 7.

Et Trad. 3. in Joan, when he faith that, 0nines qui per Cbriftum Juftificatijufti, noninfe.jed in Mob he cxpoundeth it of Regeneration by Chriii.

Et

1

( 14)

Et Scrm. 15. de verb. Apoft. Sine voluntas tu* non erit in te Juftitia Dei. Voluntas non efi nifi tua\ Juftitia non eji nifi Dei; he expounds it of Holinefs.

« T'raditus eji propter deliftanoftra, & refurrexit,

propter juftificathnem noftram. Quid eft, Propter Juftificationem noftram f Vt juflificet nos, & juftos faciat nos. Eris opus Dei non folum quia homo esfed quia Juftus er: Qui fecit tefine te, non te juftificat fine te : Tamen ipfe juftificat, ne ft juftitia tua. • —— Dei juftitiam dat non liter a occidens , fed vivificans Spiritus , Vid. ^Grat.ChriftiCap. 13, 14.

Abundance fuch pafTages in Auguftine fully fhew that he took Judication to iignifie San&ifica-tion,or the Spirits renovation of us *, and thinks it is called the Righteoufnefs of Cod and Chrift, and not ours, becaufe by the Spirit he worketh it in us. And when he faith that bona opera feqauntttr Juftifi-caturn, nonpreceduut Juftificandum (as in fence he often dothj) he meaneth that we are freely fanttified, before we do good. I would cite abundance, but for fwelling the writing, and tiring the Reader. And his followers Profper, and Fulgentius go the fame way, as you may eafily find in their writings.

Johan. Crocius in his copious Treatife of Juftificat ion ,Difp. p. p. 442. (d\th,Auguftinum Juflificati-onis nomine utramque partem compleUU id eft, turn KemiJJionempeccatorum qu£proprie Juftificatio dici-

tur, tumSanftificationem Cum quo nos fentimus

quoad rem ipfam, tantum difjidemus in Uquendi forma.

§9. The Schoolmen being led by theSchoh-fiick wit of Auguftine, fell into the fame phrafe of fpeech and opinions, Lombard making Auguftine

his

Ph )

liis Matter, and the reft making him theirs, till fome began to look more towards the SemipeJagian way.

§ io. And when Church-Tyranny and Ignorance, had obfeured the Chriftian Light, the trus fence of Juftification by the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, was much obfeured with the reft, and a world of humane inventions under the name of Good works, were brought in to take up the peoples minds *, And the merits of man, and of the Virgin Maryfoundcd louder than the merits of Chrift, in too many places : And the people that were ignorant of the true ' Juftification, were tilled with the noife of Pardons, Indulgences, Satisfa&ions, Penances, Pilgrimages, and fuch like.

§ ii. Luther finding the Church in this dangerous and woful ftate, where he lived, did labour to reduce mens minds and truft, from humane fopperies and merits, and indulgences, to Chrift, and to help them to the Knowledg of true Righteoufnefs : Eut according to his temper in the heat of his Spirit, he fometimes let fall fome words whi^ch feem-ed plainly to make Chrifts own perfonal Righteoufnefs in it felf to be every Believers own by Imputation, and our fins to be verily Chrifts own fins in themfelvesby Imputation : Though by many other J words he (heweth that he meant only, that our finsj * were Chrifts in the effetis and rtot in themfelves,and| y£ Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs ours in the effects I and not in it felf. 1

§ 12. But his Book on the Gahtians, and fome other words, gave occasion to the errours of fome then called Antinomies * and afterward Libertines (when fome additions were made to their cirours.) Oithtfc JJIebiur Agricola was die chief: Whom

Luther

*i

( 16 )

\y Luther confuted and reduced, better expounding his own words: But JJlebius ere long turned back to the Contrary extreme of Popery, and with Sido-musand Julius Pflug^ (three Popifh Bifhopsmade for that purpofe) promoted the Emperours Interim to the perfecution of the Protectants.

§ 13. The Proteflant Reformers themfelves fpake variouily of this fubjed. Moft of them rightly afferted that ChrilVs Righteoufnefs was ours -by the way of Meriting our Righteoufnefs, which was therefore faid to be Imputed to us. Some of them follow'd Lutbers hrft words, and faid that yjChriftsfufferings and all his perfbnal Righteoufnefs / was Imputed to us, fo as to be ours in itfelf, and when judged as if we had perfonally done what he did, and were righteous with the fame RighteouC-nefs that he was.

§ 14. Ambfdorftus,G<*llHS, and fome other hot Lutherans were fo jealous of the name of works,that they maintained that good works were not necef 1 fary to Salvation. (Yea as to Salvation fome called them hurtful : ) And Georgius Major a Learned fo-ber Divine was numbered by them among the H<?-retichi tor maintaining that Good works were ne-ceffary to Salvation > as you may fee in the perverfe writings of Chlufsehurgius and many others.

§15. Andr'eas Ofiander (otherwife a Learned Piote(tant) took up'the opinion, that we are Jutii-fied by the very eiTential Righteoufnefs of God himfcif. Eut he had few followers.

§ id* The Papifts fattening upon thofe Divines who held Imputation of Chnlis perfonal Righteoufnefs in it felf in the rigid fence, did hereupon o r eatly infolt againtt the Proteitants, as if it had 0 : been

( n ) ■

teen their common dodfrine,and it greatly ftopt the Reformation: For many feeing that fome made that a Fundamental in our difference,andrfma//tfj-J?<2tf-tti & cadentis Ecclefi^ and fceiilg how eaffly it was difproved, how fully it was againft the Doctrine of all the ancient Church,and what intolerable Confe-quences followed,did judge by that of the reft of our Dodfrine, and were fettledly hardened againft all.

§ 17. The Learned Divines of Germany perceiving this, fell to a frefti review of the Controvertfe* and after a while abundance of very Learned Godly Podors fell to diftinguifh between the A&ive and Paflive Righteoufnefs of Chrift ; and not accurately diftinguifhing of Imputation>becaufe they perceived that Chrift fufFered in our ftead r in a fuller fenfe than he could be faid to be Holy in our ftead, or fulfil the Law in our ftead. Hereupon they principally managed the Controverfie, as about the fort of Righteoufnefs Imputed to us : And a great number of the moft Learned famous Godly t)ivines of the Reformed Churches, maintained that Chrift's Paflive Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, even his whole Humiliation or Suffering, by which the pardon of all fins of Commiifion and Omiflion was procured ifor us*,but that his ASive Righteoufnefs was not Imputed to us, though it profited us \ but was JuftitU Perfona to make Chrift a fit Sacrifice for our tins^ha-ying none of his own^but the Suffering was his Ju~ ftitia Meriti.His Obedience they faid was performed no{lrobono^ non nojlro loco, for our good but not in our ftead > but his Sufferings ,both ttoftro bono & loco^ hoilnfor our good and in our ftead : but neither of them foftriftly in noftra Perfona in our Per (on, ii if we did it by and in Chrift. The Writers that de-C fended

Kfr

( 18)

fended this were Cargius&nd that holy man Olevifit and Vrfine^ and Parws, and Scultetus^ and Pi/c*-*cr, Alftedins, JVendelineJiecbtnan-y and many more. He that will fee fhe fum of their arguings may read it in Wendelinfs Tbeolog. lib. i. cap. 25. and in Partus his Miscellanies after Vrfine's Corpus Tbeolog. After them famero with his Learned followers took it up in France. Leg. Cameron* p. 36^390. ?hef. Sal. vol. 1. Plac£% Difp. de Juft. § 29. & Part. 2deSatisf. § 42. So that at that time (zs Partus tells you) there were four opinions : fome thought Chritt's Paffive Righteoufnefs only was Imputed to us; fome alfo his Attive inftead of our A&ual Obe* dience \ fome alfo his Habitual inftead of our Habitual perfection \ And fome thought alfo his Divine Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, becaufeof our Union with Chrift, God and Man. (Imputed I fay s for I now fpeak not oWfiander's opinion of Inhefion.) And Lubbertus wrote a Conciliatory Tradtate favouring thofe that were for the Paffive part. And Forbes hath written for the Paffive only imputed. Molin£us cafteth away the diftin&ion. 7l)ef. Sedan, v. 1. p. 625. § 18.

§ 18. In England moil Divines ufed the phrafe, I that we were JufHfied by the forgivenefs of fin and the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs, and being accepted as Righteous unto life thereon : But the fenfe of Imputation few pretended accurately to difcufs. Vavenant who dealt moll elaborately in it, and maintained! Imputation fliffly, in terms * yet when he telleth you t what Proteflants mean by it, faith, that [Poffknt nobis imputari> non folum \ ttoftrtpafjiaiies, aliiones^ qualitates,fed etiam extrin* Jica quddam-i qua nee a nobis flunnty nee in nobis ht*

rent ,1

tent : Ve fa&o autem Imputantur, quando illorum 7 % intuitus & refpeUus valent nobis ad aliquem ejfettumj Tf*^^ xque acfi a nobis aut in nobis ejftnt. (Note, that he ) faith, but ad aliquem ejfeftum, non ad omnem.) And he inftanceth in one that is a (lothful fellow bimfelf, but is advanced to the Kings Favour and Nobility for fome great Service done by bis Progenitors to the Com-mofrivealth. And in one that deferving death is par* doned through the Intercept on of a friend, or upon fome J fufferlng in hit jlead which the King impofeth on bis friend* This is the Imputation which Davenant and other fuch Proteftants plead fori which I think is not to be denied. Were it not for lengthening the difcouife and wearying the Reader, I would cite many other of our greateft Divines 5 who plead for the Imputation of Chrift's Righteoufnefs, that Vavenant hereexpoundeth himfelf.

But fome lefs judicious grating upon a harfh and unfound fence, Mr. Anthony Wotton a very Lear- )C ned and Godly Divine of London, wrote a Latine : Treatife de Reconciliation, one of the Learnedft that hath ever been written of that fubjedt,in which he laboureth to difprove the rigid Imputation of Chrifts Holinefs and Obedience to man i and (hew-fcth that he is Righteous to whom all fin of Omif-Con and Commiflion is forgiven * 5 and confuteth tbefe three Aflertions. i. Thac A Sinner is Refuted to have fulfilled the Law in and by Cbrift. 2. And being reputed to have fulfilled the Lawy is taken for formally jufl as a fulfiller of it. 3. And being formally juji as afullfiller of the Law, Life eternal is due to him by that Covenant, that faith, do this and live; Vid. Part. 2. li. 1. Cap. 11. pag. 152. Cumfequen-tibus. Thus and much further Mr, Wotton went to C 2 the

*

( 20 )

the very quick of the Controverfie,and irrefragably overthrew the rigid Imputation.

But Mr. William Brad(haw> a Learned Godly Nonconformifty being grieved at the differences a-bout the A&ive and Paffive Righteoufnefs, and thinking that Mr. Wotton denied all Imputation of the Adtive Righteoufnefs f which he did not, but owneth it to be Impute d as a meritorious Caufe : ) Part. 2. li. i. Cap. 13. pag. 165. Ne illud quidem negaverim, imputari nobti Wins jujlitiam & obedi* entiam> ut ad nojlrum fruttum redundet: Idunum non comedo, Legem nos inChritto & per Chrijiutnfer* vajfe-y ut propter e arn a nobis praflitam vita sterna ex fader e, Hocfac et vives, debeatur. Mr. Bradfbaw I fay attempted a Conciliatory middle way,which indeed is the fame in the main with Mr. Wotton s\ He honoureth the Learned Godly perfons on each fide, but maintaineth that th<^ A&ive and Paflive Righteoufnefs are both Imputedybut not in the rigid fence of Imputation, denying boththefe Propofitions.

1. "That Cbrift by the Merits of his Paffive Obedience only-, hath freed us from the guilt ofallfm, both AVtu-al and Original, of Omijfion and Commijjton.

2. 'That in the Imputation ofChrijis Obedience both Attive andPdjJive, God\ doth fo behold and confider a [inner in Chriji, Ariftbefinnerhimfelfbad done and fyffered thofe very particulars rvbicbChrifi did andfuf-feredfor him.And he wrote a fmall book with great accuratenefs in Englijh firft, and Latin after,opening the nature ofjuftitication,which hath been deservedly applauded ever fince. His bofom-Friend Mr. *fho* GatakerX* man of rareLearning and Humility )next fet in to defend Mr. Bradjbws way, and wrote in La:in Animadverflons on Lucius fwho oppofed

( *i)

Tifcator* and erred on one fide for rigid Imputation) and on Pifcator who on the other fide was for Justification by the Pafllve Righteoufnefs only j and other things he wrote with great Learning and Judgment in that caufe.

About that time the Dodhine of perfonal Imputation in the rigid fence began to be fully improved in England^ by the Sedt of the Antimmhns(trw\ycx called Libertines) of whom Dr. Crifpe was the molt eminent Ring-leader,whofe books took wonderfully With ignorant Profrfiors u nder the prpfpfl yg jf ^v-

tolljng C hrift and free-Grace^ After him rofe Mr. Randal } and Mr. John S7mpfin> and then Mr. 'town-* and at laft in the Armies of the Parliament, Salt'marfcand (o many more,as that it feemed to be likely t<* have carried moft of the Profeffbrs in the Army, and abundance in the City and Country that way ; But that fuddenly (one Novelty being fet up againft Another) the opinions called Armini-anifm rofe up againft it,and gave it a check and car-ryed many in the Army andCity the clean contrary way: And thefe two Parties divided a great part of the raw injudicious fort of the profelfors between them, which ufually are the greateft part: but especially in the Army which was like to become a Law and example to others.

Before this John Goodmn( not yet turned Ami-nian) preached and wrote with great diligence a-bout Juftification againft the rigid fence of Imputation, who being anfwered by Mr. JValker, and Mr. Robouronghy with far inferiour ftrength, his book had the greater fuccefs tor fuch anfwerers.

The Antinomians then fwarming in London^ Mr.

Anthony Burges, a very worthy Divine wasem-

C 3 ployed

( 22 )

ployed to Preach and Print againfi them i which he did in feveral books : but had he been acquainted with the men as I was, he would have found more need to have vindicated, the Gofpel againft them than the Law.

Being daily converfarjt my felf with the Antino-ntian and Arminian Souldiers>and hearing their daily contefts, I thought it pitty that nothing but one extreme (houldbe ufed to beat down that other, and I found the Antimmian party far the ftronger, higher, and morelierce,and working towards greater changes and fubverfions *» And I found that they were juft falling in with Saltmarfa that Cbriji bath repented and believed for us-> and that we muft no more qxejlion our Faith and Repentance> than Cbriji' This awakened me better to ftudy thefe points h And being young, and not furnilhed with fuflicient reading of the Con trover fie, and alfo being where were no libraries, I was put to ftudy only the naked matter in it felf. Whereupon I (hortly wrote a fmall book called Apborifms of Juftification, &c. Which contained that Do&rine in fubftance which I judg found ; but being the firft that I wrote, it had feveral expreflions in it which needed correction * which made me fufpend or retradi it till I had time to reform them.Mens judgments of it were various, fome for it and fome againft it ; I had before been & great efteemer of two books of one mvut.VindicU Gratis, Mr. Pembles and Dr. TwijfeS) above moft other books. And from them I had taken in the o-pinion of a double Juftification, one in foro Dei as an Immanent eternal Adfc of God, and another in foro Confcienti*, the Knowledg of that.* and I knew no other ; But now I faw, that neither of

thofe

.( *3)

thofe was the Juftification which the Scripture fpake of. But fome half-Antinomians which 'were for the Juftification beforeTaith, which I wrote a-gainft, were moft angry with my book. And Mr. Crandon wrote againft it, which I anfwered in an / Apologie, and fullyer wrote my judgment in my Confeflion > and yet more fully, in fome Difputations of Juftification againft Mr. Burges-> who had in a book of Juftification made fome exceptions b and pag. 34.tf.had defended that [As in CbrijFsfujfering we were looked upon by God affujfering in him i fo by Cbrifis obeying of the Law, we were beheld as falfih ling the Law in bim^\ To thofe Difputations I never had any anfwer. And fince then in my Life of Faiths I have opened the Libertine errours about Juftification, and ftated the fence of Imputation,

Divers writers were then employed on thefe fub-jedts : Mr. Eyers for Juftification before Faith(that is, of eledt Infidels) and Mr. Benjamin IVoodbridg^ Mr. Tbo* Warren againft it. Mr. Hotcbkjs wrote a confiderable Book of Forgivenefs of lin>defending the founder way : Mr. George Hopkins, wrote to prove that Juftification and Sandiirication are e-qually carryed on together: Mr. WartonM*- Graile^ Mr. Jejfop, (clearing the fence of Dr. Twijfe,) and 4

many others wrote againft Antinomianijm. But no man more clearly opened the whole dodrine of Juftification^ than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons i^X Minifter at BUcl^Fryers, in a Sermon Printed in the LeSures at St. Giles in the Fields. By fuch endeavours the before-prevailing Aminornianifm was fuddenly and fomewhatmarvelouflyfupprefTed, fo that there was no great noife made by it.

About Imputation that which I afferted was a-

./

/

( 24)

gainft the two fore-defcribed extremes ^ in fhort, /CC That rre are Juflifiedky Chrift's whole Right eouf-' " nefs-, Paflive, Active, and HabituaU yea the Pi-c * vine fo far included as by Union advanci n g the reft " to a va luable futf jeie ncy : That the Pailive,thans, cc Chnlt^swhole Humiliation isfdt'ufaVtory firft, and ^ u fo meritorious,and the A&ive and Habitual meri-" torious primarilv. That as God the Father did ,* c appoint to Chrift as Mediator his Duty for our cc Redemption by a Law or Covenant, fo Chrift's €c whole fulfilling that Law, or performance of his €C Covenant-Conditions as fuch (by Habitual and ' c Actual perfe&ion, and by Suffering) fnade up " one Meritorious Caufe of our Juftirication, not M diftinguifhing with Mr. Gataker of the pure mo-" ral,andthefervilepartofChriii's Obedience,fave cc only as one is more a part of Humiliation than the U * c other, but in point of Merit taking in all: That j " as Chrift fuffered in our Head that we might not I " fuffer, and obeyed in our nature, that perfection | " of Obedience might not be neceffary to our Jy- || " (Ufication, and this in the perfon of a Mediator I 6 ' and Sponfor fcr us finners, but not fo in our Pe r- I

("/W, as that we truely in a moral or civil fence, Y did all this in and by him > Even fo God rep u-*< fprhf he t-Kjn g to he as it is. and fo farTmput?rtr « CHilPsRighteoufnefs andMerits and Satisfaction ct to us, as that it is Reputed by him the true Me-* c ritorious Caufe of our Juftification > and that for tc it God maketh a Covenant of Grace, in which he u freely giveth Chrift, Pardon and Life to all that I €c accept the Gift as it is i fo that the Accepters *'are by this Covenant or Gift as furely juftified ^ and faved by Chrift's RighteouffleinsjfiheiS^

-^""Obeyed

** Obeyed and Satisfied themfelve s. Not that Chrift * c menteth tuat we {hall have Grace to fulfil the " Law our fdves and ftand before God in a Righ-" teoufnefs of our own, which willanfwer the Law c * of works and juftifieus: But that the Conditions of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being tc performed by every penitent Believer, that Cove-"nant doth -pardon all their ftns (as Gods Inftru-" ment) and giveth them a Right to Life eternal* ft'for Chri(is Merits.

This is the fence of Imputation which I and o-thers afferted as the true healing middle way And as bad as they are, among the mod Learned Papitts, Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wotton* Vafquez, by Davenant* Su?rez by Mr. Burges* as fpeaking for fome fuch Imputation, and Merit: Grotius de Satisf. is clear for it. \ s

But the Brethren called Congregational or Inde-pendantin their Meeting at the Savoy* 051*12. 1658. publiftnng a Declaration of their Faith, Cap. 11. have thefe words [Thofewbom Cod effettually callethjoe alfo freely jnftifieth * not by infufing Righteoufnefs into them, but by pardoning their Sins* and by accounting and accepting their perfons as Righteous* not for any thing wrought in them* or done by thefn* but for Chrijis fake alone: not by imputing Faith it felf* the att of believing* or any other evangelical Obedience to them* as their Righteoufnefi '* but by Imputing Chrijis A&ive Obedience to the whole Law* and. Pajjive Obedience in h'n death for their whole andfole Righteoufnefs* they receiving and refting on him and his Righteoufnefs by Faith.']

Upon the publication of this it was varioufly fpokenof; fome thought that it gave the Papijls

fo

( 2* )

Co great a fcandal, and advantage to reproach the Protejiants as denying all inherent Righteoufnefs, that it was neceffary that we (hould difclaim it ; Others faid that it was not their meaning to deny Inherent Righteoufnefs, though their words fo fpake, but only that we are not juftified by it: Many faid that it was not the work of all of that party, but of fome fbvy that had an inclination to fome of the Antinomian principles, out ot a miftaken zeal of free Gracejand that ic is well known that they differ from us, and therefore it cannot be imputed to us, and that it is beft make no ftir about it,left it irritate them to make the matter worfe by aDefence,& give the Papifts too foon notice of it. And I fpake with one Godly Minifter that was of their AfTembly,who told me, that they did not fubfcribe it,and that they /meant but jojeny Juftifi catioiiJsjU^ Ri gh-

/ teoufnefs/ And though fuch men inthe Articles t)t their declared Faith,no doubt can fpeak intelligibly and aptly, and are to be underftood as they fpeak according to the common ufe of the words > yet even able-men fometimes may be in this excepted, when eager engagement in an opinion and parties, carryeth them too precipitantly, and ma-keth them forget fomething, that fhould be remem-bred. The Sentences here which we excepted a-gainft are thefe two. But the firft was not much offenfive becaufe their meaning was right > And the fame words are in the AJfembliesConftflionitbottgh they might better have been left out.

Scrip-

t*1 )

Scriptures. Declaration*

Rom. 4.3. What faith the [ iNotby impu. Scripture? Abraham believed «pg Faith it felf, part „ / j . t t ot Relieving, or any

Lrod, and it was counted to him ot fj er Evangelical O-for Righteoufnefs. bedience to them as

Ver. 5. To him that workfth thdr Righteoufnefs] not, but believeth on him that Jujlifyeth theVngodly, his Faith is counted for Righteoufnefs,

Ver. p. For we fay that Faith was reckoned to A-braham for Righteoufnefs : How was it then reck^ oned?

Ver* 11. And he received thefign of Circumcifton«a feal of the righteoufnefs of the Faiths which he had yet being uncircumcifed, that he mifht be the Father of all them that believe, that Righteoufnefs might be imputed to themalfo. -Ver 13. Through the Righteoufnefs of Faith. —— Ver. \6. therefore it is of Faith

that it might be by Grace. vid. Ver. 17, 18,

19 y 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. He was ftrongin Faithfully perfaaded that what he had promifed, he was able alfo to perform s and therefore it was Imputed to him for Righteoufnefs. Now it was not written for his fake a-lone that it was imputed to him^butfor us alfojo whom it Jhall be imputed, if we for, who) believe on him that raifed up Jefus our Lord from the dead.

Gen. 15. 5,6. Tell the Stars - f jhall thy feed

be : And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteoufnefs, Jam. 2. 21, 22, 23, 24. Was

not Abraham our Father juftified, by Works ? .

And the Scripture was fulfilled which faith, Abraham believed God> and it was imputed to him for Righteoufnefs. Luk*

(it*)

Luk. 19. 17. Well done thou good Servant^ Be-caufe thou haft been Faithful in a very littleJtave thon authority over ten Cities.

Mat. 25. 34,35, 40, Come ye hlejfed. ■ . Fori

was hungry and ye gave me Meat.

Gen. 22. id, 17, B)"»y felf I have faorn. i

Becaufe thou haft done this thing. .

Joh. 16. 27. Far ffc* Ftffkr himfelf loveth you, becaufe you have loved me and have believed that I came out from God. Many fuch paffages are in Scripture.

Our opinion is, 1. That it is better to juftifie and expound the Scripture, than flatly to deny it : If Scripture fo oft fay, that Faith is reclamed or Imputed fox Kighteoufnefsy it becometh not Chriftians,to fay, It U not : But to (hew in what fence it is, and in what it is not. For if it be fo Imputed in no fence, the Scripture is made falfe : If in any fence,it - fhould not be univerfally denied but with di-r iiin&ion.

2. We hold, that in Juftification there is confi-derable, 1. The Purchating and Meritorious Caufe of Juftification freely given in the new Covenant. This is only Chrift's Sufferings and Righteoufnefs, and fo it is Reputed of God, and Imputed to us. 2. The Order of Donation^ which is, On Condi-on of Acceptance > And fo 3. The Condition of our "title to the free Gift by this Covenant > And that is. Our Faith, or Acceptance of the Gift according to its nature and ufe. And thus God Re-puteth Faith, and Imputeth it to us,requiring but this Condition of us (which alfo he workethin us) by the Covenant of Grace 5 whereas perfed Obedience

dience was required ofus-* by the Law of Innocency. If we err in this explication, it had been better to confute us than deny God's Word.

Scriptures befides the former. 'Declaration.

i Joh. 2. 2p. Every one C * For their fole which doth Righteoufnefs is born Wteoufnefs.]

of God. .& 3.7, 10. He that doth Righteoufnefs

is Righteous-) even as he is Righteous* Whofoever

doth not righteoufnefs is not of God.

2 Tim. 4. 8. He hath laid up for us a Crown of Right eoufnefs.

Heb. ii. 23. 'through Faith they wrought Right e-eufnefs. Heb. 12. The peaceable fruit of Righteoufnefs. > Jam. 3. 18. 'the fruit of Right eoufnefs

is J own in Peace. 1 Pet. 2.24 That we being

dead tofn y jhould live unto righteoufnefs , Mat 5. 20. Except your Righteoufnefs exceed the Righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Pharifees^&c*— —Luk» i.yi. In Ho-linefs and Righteoufnefs before him all the days of our

Life. Ad. 10. 35. He that feareth God, and

worketh Righteoufnefs is accepted of him, • . Rem.

6.13,16,18,19,20. Whether of fin unto deaths or

of Obedience unto Righteoufnefs. . 1 Cor. 15.34.

Awake to Righteoufnefs and fin not. . Eph. 5.9.

the fruit of the Spirit is in all Goodnefs^ and Righte-oufnefs. ■— Dan. 12.3, They fhall turn many to

Righteoufnefs. \ Dan. 4. 27. BreaJ^ojf thy fins by

Righteoufnefs. ■ . Eph. 4. 24; The new-man which

after God is created in Righteoufnefs. . Gen> 7.1.

Thee have lfeen Righteous before me. Gen. 18.

23, 24, 25, 26. Far be it from thee, todeftroythe

Righteous with theWicked. . Prov. 24, 24. Hi?

that

( So )

that faith to the Wicked thou art Righteous, him {hall

the people Curfe y Nations jhall abhor him. ■ Ifa.

3. 10. Say to the Righteous,it Jhall be well with him, Ifa. 5. 23. 'that take away the Righteoufnefs from the

Righteous. Mat. 25. 37, 46. Then fl:all the

Righteous anfwer. The Righteous into life eternal* 1 Luk. i.6* They were both Righteous before

God. Heb. 11. 4,7. By Faith Abel offered to

God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witnefs that he was righteous ^God tejlifying of his Gifts. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things notfeen as yet,moved with fear ■, prepared an

Ar\, by which he became heir of the Rigbteouf*

nefs by Faith, 1 Pet. 4. 18. If the Righteous befcarce*

ly faved. Math. 10. 41. He that receiveth a

Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man, Jhall

have a Righteous mans reward. . 1 Tim. 1. $•

The Law is not made for a Righteous manj?ut for .

Many (core of texts more mention a Righteoufnefs diftindl from that of Chrift imputed to us.

Judg now,Whether he that believeth God fhould believe that he Imputeth Chrifts Obedience and Suffering to us, [for our Sole Righteoufnefs,]

That which is not out fole Righteoufnefs, is not fo Reputed by God nor Imputed: But Chrifts Obedience and Suffering is not our fole Righteoufnejs.

See T>avenant°s many arguments to prove that

we have an Inherent Righteoufnefs.

Obj. But, they mean, [our Sole Righteoufnefs by which we are Ju\Yified.~\

Arfw. 1. We can tell no mans meaning but by his words>efpecialIy not contrary to them,efpecially in an accurate Declaration of Faith. 2. Suppofe it had been fofaid, we maintain on the contrary, 1.

That

( 3* )

That we are Juftified by more forts of Righteoufnefs than one, in feveral refpe&s. We are juftifi-ed only by Cbrifis Righteoufnefs as the PurchaCng and Meritorious Caufe of our Juftification freely given by that new Covenant. We are Juftified by the Righteoufnefs of God the Father, as performing his Covenant with Graft and us, (efficiently). We are juftified efficiently by the Righteoufnefs of Chrift as our Judg, pafimga juft fentence according to his Covenant: Thefe laft are neither Ours nor Imputed to us; But we are juftified alfo againft the Accufation, of being finally Impenitent Unbelievers or unholy,by the perfonal particular Righteoufnefs of our own Repentance, Faith and Holinefs.

For 2. We fay, that there is an univerfal Juftification or Righteoufnefs, and there is a particular one. And this particular one may be the Condition and Evidence of our Title to all the reft. And this is our cafe. The Day of Judgment is not to try and Judg Cbrifis or bis Merits^ but us : He will judg us himfelf by his new Law or Covenant, the fum of which is, [Except ye Repent^ ye Jhall all perifhi and. He that believeth^ jhall be faved: and be that believeth not, Jhall be condemned. If we be not accufed of Impenitence or Unbeliefs but only of not-fulfilling the Law oflnnocency^ that will fup-pofe that we are to be tryed only by that Law-> which is not true : And then we nfer the Accufer only to CbriJFs Righteoufnefs^ and to the Pardoning Law of Crace^ and to nothing in our felves to aniwcr that charge \ And fo it would be Chrift: } jpart only that would be judged. But Mattb. 25. and all the Scripture aflureth us of the contrary, that it's Our part that it is to be tryed and judged, and that we

(hall

(3* )

(hall be all judged according to what we hare done. And no man is in danger there of any other accu-fation, but that he did not truly Repent and Believe^ and live a holy life to Cbrijl : And (hall the Penitent 'Believer fay, I did never Repent and Believe,but Chriji did it for me\znd fo ufe tmLyef,one of Chriit, and another of himfelf, that he may be juftified ? Or (hall the Vnboly y Impenitent Infidel fay, It's true I was never a Penitent Believer, or holy, but Chrift was tor me, or Chrifts Righteoufnefs is my fole Righteoufnefs ? that is a tafhood *, For Chrifts Righteoufnefs is none of his: So that there is a particular perfonal Righteoufnejs, confiftingin Faith and Repentance, which by way of Condition and E-vidence of our title to Chrift and.his Gift of Pardon and Life, is of abfolute neceflity in our Ju-fiification. Therefore Imputed Righteoufnefs is not the fole Righteoufnefs which muft juftifie us.

I cited abundance oi plain Texts to this purpofe in my Confeffion, pag. 57. &c Of which book I add, that when it was in the prefs,I procured thofe three perfons whom I moft highly valued for judgment, Mr. Gataker, (whofelaft work it was in this World) Ml Vines, and laftly Arch-BiOiop VJher to read it over, except the Epiftles (Mr. Gataker read only to pag. 163.) and no one of them advifed me to alter one word, nor fignified their diflfent to any word of it. But I have been long on this: to proceed in the Hiflory.

The fame year that I wrote that book,that moft judicious excellent man JoJhuaPlactus ofSaumours in France, wasexercifed in a Controverfie conjunct with this \ How far Adams fin is imputed to us. And tofpeak truth,at firtt in the "thefts Salmurienf

Vol.

Vol u he feemed plainly to difpute againft the Imputation of Adam '/a&ual fin,and his arguments I elfewhere anfwer.) And Andr Rivet wrote a Colle-&ion of the Judgment of all forts of Divines for the: contrary. But after he vindicated himfelf>& ftiewed that his Dodfrine was, that Adams fatt is'iiot immediately imputed to each of us, as if our perfons as perfons had been allfuhy reprefented in Adam's perfon (by an VrBltrary Law or Will of God) or reputed fo to be: But that our Perfons being Virtue ally or Seminally in him* we derive from him firft out Perfons. and in them a corrupt^ patnre, and

naf nature corrupted *"H ^h\f^f>Crrie>A bv the /

Sp irit ot" God, becaufe it is derived from fifam that. I fdlmned : And fo that ^^^x faft is imputed to us \i mediately, mediante natura & Corrupionejout not / primarily and immediately.

Tllis dodlrine of the Good and Judicious man was thought too new to efcapefharp cenfures* fo that a rumour was fpread abroad (hat he.dgnied all £ ImpiffzFtiBfi tfAdafns fadt,and placed original guilt onlyTri the Guilt of Coruption,for which indeed he gave occafftMU A Synod being called atCbarentonjhis opinion without naming anyAuthor was condttn-nedi& allMinifters required to fubferibe \v.Amyral-dus being of Placeus mind, in a fpeech of two hours vindicated his opinion. Placeus knowing that the Decree did not touch him, took no notice of it. But Geriffoliusoi Montauban wrote againft him,pretend-inghim condemned by the Decree, which Vrelin-court one that drew it up, denied,profeffing himfelf of Placeus his judgment. And Rivet alfo, Marefi-m> Carol. Daubuz and others, mifunderftanding him wrote againft him.

D for

>fi

(34;

For my part I confefs that I am not fatisfied in his diftin&ion of Mediate and Immediate Imputation : I fee not, but our Perfonr as derived from A-\ I dam*) being fuppofed to be in Being,we are at once J

Reputed to be fuch as Virtually finned in him, and I fuch as are deprived of God's Image. And if either \,muftbeput firft, me-thinksit (hould rather be the former, we beingtherefore deprived o f God's Im-'mage f not^y Uo cU but by Ad am) becaufe he finned it away fromTTImfelf.ItTatisfieth me much more, to difiinguifh of our Being and fo finning in 'AdamPerfonqlly and' Seminally-> or^ Virtually^y9t were not Perfoni.in Adam when he finned j^here-1 fore we did not fo fin in Him : And it Is a fidtion ] 7 added to God's Word,to fay that God (becaufe he I would do it) reputed us to be what we were not* But we were Semin a lly in Adam as in Cattfa nat u* r#/i,wKo w as to produce us out ot his very effenc e : And therefor e that Kind or being wnich we h ad in hi ffu couidjyt be inn ocent wnen he waTguilty : An T3 , hLCL"wT T iad uUi Nairn*} dlld Perjons tr om KrniTwe are iuPtTy reputed to be as we are, the oflfc Tpr ingofone that adtuallv tinned : And lo when oufExijtence and Personality maketh us capable Subje&s, we are guilty Perfons of his fin •, though not with fo plenary afert of Guilt as he*

And I fear not to fay, that as I lay the ground of this Imputation in Nature it felf, fo I doubt not but I have elfewhere proved that there is more participation of all Children in the guilt of their parents fins by nature, than is fufficiently acknowledged or lamented by inoft, though Scripture a-bound with the proof of it: And that the overlooking it, and laying all upon God's arbitrary Covenant

venant and Imputation, is the great temptation to Pelagians to deny Original fin ; And that our mi-fery no more increafeth by it, is, becaufe we are now under a Covenant that doth not Co charge all culpability on mankind, as the Law of Innocency did alone. And there is fomething of Pardon in the Cafe. And the Englijb Litany, (after Ezra, Daniel and others) well praycth, Remember^iot, Lord, our offences, nor the offences of our Forefathers, &c. {

This fame Placeus in Thef Salmurienf Vol. r. hath opened the dodhine of Juftification fo fully, y that I think that one Difputation might fpare fome f the reading of many contentious Volumes.

The rigid affertors of Imputation proved fuch a flumbling-block to many, that they run into the o-ther extreme, and not only denyed it,but vehemently loaded it with the Charges of over-throwing all Godlinefs and Obedience. Of thefe Parker (as is faid)with fome others wrote againft it in an anfwer to the AfTemblies Confeflion : Dr. Gell often re-proachetb it in a large Book in Folio. And laftly and moft (harply and confidently Herbert Tbomdike> (to mention no more.)

The Hiftory of this Controverfie of Imputation, I conclude, though diforderly, with thefenfeof all the Chriflian Churches, in the Creeds and Harmony of Confeflions,becaufe they were too long to be fitly inferted by the way.

t> 2 1ht

The Confent o/Chriftians, and facially Pro-teflants^ about the Imputation of Chrijis Righteoufnefs in purification ^ How far and in what fence it is Imputed.

I? OEeing Baptifm isourvifible initiation into •^ Chriftianity,we mufi; there begin * and fee what of this is there contained. Mat. 28. 19. Baptizing them into the name of the FatberrfheSon, and the Holy Ghoji, Mar. itf. \6- He that believeth,and u baptized-Jhallbefaved, Ad 2.38. Repent, andbe Baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chriji for the RemiJJjon of fins, andyejhall receive the gift of the Holy (jboji. See Ads 8. 3<5> 37^ 38. The Eunuch's Faith and Baptifm. Ad. 22. id. Arife,and be baptized, and wafh away thy fins, having called on the name of the Lord. Rom. 6. 3. So many as were baptized into Jtfus Chriji, were baptized into his death* Gal. 3.27. As many as have been baptized in- 1 to Chriji, have put on Chriji. 1. Pet. 3.21. the like tvhereuntOy Baptifm doth alfo nowfave us, {not the putting away the filth oftheflefh,but the anfwer of a good Conscience towards God) by the Rejurrettion of Jefus Chriji. Rom. 4- 24, 25. But for us alfo to whom it {hall be imputed,ifwe believe on htm that rai-fed up Jefus our Lord from the dead: who was delivered for our offences, and was raifed again for our Jufiification. f'Quaer. How far ChrijYs Refurredion is imputed to us7\

If. The Creed, called by the Apoftles, hath but £ J believe the forgivenefi of'fins.1

III. The Nicene and Conftantinopolitane Creed, I

I

lackfiowledg one Baptijm for the Remiffionoffinsi (Chrift's Death, Burial, and Refurre&ion pre* mifed.)

IV. AthanaGus's Creed [Who fuffered for our Salvation^defcended into Hell^rofe again the third day. -—. At whofe coming all men Jhall rife again n>itb their bodies, and (hall give account for their own works *, and they that have done good, jhall go Into e-verla(Ung life, and they that have done evil into ever-lafting Fire*'] (Jlemiffion is contained in Salvation*)

V. The Fathers fence I know not where the Reader can fo eafily and furely gather,without reading them all, as in Laurentm his Colle&ion de Jufiif after the Corpus Cmfeffionum , and that, to the beft advantage of the ProtdUnt Caufe. They that will fee their fence of fo much as they accounted neceflary to Salvation, may beft find it in their TreatHes of Baptifm, and Catechiiings of the Catechumens ', Though they fay lefs about ourCon-troverfie than I could wi(h they had. I will have no other Religion than they had. The Creed of Va-mafus in Hieron* op. Tom* 2. hath but (In hvs Death

and Blood we believe that we are cleanfed ■ and

have hope that we jhall obtain the reward of good merits (meaning our own) *, which the Helvetians own in the end of their Confeffion.

VI. The Auguftane Confeffion, Art.3, 4. Chriji

died . t\\at he might reconcile the Father to us, and

be a facrifice, not only for original [m, but alfo for all the actual fins of men. - And that we may obtain theje benefits of Chriji, that is, Kemijfion of fins, •jujiification and life eternaU Chriji gave us the Gofpel in which thefe benefits are propounded. To preach

D 3 Rej>en-

Repentance in his Name, and Kemiffton of fins among all Nations. For when men propagated in the natural manner have fin, and cannot truly fatisfie Gods Law y the Gofpel reproveth fin, and (heweth us Chriji the Me-

diator,andfj teacheth us alow Pardon of fins -That

freely for Cbnfi'sfakgare given usJLemijfion of fins,& Jujiification by Faith, by which we mujl confefs that thefe are given us for Chriji, who was made a Sacrifice for us, and appeafed the Father, though the Gofpel require Penitence \ yet that pardon of fin may be fare, it teacheth us that it is freely given us\ that Hi that it depended not on the Condition of our worthy-nefs, nor is given for any precedent works, or worthy-

nefs of following worlds. . For Confcience in true

fearsfindeth no wor\which it can oppofe to the Wrath ofGod j and Chriji is propofed and given us, to be a propitiator.Ibis honour of Chriji muji not be transferred to our works. Therefore Paul faith, ye are faved freely •> ( 0T °f Grace*) And it is of grace, that the pro-mife might bejure\th«t is, Pardon will be fure j when we know that it dependeth not on the Condition of our

wortbinefs, but is given for Chriji. In the Creed

this Article\lbelieve the Forgivenefs offins^is addea to the hijlory : And the refi of the hifiory of Chriji muji be referred to this Article: For this benefit is the end ofthehijiory, Chriji therefore fuffered and rofe again, that for him might be given us Remijfion of fins, ah life everlajiing,

Art. 6. When we are Reconciled by faith, there mufi needs follow the Kighteoufnefs of good works. —-^ut becaufe the infirmity of mans nature is fogreat^ that no man can fatisfie the Law, it is necejfary tot teach men, not only that they muji obey the Law,buti alfo how this Obedience pleajeth, le$ Confciencesfalli

into

( 39) into defperation> when they underfiand that thy fa-tUfie not the Law. 'this Obedience then pleajeth, not becaufe itfatisfieth the Law, hut becaufe the perfon U in Chrifi, reconciled by Faiths and believeth that the relitts of hvs Sin are pardoned* We tnuji ever hold that we obtain remijjign of fins -> and the perfon is pronounced Righteous J bat isfis accepted freely for Chrtji^ by Faith: And afterward that Obedience to the Law pleafeth^and U reputed a certain Pdghteoufnefs r and me-riteth rewards.~] Thus the firfi Proteilants. * VII. The nth Article of the Church of England (to which we all offer to fubferibe) is [_Ofthe Ju-ftification rf Man. We are accounted 'Righteous be-fure God-y only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chriji by Faith h and not for our own works or defrvings . Wherefore that we are jujiified by Faith only .is a moji wholfome dofirine, and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expreffed in the Homily ofju-\\if cation f\

The faid Homilies (of Salvation and Faith) fxy over and over the fame thing, As pag. 14. [three things go together in our Juftification : On Gods part bit great Mercy and Grace** on Chrijis part ,Jufice,that is,the Satisfaction of Gods Jufiice, or the Price of our Redemption, by the offering of lis body^ and /bedding of \m blood, with fulfilling of the Law perftdly and throughly i, And on our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Jefus Chrift: whichyet is not ours> but by Gods working in us.

And pag. [A lively Faith is not only the common ■belief of the Articles of our Faith* but alfo a true truji a>id confidence of the me^cy of God through our Lord Jtfus Chriji.and afieadfaji ho,pe of all good things to be Received at Gods hand > and that although we through

E> 4 infirmity

( 4<0

ptfirmity or temptation . do fall from him by fin,

yet if we return again to him by true repentance, that fee will forgive and forget our offences, for his Sonsfa\e pur Saviour Jefus Cbriji^ and will make m inheritors

ypitb him of his everlajiing Kingdom Pag. 23.

for the very fure and lively £briftian Faith,is,to have an earnest trujl and confidence in God, that he doth regard us, and is careful over us, as the Father is over the Child whom he doth love\ and that he will be merciful unto us for his only Sons fake h and that we have pur Saviour Cbriji our perpetual Advocate and Prince, in whofe only merits, oblation and fuffering, we do truji that our offences be continually wajhed andpurg-fd, whenfoever we repenting truely da return to him with eur whole heart, jieadfajlly determining with our [elves, through bis grace to obey andjerve him, in k£ e p m jug his Commandments, &c] ^o alfo the Apology. This is our do&rine of Imputation.

VIIL The Saxon Confcflion oft infiftethon the free Pardon of fin, not merited by us* but by Cbriji. And expoundeth Jujiification to be [Ofunjufljbat is->Guilty anddifobedient, and not having Chrift : .to f?e made Juji, that is, "To be Abfolvedfrom Guilt for ibe Son of God, and an apprehender by Faith of Cbriji pimfelf, who is our Kighteoujnefs > (as Jeremiah and 1 Paul fay) becaufeby his Merit wehaveforgivenefs y and God imputeth righteoufntfs to us,and for him, re-puteth us juji, and by giving us his Spirit quickgnetb I

and regenerated us. By being Jujiified by Faith

4loye we mean, that freely for our Mediator alone, not \ for our Contrition, or other Merits, the pardon of fin and reconciliation is given us. — And before, It is pertain, vphen the mind is raifed by this Faith,that the tardon of fin-* He conciliation and Imputation afRighte-

oufnefA

mfnefs, are given for the Merit of Chrifl himfelf • *

And after [By faith vs meant Affiance, refting in the Sen of God the Propitiator, for whom we are received and pieafe (God) and not for our virtues and fulfilling of the Law.

IX. The Wittenberge Confefiion, (In Corp. Conf. pag. \o<\)A man is made Accepted ofGod,and Reputed jujl before him, for the Son of God our Lord Jefus Chriji alone, by Faith, And at the Judgment of God we muji not truji to the M>rit of any of the Virtues which we have, but to the fie Merit of our Lord Jefus Chri(i,which is made ours by Faith- And be-caufe at the bar of God, where the cafe of true eternal Rigbteoufoefs and Salvation will be pleaded, there is no place for mans Merits but only for God's Mercy,and the Merits of our Lord J ejus Chriji, whom we receive by Faith: therefore we thinkjour AnceflorsJ"aid rightly ', that we arejuftified before God by Faith only*

X. The Bohemian Confeffion, making Juftifica-tion the principal Article, goeth the fame way. [Pag. 183,184. By Chriji men are Jufiijied, obtain Salvation andRemiffion offtnjreely by Faith in Chriji^ through mercy, without any JForh^ and Merit of man. And his death and blood alone is fufficient, to abolijb & expiate all the fins of all men. All muji come toCbrift for pardon and Remiffion of Sin, Salvation and every thing. All our tru\i and hope is to befajiened on him alone.through him only and his merits God is appeaf'd and propitious? Loveth us, and giveth us Life eternal.

XI. The Palatinate Confertion ,ib. pag. i^p^Ibelieve that God the Father for the mofi full Satisfaction of Chriji, doth never remember any of my fins, and that pravity which Imufijirive againji while llive,but contrarily will rather of grace give me the rigbteouf-

nefs

( 42 ) nefs of Chriji, fo that I have no need to fear the )udg- I

mentof God. And pag. 155. If be merited? and

obtained Remijfion of all our fins, by the only and bitter paffion, and death of the Crofs,Jo be it we embra* cing it by true Faith, as the fatisfaUion for our fins, apply it to our feIves. > ] I find no more of this.

XII. The Polonian Churches of Lutherans and Bohemians agreed in the Auguftane and Bohemian Confclaon before recited.

XIII. The Helvetian Confeffion, [fo Jujhfis fignifieth to the Apo\lle in the difpute of Jujlification, ?o Remit fins > to Abfolve from the fault andpunijh-

ment,to Receive into favour,and to Pronounce jujl. ,

For Chriji tool^tn himfelf,and took^away the fins of the World, andfatisfiei Gods Jujlice. God therefore for the fake of Chriji alone, fuffering and raifed again, is propitious to our fus* and imputeth them not to us^but imputeththe righteoufnefs of Chriji for ours i fo that novo we are not only oleanfed and purged from fins, or Holy, but alfo endowed with the Righteoufnefs of Chriji, and fo abfolved from fins, Death and Condemnation, and are righteous and heirs of life eternal. Speaking properly, God only jujlifieth us, and jujlifieth only fr Chriji, not imputing to us fins, but imputing to us his Righteoufnefs.} This Confeffion fpeaketh in terms neereft the oppofed opinion: But indeed faith no more than we all fay* Chriils Righteoufnefs being given and imputed to us as the Me-ritorious Caufe of our pardon and right to life.

XIV. The Bafil Confeffion, Art.*. \jTeconfefs Remijfion of fins by Faith in Jefas Chriji crucified. And though this Faith wor\continually by hove, yet Righteoufnefs and Satisfaction for out Sins, we do wt attribute to worij, which are fruits of Faith > but w-

ft

ly to true affiance & faith in the bloodJhed of the Lamh ofGod.We ingenuoufly profefs,that in Chrifi^who is our Right eoufiefs, Holinefs, Redemption, Way, Truth y Wifdom, Life, all things are freely given us* the tporkj therefore of the faithful are done, not that they may fatisfie for their fins, but only that by them, they may declare that they are thankful to God for fo great benefits given us in CJorijh

XV # The Argentine Confeflion of the four Ci-ties,Cap. 3. ib. pag.iyp. hath but this hereof :Whm heretofore they delivered, that a mans own proper Worhj are required to his Justification, we teach that this is to be acknowledged wholly received of God's benevolence and Chri[Vs Merit, and perceived only by Faith.C.^*We arefure that no man can be made Righteous or favedy unlefs he love God above all, and moil ftudioujly imitate him. We can no otherwife be Jufti-fied, that is, become both Righteous and Saved (for our Rigbteoufnefs is our very Salvation) than if we being firfi indued with Faith, by which believing the Gofpel, and perfwaded that God hath adopted us as Sons, and will for ever give us his fatherly benevolence, we wholly depend on his becl^ for will,^)

XVI. The Synod of Dort, mentioneth only Chrifts death for the pardon of fin and Juftification. TheBelgick ConfefTion) §22. having mentioned Chrift and his merits made ours, § 23. addeth, [We believe that our blejfednefs confijieth in Remif-fton of our fins for Jefns Chrift j and that our Rigbteoufnefs before God is therein contained,as David and Paul teach S We are jujiified freely, or by Grace, throng the Redemption that is in Chrift Jefus. We hold'this[Foundationfirmy and give all the Glory to God—prefuming nothing ofourfelvts>and our merits,

but

( 44 )

but we reft on the fole Obedience of a Crucified Gbrifi h which is ours when we believe in bim.~] Here you fee in what fence they hold that Chrifts merits are ours y Not to juftifie us by the Law, that faith, (Obey perfeSly a»d Live) but as the merit of our pardon* which they here take for their whole Righ-teoufnefs.

XVII. The Scottifli ConfefTion,Corp. Conf. pag. 125. hath but (jhat true Believers receive in tbti life Remiffion of Sins* and that by Faith alone in Chrifis blood : So that though fin remain yet it is not Imputed to us* but is remitted* and covered by Chrijit Rigbteoufnefs.] This is plain arid paft all queftion.

XVIII. The French Confeffion is more plain, § 18. ib. pag. 81. \We believe that our whole Rigbteoufnefs lyeth in the pardon of our fins * which is alfo as David witnejfeth our only bleffednefs. Therefore all 0-therreafons by which men ibinkjo be jujiified before God* we plainly rejett h and all opinion of Merit being cajl away\we reft only in the Obedience of Chriji^which is Imputed to us* both that all our fins may be covered* and that we may get Grace before God.'] So that Imputation of Obedience, they think is but (oxpardon of fin* and acceptance.

Concerning ProteftaMs Judgment of Imputation, it is further to be noted * 1. That they are not agreed whether Imputation of Chrift's perfedtHoli-nefs and Obedience, be before or after the Imputation of his Paifion in order of nature. Some think that our fins are firft in order of nature done away by the Imputation of his fufferings, that we may be free from punifhment > and next, that his perfection is Imputed to us, to merit the Reward of life eternal: But the moft learned Confuters of the Pa-

pirts

( 45 )

pifts hold,that Imputation of Chrifts Obedience and Suffering together, are in order of nature before our Renriffion of fin and Acceptance, as the meritorious caufe: And thefe can mean it in no other fence than that which I maintain. So doth Vavenant de Juft.hab. et a&.& Pet.MolinseusThef.Sedan.Vol.i. • pag. 625. Imputatio juftitit Cbrifti propter quam P eCm W\V^ki cataremittuntur, & cenfemur julii coram Deo. Mare-iiusThef. Sedan. Vol. 2. pag.770, 771'. § 6 & 10. maheth the material caufe of our Jufiification to be the Merits and Satisfaction of Chrifts yea the Merit of his Satisfaction, andfo maheth the formal Caufe of purification to be the Imputation ofChrifis Righteouf-nefs, or which is tbefame, the folemn Remijjion of all fms^and our free Acceptance with God. Note that he maketh Imputation to be the fame thing with Rentffion and Acceptance > which is more than the former faid.

2. Note, that when they fay that Imputation is the Form of Jufiification, they mean not of Jufiification Paffively as it is ours, but A&ively as it is Gods Juftifying atttfo Marefius ibidem. And many deny it to be the form: And many think that faying improper.

3. Note, *haf jfi^ nrfljjiarily a greed by Pr ote-flants, that Chrifis Kiflhteoulnef$ is 'imputedTgui in the famel ence as our fins are faid to be impute d to fi lml (even before they are committed many AgeTTTwhich cleareth fully the whole Controverfie to thofe that are but willing to underfiand, and blafpheme not Chrift *, fo Marefius ubifupraiQuem-admodum propter deliquia noftra ei imputata pnnittts fuit Chrijius in terris \ it a & propter ejus Jujlitiam nobis imputatam coronamur in, C&lti. And Job.

Cr veins

( 4<5 ) Crocius Vifput. 10. p. 502. And Vajfeur in bis folid Difp. ibef* Sedan, Vol. 2. pag. 1053, io 54- While he mentioneth only Satisfaction for our Juftificati-on, yet § 27. faith that Satisfaction is imputed to us, and placeth Chriils Imputed Righteoufnefs in his / Obedience to the death j and faith that this j at is-I >l^£jjtfy in g Obedience^ in fuffering, is our Imputed Righ-j §T^\ teoufnefs. Ea igitur Obedientia Chrijii quj Patri parttit ufque ad mortem cruris, qua coram Patre com-paruit ut volantatem ejus perftceret, qua a Patre mif~ fits, ut nos fui fanguinis ejfufione redimeret, juftitie ejus propeccatis noftris abunde fatisfecit \ ea inquam obedientia ex gratiaPatris imputata & donata,illa]u-fiitia eft qua lujiificamur. And they ordinarily u(e the fimilitude of the Redemption of a Captive, and Imputing the Price to him. Headdeth (Hence we may gather that as Cbrift was made fin, fowe afe made the Righteoufnefs of God, that is by Imputation^ which is true.

The plain truth in all this is within the reach of

every found Qui(tian,and felf-conceited wranglers

make difficulties where there are none. Yea,how

far the Papifts themfclves grant the Proteftant do-

drine of Imputation, let the following words of

*X Vafftur on 'PeMarjnine b^')udg. [Be 11 arm. air* Si

folum vellefttjtfneuti nob'}* imputar \^I erita Chrijii,

quia nobis dmatafunt,&pj)ffurnmejT)eo Patri offerre

pro peccatis mftrisi quoniam Chriftus fufcepit fuper fe

onus fatisfaciendi pro nob'vi,nofque Deo Patri reconcile

andi, recta ejfet eorum Sententia : I doubt fbme

will fay, it is falfe, becaufe Bellarmine granteth it *

but Vajfeur zddtth \H*c tile : fed an nofira longe

abeji ab ilia, quam in nobit requireret fententia.~\

And I with the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace

to

to read the words of Pighius^ Caffander, Bellas mine-> &c. faying as the Proteftants, cited by Job. Crocius de Juftificat. Vifpnu 9 . tag. 458. &c. And of Morton Apolog. efpecially "thoWaldenfis.

Nazianzerfs fentence prefixed by the great Bafil-Do&ors to their Confeffiqpi, I do affectionately re- « cite, [ Sacred Theologie and Religion is afimple and naked thing h confijling of Divine Tejiimonies, without any great artifice : which yet fome do naughtily turn y* into a moft difficult Art.

The Hiftory of the Socinians oppofing Chrifts Satisfattion and Merits I overpafs, as being handled by multitudes of Writers.

If any impartial man would not be troubled with needlefs tedious writings, and yet would fee the Truth clearly,about Juftification and Imputation,in a very little room, let him read, 1. Mr. Bradfhan> y 2. Mr. Gibbon's Sermon in the Exercifes at Giles'sm the Fields. 3. Mr. Irumaris great Propitiation. 4. Jofirna Placeusj his Vifput. de Jufiif. in Tbef. Salmur. Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blanks late Thefesh Which will fatisfie thofe that have any juft capacity for fatisfa&ion.And if he add Wotton de Recon- f ciliatione^ and Grotius de Satisfaciione, he need not ^ lofe his labour : no nor by reading John Goodwin of Juftification,though every word be not approve-able. And Dr.Stillingfleefs Sermons of Satisfaction, «y coming laft, will alio conduce much to his juft in- f^ formation.

So mujh of the Hiftorical part.

CHAP.

(48)

CHAP. II*

Of the true ftating of the Controverfie, and the explication of ftie feveral points contained or meerly implyed in it*

I take explication to be here more useful than argumentation : And therefore I{ball yet fullier open to you the (late of our differences, and my own judgment in the point, with the reafons of it^ infach necejfary Diminutions, and brief Proportions, as (hall carry their oven convincing light with them. If any think I diflinguifi too much^ let him prove any to be needlefs or unjuft, and then reject it and [pare not. If any think Idifiinguifh not accurately enough, let him add what is wanting^ and but Jnppofe that I have elfe-where done it 7 and am not now handling the whole doctrine ofjujlification^ but only that of Imputation^ and what it necejfarily in-cludeth.

T Hough a man that readeth our moft Learned Proteiiants, profeffing that they agree even with Bellarmimh\mfc\{ in the Hating of the cafe of Imputation, would think that there fhould need no further ftating of it. 1 cited you Bellarmines

words

( 45>) words before with VaJJetirs confent : I here add Johan. Crocius de Juftif. Difp. 10. pag. 500. 501. Vide bofninisfive vertiginem five improbitatem, clam at fieri non poffe ut Juftitia Cbrifti nobis imputetur eofen-

fu qui btreticti probetur > £* tatnen reft am vocat

fententiam, quamfuam faciunt Evangelici.' Quod cnim cufn retta ratione pngnare dicit, nos per Jufti-tiarn Cbrifti formaliter jttftos nominari & ejfe^nos non tangit: Non dicimus > Nonfentitnus : Sedboctotum frofidfcitut e Sopbiftarum offtcim^qui pbraftn iftam no-bis affingunt.ut poftea earn exagitenl tahquam no ft rami (yet fome of our own give them this pretence.) Nosfententiam quant Me reBam judicata tenemut* tuemur s fie tamen ut addamus, quod Genii adverfa-ri<e eft intolerabile, non alia ratione nos juftos' cenfe-ri coram Veo^\ But by Juftification the Papifls meatt Sandtificatioii : And they count it not intolerable to fay that the penalty of our fins is remitted to us, by that Satisfa&ioh to the Juftice of God according to the Law of Innocency, which Chrift only hath rhade. Bin though many thruft in more indeed, and mod of them much more in words s yet you fee they are forced to fay as we fay whether they will or not : For they feem untitling to be thought to agree with us, where they agree indeed.] And the following words of Job. Crocius pag* 506,507. & c . (hew the common fence ofmoft Proteftahts, [When Bt\Utm\vG>*bfervetb that Imputation makftb us as righteous as Chrift, he faith, [Iftvefaid thai we are

Juftified by Chrift s ejfc.ntial righteoiifafi. . But

we fay it not. Tea above all tee renounce that which

the Sophifter puts in of his onn, evm that which he

faith of Formal Kighteoufnefs : For it is not onr'opini-

Bn-> that ivc are cohftititted formally Righteous by

* Chrift's

( yo )

ChrijVs Righteoufnefs? which we rather call the Material caufe. . § 32. Cbriflsfatitfattionis made for

all : But it is imputed to us? not as it is made for all? hut as for us. lilluftrateitby the like, "the Kings Sonpayeth the debt of a Community deeply indebted to the King? and thence bound to perpetual flavery. This payment gets liberty for this? and that? and the other member of the Community : For it is imputed to them by the King a* if they had paid it. But this Imputation transferred not the honour to them? but brings them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid by Chrijifor all? is imputed to this or that man? he is

fallen into the fociety of the Benefit, *Pag. 503.

Vijiinguifh between the Benefit?and the Office ofChrift.

The former is mide ours? but not the latter? • Pag.

542. The Remijjion of fin is nothing but the imputation of Chrifls Righteoufnefs. Rom. 4. Where Im~ putation ofRighteoufnefs? Remijjion of Iniquities ?and

non-imputation of fin? are all one? ■ 'Pag. 547.

God imputeth it as far as he pleafeth, Pag. 548.

Princes oft impute the merits of Parents so unvporthy

Children, ■ Pag. 551. He denyeth that we have

Infinite Righteoufnefs in Chriji? becaufe it is imputed to us in a finite manner? even fo far as was requisite to our abfolution.

But I will a little more diftin&ly open and re-folve the Cafe.

1. We mull diftinguifli of Righteoufnefs as it re-lateth to the Preceptive part of the Law % and as it relateth to the Retributive part: The firft Pdghte-oufnefs? is Innocency contrary to Reatus Culpa ; The fecond is Jus ad impunitatem & ad premium (fen d^num?)Right to Impunity and to the Reward.

2. VVemuft diftinguifh oiChrifls Righteoufnefs^

which!

(1*)

which is either fo called, formally and properly , which is the Relation ofChrijisperfonXo his I^zp of (^Mediation impofed on him, I, As Innocent and a perfect obeyerj 2. As one that deferved not punijh-mentj)ut deferved Reward* Or it is fo called materially and improperly J which is,Thofe/iwe Habits > Afts and Sufferings of Chrift 3 from which bis Relation of Righteous did refult.

3. We mufl: diftinguilh of Imputation^ which fignifyeth (here) 1, To repute us perfpnalfy to have been the ^gm x ofCbrifts Atts, the fubjeSs of his Habits and Paflion in a Phyfical fence. 2. Or to repute the fame /irwtf/ Relation of Rigbteoufnefs which was in Chrifts perfon, to be in <?#rx as the fubjeft. 3. Or to repute us to have been the very futye&s ofthrffii Habits and PaJJion^znd the Agents of his ASs in a Political or Moral fenfe, (and not a phyfical,) •» as a man payeth a debt by his Servant,or Attorneys Delegate. 4,. And consequently to repute a double formal Rigbteoufnefs to refult from the faid Habits, AUs, and Paffior.s^ one to Ch'rillzs the natural Sutyettznd Agents and another to us as the MoralyPolitical) or reputed Subjett and ^g<?#* (And fo his Formal Rigbteoufnefs not to be imputed to us i# it felfas ours, but another to refult from the fame Matter.) 5. Or elfe that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Aimer of his Righteouf-nefs, morally*and alfo of the Formal Rigbteoufnefs of Chriji himfelf. 6* Or elfe by Imputation is meant here,that Chrift being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of finful man,and become a Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Perfon of a Mediator\ to have fulfilled all the Law impofed m him-, by perfect Holhufs E 2 and

and Obedience*, zxid Offering himfelf on the Crofs a Sacrifice for our fins, voluntarily differing in our ftead, as if he had been a (inner, (guilty of all our fins)Asfoon as we believe we are pardoned,juftifi--ed,adoptedfor the fake and merit of this Holinefe, Obedience and penal Satisfaction of Chrift, with as full demonftration of divine Ju(iice,zt leaft,and more full demoniiration of KisWifdom and Mercy, than if we had fuffered our felves what our Gns deferved (that is, been damned) or had never finned : And fo Righteoufnefs is imputed to us, that is, we are ac+ counted or reputed righteous, (not in relation to the Precept, that is, innocent, oxfinlefs, but in relati* onto theRetribution, that is* fuch as have Right to Impunity and £//<?,)becaufe Chrift's fbrefaid perfe& Holinefs, Obedience and Satisfa&ion, merited our Pardon, and Adoption^and tb? Spirit > or merited the New-Covenant, by which : as an Inftrument, Pardon, Jufiification and Adoption are given toEelievers,and the Spirit to be given to (andtifie them : And when we believe, we are juftly reputed fuch as have Right to all thefe purchafed Gifts.

4. And that it may be underftood how far Chrift did Obey or Suffer in our fiead, or ^r/5«,wemuft diftinguifh, 1. Between his taking the Nature of fmful man, and taking the Perfon of finners. 2. Between his taking the Perfon of a finner, and taking the Perfon of you and me, and each particular tinner. 3. Between his taking our finfulperfons fwtply, & ad omnia, and taking them only, fecun-dumquid, intantum, & ad hoc. 4. Between his Offering in the Perfon of finners, and his obeying and fanllity in the Perfon of tinners,ox of us in particular, 5. Between his Obeyingznd Suffering in our Perfon^

and

>

< 53 ) and our Obeying and Suffering in his Pcrfoq (Natural or Political.) And now I (hall make uft of thefe diftindtions, by the Propofitions following.

Prop. i. Thephrafe of [Cbrift's Righteoufnefx imputed to wf\ is not in the Scripture.

2. Therefore when it cometh to Difpuration,to them that deny it, fome Scripture-phrafe fhould be jAit in Head of it \ becaufe, i. The Scripture hath as good,if not much better,phrafes,to fignifie all in this that is neceffary, 2. And it is fuppofed that the Difputants are agreed of all that is exprefs in the Scripture.

3. Yet Co much is faid in Scripture,as may make this phrafe [of Imputing Cbrift's Rigbteoufhefs to ui\ justifiable, in the found fence here explained '- For the thing meant by it is true, and the phrafe intelligible.

4. Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to Believers, in the fixth fence here before explained > As the Meritorious caufe of our Pardon, Juftification, Righteoufnefs, Adoption, San&ification and Salvation, &c. as is opened.

5. Chrift did not fuffer all in kind (much lefs in duration^) which finful man deferved to fuffer; As e.g. 1. He was not hated of God > 2. Nor deprived or deferted of the fan&ify ing Spirit, and Co V of its Graces and Gods Image y Nor had 3. any of that permitted penalty by which fin itfelfisa mileryand punifhment to the (inner. 4. He fell not under the Power of the Devil as a deceiver and ruler, as the ungodly do* 5. His Confcience did not accufe him of fin, and torment him for it. 6. He did not totally defpair of ever being faved. 7. The

E 3 fire

/-

(54)

fire of Hell did riot torment his body. More fuch jnftanccs may be <*iven for proof*

6. Chrift did not perform all the fame obedience m kind, which many men,yea all men, are or were bound to perform. As i. He did not drefs and keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to drefs and keep. 2., He did not the conjugal offic^ which Adam-, and millions more^Were bound to. 3. Nor the Paternal Offices to Children*. 4. Nor all the offices of a King oh Earth, or M&giftrate: nor of a Servant, &c. Nor the duty of the Sick. 5. He did not repent of fin, nor turn from it to'God,tior mortifie or refift in himfelf any fihful luft \ nor receive a,Saviour by Faith, nor was circumcifed or baptised for the Remiffion of his finss norl6ved God or thanked hirn for redeeming or pardoning him v nor obeyed God in the ufe of any Ordiilahce or Means, for the fubduing of fin, and healing or favingofhis Soul fttim: any im 6r deferved wrath of God ', with much tnore fuch;

7. Chrilt did perform much which nomanelfd was bound to do: r As t to redeem Souls, to work his fcti'racles and the reft of the works, peculiar to the Mediator.

8. That Law which bound us to Suffering, for made it our due) bound notChriltto it, fas being innocent^) 5 But he was bound to it by the Fathers

V Law of Mediator^ and by his oVrn voluntary fpon-fion.

p. The Law obliging every (inner himfelf to fuf-

fer, wzs notfulfilkdby the Suffering ofChrift our

Sponfor: But only the Lawgiver fatisfied by at-

\s ' tainins* it's Ends. For neither the letter nor fence

of it faid, \lfthoufin-> thou or tbyfuretyjball fuffer^]

10. Chri(t

io. Chrift fawfied Juftice and obeyed in Humane Nature^ which alfo was Holy in him.

11. He did not this as a Natural Root 6 or Head to man, as Adam was > to convey Holinefs or Righteoufnefs by natural p'opagati&n&s Adam fhould have done; and did by fin: For Chrift had no Wife or natural Childreny But as a Head>by Contrail as a Husband to a Wife, and a King to a Kingdom, and a Head of Spiritual Influx.

12. No as being ASually fuch a Head to the Redeemed when he Obeyed and Suffered > but as a Head by Aptitude and Office->Power and Virtue ,who was to become a Head attually to every one when they Believed and Confentecfh Being before a HiW forthem^ and overthofe that did exifl-> but not a H<?<fc/

tot hem ■> ina(9\

13. Therefore they were not Chrifts members Political, (much kfs Natural) when he obeyed and died.

14. A Natural Head being but apart of a perfon^ what it doth the Perfon doth. But feeing a Contra-Bed Headend all the members of his Body ContraUed or Politic^ are every one a dijlintt Perfonjt follow-eth not that each perfon did really or reputatively what the Head did. Nay it is a good confequence that [If he did it as He ad, they did it not (numeri-callyj as Head ox Members-~\

15. Chrift Suffered and Obeyed in the Perfon of the Mediator between God and-man i ajad as zful-jeSl to the Law of Mediation.

16* Chrift may be faid to fuflfer in the perfon of a fmner^ as it meanech his even perfon refuted and ufed as a finner by his perfecutors,and as he was one who flood before God as an Undertaker to fuffer for Man's fin, 17, Chrift

i

X

f;f« )

iy. Chrift fuffered in the place and fleadof fin-ners, that they might be delivered, though in the perfon of a Sponfor.

iS. When we are agreed that the Perfon of the Sponfor, and of every particular finner arc divers > and that Chrift had not fuffered, if we had not finned, and that he as a Sponfor fufferedin our fiead, and fo bore the puni(hment, which not be, but tee defervedy If any will here inftead of a Mediator or Sponfor call him our Reprefentatiye, and fay that he fuffered even in all our Perfons reputatively, not fmpliciter, but fecundym quid, & in tantum only; that is, not reprefenting our perfons fmply and in all refpeUs, and to all ends, but only fo far as to be a Sacrifice for our fins, and fuffer in our place andjlead what he fuffered *, we take this to be but IU de nomine, a queftion about the name and words ; And we will net oppofe any man that thinketh thofc words fitteft, as long as we agree in the matter fig-nified. And fo many Proteftant Divines fay that Chrift fuffered in the perfon of every finner, (at leaft Eled,) that is, fo far only and to fuch effects* ;, ip. Chrift did not fuffer ftriftly, fimply, abfo-lutely, iji the perfon of any one eled finner, much lefs in the millions of perfons of them all, in Law-fence,or in Gods efteem. God did not efteem Chrift to be naturally, or as an abfolute KeprefentcrJ)avid, yianaffeb, Paul, and every fuch other finner, but only a Mediatt^

20.'^oy n Sldmake"Cli^ to^ejmtoin^h that is, j^l Sacrifice for our fin, and one that by Man was refuted, and by God and Man was ufed, as finner s are, and deferve to be.

y 21. Chirilt was not our Delegate in Obeying or

" ' • Suffering \

(57 )

Suffering i We did not commiflion him, or depute him to do what he did in our ftead : But he did it by God's Appointment and his own Will.

22. Therefore he did it on God's terms, and to what effeds it pleafed God, and not on our terms, nor to what effects we pleafe.

23. God did not fuppofe or repute Chrift, to have committed all or any of the fins which we all committed, npr to hayehad all the wickednefsin his nature which was in ours, npr to have deferved what we deferved : Nor did he in this proper fence • impute our fms to Chrift.

24. The falfe notion of God's ftri& imputing all > our fins to Chrift, and efteeming him the greateft * (inner in the World, being fo great a Blafphemy both againft the Father and the Son, it is, fafeft in ifuch Controyerfies to hold to the plain and ordinary words of Scripture. And it is not the tyifdom nor Impartiality of fbmemen, who greatly cry up the Scripture-perfection, and decry the addition of

a Cerempny or Form in the Worfhip of God i that yet think Religion is endangered, if our Confeflioji ufe not the phrafes of [God's Imputing our fin to Chriji'i and bis Imputing CbrijFs Rigbteoufnefs to usl when neither of them is in the Scripture \ As if all God's Word were not big or perfett enough to make us a Creed or Confeffion in fuch phrafes as it is fit for Chriftians to take up with; Countenancing the Papifts, whofe Faith is fwelled to the many Volumes of the Councils, and no man can know how much more is to be aclded, and when we have all. 25. God doth not repute or account us to hsve puffer ed in our Natural perfons w hat Chrift fuffered ^ for us, nor Chrift to have fuffered in ou r Nigral / perfons. ~~^ 26. Though

J

( ss )

2tf. Though Chxitt fuffered in our fiead, and in a large fence, to certain ufes and in fome refpetts, as J the Reprefenter ,or in the Perfons of finners > yet did he not Co far represent their perfons in his Habitual Holinefs and Afiual Obedience (no not in the Obedience oihis Sufferings) as he did in the fufferingit filfiHe obeyed not in the Perfon of ajm^ynuch lefs of millions of finners * which were to fay, In the perfon of finners he never finned. He fuffered, to fave us from fuffering \ but he obeyed not to fave us from * obeying, but to bring us to Obedience. Yet his ./ Verfe&ion of 'Obedience had this ow?, that perfeft Obr-X ^wc^ might not be neceffary in us to our Juftiiica-tion and Salvation.

27. It was not we our felves who did perfectly 0-bey y or were perfettly holy, or fufFered for fin ih the Perfon ofChrifi, or by Him: Nor did we (Naturally or Morally) merit our own Salvation by obeying in Chrift ; nor did xre fatisfie Gods Jujlice for our fins, nor purchafe pardon of Salvation to our (elves, by our Suffering in and by Chriji > All fuch phrafe and fence is contrary to Scripture.But Chrift

di d this for us. ' ** *~

—"2jj. Therefore God doth not repute us to have done it, feeing it is not true.

2p. It is impoflible for the individual formal Righteoufnefs of Chrift, to be our Formal perfonal Right eoufnefs. Becaufe it is a Relation and Accident, which cannot be translated from fubjeft to fubjedl, and cannot be in divers fubje&s the fame.

30. Where the queftion is,Whether Chrifts Material Right eoufnefs, that is, his Habits, ABs and Sufferings themfelves, be Ours, we muft confider how a mm can have Propriety in Habits, Atts and

<Pa]Jionf*

Paflions who is the fubjeEt of them: and in Atlims* who is the Agent of them. To Give the fame Individual Habit or Taffion to another, U an ImpojJibilitjH ^ that is, to make him by Gift the fubje& of it. For ** it is not the fame, if it be in another fubjed. To make one man really or physically to have been the Agent of another* A3, even that Individual Att, if he was not fb, is a contradiction and impoflibility> - j

that is, to make it true, that I did that which I did not. To be ours by Divine Imputation, cannot be* to be ours by a falfe Reputation, or fuppofition that We did what we did not : For God cannot err or lie. There is therefore but one of tfiefe two ways left, Either that ive our felves in perfon, truly had the habits which Chrift bad, and did all that Chrift did, andfuffered all that he fujfered, andfo fatisfied and merited Life in and by him, as by an Injlrument, r or Legal Reprefenterofourperfons in all this j Which I am anon to Confute : or elfe,That Chrifts Satisfa-diofh Righteoufnefs, and the Habits,AUs and Sufferings in which it lay, are imputed to us,and made \f oursi not rigidly in the very thing it felf, but in ^^» the E ffetfs and Benefits > In as much as we arFjas * ** ^ ' really ra rdoned , fuflip ed, Adopted by them,a s tlte " Meritorious caule, by "the instrumentality o( the GoV£flints UonifiOtt", as if we our felves had done and fuflfered all that Chrift did, as a Mediator and Sponfor, do and fuffer for us : I fay, As really and certainly, and with a fuller demon itration of Gods V Mercy and Wifdom,ani with a furficient demonftra-tion of his Juftice. Eut not that our propriety in the benefits is in all refpe&s the fame, as it (liould have been if we had been, done, andfujfered our felves what Chrift did.Thus Chrifts Righteoufnefs is ours.

31. Chrift

( 6o)

p 31. Chrift is truly 'the Lord our Righteoufnefs •, in

more refpe&s than one or two: 1. In that he is the tneritorioHs Caufe of the Pardon of all ourfins^nd our full Juftiiication, Adoption,and right to Glory ; and by his Satisfaction and Merits only, our Juftifi-cation by the Covenant of Grace againft the CurfeoftheLawof Works is purchafed. 2. In that he is the Legiflator, Teftator and Donor of our Pardop, and Juftificationi by this new-Tefta-ment or Covenant. 3. In that he is the Head of Influx, and King and Interceflbr, by and from whom the Spirit is given, to fan&ifie us to God, and caufe us fincerely to perform the Conditions of the Juftifying and faving Covenant, in Accepting and Improving the mercy then given. 4. In that he is the Righteous Judge and Juftifyer of Believers by fentence of Judgment. In all thefe Refpe&s he is 'the Lord our Righteoufnefs.

32. We are faid f0 Z>? made the Righteoufnefs of God in him : 1. In that, as he was ufed likf a fmner J for us, (but not efteemed one by God>fo we are ufed X^^ like Innocent perfons fo faras tobe/izW by him. 2. In that through his Merits*, and upon our union with him, when we believe atid Cttnfem to his -Covenant, we are pardoned and juftified, and fo made /Righteous really, that is, fuchasarenot to be con-demned but to be glorified. 3. In that the Divine Nature and Inherent Righteoufnefs, to them that are J in htm by Faith, are for his Merits, given by the >/ HolyGhoft. 4. In that God's Juftice and Holinefs Truth,Wifdom, and Mercy,are all wonderfully de-monftrated in this way of pardoning and juftifying finners by Chrift. Thus are we made the Righte-tf oufnefs of God in him. * 33. For

33» Tor Rigbteoufnefs to be imputed to us, is all one as to be accounted Righteous, Rom. 4. 6, i^Wy notwithftanding that we be not Righteous as fid-fillers of the Law of Innocency. /LcrPU^f e^u^ <*+$**&

34* For F<«<& *<? fe imputed to us for Righteoufnefs, Rom. 4. 22,23,24. is plainly meant, that God who under the Law of Innocency required perfed Obedience>of us to our Juftification and Glorificati- p on, .upon the Jalisfaftion and merits of Chrift, hatfe a/lm0% fredy given a full Pardon and Rifffo to L ift, to all true BdieversjloTEat now by theCovenanT3f Grace nothing is required of us, to our Juftification, but %%¥ Faith: all the reft being dene by Chrift: And fo A Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, is reputed truly to be the condition on our part,on which Chrift and Life 5 by that Baptifmal Covenant, are made ours.

35. Juftification, Adoption, and Life eternal are confidered 9 u Quoad ipj(am rem, as to the thing ' it (elfin value. 2. Quoad, Ordimm Confer endi & Recipiendi, as to the order and manner of Conveyance , and Participation* In the firft refpetf, It is a meer free-gift to us,pur chafed by Chrifi : In the fecond re*

fpedt, It is a Reward to Believers, who thankfully accept the free-Gift according to its nature and ufes.

36. It is an error contrary to thefcopeofthe Gofpel to fay, that the Law ofWor\s,or of Innocency, doth juftifie us, as performed either by our ftlves, ox by Chrift. For that Law condemneth and curfeth us \ And we are not efficiently juftificd by it, but^ from or agaivji it.

37. Therefore we have no Rightccufntfs in Reality or Reputation formally ours, which coftfifttth

in

in the RrRfpecies '<> that is,in a Conformity to the ?re-ceptivepart of the Law oflnnocency h we are not refuted Innocent : But only a Righteoufnefs which £ confifteth in Pardon of allfm,and right to life, (with fincereperformance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, that is, "true Faith.)

38. Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fatt or Faulty but our Guilt of,or,obligation to Punishment. 1 God doth not repute us fuch as never finned, or

fuch as by our Innocency merited Heaven, but fuch as are not to be damned, but to be glorifiedy becaufe pardoned and adopted through the Satisfa&ion and X-O; Merits of Chrift.

3p. Yet the Reatus faty* IS remitted to us Relatively as to the punifhmenr, though not in it felf} that is, It (hall not procure our Damnation : Even as Chrift's Righteoufnefs is, though not in it felf, yet refpecfiively as to the Benefits faid to be made ours, in as much as we {hall have thofe benefits by it.

40. Thus both the Material and the Formal Righteoufnefs of Chrift are made ours'<> that is. Both the Holy Habits and Ads, and his Sufferings, with the Relative formal Righteoufnefs ofh'tfGxvn Perfonjoc-caufe thefe are altogether one Meritorious caufe of our Justification, commonly called the Material Caufe.

Obj. But though Forma VenomUat; yet ifChrijis Righteoufnefs in Matter and Form, he the Meritorious Caufe of ours, and that be the fame with the Material Caufe, it is a very tolerable fpeech to fay,that Hii Righteoufnefs is Ours in it felf, while it is the very matter cfours.

j4nft.WhQn any man is Righteous Immediately by

an)

to,

( *3 )

any action, that a&ion is called the Matter of his Righteoufnefs, in fuch an Analogical fenfe as A&ion, an Accident may be called Matter^ becaufe the Re-lation of Righteous is founded or fubje&ed firft or partly in that A8ion. And fo when Chrift perfectly obeyed, it was the Matter ofbti Righteoufnefs. But to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion: Merit is adventitious to meer Righteoufnefs. Now it is not Chrifts Actions in themfel ves that our Righteoufnefs refulteth from immediately as his own X did > But there is firft his A8ion-> then his formal Righteoufnefs thereby h and thirdly y his Merit by that Righteoufnefs which goes to procure the Covenant-Donation of Righteoufnafs to us, by which Covenant we are efficiently made Righteous. So that the name of a Material Caufe is much more properly given to Chrijis A&ions, as to his own formal Rigbte-oufnefs,thzn as to ours&ut yet this is but de nomine. 2. Above all, confider what that Righteoufnefs is which Chrift merited for us 3 f which is the heart of the Controverfie.) It is not of the hmzfpecies orl )&yS )f fort with his own. His Righteoufnefs was a per-) feGt finlefs Innocency, and Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law eflnnocency in Holinefs- Ours is not fuch.The diffenters think it is fuch bylmputa-tion, and here is the difference. Ours is but in re-fpedt to the/mW or retributive part of the Law \ a Right to Impunity and Life,and a Juftijication not at all by that Law, but from its curfe or condemnation. The Law that faith, Obey perfectly and live, fm and die, doth not juftifie us as perfons that have perfectly obeyed ideally or impuntively • But its obligation to punifhment u diffolvcd, not by it felf, but by the Law of Grace % it is then by the Law W

t

i

< *4 ) .

of Grace that we are judged and juftified. According to it, I. We are not really or reputatively fitch as have perfefily fulfilled all its Preceptr: 2. But we are fuchas by Grace do fincerely perform the Condition of its promife. 3. By which promife of Gift,we are fuch as have right to Chrifts ownperfon, in the Relation and Union of a Head and Saviour, and with him the pardon of all our fins, and the ri^tof A doPtwtj to the Spirit , and the Heavenly JbAhfritance XspurclajedbyCorijt. ' Soffiatbelides mit InKerent or Adherent Righteoufnefs of fincere Faith, Repentance and Obedience, as the performed condition of the Law of Grace, we have no other Righteoufnefs our felves, but Right to Impunity and to Life : and not any imputed finlefs Innocency at all. God far-doneth our fins and adopteth us, for the fake of Chrifts fufferings and perfeB Holinejs : But he doth not account us perfeftly Holy for it, nor perfeQly Obedient. So that how-ever you will call it, whether a Material Cauje or a Meritorious, the thing is plain.

Obj. He is made of God Righteoufnefs to us.

Anf. True : But that's none of the queftion. But how is he fo made ? 1. As he is made Wifdom, Sandtification and Redemption as aforefaid. 2. By Merit,Satisfa3:ion,Dire<ftion 3 Prefcription and Donation. He is the Meritorious Caufe of our Pardon, of our Adoption, of our Right to Heaven, of that new Covenant which is the Instrumental Efeed of Gift, confirming all ihefe: And he is alfo our Righteoufnefs in the fenfe that Auftin fo much" flandcih on, as all our Holinefsand Righteoufnefs of Heart and Life, is not of our natural endeavour, but his gift>and operation by his Spirit s caufingus

to

( 6f) to obey his Holy precepts and Example. All thefe % u * J ways he is made of God our Righteoufnefs : Betides the Obje&ive way of fenfe '-> as he is Objedtvel^ made our Wifdom, becaufe it is the trueft wifdom %f to know him > So he is objectively made our Rigb-teonfnefsi in that it is that Gofpel-Righteoufnefe which is required ofour feIves 5 by his grace,to believe in him and obey him.

41. Though Chrift fulfilled not the Law by Habitual Holinefs and A&ual Obedience, ftridly in the Individual perfon of each particular (inner i yet he +m did it in the nature of Man : And fo humane nature, ?v (confidered in facie, and in Chrilt perfonally, though not coniidered as a totum, or as perfonally in each man Jdid fatisfie and fullfil theLa w and Merit. As Humane Nature finned in Adam actually mfpecie^ and in his individual perfon, and all our Terfotts were feminally and virtually in him, and accordingly finned, or are reputed finnets, assay ing no nature but what he conveyed who/cqu Td" convey no.b'etterthan he had (ci ther as to Relation o TReal quality ): But not that God reputed us to have keen adually exijient, as really difiinft perfont \x\Adam (which is not true, ) Even fo Chrilt 0-beyed and fuffered in our Nature*, and in our nature as it was in him ; and humane finful nature in fpecie was Un i verfally pj rdone d by him, and Eternal life free ly gtven to all tnenlcr His mer its, thus far impu* te TTotntriu "tnclrt nTs being not imputed t o hinder t KTs Gif t > whichis made 'in and by the Covenant ol Graaf: Only Ih e ^ikJ nath the Coridicioii of [A m^ris Acccpt a nce of it according to its nature, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. And all the individuals that (hill in time J by Faith accept the Gift,are there and thereby made 'u f fuch

r

4 :

^ n *j Y - r

^ Impul

fuch as the Covenant for his merits doth juftifie, by that General Gift.

42. As Adam was a Head by Nature, and therefore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation h fo Chriftis a.Head (not by nature but) by Sacred Contract *> and therefore conveyeth Right to Par-X, £ don, Adoption and Salvation, not by Generation, n<$ but by Contract, or Donation. So that what it t » $ !p»was to be naturally in Adam-, feminally and vir-<i^ ^(V tua ^y> though not perfonlly in exigence*even that K Jf^itis, in order to our benefit by him to be in Cbrifi *y ContraU or the new C<wtf<a«f>virtually,though not in perfonal exiftence when the Covenant was made. They therefore that look upon Justification Righteoufnefs, as coming to us immediately by mputation of Chrifte Righteoufnefs to us, without the Inftrumental Intervention and Conveyance or Collation by chis Deed of Gift orCovenant,do confound rhemielves by confounding and overlooking the Caufes of our Justification. That which Chrift did by his merits was to procure theTftw Covenant. The new CovenanTis a free Gift oT pardon and life with Chrift himfelf, for his merits and fa-tisfadtion fake.

44. Though the Perfon of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very perfon ofeachfinner, (nor (o manyperfofis as there are [tuners or believers,) yet*- it doth belong to the Perfon of the Mediator^ far (limitedly) to bear the perfon of a ftnner, and to ftand in the place of the Perfins of all Sinners, as to bear the punifliment they deferved, and to ffiffer for their {m^C^dthMa-thf i

45. Scripture fpeaking of moral matters, ufually fpeaketh rather in Moral than meer Phyfical

phrafe:

(*7)

phrafe: And in ftrid Phyfical fence, Chrifts very perfonal Righteoufnefs (Material or Formal) is not ib given to us, as that we are proprietors of the very thing it (elf, but only of the effects (Pardon, Righteoufnelsand Lifejyet in a larger Moral phrafe that very thing is oft (aid to be given to us, which is giver* jsfc^^er, or done or (ufFered for our benefit. He tKat ranfometh a Captive from a Con-;urrer>PhyGcally giveth the Money to the Conquest not to the Captive,& giveth the Captive only the Liberty purchafed : But morally and reputatively he is frfd to give the Money to the Captive, becaufe he gave nfor him* And it redeemeth him as well is if he had given it himfelf. He that giveth ten thou-fand pounds to purchafe Lands,& freely giveth that land to another i phyfically giveth the Money to the Seller only, and the Land only to the other. But morally and reputatively we content our felves with the metonymical phrafe, and fay, he gave the other ten thoufand pound. So morally it may be faid, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs, Merits and Satis- , fa&ion, was given to us, in that the thing purchafed by it was given to us \ when the Satisfa&ion was given or made to God. Yea when we (aid it was made to God, we mean only that he was paf-fively the 'terminus of adive Satisfaction, being the party fatisfyed '•> but not that he himfelf was made the Subjed and Agent of Habits and Ads,andRigb-teoufnefsofChriftas in his humane nature, except as the Divine Nature aded it,or by Communication of Attributes.

4<5. Becaufe the words [terfon] and [Perforating] and [Reprefenting\ are ambiguous (as all humane language is,J while fome ufe them in zflrider

F 2 finfe

*

*

( *s )

fenfe than others do, we muft try by other explica tory terms whether we agree in the matter, and not lay the ftrefsof our Controverfy upon the bare words. So fome Divines fay that Chrift fuffered in the Perfon of a finner,wh(:n they mean not that he re-prefented the Natural perfon of any ono particular (inner i bu t that his own Perfo n waw^puted the Sponfor of Tinners by G6dj aricTfliSlTOwas judged a real (inner by his peri'ecuters i and fo fuffered as if he had been a (inner.

47. As Chrift is lefs improperly faid to have Re-prefented our Perfons in his fatisfa&ory Sufferings, than in his perfonal perfed: Holinefs and Obedience* fo he is lefs improperly faid to have Keprefented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam* in a General fenfe* for the pur chafing of the univerfal Gift of Pardon and Life , called^ The new Covenant \ than to have Keprefented in his perfeQ Holinefs and his Sufferings ', every Believer confidered as from his firft being to hisDeath. Though it is certain that he dyed for all their (ins from tirft to laft. For it is mod true, 1. That Chrift is as zfeconiAdam* the Root of the Redeemed ', And as we derive (in from Adam* fo we derive life from Chrift, (allowing the difference between a Natural and a Voluntary way of derivation.) And though no mans Terfon as a Perfon was actually exiflent and offended in Adam, (nor was by God reputed to have been and done) yet all mens Perfons were Virtually and Seminally in Adam as is aforefaid \ and when they are exijient perfons* they are no better either byjielative Inq nrpnryf>x; hy Ply-fical Bilpofitton* trtanKc could jaifla iftate : and are truly and juftly reputed by GoT to be Perfon,

Guilty ef Adams faft.

fo far as they were by nature fcrnl-

feminally and virtually in him: And Chrift the (e-cond Adam is in a fort the root of Man as Man* (though not by propagation of us, yet) as.he is the Redeemer of Nature it felf from deftrudiian, but more notably the Root of Saints as Saints, who are w to havenp realfan&ity but what (hallbe derived J\ from him-i^hfi^generation, as Nature and Sin is from Adam by Generation. But Adam did not reprefent all his pofterity as to all the A&ions which they (hould dothemfelves from their Birth to their Death \ fo that they (hould all have been taken for perfe&ly obedient to the death, if Adam had not finned at that time, yea or during his Life* For if any of them under that Covenant had ever finned afterward in their own per(bn> they (hould have died for it.' But for the timepaft, they were Guiltlefs or Guilty in Adam, as he was Guiltlefs or Guilty himfelf, fo far as they were in Adam'. And \ \ though that was but in Caufa> & non extra caufami \ *l Yet a Generating Caufe which propagateth effence from effence, by felf-multip!ication of form, much differeth from an Arbitrary facient Caufe in this. If Adam had obeyed, yet all his pofterity had been ne-verthelefs bound to perfedt perfonal perfevering O-bedience on pain of Death. And Chrift the fecond Adam Co far bore the perfon of fallen Adam, and fuffcred in the nature and room of Mankind in General, as without any condition on their part at all; to give man by an a<9: of Oblivion or new Covenant a pardon of Adams fin, yea and of all fin paft, at the time of their confent,though not difobliging them from all future Obedience. And by his perfect Holinefs and Obedience and Sufferings, he hath merited that new Covenant, which Accepetb of F 3 fin-

( 7° )

fincere, though imperfect, Obedience, and maketh no more in us neceffary to Salvation. When I fay he did this without any Condition on mans part, I mean, He absolutely without Condition^ merited and gave us the Jufiifying T^ejiarnent or Covenant. Though . that Covenant give us not Juftification abfolutely, but on Condition of believing, fiducial Confent* 2. And fo as this Vniverfal Gift of Juftification upon Acceptance, is actually given to all fallen mankind as fuch j fo Chrift might be faid to fuffer inftead of all, yea and merit too, fo far as to procure them this Covenant-gift.

48. The fumofalllyeth in applying the diftin-&ionof giving Chrifts Righteoufhefs as fuch in it felf and as a caufe of our Righteoufnefs, or in the Caufalityofit. As our fin is not reputed Chrifts fin in itfelf and in the culpability of itffor then it muft .needs make Chrift odious to God) but in its Can-fality of punishment : (b Chrift's Material or Formal Righteoufnefs, is not by God reputed to be properly and abfolutely out own initfelfzsfucb, but the Caufality of it as it produceth fuch and fuch ek fedts.

4P- The Obje&ions which are made againft Im^ putation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in the found fenfe, may all be anfwered as they are by our Divines j among whom the chiefeft on this fubjed are Vavenant de Juftit. Habit & AVxuai. Johan. Crocius de Jujiif Nigrinus delmpletione Legis^ Bp. (?• Vowmj if. Cbamier-y Tardus*, Amefius and

Junius againft Bellarm. But the fame reafbns againft fheunfou.iJ knee of Imputation are unanfwerable. vie if any (hall fay concerning my following Arguments, that moft of them are ufed, by Gregor.

ds

( 71 )

de Valent. by Bellarm* Becanus^ or other Papifts, or by Socinians, and are anfwered by Nigrinus£ro-tiki*, Vavmant^ Sec* Such words may ferve to deceive the fimple that are led by Names and Prejudice '<> but to the Intelligent they are contemptible, unlefs they prove that thefe obje&ions are made by the Papiiis againft the fame fence of Imputation a-gainit which I ufe them, and that it is that fenle which all thofe Proteftants defend in anfwering them: For who-ever fo anfwereth them,will appear to anfwer them in vain.

50. How far thofe Divines who do ufe the phrale of Cbrifis fitffering in our perfon, do yet limit the fenfe in their expofition,and deny that we are reputed to have fulfilled the Law in Chrift : becaufe it is tedious to cite many, I (hall take up now with one, even Mr. Latvfm in his e lbeoplitica^ which (though about the office of Faith hefome-what differ from me) I muft needs call an excellent Treatife, as I take the Author to be one of the moft Knowing men yet living that I know.) Pardon me if I be large in tranferibing his words.

cc Pag. 100, 101. [If we enquire of the manner " howRighteoufhefs andLife is derived fromChrift, " being one unto fo many, it cannot be, except " Chrift be a general Head of mankind, and one cc Perfon with thtm&sAdam was.We do not read of " any but two whowere generalHeads,and in fome " refped: virtually, AU mankind \ the

"firft and fecond Adam. - . The Marker-

" principal caufe of thisReprefentation tually* " whereby he is one perfon with us, is §< the will of God, who as Lord made him fuch, " and as Lawgiver and Judge did fo account him. F 4 "But

•;

H>^

(7* )

"But, 2. Ho sv far is he Oitf ferfonu>itbus> Anf. " i. In general fo far as it pleafed God Not abfo- " to make him fo,and no further. 2. In lutely. " particular,He and we are one fo far

" 1. As to make him liable to the penalty of the Law for us. 2. So far as to free us " from that obligation, and derive the benefit of his ci death to us. Though Chrift be fo far one with us " as to be lyable unto the penalty of the Law, and " to fuffcr it, and upon this fuffering we are freed > c yet Chrift is not the firmer, nor the (inner Chrift. " Chrift is the Word made flefh, innocent without " iin,an univerfal Prieft and King : but we are none cc ofthefe. Though we be accounted Marl^ by a " as one pcrfon in Law with him, by a Trope. " Tropes yet in proper fence it cannot

" be (aid that in ChrijYs Satisfying we " fatisjiedfor our own fins. For then we fhould have " been the Word madeflefh, able to plead Innocen-" cy, &c. All which are falfe, impof-Mark^ bow cc fible,blafphemous if affirmed by any. far. <c It's true,we are fo one with him,that

" he fatisfied for us, and the benefit of " this Satisfaction redounds to us, and i s communi-cc cable to all ? upon certain termes C tTio&gh not actually communicated to all: From this Unity and Identity of perfon in Law (if I may fo " fpeak) it followeth clearly that ChriiVs fuffcr-"ings were not only Affli&ions, but Punishments

"in proper f-nfe. -Pjg> 102, 103. That Chrift

"died .or all in feme fence mull needs be granted, cc became the Scripture exprcily affirms it (vid. " reliqua*) —

* ; There is another queftion unprofitably hand-

« led,

(73 J

led, Whether the Tropitiation which includeth 1 bothSatisfadion andMerit.,be to be afcribed to the : Adive or Piilive Obedience of Chrift ? Anf m i • \ Both his Adive, Perfonal, Ptrfed and Perpetual f Obedience,which by reafonof his humane nature c affumed,and fubjedion unto God was due, and al-c fo that Obedience to the great and tranfcendent :i Command of differing the death oftheCrofs, • c both concur as Caufes of Remiflion and Juftificati-IC on.2.TheScriptures ufually afcribe it to the Blood, " Death,&Sacrifice of Chrift D and never to thePerfo-" nal AdiveObedience of Chrift's to theMoral Law* " 3. Yet this Adive Obedience is neceffary,becaufe u without it he could not have offered that great " Sacrifice of himfelf without fpot to God. And if " it had not been without fpot, it could not have " been propitiatory and effectual forExpiation.4.If " Chrift as our Surety had performed for us perfed "and perpetual Obedience, fo that we might have cc been judged to have perfedly and fully kept cc the Law by him, the n no f in could have bee n " chame able upon us^ and the ueathoi ^hritthad . c; been neeffi efs'andjuper fluous* 5* Chritis Propi- \ C4 tiation ireeth the Believer not only from the obli- ? " gation unto punifhment of fchfe, but of lofs 1 1 and procured for him not only deliverance from J " evil deferved, but the enjoyment of all good ne-i Cc ceffary to our full happinefs. Therefore, there is \ no ground of Scripture for that opinion, that the tc Death of Chrift and his Sufferings free us from pu-I" nifriments, and by his Adive Obedience imputed cc to us we are made righteous,and the heirs of life. 6. If Chrift was bound to perform perfed and perpetual O'jedience for us,and he alfo performed

''it

tj

m

*■*¥■

*v*

V

y

/

( 74)

t( it for us, then we arc freed not only from fin, b ut <c Obedience too:*An d this Obedience as diltindt and "ifcparate trom ubedience unto death, may be plea-M ded for Juftification of Life, and will be fufficient cc to carry the Caufe. For the tenor of the Law ic was this, Do this and live: And if man do this cc by himfelf or Surety, fo as that the Lawgiver and cc fupreme Judg accept it, the Law can require no cc more. It could not bind to perfect Obedience and cc to punilhment too. There .vas never any fuch c< Law made by God or juft men. Before I conclude " this particular of the extent of Chrifts Merit and " Propitiation, I thought good to inform the Rea-"der, that as the Propitiation of Chriftmaketh no lc man abfolutely, but upon certain terms pardon-<c able and favable > fo it was never made, either cC to prevent all fin, or all punifhments : For it pre-c< fuppofeth man both finful and miferable ; And " we know that the Guilt and Punilhment of " Adams fin, lyeth heavy on all his pofterity to this " day. And not only that, but the guilt of adtual cc and perfonal fins lyeth wholly upon us, whileft cc impenitent and unbelieving and fo out of Chrift. " And the Regenerate themfelves are not fully freed <c from all punifhments till the' final Refurre&ion cc and Judgment. So that his Propitiation doth not <c altogether prevent but remove fin and punifh-" ment by degrees. Many fins may be faid to be " Remiflible by vertue of this Sacrifice, which ne-" ver (hall be remitted.] So far Mr. Latvfon.

Here I would add only thefe Aniraadverfions. r. That whereas he explaineth Chrifts perfonating w in fuffering by the fimilitude of a Debtor and his Surety who are the fame perfon in Law : I note i.

That

That the cafe of Debt much differeth from the cafe of Punifhment. 2. That a Surety of Debt is either antecedently fuch, or confequently : Antecedently* either firft one that is bound equally with the Deb-tori 2. or one that promifeth to pay if he do not. I think the Law accounteth neither of thefe to be the Perfon of the principal Debtor (as it doth a Servant by whom he fends the Debt.) But Chrift was neither of thefe : For the Law did not beforehand oblige him with us, nor did he in Law-fence undertake to pay the Debt, if we failed. Though God decreed that he (honld do fo i yet that was no part of the fence of the Law. But confequently, if a friend of theDebtor when he is in Jayl will, without his rcqueft or knowledg, fay to the Creditor,! will pay you all the Debt * but fo that he (hall be in my power, and not have prefent liberty (left he abufe it) but on the terms that I (hall pleafe» yea not at all if he ungratefully rejed if] This Confe-quern Satisfyer, or Sponfor,or Paymafter, is not in Law-fence the fame .Perfon with the Debtor: But if any will call him fo 5 I will not contend about a word, while we agree of the thing (the terms of deliverance.) And this is as near the Cafe between Chrift and us, as the fimilitudc of a Debtor will allow.

2. I do differ from Mr. Ltwfon and Partus* and Vrfine^ and Olevian^ and Scultetus and all that fort of worthy Divines in thisi that whereas they make Chrifts Holinefsand perfedt Obedience to be but Juliitiaperfon£,nccefaxy to make his Sacrifice fpot-lefsand fo effectual: I think that of it felf it is as directly the caufe of our Pardon, Juftiiication and Life, as Chrifts Paflion is > The Paffion being fatis-

h&ory

fa&ory and fo meritorious, and the perfonal Holi-nefs Meritorious and fo Satisfactory. For the truth is, The Law that condemned us was not fulfilled by Chrifts fuffering for us, but the Lawgiver fatis-fied inftead of the fulfilling of it : And that Satisfaction lyeth, in the fubftttution of that which as fully (or more) attaineth the ends of the Law as our own fuffering would have done. Now the ends of the Law may be attained by immediate Merit of Perfection as well as by Suffering > but beft by both* For i. Ey the perfedt Holinefsand Obedience of Chrift, the Holy and perfed will of God \spleafed : whence [This U my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleafed."] 2. In order to the ends of Government, Holinefs and perfedt Obedience, is honoured and freed from the contempt which fin would call: upon it 9 and the holinefs of the Law in its Precepts is publickly honoured in this grand Exemplar, In whom only the will of God was done on Earth ; as it is done in Heaven. And fuch a Specimen to the World is greatly conducible to the ends of Government : So that Chrift voluntarily taking humane nature, which as fuch is obliged to this Perfection, Hefirfi: highly merited of God the Father hereby, and this with his Suffering, went to attain the ends that our fuffrring (hould have attained,much better. So that at lead: as Meritorious-, if not fecondarily as fatisfaBory, I fee not but Cbrijis Holinefs procureth the Jellifying Covenant for us, equally with his Death. A Prince may pardon a Traitor for forne noble ftrvice ofbis Friend, as well as for his fuffering : much more for both.This way go Grotws de jatisf Mr. Bradjbaw and others.

3, When Mr Lavvfon faith that the Law binds

not

( 77) not to Obedience and Punifliment both,he meaneth as to the fame A&. : which contradicts not what Nigrinut aftd others fay, that it binds a (inner to puniftment for fin paft 5 and yet to Obedience for the time to come:(which cannot be entire and pcrfedh)

So pag. 311* Cap. 22. G)u> 2. Whether there be two parts of Juftification, Remiffion and Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs. 1. He referreth us to what is aforecited againft Imputation of Chrifts Adive Righteoufnefs, fcparated or abftradted for Reward from the Paffive. 2. He (heweth that Paul taketh Remiffion of fin and Imputation of Rigkte-ctifnefs for the fame thing.] So fay many of ours.

In conclufion I will mind the Reader, that by reading fome Authors for Imputations am brought to doubt whether fome deny not all true Remiflion of fin, that isJRtmiffion of the deferved pmiifhment. Becaufe I find that by Remiffion they mean A non-Imputation of fin under the formal notion of fin \ that God taketh it not to be our fin, but Chrifts > and Chrifts Righteoufnefs and perfection to be fo ours, ^ as that God accounteth us not as truly tinners. And fo they think that the Reatus Culp* as well as Pcen<e fimply in it felf is done away. W hich if it be fo,then the Reams Pxn&, the obligation to punifliment, or the duenefsoi puni(hment,cannot be faid to be diffol-ved or remitted, becaufe it was never contracted. Where I hold, that it is the Reatus ad Poenamthz Vuenefs of punifhment only that is remitted,and the guilt oifin not as in it felf,but in its Caufality of punifliment. And fo in all common language,we fay we forgive a man his fauk,when we forgive him all the penalty poiitive and privative. Not efteeming him, 1. Never to have done the fs&. 2. Or that

fa<a

( 7* )

fad not to have been a faulted htifaulty.but that punifhment for that fault, is forgiven him, and the fault fo tar as it is a caufe of punifhment. We muft not feign God to judg falfly.

This maketh me think of a faying of Bp. VJhers to me, when I mentioned the Papifts placing Ju-ftification and Remiffion of fin conjund, he told me that the Papifts ordinarily acknowledg no Remiflion. And on fearch I find that Aquinas and the moft of them place no true Remiflion of fin, in Juftifica-tion : For by Remifjion (which they make part of Juftification,) they mean Mortification^ or dtjlroying fin itfelfm the ad or habit. But that the pardon of the punifhment is a thing that we all need, is not denyable^nor do they deny it,though they deny it to be part of our Juftification. for it's ftrange if they deny Chrift the pardoning power which they give the Pope. And as Joh. Crocius de JnfUf. oft tells them, They (hould for fhame grant that Chrifts Righteoufnefsmay be as fir imputed to us, as they fay a Saints orMartyrs redundant merits and fuper-erogations are.

But if the Guilt of Fa£i and (juilt of Fault in it felf confidered, be not both imputed frrft to us 5 that is, If we be not judged finncrs, I cannot fee how we can be judged Pardoned finnersi For he that is judged to have no fin, is judged to deferve no pu-nifbmcnt. Unlefs they will fay that to prevent the form and defert o(fw 7 is eminenter^ though r\otfor-tnaliter^ to forgive. But it is another (even Adual) m iorgivenefs which we hear of in theGofpei, and pray for daily in the Lords prayer. O^al! which fee the full Scripture-proof in Mr. Hotchhis of Forgive-nefs of fin.

CHAP.

CHAR III.

A further explication of the Contro-verfie.

Tet 1 am afraid left I have not mak the ft ate of the Controverfte plain enough to the un-exercifed Reader,and left the very explicatory diftinftions and proportions 5 though need* ful and fait able to the matter •> fhould be unsuitable to his capacity; I will therefore go over it again in afhorter way^ and make it as plain as pojjibly I can; being fully per-fwaded) that it is not fo much Argument a-tion, as help to underftand the matter, and our own and other mens ambiguous words) that is needful to end our abominable Contentions.

§ i. *TpH E Righteoufnefs of a Perfon is formally X a moral Relation of that Perfon. § 2. This moral Relation, is the Relation of that perfon to the Rule by which he is to be judged.

§ 3. And it is his Relation tofome Caufe^ox fup-pofed Accufation or Queftion to be decided by that judgment.

§ 4. The Rule of Righteoufnefs here is Gods aw, naturally or fuperuaturally made known.

§5. The

( So )

§ 5. The Law hath a Preceptive part, determining what (hall be due from us, and a Retributive part determining what ihall be due to us.

§ 6. The Precept inftituting Duty, our Anions and Difpofitions,which are the Matter of that duty, are phyfically considered, conform or difconform to the Precept.

§7. Being Phyfically, they areconfequently fo Morally confidered, we being Moral Agents, and the Law a Rule of Morality.

§ 8. If the Aftlons be righteous or unrighteous, confequentlv the Perfon is fo, in reference to thofe Adtions* fuppofing that to be his Caufe&x the Qhc-jiion to be decided.

§ p. Unrightcoufnefs as to this Caufe, is Guilt, or Reatus Culp£ ^ and to be unrighteous is to be Sons^ or Guilty of tin.

§ io. The Retributive part of the Law is, 1. Pre-miant, for Obedience * 2. Penal,for Difobedience.

§ n. To be Guilty or Unrighteous as to the reward, is, to have no ri-ht to the reward ( that being fuppofed the Queftion in judgment): And to be Righteous here,is to have right to the reward.

§ 12. To be Guilty as to thepcnaltyus to be \u-repHniexdus, or Reuspxrue, or obligatus ad poenam. And to be righteous here, is to have Right to immunity, {quoadpcenam dzmni & jenfits.)

§ 13. The rirft Law made perfonal, perfeB, pet-fevering Innocency both mans duty, and the Condition ot the Reward and Impunity, and any fin the condition ot p^nifhment.

§ 14, Man broke this Law, and foloft his Inno-cency, and fo the Condition became naturally ira-poffible to him, de future.

§ 15. There-

( 81 ) .

§ 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant, that is, the PromifTory part with its Condition,ceaffd> ceflante capacitate fetbditi h and fo did the preceptive part. 1. Asit commanded abfolute Innocency (of a& and habit/) 2. And as it commanded the feeking of the Reward on r he Condition and by the means of perfbnal Innocency. The Condition rhus palling into the nature of a fentence 5 And punifhment remaining due for the (in.

§ 16. But the Law remained (till an obligingPre-cept for future perfect Obedience, and made punifhment due for all future fin : andthefetwo parts of it,as the Law of lapfed Nature,remained inforce,be-tween thcrirft (in, and the new-Covenant promife or Law of Grace.

§ 17. The eternal Word interpofing, a Mediator is promifed, and Mercy maketh a Law of Grace,and the Word becomcth mans Redeemer by undertaking, and by prefent adual reprieve, pardon and initial deliverance ; and the fallen world, themife-rable finners, with the Law and obligations which they were under^re now become the Redemers jure Redemptienif } as before they were the Creator's jure C reatienis.

§ 18. The Redeemers Law then hath two parts >

1. The faid Law of lapfed nature (binding to future perfed obedience or punifhment) which he found man under (called vulgarly the Moral Law.)

2. And a pardoning Remedying Law of Grace.

§ 19. Becaufe man had difhonoured God and his Law by iin, the Redeemer undertook to take mans nature without iin, and by perftdt Holinefs and Obedience, and by becoming a Sacrifice for fin, to bring that Honour to God and his Law which

G we

0 92 ;

wefhould have done, and to attain the Ends of law and Government infiead ot our Perfection or Pun\fhment, that for the Merit hereof we might be delivered and live.

§ 2o.This he did in the third perfon of a Mediator, who as fiich had a Law or Covenant proper to hiq$elf,the Conditions of which he performed, (by perf^d keeping, i.. The Law oflnnocency, 2. Of Mofes\ 3. And that proper to himfelf alone) and fo rnerited all that was promifed to him, for Himfelf and Us.

$ 21 • By his Law ofGrace (as our Lord-Redeemer )he gave firft to all -mankind (in Adam, and after in Isfa^and by a fecond fuller edition at his Incarnation) a free Pardon of the deftru&iye puntfhment (but not of all punifhment) with right to his Spirit of Grace, Adoption and Glory.in Union with Himfelf their Head, on Condition initially of Faith and Repentance, and progreffivelyof fincere Obedience to the end, to be performed by his Help or Grace,

§ 22. By this Law of Grace (fuppoftng the Law of lapfed nature aforefaid, incluiively) all the World is ruled, and (hail be judged, according to that edition of it (to Adam or by Chrift)which they are under. And by it they (hall be JuiUfied or Condemned.

§. 23. If the queftion then be, Have you kept or vat kept the Conditions of the'Law of Grace, Pey-fcaai Performance or nothing mutt fo far be our Rsghteoufnefs, and npt Chrilts keeping them for us, or Satisfaction for pur not keepipg them. And this is the great Cafe (fp oft by Chriii defcribed Mat. 7. &■ 25. drc) to be decided in judgmentjand therefore tfee word Righteous and liighteoujhefs are ufed for

what

Q *3 )

what is thus perfonal hundreds of times in Scripture.

§ 24. But as to the queftion, Have wekfpttbc Law of Innocency? we muft confefs guilt and fay,No; neither Immediately by our felves,nor Mediately by another, or Inftrumeirt ; for Perfonal Obedience only is the performance required by that Law> Therefore we have no Righteoufnefs confifting in fuch Performance or Innocency i but muft confefs fin, and plead a pardon.

§25. Therefore no man hath a proper Vniverfal Rigbteeu(nefs i excluding all kind of Guilt whatfo-ever.

§26- Therefore no man is juftifiedby the Law of Innocency (nor the L aw Mofaical as of works i) either by the Preceptive or Retributive part: for we broke the Precept, and are by the Threatning heirs of death.

§ 27. That Law doth not juftifie us,becaufe Chrirt fulfilled it for us: For it faid not fin words or fenfe) [Thou or one for thee (hall Perfeftly Obey* or Suffer : ] It mentioned no Subftitute : Eut it is the Law-giver (and not that Law) that juftifieth us by other means.

§ 28. But we have another Righteoufnefs imputed to us inftead of that Verfett Legal Innocency and Rtf-wardablenefs, by which we (hall be accepted ofQod, and glorified at laft as furely and fully (at leaft) as if we had never finned, or had perfectly kept that Law ; which therefore may be called our Vro4egal Righteoufnefs.

$29. But this Righteoufnefs is not yet either

OURS by fuch a propriety as a Perfonal perfor*

mance would have bin, nor OURS to all the fame

G 2 ends

v 34 ;

ends and pur poles : It faveth us not from all pain, death or penal defertion, nor conliituteth our Relation julithefome.

§ 30. It is the Law of Grace that Juftifieth us, both as giving us Righteoufnefs, and as Virtually judging us Righteous when it hath made us fo,and it is ChYiit as Judg according to that Law(and God by Chrift) that will fentence us juft, and executively fo ufe us.

§ 31. The Grace of Chrift firft giveth us Faith and Repentance by effe&ua! Vocation: And then the Law of Grace by its Donative pait or A& doth give us a Right to Vnion with Chrift as the Churches Head (and fo fo his Body) and with him a right to Pardon of paft fin, and to the Spirit to dwell and ad in us for the future, and to the Love of God, and Life eternal, to be ours in pofleflionjif we luicerely obey and perfevere.

§32. The total Righteoufnefs then which we have(asan Accident of which we are the Subje&s,) is 1. A right to Impunity, by the free Pardon of all our fins., and a right t.o Gods Favour and Glory, as a free gift quoad valorem, but as a Reward of our Obedience, quoad Ordinem conferendi & rationem Cowpjrativam(i\hy one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift.) 2. And the Relation of Otfe t\rrt hath by grace performed the Condition of that freeGiftjWithout which we had been no capable recipients ; which is initially [Faith and Repentance] the Condition of our Right begun, and confequently, fincere Obedience and Pcrfeverance (the Condition of continued right. J

§33. Chriltsperfonal Pxighteoufnefs is no one of thcie, and fo is net our Conftitutive Righteoufnefs

for-

formally and ftri&ly Co called : For Formally our Righteoufnefs is a Relation^ (of right > ) and it is the Relation pf our own Perfons : And a Relation is an accident: And the numerical Relation (or Right) of one perfon cannot be the fame numerical Accident of another perfon as the (ubjedh

§ 34. There are but three forts of Canfes h Efficient, Conftitutive^nd Final.

rXhrift is the efficient caufe ofallourRighteouf* nefs : (1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life i 2. And ofour Gofpel Obedience :) And that m3ny waies; 1. He is the Meritorious Caufe : 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant; 3. And the Donor or Operator ofour Inherent Righteoufnefs by his Spirit : 4. And the moral efficient by his Word, Promife, Example, &c.

2. And Chrift is partly the final caufe.

3. But all the doubt is whether his perfonal Righteoufnefs be the Constitutive Caufe.

§35.'The CoHJlitutive Caufe of natural bodily fubttances confiftethof Matter difpofed, and Form* Relations have no Matter^ but inltead of Matter a Subject (and that is Our own perfons here, and not Chrift.) and a terminus and fundamentum.

§ 36« The Fundamentum iiuy be called both the Efficient Caufe of the Relation (as commonly it is) and the Matter from which it refulteth : And fo Chrifts Righteoufnefs is undoubtedly the Meritorious efficient Caufe, and undoubtedly not the Formal Caufe of our perfonal Relation of Righteoufnefs : Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Caufe.

§ 37. So that all theControvertie is come up to

a bare name and Logical term, of which Logicians

agree not as to the aptitude. All confefs that Rela-

G 3 tions

( 86 )

lations have no proper Matter , befides the fubjedh all confefs that thcFundamentum is loco efficients 5 but whether it be a fit name to call it the Conftitutive Matter of a Relation, there is no agreement.

§ 38. And if there were^it would not decide this Verbal Controverfie : For 1. Titulus eft funda-mentum Jum : The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Chrifr, is the Donative aft of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace : that is our title > And from that our Relation refulteth, the Conditio tituli vel juris being found in our felves. 2. And our Relation of Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace, refulteth from our own performance as the fundamentum (compared to the Rule.) So that both thefe parts of our Righteoufnefs have a nearer fun-damentum than Chrilis perfonal Righteoufnefs.

§3?. But the Right given us by the Covenant (and the Spirit and Grace) being a Right merited firft by Chrifis perfonal Righteoufnefs, this is a Caufa Canfz, id eft, fundamenti, feu Donation^ : And while this much is certain, whether it (hall be called a Remote fundamentum (viz. Caufa funda-menti) and fo a Remote Conftitutive Material Caufe, or only (properly) a Meritorious Caufe, may well be left to the arbitrary Logician, that ufe-eth fuch notions as he pleafes \ but verily is a Con-troverfie unfit to tear the Church for, or deftroy Love and Concord by.

§40. Quell. i.IsChrifts Righteoufnefs OVRS > Anf Yes \ In fome fenfe, and in another not.

§4 I - Queft. 2. Is Chrifis Righteoufnefs OVRS> Anf Yes \ In the fenfe before opened \ For all things are ours > and his righteoufnefs more than lower Caufe, §2. Queft.

C *7 J

§42. Queft. 3. If Chrijis Righteoufnefs OVRS as it was or is His ownjvith the fame fort of propriety ? Anf. No,

§43. Queft. 4. Is the formal Relation of Righte* ous as an accident of our perfons, numerically the fame Righteoufnefs ? Anf. No > It is impoffible : Unlefo we are the fame per (on.

§ 44- Queft. 5. IsCbriji and each Believer one political perfon ? Jnf. Apolitical perfon is an equivocal word : If you take it for an Office (as the King or Judg is a political perfon) I fay, No; If for a SvcietyJCedh But noxia & noxa caputfequuntur:Txuc Guilt is an accident of natural perfons, and of Societies only as confrituted of fuch; and fo is Righteoufnefs h Though Phyfically Good or Evil may for fociety-fake, befal us without perfonal deftrt or confent.

But if by [Perfon] you mean a certain State or Condition (as to bezfubjeft of God, or one that 13 to fuffer for fin) fo Chrift may be faid to be the fame perfon with us infpecie* but not numericallysbecmk that Accident whence his Perfonality is named, is not in the fame fubjedl.

§45- Queft. 6- Is Chrijis Righteoufnefs imputed to us ? Anf Yes> It by imputing you mean reckoning or reputing it ours, fo far as is aforefaid, that is fuch a Caufe of ours.

§ 4<5. Queft. 7. Are we reputed ourfelves to have fulfilled all that Law oflnnocemy in and by Chriji, as reprefenting our perfons^as obeying by him ? Anf No.

§ 47* Queft. 8. If it Chrijis Divine, Habitual* ABive or Pajfive Righteoufnefs which Jujlifieth us ? Anf All : viz, the Habitual, Adtive and Paffive exalted in Meiitorioufnefs by Union with the Divine. G 4 §48.Queft,

^ OO )

§48. Queft. 9. IsitCbriflsRigbteoufnefs^oroHr Faith which is faid to be imputed to us for Rigbteouf* nefs ? Rom. 4. Anf. 1. The text fpeaketh of imputing Faith, and by Faith is meant Faith, and not Cbrijis Righteoufnefs in the word : But that Faith is Faith in Chriji and his Righteoufnefs > and the Objedt is quafi materia attus, and covenanted.

2. Vere, both are Imputed : that is, 1. Chrifts Righteoufnefs is reputed the meritorious Caufe. 2. The free-gift (by the Covenant) is reputed the fundamentum jurit (bothoppofed to our Legal Merit.) 3* And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituliy and all that is required in us to our Juftiticationj as making us Qualified Recipients of the fret-Gift merited by Chiiit.

§ 42* Queft. 10. Are we any way Jvftified by our own performed Righteoufnefs ? AnfYts i> Againft the charge of non-performance, (as Infidels, Impenitent, Unholy,) and fo as being uncapable of the free-gift of Pardon and Life in Chrift,

CHAP.

^ *9 )

CHAR IV.

TheRcafons of our denying the fore-deferi-bed rigid fence of Imputation.

Though it were mofl accurate to reduce what we d?ny to feveral Proportions-, and to con~ fute each one argument at ively by itfelfr yet I /hall now choofe to avoid fuch prolixity ; and for brevity and the fat isfaction of fuch as look more at the force of a Re afon^ than the form of the Argument 7 I/hall thruft together our denyedSence^ with the manifold Reafons of our denyaL

ct TT7E deny, that God doth fo Impute Chrifts " VV Righteoufnefs to us, as to repute or ao u count us to have been Holy with all that Habitu-" al Holinefs which was in Chrift, or to have done cc all that he did in obedience to his Father, or in " fulfilling the Law, or to have differed all that he c< fuffered, and to have made God fatisfa£tion for cc our own fins, and merited our own Salvation and cc Juftification, in and by Chrift *, or that he was-, " did and Jujfered, and merited, all this ftri&ly in

" the perfon of every finner that is faved > Or that cC Chrifts very individual Righteoufnefs Material or

iC Formal, is fo made ours in a ftrid fenfe, as that

^ we are Proprietors, Subje&s, or Agents of the

cc vcr y

( 90 )

it is

cc very thing it felf fimply and abfolutely, as ., cc diftin<a from the effedte h or that Chrifts Indivi cc dual formal Righteoufnefs, is made our Formal " Perfonal Righteoufnefs •, or that as to the effeBs, " we have any fuch Righteoufnefs Imputed to us, cc as formally ours, which confifteth in a perfeft Ha-cc bitual and A&ual Conformity to the Law of In-c 'nocencyi that is, that we are reputed perfe&lyl " Holy and finlefs, and fuch as {hall be Juftified by " the Law of Innbcency, which faith, Perfe&ly Obey " and Live> or fin and die^ All this we deny.

Let him that will anfwer me, keep to my words, and not alter the fcnfe by leaving any out. And that he may the better underftand me,I add,i. I take it for granted that the Law requireth Habitual Ho-linefs as well as A&ual Obedience, and is notful-filled without both. 2. That Chrift loved God and man with a perfecft conftant Love, and never finned by Omiflion or Commiflion. 3. That Chrift died not only for our Original fin, or fin before Converfion, but for all our fin to our lives end. 4. That he who is fuppofed to have no fin ofO-miffion, is fuppofed to have done all his duty. 5-. That he that hatK done all his duty, is not condem-nable by that Law,yea hath right to all the Reward promifed on Condition of that duty. <5. By Chrifts Material Righteoufnefs, I mean, thofe Habits,Adte and Sufferings in which his Righteoufnefs did con-fift, or was founded. 7. By his and our Formal Righteoufnefs y I mean the Relation it felf of being Righteous. 8. And I hold that Chrifts Righteouf-rseft, did not only Numerically (as aforefaid) but alfo thus totafpecie^in kind differ from ours, that his was a perfett Habitual and A&tal Conformity to the

Law

Law ofInnocency y together with the peculiar Laws of Mediator-jkip,by which he merited Redemption for us y and Glory for himfelf and us : But ours is the Pardon of fin, and Right to Life, Purchafed, Merited and freely given us by Chri(i in and by a new Covenant* whofe condition is Faith with Repentance, as to the gift of our Jufiification now, andfincere Holinefs>0-bedience, Vittory and Perfeverance as to our pojfijfion of Glory.

Now our Reafons againfl: the denyed fence of Imputation are thefe.

1. In general this opinion fetteth up and introduced all Antinomianifm or Libertinifm, and Un-godlinefs, andfubverteth the Gofpel and all true Religion and Morality.

I do not mean that all that hold it, have fuch ef-fe&s in themfelves, but only that this is the tendency and confcquence of the opinion ; For I know-that many fee not the nature and conftquences of their own opinions, and the abundance that hold damnable errors, hold them but notionally in a pee-vifh fadiion, and therefore not dammingly,but hold pradiically and effe&ually the contrary faving truth. And if the Papifls (hall perfwade Men that our dc-dtrine, yea theirs that here miftake, cannot confift with a godly life,let but the lives of Papifts and Pro-teftants be compared. Yea in one cf the Inftances before given ', Though fome of the Congregational-party hold what was recited, yet fo far are they \ from ungodly lives, that the greateft thing in which I differ from them is, the overmuch unfcriptural flridnefsoffomeofthem, in their Churclvadmif-fions and Communion, while they fly further from fuch as they think not godly* than I think God

would

( 9* )

would have them do, being generally perfons fearing God themfelves : (Excepting the finful alienation from others, and eafinefs to receive and carry falfe reports of Diflenters, which is common to all that fall into Gdings.) But the errors of any men are never the better if they be found in the hands of godly men : For if they be pradtifed they will nuke them ungodly.

2. It confoundeth the Perfonofthe Mediator^nd of the Sinner : As if the Mediator who was proclaimed the Beloved of the Father, and therefore capable of reconciling us to him, becaufe he was ftill mll-pleafed in him, had (not only fuflfered in the room of the finner by voluntary Sponfion 5 but alfo) in fuffering and doing, been Civilly the very perfon of the finner himfelfi that (inner I fay, who was an enemy to God, and Co efteemed.

3. It maketh Chrift to have been Civilly as many perfons as there be ele& finners in the World: which is both befide and contrary to Scripture.

4. It introduceth a falfe fence and fuppofition of our fin imputed to Chrift 5 as if Imputatively it were his as it is ours, even the finful Habits, the finful Afts, and the Relation of evil, JViched,Vngodly and Unrighteous which refulteth from them : And fo it maketh Chrift really bated of God : For God cannot but bate any one whom he reputeth to be truly ungodly, a Hater of God, an Enemy to him, a Rebel, ^s we all were : whereas it was only the Guilt of Punifhmenf, and not of Crime^s fuch that Chrift aflurned : He undertook to fuffer in the room of finners i and to be reputed one that had fo undertaken; But not to be reputed really a finner, anun-gbdly perfon, hater of God>one that had the Image oftheDwvil. 5. Nay

■i

V V5 )

5. Nay it maketh Chrift to have been incomparably the worft man that ever was in the World by juft reputation % and to have been by juft imputation guilty of all the fins of all the Eled that ever lived, and reputed one of the Murderers of himfelf, and one of the Perfecutors of his Church, or rather many : and the language that Luther ufed Catechre-ftically, to be ftri&ly and properly true.

6. It fuppofeth a wrong fence of the Imputation of Adams fin to his pofterity : As if we had been juftly reputed perfons exigent in btiperfon, and fo in him to have been perfons that commited the fame fin j whereas we are only reputed to be novo (notfktf) perfons who have a Nature derived from him,which being thzn feminally only in him, deriveth by propagation an anfwerable Guilt of his finful fa<3:, together with natural Corruption*

7. It fuppofeth us to be Juftifiable and Juftified by the Law T of Innocency : made to Adam^ as it faith \Obey perfectly and Live."] As if we fulfilled it by Chrilt: which is not only an addition to the Scripture, but a Contradiction. For it is only the Law or Covenant of Grace that we are Juftified by.

&. It putteth, to that end, a falfe fence upon the Law of Innocency : For whereas it commandeth Terfonal Obedience^ and maketh Terfonal punilh-ment due to the offender : This fuppofeth the Law to fay or mean[Ei/for tbou^or one for thee (ball Obey * or, Tbcujhalt obey by thy felf or by another : And if tboufm thouJhalt fuffer by thy felf or by another.

Whereas the Law knew no Subftitute or Vicar,no nor Sponfor s nor is any fuch thing faid of it in the Scripture : fo bold are men in their additions.

p. It falfly fuppofeth that we are not Judged and

Juai-

Juftified by the new Covenant or Law of Grace] but (but is faid) by the Law of Innocency.

10. It fathereth on God an erring judgment, as* if he reputed, reckoned or accounted things tobdj what they arc not, and us to have done what we did not. To repute Chrift a Sponfor for finners who undertook to obey in their natures, and fuffer i in their place and ftead, as a Sacrifice to redeem I them, is all juftand true : And to repute us tbofe \ for whom Chrift did this. But to repute Chrift to have been really and every one of us, or a finner, or guilty of fin it felf > or to repute us to have been ha-bitualiy as Good as Chrift was, or actually to have done what he did, either Naturally or Civilly and by Him as cur fubftitute, and to repute us Righteous by pofleffing his formal perfonal Righteoufuefs in it felf .5 All thefe are untrue, and therefore not to beafcribedtoGod. To Impute it to us, is but to Repute us as verily and groundedly Righteous by his Merited and freely-Given Pardon, and Right to Lite, as if we had merited it our felves.

ii. It feigneth the fame Numerical Accident j_their Relation of Rigbteoufhefs"] which was in one fubject to be in another, which is Impoffible.

12. It maketh us to have fatished Divine Juftice for our felves, and merited Salvation (and all that we receive) for our felves,in and by another : And fo that we may plead our own Merits with God for Heaven and all his benefits.

13 The very making and tenor of the new Covenant, contradi&eth this opinion : For when God maketh a Law or Covenant, to convey the effects of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, by degrees and upon cerfamCorditions, this proveththat the very

Righ-

Righteoufnefsin it fclf fimply was not ours : elfe we fhouJd have had thefe effects of it both prefently and immediately and abfolutely without new Conditions.

14. This-opinion therefore maketh this Law of Grace, which giveth the benefits to us by thefe degrees and upon terms, to be an injury to Believers, as keeping them from their own.

15. It feemeth to deny Chrifts Legiilation in the Law of Grace, and confequently his Kingly Office. For if we are reputed to have fulfilled the whole Law of Innocency in Chrift, there is no bufinefs for the Law of Grace to do.

1 6* It feemeth to make internal San&ification by the Spirit needlefs,or at leaft,astoone half of its ufe : For if we are by juft Imputation in Gods account perfectly Holy, in Chrifts Holinefs the firft moment of our believing, nothing can be added to Perfe&ion* we are as fully Amiable in the fight of God, as if we were (an&ified in our (elves > Becau(e by Imputation it is all oiwr own.

17. And fo it feemeth to make our after-Obedience unneceffary, at leaft as to half its ufe; For if in Gods true account, we have perfectly obeyed to the death by another, how can we be required to do it all or part again by our felves ? If all the debt of our Obedience be paid, why is it required again?

18. And this feemeth to Impute to God a nature lefs holy and at enmity to fin, than indeed he hathi if he can repute a man laden with hateful fins,to be asperfc&y Holy, Obedient and Amiable to him as if he were really fo in himfelf, becaufe another is fifch for him.

19.% Ifwedidinou*own perfons Imputatively

what

what Chrift did, I think it will follow that we finned > that being unlawful to us which was Good in him. It is a iin for us to be Circumcifed, and to keep all the Law of Mofes^ and fend forth Apo-itles, and to make Church-Ordinances needful to Salvation. Therefore we did not this in Chrift: And if rot this, thev chat diftinguifh and tell us I what we did in Chrift, and whatnot, muft prove I ir.l know that Chrift did fomewhat-which is a com- | mon duty of all men,and fomewhat proper to the Jews, and fomewhat proper to himfelf: But that one fort of men did one part in Chrift, and another fort did another pjrt in him,is to be proved.

20. If Chrift luffered but in the Ptrfon of finful man, his fufTirings would have been in vain,or no Satisfaction to God : For iinful man is obliged to perpetual punif&mettt \ of which a- temporal one is but a fmall part : Ottrperfivs cannot make a tempo-ral fufTering equal to that perpetual one due to man : but the tranfeendent perfon of the Mediator did.

Obj Chrijl bore both his own perfw and ours : It behngexh to him as Mediator to perforate the guilty [inner.

Anf. It belongeth to him as Mediator to undertake the ftnners puniihment in his own perfon. And if any will improperly call that, the Terfonating and Keprefentmg of the fmner, let them limit it, and confefs that it is not [imply, but in tantum, fo tar, and to fuch ufes and no other, and that yet [inner s did it not in and by Chrift^ but only Chrift for them to convey the benefits as he pleated * And then we dctigKt not to quarrel about mere words \ though we like the phrafe of Scripture better than theirs.

21. If

2 \. If Chrift was perfe&ly Holy and Obedient in our perfons, and we in him, then it was either in the Perfon of Innocent man before we finned, or of finful man. The firft cannot be pretended : For man as Innocent had not a Redeemer. If of finful man, then his perfed Obedience could not be meritorious of our Salvation : For it fuppofeth him to do it in the perfon of a finner : and he that hath once finned, according to that Law, is the Child of death, and uncapable of ever fulfilling a Law, which is fulfilled with nothing but finlcfs perfed perpetual Obedience,

Obj. He firfi fuffered in our fie ad and perfons as finners-, Jndtben our fin being pardened,be after in our perfons fulfilled the Law^infiead of our after-Ob?dience to it.

Anf. i. Chrifts Obedience to the Law was before his Death. 2. The fins which he fuffered for, were not only before Converfion,but endure as long as our lives; Therefore if he fulfilled the Law in our pierfons after we have done finning, it is in the perfons only of the dead. 3. We are ftill obliged to Obedience our felves.

Ob).'Butyet though there be nofucb difference in Timep God doth firfi Impute hisjufferings to us for pardon of all our fins to the death, and in order of nature, his Obedience after it, as the Merit of our Salvation.

Anf 1. God doth Impute or Repute his fuflfer-iags the fatisfying caufe of our Pardon, and his Merits of Suffering and the reft of his Holinefs and O-bedience 5 as the meritorious caufe of our Pardon and our Juftification and Glory without dividing them. Bmz. that implyeth that we did not our felves reft puta-

(9* )

putativdy do all this in Chrift: A* ftall be fuJ&er proved.

1U 2SP. Wfr way bf Imputation of the Sattsfa-&iOn ; of Chrift, overthroweth their own dodrin6 of tire Imputation of his Holinefs and Righteouf-reft.. For if all fin be fully pardoned by the Imputed Sttisfa&idn, then fins; of Omiffton and of habitual PHvltion and Corruption are pardoned v and then the whole punifhment both ofSenfe and Lofs is Remitted : And he that hath no fin of Omiffion or Privation, is a perfect doer of his duty , and holy > and he that hath no punifhment of Lofs, hath title to Lift, according to that Covenant which he is re-puted to have perteitiy obeyed. And fo he is an heir of life, without any Imputed Obedience upon the pardon of all his Difobedience.

Obj. B^'Adam mnfi have obeyed to the Death if he would have Life eternal : Therefore the bare pardon cf hti jiifi did not procure his right tb life*

Anf True, if you fuppofc that only his firft fin was pardoned : But x. Adam had right to heaven

long as he was finlefs. 2. Chrift dyed for all Adams fins to the laft breath, and not for the firft only: Atid fo he did for all ours. And If all the fins of omiffion to the death be pardoned,Life is due to-us as righteous.

Obj. A Stone may be finlefs^ and yet not righteous nor have Right to life.

Anf True : becaufe it is not a capable fubje&.

-Bat a man cannot be fm!efs,btft he is Righteous, and

hath right to life by Covenant.

Obj. But not topunijh is one thing and to Reward is another?

Anf. They arediftinft formal Relations and*Notions ;

( t>9 )

tions ; Eut where felicity is a Gift and called a Reward only for the terms and order of Collation, and where lunocency is the fame with perfeft Duty^ and is the title-Condition *, there to be puniflied is to be denyed the Gift, and to be Rewarded is to have that Gift as qualified ptrfbns : and not to Reward* is materially to punijh > and fo be reputed innocent is to be reputed a Meriter. And it is impoffible that the molt Innocent man can have any thing from God, but by way of free-Gift as to the thing in Value* however it may be merited in point of Govern* ing Paternal Juftice as to the Order of donation.

Obj. But there is a greater Glory merited by Chrift* than the Covenant of work/ promifed to man*

Anf. i. That's another matter, and belongeth nor to Juftification,but to Adoption. 2. Chrifts Suf? faings as well as his Obedience, confidered as meritorious, did purchale that greater Glory. 3. We did not purchafe or merit it in Chrift, but Chrift or w.

23. Their way of Imputation feemeth to me to leave no place or polfibility for Pardon of fin, or at leaft of no fin after Converfion. I mean, that according to their opinion who think that we fulfilled the Law in Chrift as weareeledt from eternity, it leaveth no place for any pardon : And according to their opinion who lay that we fulfilled it in him as Believers^ it leaveth no place for pardon of any fin after Faith. For where the Law is reputed perfectly fulfilled(in Habit & A&) there it is reputed that the perfon hath no fin.We had no fin before we had aBe-ing i and if we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed in Chrift from our firft Being, we are reputed finlefs. But if we are reputed to have obeyed in

H 2 him

( too ) him only fince our believing, then we arc reputed to have no fin fince our Believing. Nothing ex-cludeth fin, if perfe& Habitual and A&ual Holinets and Obedience do not.

24. And confequently Chrifts blood fhed and Satisfaction is made vain, either as to all our lives* or to all after our firft believing.

2 5. And then no believer muft confefs his fin,nor his defert of punifhment nor repent of it,or be humbled for it.

26. And then all prayer for the pardon of fuch fin is vain.and goeth upon a falfe fuppofition, that we have fin to pardon.

27. And then no man is to be a partaker of the Sacrament as a Conveyance or Seal of fuch pardon > nor to believe the promife for it.

28. Nor is it a duty to give thanks to God or Chrift for any fuch pardon.

29. Nor can we exped J^ftification^from fuch guilt here or at Judgment.

30. And then thefe in Heaven praife Chrift in er-rour, when they magnifie him that waihed them from fuch fins in his blood.

31. And it would be no lie to fay that we have no fin, at lead, fince believing.

32. Then no believer i\\on\d fear finning^ becaufe it is Impoffihle and a Contradiction-* for the fame per-fon to be perfe&ly innocent to the death, and yet a (inner.

33. Then the Confidences of believers have no work to do, or at lead, no examining, convincing fclf-accufingand felf-judging work.

34. This chargeth God by Confequence of wronging all believers whom he layeth the leaft pa

niflhment

nifhment upon : For he that hath perfe&Iy obeyed, or hath perfe&ly fatisfied, by himfelf or by another in his perfon.cannot juftly be puniftied. But I have elfewhere fully proved, that Death and other Cha-ftifements are punifhments, though not deftru&ive, but corrective: And fo is the permiflion of our fur-ther finning.

35. Itintimateth that God wrongcth believers, for not giving them immediately more of the Holy Ghoft, and not prefent perfecting them and freeing them from all fin : For though Cbrift may give us the fruits of his own merits in the time and way that pleafeth himfelf \ yet if it be roe ourfelves th3t have perfectly fatisfied and merited in thrift? we have prefent Right to the thing merited thereupon, and it is an injury to deny it us at all.

3<5. And accordingly it would be an injury to keep them fo long out of Heaven, if they themfelves did merit it fo long ago.

37. And the very "tbreatning of Punifhment in the Law of Grace would feem injurious or incongruous^ them that have already reputativety obeyed perfectly to the death.

3§.And there would be no place left for any Reward from God,to any ad of obedience done by our felves in our natural or real perfon : Becaufe having reputatively fulfilled all Righteoufnefs, and defer-ved all that we are capable of by another, our own adts can have no reward.

3£. And I think this would overthrow all Humane Laws and Government: For all true Governors are the Officers of God, and do what they do in fubordination to God '> and therefore cannot H 3 juftly

(*<>*;

juftlypunifhanyman, whom he pronounced* er-fedly Innocent to the death.

40. This maketh every believer (at leaft) as Righteous as Chrift himfelf, as having true propriety in all the fame numerical Righteoufnefs as his own. And if we be as Righteous as Chrift, are we not as amiable to God ? And may we not go to God in our Names as Righteous ?

41. This maketh all believers fat leaft) equally 'Righteous in degree, and every one perfed, and no difference between them. David and Solomon as Righteous in the ad: of finning as before, and every weak and fcandalous believer, to be as Righteous as the beft. Which is not true,though many fay that Juftification hath no degrees, but is perfect at firft y as I have proved in my Life ef Faith and elfewhere.

42. This too much levelleth Heaven and Earth > For in Heaven there can be nothing greater than perfection.

43. The Scripture no-where calleth our Imputed Righteoufnefs by the name of Innocency, or finlefe Ferfe&ion, nor Inculpability Imputed. Nay when the very phrafe of Imputing Chrijis Righteoufnefs is not there at all, to add all thefe wrong defcriptions of Imputation, isfuch Additions to Gods words as tendeth to let in almoft any thing that mans wit fhall excogitate, and ill befeemeth them, that are for Scripture-fufficiency and perfection, and againft Additions in the general. And whether fome may not fay that we are Imputatively Chrift himfelf, Conceived by the Holy Ghoft, Born of the Virgin Mary, fuffered under Pontius Pilate, Crucified, &c. I cannot telL

*

To tonclude,the honeil plain Chriftian may without difquieting the Church or himfelf, be (atisfied, in this certain fimple truth *, That we are finners and deferve everlafting mifery : That Chrift hath fuffered as a Sacrifice for our fins in our room and ftead, and fatisfied the Juftice of God: That he hath by his perfeft Holinefs and Obedience with thole fufferipgs, merited our pardon and life: That he neve* hereby intended to make us Lawlefsor have us Holy, but hath brought us under a Law of Grace : which is the Infirument by which he par-doneth, juftifieth and giveth us Right, to life: That by this Covenant he requireth of us Repentance and true Faith to our firft Juftification, and fincere Obedience, Holinefs and Perfeverance to our Glorification, to be wrought by his Grace and our Wills excited and enabled by it: That Chrifts Sufferings are to fave us from fuffering i but his Holinefs and Obedience are to merit Holinefs.Obedience & Hap-pinefs for us, that we may be like him, and fo be made perfonally amiable to God : But both bis Sufferings and Obedience, do bring us under a Covenant, where Perfedion is not neceflary to # our Salvation.

H 4 CHAP.

(104;

CHAR V.

The Objedions Anfwered.

" Obj. i.yO^ confound a Natural and a Politi-X " cal perfon: Cbrifi and the feveral be-" lieving finners axe not tbejame natural Perfon^ but " they are the fame Political. As are with us, faith " Dr. Tullie, the Sponfor and the Debtor, the Attor-cc ney and the Clyent, the 'tutor and the Pupil h fo are c * all the faithful in Cbrift, both as to their Celeftial " regenerate nature,of which he is the firji Father \ who cc begettethfons by his Spirit andfeedoftheWord to his cc Image, and as to Taghteoufnefs derived by Legal "Imputation. Vid. Dr. Tulliejuftif. Paul.p.80,81. ct It s commonly faid that Chriji as our fureiy is our "Perfon.

Anf. i. The diftin&ion of a Perfon into Natural and Political or Legal, is equivoci infua equivocata : He therefore that would not have contention che-rifhed and men taught to damn each other for a word not underftood,muft give us leave to ask what thefeequivocals mean. What a Natural Perfon fig-nifieth, we are pretty well agreed ; but a Political Perfon is a word not fo eafily and commonly under-ftood. Calvin tells us that Perfona definitur homo qui caput habet civile. (For omnis perfona eft homo Jed non vicijjim : Homo cum efi yocabulum natura \ Perfona juris chilis*) And fo (as Albenius) civitas, wunicipium^Caftrum, Collegiumi Vntverfnas^& quod-libet corfuj •, Perfon* appellatione continetur •, ut Spi-

geU

( "5;

geU But if this Definition be commenfurate to the common nature of a civil perfon, then a King can be none h nor any one that hath not a civil bead. This therefore is too narrow. The fame Calviv (inn* Perfon*) tells us, that Seneca Ferfonatn vocat-, cum prtfefert aliquis, quod non eft: ; A Counterfeit: But (lire this is not the fence of the Obje&ors. In general faith Calvin^ 'tarn bominem quam qualitatem homing \eu Conditionem fignificat* But it is not fure every Quality or Condition : Calvin therefore giveth us nothing fatisfa&ory, to the decifion of the Controverfie which thefe Divines will needs make, whether each believer and Chrift be the fame Political Perfon. Martinius will make our Controverfie no eafier by the various fignifications gathered out of Vet* ^ocab. Gel. Scaltger^ Valla h Which he thus enumerateth. I. Perfonaeft accident conditio hominis^ qualitas qua homo differt ab bomine, turn in animojum in corpore, turn in extsrnir. 2 . Homo qualitate di&a proditus : 3. Homo infigni qualitate pr&ditus babens gradum eminenti*, in Ecclefta Vei y &c. 4. Figura^feu faciei fiCfa, larva biftrionica^ &c. 5.life quifub bujufmodifigura aliquam reprefewtat^&c, • 6. Figura eminens in £dificiis qu£ ore aquamfun-diti &c. lndividHafubftantiahumana,feufingula-rti homo. 8. Individua fubftantia Intelligent qudibei. Now which of thefe is Perfona Fohtica vel Legalis. Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I fuppofe we (hall find that we are agreed of the Mat* ter. When I deny the Perfon of Chrift and theTinner to have been the fame, or to be fo reputed by God, I mean by Perfon, univocally or properly, An Individual Intelligent fubftance. And they that mean otherwife are obliged to Define \ For Anahgum per

( io6 )

ft pofitum fiat pro fuo fignificatofamofiqn. If they mean that Chrift and the Believer are the fame as to fome Quality , or Condition, let them tell us what Quality or Condition it is, and I think we fhall be found to be of one mind.

But I think by the fimilitudes of a Sponfor, Attorney, and Guardian, that they mean by a Political Terfon (not as zfociety^ nor fuch as agree in Quali-#jf,but) A natural Per/on fo related to another Natural perfon, as that what he doth andfuffereth, Is or Hath, is limitedly to certain ends and ufes as effeSual as if that other perfon himfelfdid and faffered, Were or Had numerically the fame thing. I obtrude not a fenfe on others, but muft know theirs before I can know where we differ. And if this be the meaning, we are agreed: Thus far (though I gr*tlydifliketheir way that lay much ftrefs on fuch humane phrafes,) I grant the thing meant by them. Chrifts Holinefs Habitual and A&ual, and his Merits and Satisfaction are as effectual to a believers J unification and Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace (which is fealed by baptifm) as if we Wed been^done and fuffered the fame our felves. Eut fiill remember that this is only [limitedly~] totkfeufes, and on thefe termes and no other,and I think that this is the meaning of moft Divines that ufe this phrafe.

But the fenfe of thofe men that I differ from and write againft (the Libertines and Antinomians, and fome others that own not thofe names,) is this: that A Legal Perfon is onefo Related to anothers Natural perfon as that what he Hatb,Voth,or Suffer eth in fuch a cafe, is (not only effectual as aforefaid to others, but) is initfelf fmply Reputed or Imputed to be Morally, though not phyfically, the Habit, AH and

Suffering

Sufferings the Merit and fatisfattory Sacrifice of the other perfon : Andfo being the reputed Haver, Doer or Sufferer-, Meftter or Satisfyer himfelf, be hath abfo-lute right to all the proper refults or benefits.

And fo a man may indeed many ways among us Reprefent or Perfonate another. If I by Law am Commanded to do this or that fervice per meipfum autper alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-fence, becaufe the o(her doth it in my name and I am allowed fo to do it. So if I appear or anfwer by any Pro&or or Attorney j if the Law make it equal to my perfonal appearance and anfwer, it isfaid that I did it by him : (but only fo far as he doth it as my Reprefenter or in my name) : So if I pay a debt by the hand of my Servant or any Meflcnger, if fo allowed, I do it by that other.So indeed a Pupil, doth by his Guardian what his Guardian doth., only fo far as the Law obligeth him to confent or ftand to it.

We did not thus our felves fulhl all the Law in andbyChrift ; Nor are we thus the Proprietors of his Habitual perfection, Mtrits or SatisfaVdon.

The common reafon given by the contrary-minded is, that he was our Surety, or Spo*for, ox fide- # jujfor : and fo we tranflate tyyvQ^ Heb. 7. 22. and I remember not any other text of Scripture allega-ble for that title. But this word doth not neceffa-rily fignihe any fuch Reprefenter of our Perfonr as a-forefaid. Nay when he is called thus the fidejujfor of abetter Covenant, it fcemeth plain that it is Gods Covenant as fuch, and fo Gods Sponfor that is meant i and as Grotius faith Mofespr& Deo fpofpon-dit in Lege Veteri: J ejus pro Deo in Lege Novr. Lex mraque & paUum continet, promiffa habet. Sponfo-rem darefolent minus nati; & Mfes & Veus bemini-

bm

( iop ) bus melius nati erant quam Veus qui inconfpicuus. So alfo Dr. Hamond [He was Sponfor and Surety for (jodi that itjhould be made good to us on Gods party on Condition that tee performed that which was required of us :] And here they that tranflate dlwcSwof a Teftament,never intended that it was outPart of the Covenant that is meant by a Teftament : But (the mod Judicious expofitor,) ct Mr. Lawfon on the <c text,truly faith £The Scriptures of Mofes and the " Prophets tranflated into Greek will tell us * That u Aix$yfm always fignifieth a Law or a Covenant, u and for the moft part both: fo it doth in the cc writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts where it " feldom fignifieth the lart Will and Teftament of a " man. The fame thing is a Law in refpedt of the cc precepts, &c 'E)yv(GH turned Surety fignifieth " one that undertaketh tor another to fee fomething ic paid or performed : And though the word is not cc found in theNew Teftament except in this place, " &c But Varnius tells us that 'Ejyv(GH is Mtonrifs, * c a Mediator h and ft) it is taken here as it's ex-cc pounded by the Apoftle in the Chapter following: M And becaufe a Prieft doth undertake to procure cc from God 5 both the Confirmation and performance <c of the promifes to the people^and to that end me-<c diates between both > therefore he is a Surety and cc Mediator of the Covenant, and in this refpecSt the cc Surety and Mediator of the Covenant is a Prieft.] So Calvin (though almoft paffing it by) feemeth to intimate that which I think is the truth, that Chrift is called 'Ejyii©-' of Gods Covenant from the facerdotal appropinquation, mentioned verf ip.&c. ct And M*rhr ate aft< rfheopb IaU^Sponforem pro Me-cc diatore & inter cejfoie ptfuit.

"So

( 109 >

<c So Tardus in loc.Eft novifaderisSponforChrijius, " quia novum fdtdus fanguine & mortefua obfignaviu

So the Dutch Annot. and many others, befides the Ancients, by a Sponfor, tell us is meant a Mediator.

And we grant that a Mediator is not of one, but doth fomewhat on the behalf of both parties* But that as Mediator he Is, Hath,Doth,Su#eretb,Merit-teth, Satisfyeth -, fo as the Reprelenter or perfon of each believer, as that every fuch Perfon is fuppofed in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus in ancj by the Mediator, is neither fignified by this or any other text.

2. And they that diftinguifh of a Natural and Political Perfon, do but darken the cafebyanill-exprefled diftin&ion, whictn indeed is not of two forts of Perfons, but between Reality and Acceptation, taking Perfon properly for a Natural Perfon : It's one thing to be fuch a Perfon, and another thing to have the AH, Pafjion, Merit, 8cc. Accepted for that other Perfon: And this latter fignifieth,either I. That it was done by the other perfon mediately,zs being a cheifCaufe afting by his Injlrument. 3. Or that it was done for that other Perfon by another. The firft is our denyed fence, and thefecondour affirmed fence.

Among us Sureties and Sponfors are of feveral forts : Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another fenfe ofSponfion in the Civil Law, than is pertinent to theobjedors ufe: And in Baptifm the fame word* hath had divers fenfesas ufed by perfons of different intentions. The time was when the Spon-for was not at all taken for the Political Perfm (as you call it) of Parent ox Child, nor fpake as their lnftrumem-> in their name : But was a Third perfon,

who

( no)

who (becanfe many parents dpoflatized> and more Vied in the Childs minority) did pafs his word, i. Tbat the Parent was a credible Perfon^ 2. That if he Vyed fo foon or Apojlatized^ he himfetf would undertake the Chriftian Education of the Child* But the Parent himfclf was Sponfor for the Child in a ft rider fen fe, (as alfo Adopting Pro-parents were, & as for™ take God-fathers to be now,) that is,they were taken for fuch, who(e Reafon,will and word, we authorifed to difpofe of the Child as obligingly, as if it had been done by his own reafon will and word, fo be it, it were but Forbvsgood^ and the Child did own it when he came to age; And fo they were to fpeak as in the Childs name, as if Nature or Charity made %hem his Reprefenters, in the Judgment of many. (Though others rather think that they were to (peak as in their own perfons, e.g. I dedicate this Child to God, and enter him into the Covenant as obliged by my Con Cent.) But this fenfe of Spvuon is nothing to the prefent Cafe.

They thac lay all upon the very Name ofa Surety as if the word had but one fignification, and all Sureties properly reprefented the perfon of the Px in-cip*l obliged perfon, do deal very deceitfully; There are Sureties or Sponfor s^ i. For fome Duty, 2. For Debt* 3. For Puniflunent. 1. It is one thing to undertake that another (hall do aCoraman-ded duty : 2. It's another thing to undertake that ■elfel will doit for him : 3. It's another thing to be Surety that he (hall pay a Debt, or elfe I will pay it for him: 4. It's another thing to undertake that he (hall fujfer a penalty, or clfe toiuffer for bim, or nuke a Valuable Compenfation.

1. And it's one kind of Surety that becomet ha

feoond

(III)

fecond party in the bond, and fo imketh himfelf a debtor * 2. And its another fort of Surety that *n-dntaheth only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friend* who may pay it on fuch Conditions as he and the Creditor think meet, without the Debtors knowledg. Every Novice that will but open Calvin may fee that Fidejujfor and Sponfir are words of very vaiious fignification * and that they feldom or never fignifie the Perfon Natural or Political (as you call it) of the Principal : Sponforefi qui fponte & non rogatus pro alio promittit* ut Accurf. vel quicunque fpondet* maxime pro aliis: Fidejube-reeftfuopericuloforeid* dequoagitur* recipere \Vtl y fidemfuam pro alio obligare. He is called Adpromif-for^ and he is Debtor* but not the fame perfon with the Principal* but his promife is accejforia obligation non principalis. Therefore Fidevufforfive Jntercejfor non eft conveniendus* nifi prius debitore principali convento: Fidejujfores a correis ita differunt* quod hi fuo drproprio morbo labor ant* illi vero alieno tenentur: Quare fideijuffcri tnagis fuccurrendum cenfent: Ve-nianamquedignifunt qui aliena tenentur Culpa^ cu-jufmodifunt fidejujfores pro alieno debito obligati* in-quit Calv.

There muft be fomewhat more than the bare name iyjv^ once ufed of Chrift as Mediator of Gods Covenant, or the name of a Surety as now u-fed among men, that muft go to prove that the Mediator and the feveral finners are the fame Legal Perfons in Gods account.

But feeing Legal-Perjonality is but a Relation of our Natural perfon* to another Natural perfon, that we may not quarrel and tear theChurch when really

wc

( ftw )

we differ not i. Let our agreement be noted. 2.0ur difference intelligibly ftated.

i. It is granted (not only by Dr. 'lullie, but cithers that accurately handle the Controverfie,) i. That Chrift and the Believer never werenor are our Natural perfon ', and that no union with him maketh us to be Chrift, or God, nor him to be Pe« ter, John or Paul, &c. That we know of no third fort o( Natural perfon, (which is neither Jefus, nor Peter, John, Sec; But compofed of both united, which is conftituted by our Union. For though it be agreed on,that the fame Spirit that is in Chrift is (operatively) alfo in all his Members, and that therefore our Communion with him is more than Relative, and that from this ReaUCommunion> the name of a Real-Vnion may be ufed ', yet here the Real-Vnion is not Perfonal (as the fame Sun quickeneih and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant, and yet maketh them not our perfwi:) Therefore he that will fay we ztePbyficalty one with Chrift, and not only Relatively but tell us [ONE What > ] and mike his words Intelligible; and mutt deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that by that time we are not like to be found differing. But remember that while Phyfcal Communion, is confefled by all, what VN10N we {hall from thence be faid to have (this Foundation being agreed on) is like to prove but a queftion, derealithne & nomine.

2. Yea all the world muftacknowledg that the

whole Creation is quoad prafentiam & derivationem more dependant 'on God than the fruit is on the Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the infeperate Caufe of our Being, Station, and Life \

And

And yet this natural intimatenefs, and influx, and caufality, m'aketh not GOD and every Creature abfolutely or perfonally One.

3. It is agreed therefore that Cbrift's Righteoufi nefi is neither materially nor formally^ any Accident of our natural Perfonsh ( and an Accident it is ) unlefs it can be reduced to that of Relation. 1. The Habits of our Perfon^cannot poffibly be the habits of another inherently.2.The attions of one cannot poffibly be the aUions of another, as the Agent, unlefs is-' that other as a principal Caufe^ a&eth by the other as his Inftrument or fecond Caufe. 3. The fame fundamentum relatione inherent in One Perfon, is not inherent in another if it be a perfonal Relation : And fo the fame individual Relation that is one Mans, cannot numerically be another Mans, by the fame fort of in-being, propriety, or adherence. Two Brothers have a Relation in kind the fame>b\jtt Hot unmerically.

4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falfly, and therefore taketh not Chrift's Righteoufnefs to beany more or otherwife ours-, than indeed it is i nor imputeth it to us erroneoufly.

5. Yet it is commonly agreed, that ChrifPs Righteoufnefs is OV RS in fome fenfe i And fo far is juftly reputed Ours, or imputed to us as being Ours.

6* And this ambiguous fyallable [ 0 V R S 3 ( enough to fet another Age of Wranglers into bit* ter Church-tearing flrife, if not hindred by fome that will call them to explain an ambiguous word) is it that muft be underftood to end this Comtover-lie. Propriety is the thing fignified. 1. In the tfri&eft fenfe that is called Om*x, \vhich inhereth in

("4)

us, or that which is done by us. i. In a larger ( Moral ) fenfe, that which a Man as the principal Caufe, doth by another as his Instrument* by au* thoriYmg, commanding, perfwading, &c. 3. In a yet larger fenfe that may be called OVRS, which a third perfon doth partly injiead of what we fhould have done ( had r or fujfiered) and partly for our ufe, or benefit. 4. In a yet larger fenfe that may be called OVRS> which another bath* ox doth, or fujfereth for our Benefit , (though not in our ftead ) and which will be for our good, ( as that which a Friend or Father hath, is his Friends or Childs, and all things are Oars, whether Paul, or &c. and the Godly are owners of the World, in as much as God mil ufe all for their good).

7. It is therefore a Relation which Chrift's Righ-teoufnefs hath to us, or we to it, that muft here be meant by the word [ 0 V R S j ; Which is our RIG Hi or Jus i And that is acknowledged to be no Jns or Right to it in the forefaid denied fenfe-,. And it is agreed that feme Right it is. Therefore, to understand what it is, the Junius feu Funda memum jur'u muft be known.

8. And here it is agreed * 1. That we are before Converfion or Faith related to Chrift as part of the Redeemed World, of whom it is faid, 2 Cor.5. 19. That God wm in Chrift^ reconciling the World to himfelfi not imputing to them their fins* &c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Chrift as his Covenanted People, Subjedb, Brethren, Friends, and Political Members h yea, as fuch that have Right to^ and Pojfejfion of Real Communion with him by his Spirit: And that we have then Right to Pardon-, Judication, and Adoption, (or have

Right

(ii5) m Right to Impunity in the promifed degree, and to the Spirits Grace-, and the Love rf God, and Hca* venly Glory)* This Relation to Chrifi and this Right? to the Benefits of his Rigbteeufnefs are agreed on : And confequently thac his Rigbteoufnefi is OZJRSy and fo may be called, as far as the torefaid Relations and Rights import.

II. Now a Relation ( as Ocham hath fully proved ) having no real entity, befide the quid abfolu-tum y which is the Subjetty Fuudamentum, or Ter~ fftinw!) he that yetraileth at his Brother as not faying enough, or not being herein fo wife as he, and will maintain that yet thrift's Righteoufnefs is further OVRS^ muft name the Fundamewum of that Right or Propriety: What more is it that you mean ? I think the make-bates have here little probability of fetching any more Fuel to their Fire, or turning Chrift's Gofpel into an occafion of ftrife and mutual enmity, tf they will but be driven to a diftind: explication, and will not make confufton and ambiguous words their defence and weapons* If you fetycur quarrelfbme Brains on work, and fmdy as hard as you can for matter of Contention, it will not be eafie for you to find it, unlefs you will raze out the names of Popery*, Sociniamfm, Arminia-ttifm, or Solifidianifm^ Herefle, &c. inftead of real Difference. But if the angriefi and lorodeft Speakers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the mod Orthodox places.

Briefly, j. The forefaid Benefits of drift's Righteoufnefs, ( Habitual, Adtive and Paflive ) as a Meritorious. Satisfactory, Purchallng Caufe, are burs*

Z. To fay that the Benefits are Ours, importeth that the Caufal Righteoufnefs of Chrift is related to us, and the Ejfefis as fuch a Caufe: and fo is it felf OVRS, inthatfenfe, that is, fo related.

3. And Chrift himfelf is OVRS, as related to us as our Saviour > the Procurer and Giver of thofe Benefits. And do you mean any more by [OVRS~] ?

If you fay that we deny any Benefits of Chrift's Righteoufnefs which you aflert, name what they are. If you fay that we deny any true Fundamental?* ytr'u, or reafon of our title, name what that is. If you fay that we deny any true Relation to Chrift himfelf, tell us what it is : If you cannot* fay that you are agreed.

1. If you fay that the Benefit denied by us, is that w r e are judged by God, as thofe that ( habitually and a&ively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocencyour felves, though not in our natu* ral Perfons, yet by Chrift as reprefenting us, and fo (hall be juftified by that Law of Innccency as the Fulfiller of it, we do deny it, and fay, That you fubvert the Gofpel, and the true Benefits which we have by Chrift.

2. If you fay that we deny that God eftcemeth or reputeth us, to be the very Subjects of that Numerical Righteoufnefs, in the Habits, Adb, Paction or Relation, which was in the Perfon of Chrift, or to have dotte> fujfered, or merited our felves in and by him, as the proper Reprefenter of our Perfons therein i and fo that his Righteoufnefs is thus imputed to us as truly in it felf our own propriety , we do deny it, and defire you to do fo alfo, left you deny Chriftianity.

(117)

2. If you blame us for faying, That we had or have no fach Relation to Chrift, as to our Inftru-ment, or the proper full Reprefenter of each Believers particular Perfon, by whom we did truly fulfil the Law of Innocency, habitually and a&ively, and fatisfied, merited, &c. We do ftill fay fo, and wi(h you to confider what you fay, before you proceed to fay the contrary.

But if you come not up to this, where will you find a difference.

Object. 2. Chrift U called 'the Lord our Righte-(tufnefs) and he is made Rightedufnefs to us y and n*e are made the Righteoufnejs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5, 21, &c. And by the Obedience of one^ many, ats made Righteous*

Anfxv* And are we not all agreed of all this ? But can his Righteoufnefs be Ours no way but by the forefaid Perfonation Reprefentating ? How prove you that ? He is Out Rightcoufnefs^ and his Obedience maketh us Righteous*

1. Becaufethe very Law of Innocency which we difhonoured and broke by fin, is perfectly fulfilled and honoured by him, as a Mediator, to repair the injury done by our breaking it.

z. In that he fuffcred to fatisfie Juftice fpr cur (in.

3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father, all that Righteoufnefs which we are truly the Subje&s of, whether it be Relative, or Qualita-tive, or A&ive*, that is, 1. Our Right to Chrift in Union to the Spirit, to Impunity, and to Glory ^ And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit oy which we arc made Holy, and fulfil the Conditions of the Law

V 113)

of Grace. Wc are the Subjects of tbefa and he is the Minifies and the meritorious Cattfe of our Li/V, is well called Our Rigbteoufnejs, and by many the material Caufe, (as our own perfedfc Obedience would have been ) becaufe it is the Matter of that Merit.

4. And alfo Chrift's Interceffion with the Father, ftill procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits.

5. And we are Related as his Members (though not parts of his Perfon as fuch) to him that thus merited for us.

d- And we have the Spirit from him as our pkad.

7. And he is our Advocate, and will juftifie-us as our Judg.

8. And all this is God's Rigbteoufnejs deGgned for us, and thus far given us by him.

p. And the perfeS Juftice and Holinefs of God, is thus glorified in us through Chritf. And are not all thefe Cct together enough to prove, that we juft-ly own all affated by thefe Texts ? But if you think that you have a better fenfe of them, you muft better prove it, than by a bare naming of the words.

Obje#. 3. If Cbrifis Rigbteoufnefs be Q*rs y then vpe are Righteous by it as Ours > and fo God re-puteth it but a§ it U : But it is Ours ; 1. By our Vni~ on with bim. 2. And by bU Gift-> and fo confequently by God's Imputation.

Anfa. 1. I have told you before that it is con-fefTed to be Ours *> but that this fyllable OVRS hath manyfenfes> and I have told you in what fenfe,

and

]

md how far it is OVRS* and in that fenfe we arc juftified by it, and ic is truly imputed to us, or reputed or reckoned as OVRS : But not in their fenfe that claim a ftrid Propriety in the fSme numerical Habits, Ads, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfadion, which was in Chrift, or done by him, as if they did become Subjetts of the fame Accidents i or, as if they did it by an inftrumental fecond Caufe. But it is OVRS, as being done by a Mediator, infteaA of what we fhould have done, and as the Meritorious Caufe of all our Righteoufnefs and Benefits, which are freely given us for the fake hereof.

2. He that is made Righteoufnefs to us, is alfb made Wifdom, Sandification and Redemption to us : but that fub genere Caufe Efficients, non autem Caufa Conftitutiv*: We are the Subjeds of the fame numerical Wifdom abd Holinefs which is in Chrift. Plainly the Queftion is, Whether Chrift or his Righteoufnefs, Holinefs, Merits, and Sat if-fadion, be Our Righteoufnefs Confthutively, or only Efficiently? The Matter and Form of ChrilVs Ptr-fonal Righteoufnefs is OVRS y as an Efficient Caufe, feut it is neither the nearcft Matter, ox the Form of that Righteoufnefs which is OVRS as the Subjeds of it i that is, It is no t a Conftitutive Caufe nextly material, or formal of it.

3. If our Union with Chrift wer e Perf onaj^ (makingus the fame Perfon) t hen doubtlefs the Ac ciden ts of his Perfon would.h ci fie Accide nts of ours, X anHTonOtonly ChrilVs Righ teoufnefs, butevcr)^ CKrnH anTwoffld^ Our s: But that is not

lor is it lo given us by himl

- Gbjed. 4. Ton do feem to fuppofe that we have, rone of that kind of Righteoufnefs at all, which con-fifietb in perfett Obedience and Holinefs^ but only a Right to Impunity and Life^ with an imperfeU Inbe~ rent Righteoufnefs in our felves : The Papijis are for* I ced to confefs, that a Righteoufnefs we mu(i have which I conjjfieth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the I Law-) and not only the Retributive part: But they fay, It is in our felves> and we fay it is Chuff s im~ puted to Ui.

Anfw. 1. The Papifts (e.g. Learned Vafquer in Rom. 5.) talk fo ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants, or the Law of Innocency and cf Grace, as if they never understood it. And hence they 1. feem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our perfcd Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace. 2. Therefore they ufe to call thofe Duties but Perfe&ions, and the Commands that require them, but Counfelsy where they are not made Conditions of Life : and fins not bringing Damnation, fome call Venial, ( a name not unfit ) and fome expound that as properly no fin, but analogically. 3. And hence they take little notice, when they treat of Justification, of the Remitting of Punishment •> but by remitting Sin, they ufually mean the deftroying the Habits: As if they forgot all attual fin paft, or thought that it deferved no Punifhment, or needed no Pardon : For a paft Ad: in it felf is now nothing, and is capable of no RemiiTion but Forgiveness. 4. Or when they do talk of Guilt of Pu-nifhmenta they lay Co much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction, as if Chrift's Satisfaction and

Merits

Merits had procured no pardon, or at lead, of no temporal part of Punifhment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protcftants, as if we denied all Veronal Inherent Righteoufnefs, and trufted only to the Imputation of Chritt s Righteoufnefs as juftifying wicked unconverted Men : The Papifts therefore fay not that we are innocent or finlefs, ( really or imputatively )*, no not when they dream of Perfeftiw and Super err oga'ion* unlefs when they denominate Sin and YerfeUion only from the Condition of the Law of Grace, and not that of In-nocency.

2. Eutif any of them do as you fay, no wonder if they and you contend : If one fay, We are Innocent , or Sinlefs in reality, and the other , we are fa by Imputation* when we are fo no way at all ( but finners really* and fo reputed ) > what Reconciliation is there to be expected, till both lay by their Errour ?

Object. 5. How can God accept him as juft* who U really and reputedly a Sinner ? T'his dijhonoureth his Holinefs and Jujlice*

Anfvp. Not fo : Cannot God pardon fin, upon a valuable Merit and Satisfa&ion of a Mediator > And though he judg us not perfett now, and accept us not as fuch* yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy,2.and the Members of a perfect Saviour \ 3. and will make us pcrfedt and fpotkfs, and then fo judg us, having wafhed us from our tins in the Blood of the Lamb.

Object. £. "thus you make the Reatus Culpa?, ri& pardoned at a% hut only the Reatus Poena?.

Jnfo*

Anfw. i. If by Reatus Culpa be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator y andfo to be Reus? is to be Revera ipfe qui peccavit j then we rauft confider what you mean by Pardon : Foi if you mean the nullifying of fuch a Guilt* ( or Reality) it is impofliole, beewknecefjiate exijlen-tU* he that hath once finned, will be itill the Per* fon that finned, while he is a Perfon, and the Relation of one that finned will cleave to him : It will eternally be a true Propofitton, £ Titer an ^ Tanl did fin 3 > But if by Pardon you mean, the far* doning of all the penalty which for that fin is due, ( damni vel fenfus ) fo it is pardoned f» and this is indeed the Reatus pxna : Not only the Penalty? but the Vuenefs of that Penalty, or the Obligation to it, is remitted and nullified.

2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpa you mean an Obligation to Punifhment for that faulty this being indeed the Reatus poena? as is faid, is done away. So that we are, I think, all agreed de re \ And de nomine you may fay that the Reatus Culpa is done away or remitted, or not, in feveral fenfes: In fe? it is not nullified, nor can be : But as Duenefs of Punifliment followeth, that is pardoned.

Object. 7. Ton have faid? 'that though we were net perfonally but feminally in Adam when he finned? yet when we are Perfons? we are Perfons guilty of bis attual fin: And fo we muji be Perfons that are Partakers of Ckriffs AViual Right eoufnefs? and not only of its Effects? of foon as we are Believers. For Cbriti being the Second Adam, and publicly <Perfon, we have our part in his Righteoufnefs? ai truly and as much as in Adam'/ fin*

Anfvo

V **5 ) Anfa* I. We mud ririi underftand how fat Adam's fin is ours: And firft I have elfcwhere pr<% ved that our Covenant-Union and Interefi fuppofeth our Natural Vnion and Jntereji \ and that it is an adding to God's Word and Covenant, to fay, That he covenanted that Adam (hould perfonate each one of his Poftcrity in God's imputation or account, any further than they were naturally in him > and fo that his innocency or fin (hould be reputed theirs, as far as if they had been perfonally the Subjects and Agents, The Perfon'oi Peter never was in Reality or God's Reputation, the Perfon of Adam* ( Nor Adam's Perfon the Perfon of Peter ): But Peter being virtually and feminally in Adam, when he finned, his Perfon is derived from Adams Perfon ; And fo Peters Guilt is not numerically the fame with Adams, but the Accident of another Subjedt, and therefore another Accident, derived with the Perfon from Adam ( and from nearer Parents ). The Fundamentum of that Relation (of Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Perfon to Adam, (andfoitis Relatio in Relatione fundata). The Fundamentum of that natural Relation, is Generation* yez&feries of Generations from Adam to that Perfon : And .Adam's Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with perfonality to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his p>erfonal Vault and Guilt charged on hira by the Law : So that here is a long Jeries of efficient Caufes, bringing down from Adam's Perfon and Guilt a diftinEi numerical Perfon, and Guilt of every one of his later Pofterity.

2. And it is not the fame fort of Guilt, or fo plenary, which is on us, for Adam's Ad, as was

on him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another /ort : that is, He was guilty of being the wilful finning Perfon, and fo are not we, but only of being Perfons whofe Being is derived by Generation from the wilful finning Perfons, ( befides the guilt of our own inherent pravity ) : That isrfbe Relation is fucb which our Perfons have to Adam 3 / Perfon,as ma\e it jufi with God to defert us, and to pumjh us for that and our gravity together. This is our Guilt of Original fin*

3* And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Propagation, and refultancy from our very Nature fo propagated. And now let us confider of our contrary Intereft in Chrift.

And, i. Our Perfons are not the fame as Chrift's Perfon, (norChriiVs as ours,) nor ever fo judged or accounted of God.

2. Our Perfons were not naturally, feminally* and virtually in Chrift's Perfon (any further than he is Creator and Caufe of all things ) as they were in Adams.

3. Therefore we derive not Righteoufnefs from him by Generation, but by his voluntary Donation or Contract.

4. As he became not our Natural Parent, fo our Perfons not being in Chrijl when he obeyed, are not reputed to have been in him naturally,01 to have obeyed in and by him.

5. If Chrift and we are reputed one Perfon, either he obeyed in our Perfon, or we in his, or both. If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Perfon of each Sinner, his Obedience could not be meritorious, according to the Law of Innocency, which required finlefs Peife&ion > And he being fuppo-

fed

fed to have broken the Law in our Perfons, could not fo be fuppofed to keep it. If we obeyed in his Perfon, we obeyed as Mediators, or drift's, of which before.

(J. But as is oft faid, Chrift our Mediator undertook in a middle Perfon to reconcile God and Man, (not by bringing God erroneoufly to judg that he or we were what we are not, or did what we did not, but) by being, doing, and fuffering for us, that in his own Perfon, which (hould better anfwer God's Ends and Honour, than if we had done and fuffer-ed in our Perfons, that hereby he might merit a free Gift of Pardon and Life ( with himfelf) to be given by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Accepters. And fo our Righteoufnefs, as is oft opei> ed, is a Relation refulting at once from all thefe Caufes as fundamental to it, viz. Chrift's Meritorious Righteoufnefs, his free Gift thereupon, and our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Believers. And this is agreed on.

Objedh 8. As Chrift is a Sinner by imputation of our fin, fo vpe are Righteous, by the imputation of his Righteoufnefs. But it is our fin it felf that is imputed to Chrift: Therefore it is his Righteoufnefs it felf that is imputed to us.

Anfw. i. Chrift's Perfon was not the Subjed of our perfonal Relative Guilt, much lefs of our Habits or AUs.

2. God did not judg him to have been fo.

3. Nay, Chrift had no Guilt oi the fame kind reckoned to be on him > elfe thofe unmeet Speeches, ufed rafhly by fome,would be true, viz. That Chrift was the greateft Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater,

Blafphc-

r t»6 )

BUfphemer, Thief, &c. in all the World, and cori-fequently more hated of God, (for God muft needs hate a linner as fuch). To be guilty of fin as we are, is to be reputed truly to be the Perfon that committed it: But fo was not Chrift, and therefore not fo to be reputed. Chrift was but the Mediator that undertook to fuffer for our tins, that we might be forgiven j and not for his own fin, real or juftly reputed : Expofitors commonly fay that to be [ made fin for us ^ is but to be made [ a Sacrifice fir fin ]. So that Chrift took upon him neither our numerical guilt of fin it felf, nor any of the fame jpecies ; bur only our Reatum Vxn£, or Debt of P«-mfhment, or (left the Wrangler make a verbal quarrel of it) our Reatum Cnlp£ non qua talem & in /?, fed quatenus e\i fundamentum Reatus pcen* : And fo his Righteoufnefs is ours h not numerically the fame Relation that he was the Subjedt of made that Relation to us > nor yet a Righteoufnefs of the fame Species as Chrift's is given us at all, ( for his was a Mediators Righteoufnefs, confifting in, i. perfett Imocency \ 2. And that in the Works of the Jerv-ijb Law, which bind us not \ 3, And in doing his peculiar Wor\s , as Miracles, RefurreBion, &c. which were all His Righteoufnefs as a conformity to tbap Late, and performance of that Covenant , which was made with, and to him as Mediator). But his Righteoufnefs is the Meritorious Caufe and Rea-fon of another Righteoufnefs or Justification (di-ftind from his ) freely given us by the Father and himfelf by his Covenant. So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter > And they that" will not blafpheme Chrift by making guilt of fin it felf in its formal Relation to be his own, and fo

Chrili

v i27 / Chrift to be formally as great a (Inner as all the Redeemed fet together, and they that will not overthrow the Gofpel, by making us formally as Righteous as Chrift in kind and meafure, muft needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controverfie.

Object, p. When you Infer, 'that if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Chrift, we cannot be again hound to obey our felves afterward, nor be guilty of any fin h you muft k$ow that it's true-, 'Xhat we cannot be bound to obey to the fame ends as Chrift did, C which is to redeem us , or to fulfil the haw of Worlds J But yet we muft obey to other ends, viz. I*~ gratitude, and to live to God> and to do geod, and other fuch like.

Anfie. i. This is very true, That we are not bound to obey to all the fame ends that Chrift did, as to redeem the World, nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency. But hence it clearly followeth that Chrift obeyed not in each of our Perfons legally, but in the Perfon of a Mediator, feeing his due Obedience and ours have fo different Ends, and a different formal Relation, (his being a conformity proximately to the Law, given him as Mediator) that they are not fo much as of the fame (pedes, much lefs numerically the fame.

2. And this fully provtth that we are not reckoned to have perfe&ly obeyed in and by him : For elfe we could not be yet obliged to obey, though to other ends than he was: For either this Obedience of Gratitudeis a Duty or not *, If not, it is not truly Obedience, nor the omiflion fin : If yea, then that Duty was made a Duty by lome Law: And if by a Law we arc now bound to obey in gratitude ( or

for

for what ends foever) either we do all that we are fo bound to do, or not. If we do it (or any of it ) then to fay that we did it twice, once by Chrift, and once by our felves, is to fay that we were bound to do it twice, and then Chrift did not all that we were bound to, but half: But what Man is he that linneth not ? Therefore feeing it is certain, that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gofpel, ( in the time and meafure of his faith, Hope, Love, Fruitfulnefs, &c) it followeth that he is a finner, and that he is not fuppofed to have done all that by Chrift which he failed in,both becaufe he was bound to do it himfelf, and becaufe he is a (inner for not doing it.

3. Yea, the Gofpel binds us to that which Chrift could not do for us, it being a Contradi&ion. Our great Duties are, 1. To believe in a Saviour. 2.To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith. 3. To repent of our fins. 4. Tomortifie finful Lufts in our felves.. 5. To fight by the Spirit againft our flefli. 6. To confefs our felves fin-ners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want. $>. To love God for redeeming us. 10. Sacrarnentally to covenant with Chrift, and to receive him and his Gifts* with many fuch like > which Chrift was not capable of doing in and on his own Perfon for us> though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them, and pray for the pardon of our (ins, as in our felves.

4. But the Truth which this Obje&icn. intima-teth, we all agree in,- viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency, that the keeping of that Law might not be neceffary to our Salvati-

K™9) on, (and fo fuch Righteoufnefs neceffary in our felves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfedi Innocency, and be faved upon our Cncere keeping of the Law of Grace, becaufe the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator, and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited^ and by it Chrift, Pardon, Spirit and Life, by him freely given to Believers,

Object. 10. 'the fame Perfon may be really a ftmter in himfelf and yet perfectly innocent in Chrift y and by imputation.

Anfo. Remember that you fuppofe here the Per-fon and Subjett to be the fame Man : And then that the two contrary Relations of prfeft Innocency^ or guiltlefnefsi and guilt of any* ( Y ea much fin) can be confiftent in him, is a grofs contradi&ion. Indeed he may be guilty, and not guilty in feveral partial refpeds > but a perfection of guiltlefnefs ex-cludeth all guilt. But we are guilty of many a fin after Convcrfion, and need a Pardon. All that you fhould fay is this, We are fmners our felves> but we have a Mediator that finned not^ who merited Pardon and Heaven for finners.

2. Eutif you mean that God reputeth us to be perfe&Iy innocent when we are not, becaufe that Chrift was fo, it is to impute Error to God : He reputeth no Man to be othcrwife than he is: But he doth indeed firft give, and then impute a Righteoufnefs Evangelical to us, in Head of perfed: Innocency, which (hall as certainly bring us to Glory h and chat i$> He giveth \x% both the Renovation of

£ his

his Spirit, (to Evangelical Obedience) and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteouf-nefs of Chritt that merited it h And this thus given us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteoufnefs

mus.

CHAP. VI.

'Animadverfionson feme of Dr. T. Tullies Strictures*

$. i. T Suppofe the Reader dclireth not to be wea-JL ried with an examination of all Dr. 7W-lies words, which are defective in point of Truth, Juftice, Charity, Ingenuity, or Pertinency to the Matter > but to fee an anfwer to thofe that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it, to di^ abufc the incautelous Readers \ Though fomewhat by the way may be briefly faid for my own Vindication. And this Tradtate being conciliatory, I think meet here to leave out moftof the words ^ and -perCmal part of bis contendings, and alfo to leave that-which concerneth the intereji of IVorhj (as they are pleafcd to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace) in our Juftiri-otion, to a fitter place, viz,. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Cbrijiopber Cartwright on the Subjcd, which Dr. 'tallies Affault perfwackth me to pablifti.

s- ?-

(1*1)

§. 2. pag.JJ, Juftif Paulin. This Learned Doctor faith, \jtheScripurementionethm Juftificati-on in foro Dei ** <z//, £#* that One, which U Abfolu-tion from the Malediftory Sentence of the Law.

Anfw. i. If this be untrue, it's pity fo worthy a Man fhould unworthily ufe it againft peace and concord. If it be true, I crave his help for the ex* pounding of fcveral Texts,

Exod. 23. <5, 7. ihou Jhalt not wreft the Judgment of thy Poor in his Caufe : Keep thee far from a falfe Mattery and the Innocent and Righteous fray thou not » for I will not \uftifre the wicked"]. Is the meaning only, I will not abfolve the wicked from the Maledi&ory Sentence of the Law (of Innocen-cy) ? Or is it not rather^ [ I will not misjudg the wicked to be juft, nor allow his wickednefs, nor yet allow thee fo to do, nor leave thee unpunifhed for thy unrighteous judgment, but will condemn thee if thou condemn the Juft ~\.

Job 25. 4. How then can Man be juftified with God ? or, Hjw can he be clean that U born of a TFo-man ? Is the fenfe, [ How can Man be abfolve d from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law ? ] Or rather, Q How can he be maintained Innocent ? ]

Pfal. 143. 2. In thy fight (hall no Man living be jttftified. Is the fenfe, [ No Man living (hall be absolved from the Maledictory fentence of the haw .? Then we are all loft for ever: Or rather no Man fhall be found and maintained Innocent,and judged one that deferved not pmifhment~\ '-> ( Therefore we are not judged perfedt fulhllcrs of that Law by another or our felves ). s

Object. But this is for us and agahift you : for it denyeth thauthere is any fuch JufiijicaUotf,

K 2 Arfm

t'tt*)

Anfw. Is our Controverfie de re, or only de no-mine, of the fenfe of the word Juftifie ? If de re> then his meaning is to maintain, That God never doth judg a Believer to be a Believer, or a Godly Man to be Godly, or a performer of the Condition of Pardon and Life to have performed it, nor will juftifie any "believing Saint againft the falfe Accufa-tions, that he is an Infidel, a wicked ungodly Man, and an Hypocrite, (oreKehe writeth againft thofe that he underftood not> But if the Queftion be (asitmuftbe) de nomine , whether the word Juftifie have any fenfe bcGdes that which he appropriated! to it, then a Proportion that denieth the Exi-ftentiam rei> may confute his denyal of any other fenfe of the word.

So Ifa. 43.9, 26. Let them bring forth their Witness that they may jujiified: Declare thou that thou mayeji be jufiified h that is, proved Innocent.

Bat I hope he will hear and reverence the Son Matth. 12*37. By thy words thou (halt be Jujiifiedy and by thy words thou (halt be Condemned] (fpeaking of Gods Judgment) which I think meanech {de re & nomine) ihy Righteous or unrighteous words (hall be a part of the Caufc of the day, or Matter,for or ac-l cording to which, thou (halt be judged obedient or I difobedient to the Law of Grace, and fo Lir juft ori unjuft, and accordingly fentenced ro Heaven or Hell, as isdefcribed Matth. 25. But it feems this Learned Do$or underftands it only, By thy word* t\fm (halt be abfolved from the Maledictory Sentence*! of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condenK l md.

Lu}^ 18. 14* The Publican [went down to Hottfi jujiified rather than th: other ~] h I think not

only,

(133;

only [ from the MalediBory Sentence of the Law of Innocency] but [ by God approved a fwcere Penitent], and fo a fit Subjed of the other part of Juftifica-tion.

Ads 13. 30. is the Text that fpeaketh nioft in the fenfe he mentioneth > And yet I think it inclu-deth more, viz. By Chrift, 1. we are not only ab-folved from that Condemnation due for our fins > 2. but alio we are by his repealing or ending of the Mofaic\Law juftihed againft the Charge of Guilt for our not observing it '•> and 3. Auguftine would add, That we are by Chrift's Spirit and Grace made juft (that is, fincerely Godly) by the deftru&ion of thofe inherent and adherent fins, which the Law of Mofes could not mortifie and fave us from, but the Spirit doth.

Rom. 2. 13. TSfot the Hearers of the Law are juft before God, hut the Doers of the Law Jhall be jufti-fied ]. Is it only, "the Doers jhall be Abfolved from the Maledictory Sentence, &c ? Or firft and chiefly, They Jhall be judged well-doers, fo far as they do well, and fo approved and juftihed, fo far as they do keep the Law ? ( which becaufe no Man doth perfectly, and the Law of Innocency requireth Perfection, none can be juftified abfolutely, or to Salvation by it >

Obje<3\ Tthe meaning pf, ( fay fome ) 'the Doers of the Law Jhouldbe juftified by it i were there any fuch.

Anfw. That's true, of abfolute Juftification unto Life : But that this is not all the fenfe of the Text, the two next Verfes (hew, where the Gentiles are pronounced partakers of fome of that which he meaneth inclulively in doing to Juftification; There-

K 3 fore

( 134 )

fore it mull include that their Anions and Perfdns are fo far jujiifiedy ( more or lefs) as they are Doers of the Law* as being fo far a&ively juft.

Rom. 8.30. Whom he JHJiified, them he alfo glorified y And 1 Cor. 6- 11. Te are jptjiified in the Name of the Lord Jefus-> and by the Spirit of our God. Many Proteftants, and among them Bez& himfelf, expound (in the Papiftsand Aujlins fenfe of Juftincation ) as including San&ification alfo, as well as Abfolution from the Curfe ; And fo Arch BiOiop VJher told me he underftood them. As alfo jti?. 3. 7. ^hjt being jptjiified freely by his yrace.

And many think foof Rom. 4. 5. he Q juflifieth the Vngodly] fay they, by Converting, Pardoning, and Accepting them in Chrift to Life.

And Rom. 8.33. WhoJhaU condemn ? it is God that jufrifieth, feemeth to me more than barely to fay, God ahfolveth ns from the Curfi y becaufe it is kt againft Mans Condemnation, ( who reproached, ilandcred and perfecuted the Chriftiansasevil Doers, as they did Chrift, to whom they were pre-deftinated to be conformed ). And fo rauft mean, God will not only abfolve us from hk Curfe, but alfo juftifie our Innocency againft all thefalfe Accufati-cns of our Enemies.

And ft feemeth to be fpoken by the Apoftle, with lCfped: to Ifj. 50. 8. He is near that jujiifieth me, rvho^will contend with me? Which my reverence to this Learned Man fufficeth not to make me believe, is taken only in his fenfe of Abfolution.

Rev. 22. 11. He that is Righteous, let him be )u-jlifizd ftill, (£iyjXLG:<$y f TZ) ) which not only our Tr... but almoft all Expolitors take as in-

clufive

clufive of Inherent Righteoufnefs, if not principally fpeaking of it.

To fpeak freely, I remember not one Text of Scripture that ufeth the word £ Jujiifie ] in this Do&or's fenfe * that is, Only for the faid absolution from the Curfe of the Law : For all thofe other Texts that fpeak for Justification by Chrift's Grace, and Faith, and not by the Works of the Law , (as RoM'3. 20,24,28,30. and 4. 2,5,25. & 5.1, 9, i<5> 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. Gal. 2. 16, 17. & 3- 8, n> 24. & 5. 4, fyc- ) do all feem to me to mean, not only that [ we are abfolved from the Maledittory Sentence of the Law 1, but alfo that we are full made, and then accounted Perfons firft meet for Absolution, and next meet for God's Acceptance of us as jufr, and as Heirs of Life Eternal, and meet for the great lleward in Heaven: For when the Apoftle denieth Jujiification by Works > it is not credible that he meaneth only, that [ By the Works of the Law no Man is abfolved from the Curfe of the Law ~] i But alfo, No Man by the Works of the Lawy is before God taken for a Performer of the neceflary Condition of Abfolution and Salvation, nor fit for his Acceptance, and for the Heavenly Reward.

Anfw. 2. But let the Reader here note, that the Dodtorfuppofeth James to mean, that [By Worlds a Man is abfolved from the Maledi&ory Sentence of the Law, and not by faith only "]• For that James fpeaks of Juttification in foro Vet is paft all doubt : And who would have thought that the Doctor had granted this of the Text of James ? But miilakes feldom agree among themfelves.

Anfw* 3. And would not any Man have thought K 4 that

( 136 ) that this Author had pleaded for fuch an Imputation of ChrifVs Righteoufnefs, as juftifieth not only u from the Maledi&ory. Sentence of the Law, but alfofrom the very guilt of fin as fin, we being re- i puted, ( not only pardoned finners, but) perfed fulfillers of the Law by Chrift, and fo that we are in Chrift conform to the Fac hoc or preceptive part commanding Innocency? Who would have thought but this was his drift ?, If it be not, all his angry Oppofition to me, is upon a miftake fo foul, as reverence forbids me to name with its proper Epithets : If it be, how can the fame Man hold, That we are juftified as in Chrift, conform to the Precept of perfett Innocency ? And yet that The Scripture menttonetb no Jujiification at all, in foro Dei, be fides that one, which is Absolution from the Maledidory Sentence of the Law. But ftill miftakes have difcord with themfelves.

Anfw. 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Ga-ta\er, Wotion, Pifcator, Partus, Vrfine, Wende-line, and abundance other excellent Divines, that as fins of omifiiot; are truly fin, and pcena damni, or privations truly punifhment > fo for a finner for his fin to be denied God's Love and Favour, Grace and Glcry, is to be punifhed » and to be pardoned, is to have this privative punifhment remitted as well as the reft * and fo that Juftification containeth our Right to Glory, as it is the bare forgivenefs of the penalty of Cm i becaufe Death and Life, Dark-nefs and Light are fuch Contraries, as that one is but the privation of the other : But this Learned Dodoi feemeth to be of the commoner Opinion, that the Rcmiftton of Sin is but one part of our Juftification, and that by Imputation of perfedl

Holineft

( 137 ) Holinefsand Obedience wemuft have another part, which is our Right to the Reward* ( and I think a little Explication would end that difference > But doth he here then agree with himfelf ? And to contradict the common way of thofewith whom he joyneth ? Do they not hold that Juftification is more than an Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law ?

Anfw. 5. But indeed his very Defcription by Absolution is utterly ambiguous: 1. Abfolution is either by Atiual Pardon*, by the Law or Covenant of Grace > which giveth us our Right to Impunity: 2. Or by Sentence of the Judg, who publickly de-cideth our Cafe, and declareth our Right determi-natively : Or by execution of that Sentence in adtu-al delivering us from penalty > And who knoweth which of thefe he meaneth ? This is but confufion, todefcribe by an unexplained equivocal word.

And who knoweth what Law he meaneth,whofe Maledictory Sentence Juftification abfolveth us from ? Doth he think that the Law of Innocency, and of Mofes* and the Law of Grace are all one, which Scripture fo frequently diftinguifheth ? Or that each of them hath not its MalediBion ? If he deny this, I refer him to my full proof of it, to Mr. Cart-wright and elfewhere. If not, we fhould know whether he mean all, or which.

3. And what he meaneth by the Sentence of the Law is uncertain : Whether it be the Laws Commi-nation, as obliging us to punifhment, which is not a Sentence in the ufual proper fenfe, but only a virtual Sentence^ that is, the Norma Judicis «> or whether he mearffhe Sentence of God as Judg, according to the Law: which is not the Sentence of the Law

pro-

properly, but of the Judg : It's more intelligible {peaking, and diftinft, that muft edirte us, and end thofe Controverfies which ambiguities and con-fufion bred and feed.

Anfip. 6* But which-ever hemeaneth, mod certainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth no other Justification in faro Dei. For many of the. fore-cited Texts tell us, that it oft mtntioneth a Ju-ftification, which is no Abfolution from the Male-didlory Sentence, (neither of the Law of Innocen-cy, of 'Mofiiy or of Grace) but a Juftification of a Man's innocency in tantum> or quoad Caufam banc f articular em^ Viz*

i. Sometimes a Juftifying the Righteous Man againft the ilanders of the World, or of his Enemies.

2. Sometimes a juftifying a Man in fome one a&ion, as having dealt faithfully therein.

3. Sometimes a judging a Man to be a faithful Godly Man, that performeth the Conditions of Life in the Law of Grace made neceflary to God's Acceptance.

4. Sometimes for making a Man fuch, or for making him yet more inherently juft > or continuing himfb.

5. Sometimes for Juftiftcation by the Apology of an Advocate, (which is not Abfdution).

6. Sometimes for Judication by Witnefl.

7. And fometimes, perhaps, by Evidence. As appeareth, Ifa 50. §• Rom. 8. 33. ( and fo God himfelf is faid to be juftihed, Pjai. 51. 4. Rom. 3.4. and Chrift, 1 Tim. 3. 16. } 1 King. 8. 32. .Hear ( thou in Heaven, and do, and judg thy Servants, condemning the JFickedto bring his way upon his Head >

and

and juliifying the Righteous* to give him according to bis Righteou/heff, (where the Sentence is patted by the A (ft of Execution). Is this abfolving him from the Curfe of the Law ? So i Chron* 6. 23. fo Mat. 12.37. & J am - 2# 2I > 2 4> 2 5 where Juftification by our Words and by WorVg is afterted i and many other Texts fo fpeak : Frequently to Juftifie, is to maintain one, or prove him to be juft. It's ftrange that any Divine fliould find but one fort or fenfe of Juftification before God mentioned in the Scriptures.

I would give here to the Reader, a help for fome excufeof the Author, viz* that by [ pr&ter unam illamqutejl Abfolutio] he might mean, which is partly Abfolution, and partly Acceptation-^ as of a fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Chrift, and partly Ri^ht to the Reward, all three making up the whole •> but that I muft not teach him how to fpeak his own mind, or think that he knew not how to utter it. And fpecially, becaufe the In-ftances here prove that even fo it is very far from Truth, had he fo fpoken.

Anfa. 7. But what if the word [_Junification] had been found •only as he affirmed? If Jujiice^ (Righceoufntfs) and Ju\}^ be otherwife uied, thafs all one in the fenfe, and almoft in the word » feeing it is cGnfefled, that to Juftifie-^ is, 1. To make Ju\\ h 2. Or to ejieem Jujl i 3. Or fentence Jttfi-y 4. Or to prove Juft, and defend as Juft ^ 5. Or to ufe as Juft by execution. And therefore in fo many fenfes as a Man is called Juji in Scripture, he is inclufively, or by connotation, faid to be Jn(iifiedj and Jujiijiable^ and Juftificandus. And I defireno more of the Impartial Reader, but to

turn

*!

( i4° ) turn to his Concordances, and perufe all the Texts where the words [Juft, Juftice, Juftly, Righteous, Righteoufnefs, Righteoufly ]] areufcd; and if he find not that they are many (core, if not hundred rimes ufed, for that Righteoufnefs which is the Perfons Relation refulting from forae Adts or Habits of his own, (as the Sub)e<£t or Agent ) and otherwife than according to his folitary fenfe here, let him then believe this Author. (

§.3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs, as in his lingular untrue Aflertion : " [ Rom. 8. 2, 4. tc *the Lapp of the Spirit of Life, bath freed m from "the Law of Sin and of Death* Gal. 3. 13. God u fern his Son, that the Righteoufnefs of the Law <c might be fulfilled in us \ Chrijl hath redeemed us "from the Curfe of the Law *, and many more fuch: Here is no mention of any but one Legal Juftification ^.

Anfw. 1. Reader, do you believe that thefetwo Texts are a perfed: Enumeration. And that if theft mention but one fenfe or fort of Juftification, chat it will follow that no more is mentioned in j Scripture : Or if many hundred other Texts have ' the fame fenfe ? •

2. Nay, he hath chofen only thefe Texts where | the word [ Juftification ] or £ Juflifie ] is not at all found. By which I may fuppoie that he in-tendeth the Controverfie here de re, and not de no- 1 mine* And is that fo ? Can any Man that ever j considerately opened the Bible, believe that de re no fuch Thing is mentioned in Scripture. I. As | making a Man a believing Godly Man. 2. Or as performing the Conditions of Life required of us in the Covenant of Gnco 3. Nor efteeming a

Man

di

( i4i.)

Man fuch. 4. Nor defending or proving him to be fuch. 5. Nor judging him fuch decifively. <5. Nor ufing him as fuch. 7. Nor as jutfifyinga Man fo far as he is Innocent and Jutt againft all falfe Accufation of Satan or the World.

3. The firft Text cited by hiw^Kom.S^. downright contradi&s him : Not only Augujline^ but divers Proteltant Expofitors fuppofe, that by the Law of the Sprit of Life is meant, either the quickning Spirit itfelf given to us that are in Chrift, or the Gofpel, as it givetb that Spirit into m > And that by delivering us from the Law of Sin y is meant either from that fin which if as a Law within us y or Mofes Law, as it forbiddeth and commandeth all its peculiarities, and fo maketh doing or not doing them fin * and as it declareth fin, yea, and accidentally irritatethit : Yea, that by the Law of Death is meant, not only that Law we are curfed by, and fo guilty, but chiefly that Law, as it is faid Rom. 7. to kill Paul, and to occafion the abounding of fin, and the Life of it: And that by [ the fulfilling of the Law in us-> that wa\ not after the Flejb, but after the Spirit ~}> is meant £ that by the Spiritand Grace of Chrift, Chriitians do fulfil the Law, as it requireth fuuere Holincfs, Sobriety and Righteoufnefs, which God accepterh for Chrifi's fake} which the Law of M»fes> without Chrift's Spirit, enabled no Man tofulhl "]. Not to weary the Reader with citing Expofitors, I now only de-fire him to perufe, Ludov- de Vim on the Text.

And it is certain, that the Law that Paul there fpeaketh of, was Mofes Law : And that he is proving all along, that the obfervation of it w T as not neceflary to the Gentiles, to their performance^ or

Jufii.

'!

( 14* )

Juftification and Salvation, (necefjitate pr&cepti vet medii) h ( for it would not juftihe the Jews them-felvesj. And fare, i. all his meaning is not, [The £kw will not abfolve Men from the fenfe of the Law]. But alfo its JVorks will give no one the juft title of a Righteous Man, accepted of God, and faved by him, as judging between the Rjghtc-ous and the wicked : (as Chrift faith, Mattb.25. The Righteous Jhall go into Everlafting Life-, Sec. ) 2. And if it were only the Maledictory Sentence of , Mofes Law, as fuch,that Paul fpeaketh of Abfolu-tion from, as our only Juiiincation, then none but Jews and Profelites who were under thatLaw,could have the Juftitication by Faith which he mention-cth '*> for it curfeth none elfe : For what-ever the Law faith, it faith to them that are under the Law ; The reft of the World were only under the Law of Japfed Nature, (the reli&s of Adams Law of In-j nocency) and the Curfe for Adams hrft Violation \ and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noah y and after perfected fullier by Chx\i\ in its fecond Edition.

2. His other Text [_ Chrijl redeemed us from the Curfe of the Law ~] provcth indeed that all Believers are redeemed from the Curfe of the firft Law of Innccency, and the Jews from the Curfe of Mofes Law (which is it that is directly meant): But what's that to prove that thefe words fpeak the whole and the only Jujiifi'cation ? and that the Scripture men-tioneth no other ?

§. 4. He addeth, \ Lex est qu£ ptohibeth Lex qua fcenam decernit '-> Lex qu<z irrogat ; Peccatum eft tranfgrejjio Legit : Fxna ejfeftus ijiius trangrefftonvs ', Jufxifaatti denique abfolutu ab ijia poena : Jtaque

cum

cum Lex nifi pr&ftita neminem Juftificaty & fr<efti-tam omnes in Chrijio agnofcunt^ ant Legalis erit om-tin Jufiificatio coram Veo^ aut omnino nulla !•

Anftv. i. But doth he know but one fort of Law of God ? Hath every Man incurred the Curfe by Mofes Law that did by Adams ? Or every Man fallen under the peremptory irreverfible condemnation which the Law of Grace pafleth on them that never believe and repent ? Doth this Law, £ He that believeth not Jhall be damned J damn Believers ? One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent. Another fuppofeth them under that defe&,and condemneth peremptorily (not every Sinner) but the Wicked and Unbelievers.

2. Again here he faith, purification is Abfolu-tion from that Fenahy ]. But is a Man abfolved C properly ) from that which he was never guilty of ? Indeed if he take Abfolution fo loofly as to fig-nifie, the juftifying a Man againft a falfe Accusation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty i So all the Angels in Heaven may pcffibly be capable of Abfolution : Justification is ordinarily fo ufed, but Abfolution fcldom by Divines. And his words fhew that this is not his (enfj, if I understand them. But if we are reputed perfedt fuliillers of the Law of Innocency by Chriil, and yet Justification is our Abfolution from the Curfe, then no Man is justified that is Righteous by that Imputation.

3. And how unable is my weak Underftanding, romake his words at peace with thcmfelves ? The fame Man in the next lines faith, £ Lex nifi prtfti-ia neminem jujlificat ; and all Juftification before God mufi be legal or none "]\ fo that no Man is juftiried to as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law :

And

And yet Jujiification is our Abfolution from the Pu nifhment and Maledi&ion of the Law > As if h< faid, No Man is juftified but by the pardon of thai fin which he is reputed never to have had, and Abfolution from that Curfe and Punifliment which he is reputed never to have deferved or been under. Are thefe things reconcileable ? But if really ht take Abfolution for juftifyingor acquitting from ; falfe Accufation,and fo to be abfolved from theMa-ledi&ion of the Law, is to be reputed one that never deferved it, or was under it, then it's as much as ro (ay, that there is no pardon of fin, or that; no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Pardon, is juftified.

4. AU this and fuch Speeches would perfwade th Reader that this Learned Difputer thinketh that took and ufe the word £Legaf] generally as of tha which is related to any Law in genere, and (b taki Evangelical contrarily for that which is related t< no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, tha ( fpeaking in the ufual Language that I may be underwood ) I take [ Legal ] Jpecially ( and not ge nerally ) for that Righteoufntfs which is related to the Lave of IForkj or Innoccncy, (not as if we hadj indeed fuch a Righteoufnefs as that Law will jufii4 fie us for> But a pro-Legal-Rigbteoufieffi one in-' jieadof it-> in and fy our per fed Saviour, which (hall effe&ually fave us from that Laws condemnation): And that by [Evangelical Righteoufnefs 1, I mean, that which is related to the Law of Grace, as theJ Rule of Judgment, upon the juft pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but julliheus. If he knew this to be my meaning, in my weak judgment he fhould. not have written either as if hi

di

f} U

wh

did not, or as if he would perfwade his Rsaders to the contrary : For Truth is mod congruoufly defended by Truth : But if he tyierv it not, I defpair of becoming intelligible to him, by any thing that I ean write, and I (hall expedt that this Reply be wholly loft to him and worfe.

5. His [] Lex nifi prtftita neminem jujiificat ] is true i and therefore no Man is juftified by the Law, But his next words Q & frajiitam omnes in Cbrifta agnofcunt ] feemeth to mean that £ It was -performed by us in Chrift *] h Or that £ It jujiifietb ax, becaufe performed perftftly by Chrift as fucb J : Which both are the things that we mod confidently deny, tt was not Phyfically, or Morally, or Politically, or Legally, or Reputatively, (take which word you will) fulfilled by us in Cbriji : it doth not juftifie us, becaufe it was fulfilled by Chrift, (as fucb^ or immediately, and eo nomine). It juftified Cbriji^ becaufe he fulfilled it > and fo their Law doth all the perfect Angels. But we did not perfonally fulfil it in ChrifUit never allowed vicarium obedienti<t to fulfil it by our felves or another: Therefore anothers Obedience, merely as fuch, (even a Mediators) is not Dur Obedience or Justification : But that Obedience iuftifieth us, as given us only in or to the effe&ing of our Perfonal Righteoufnefs, which confiftethin Dur right to Impunity, and to God's Favour and Life, freely given for Chrift's Merits fake, and in )ur performance of the Conditions of the Law of ■ 3race, or that free Gift, which is therefore pot a ^ordinate but a fub-ordinate Righteoufnefs ( and fuftification) to qualitie us for the former. This s fo-plain and neceflary, that if (in fenfc) it be lot underftood by all that are admitted to the Sa-L era*

d4«)

cramental Communion, (excepting Verbal Contro-verfies or Difficulties) I doubt we arc too lax in our admiffions.

§5. Next he tcTs us of a threefold reftett of Juftification : 1. Ex parte principii. 2. Termini* 3. Mft/i* : ( I find my felf uncapeable of teaching bim, that is a Teacher of fuch as L and therefore prefume not to tell him how to diftinguifli more congruoufly, plainly, and properly, as to the terms)* And at .to the Principle or Fountain whence it floweth, that is, Evangelical Grace in Chrift, he faith, It is thus neceffary, that in our lapfed Stale all Juftification be Evangelical ].

Anfw. Who would defire a Jharper or a fofter^ a more diffenting or a more confenting Adverfary ? Very good : If then I mean it ex parte principii^ I offend him not by aflerting Evangelical Righteouf-nefs: The Controverfie then will be only de nomine^ whether it be congruous thus to call it. And really are his Names and Words put into our Creed, and become fo neceffary as to be worthy of all the ftrefs that he layech on them, and the calling up the Chri-ftian World to arrive by their Zeal againft cur Phrafe ? Muft the Church be awakened to rife up againd all thofe that will fay with Chrift, [_ By thy words thou (halt be )uftifted~\. And with James, £ By Worlds a Man u juftified, and not by Faith only]-, and (_ we are judged by the Law of Liberty ] , and as Chrifr, Joh*$. 22. [ The Father judgetb no Man, but hath committed all Judgment iorthe Son ~] > and that (hail recite the 25th Chapter of Matthew.

Even now he faid at once, Q There is no Juftification in foro Dei, but Ahfilution, &c 'the Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us^ &c - Here is no

men-

(i47)

mention of any Juftifidation but Legal ]. And now [ All out Juftification ex parte principii, is only Evangelical ]. So then no Ttext talks of Evangelical Juftification-, or of Juftification ex parte prin-dpi: And Absolution which definethit, is named ex parte- principii. And yet all Judication is Evan-gelical. Is this mode of Teaching worthy a De* fence by a Theological War ?

2. But Reader, Why may not I denominate Juftification ex parte principii ? Kighteoufnefi is formally a Relation: To juftifieconftitutively, is to ma\eRighteous. To be Juftified, (or Juftification in fenfu pajjivo ) is to be made Righteous \ And in foro, to be judged Righteous : And what meaneth he by Frincipium as to a Relation, but that which other Men call the Fundamentum, which is loco Efficients, or a remote efficient > And whence can ? Relation be more fitly named, than from the fun-damentum, whence it hath its formal being ? Reader, bear with my Error, or corre&it, if I miftake. I think that as our Righteoufnefs is not all of one fort, no more is the fundamentum: r. I think I have no Righteoufnefs, whofe immediate fundamentum is my finlefs Innocency, or fulfilling the Law of Works or Innocericy, by my felf or another : and lb I have no fundamentum of fuch. 2. I hope I have a Righteoufnefs confifting in my perfonal Kigk to Impunity and I ife \ and that Jus or Right is mine by the T'itle of free Condonatiou and Donation by the GofpeKCovenant or Grant: And fo that Grant or Gofpe'l is the fundamentum of it; But the Merits of Chrifi's Righteoufnefs purchafed that Gift, and fothofe Merits are the remote fun* damemnm or efficient: And thus my Juftification,

L 2 by

by the Do&or's confeffion, is Evangelical. 3. mult perifh if I have not alfo a fubordinate perfo-nal Righteoufnefs, confifting in my performance of thofe Conditions on which the New-Covenant gi-veth the former. And the fundamentum of this Righteoufnefs is the Reality of that performance, as related to the Irrogation, Impofition, or Tenor of the Covenant, making this the Condition, This is my Herefie, if I be heretical ••> and be it right or wrong, I will make it intelligible, and not by faying and unfaying, involve all in confufion.

§. tf. Headdeth, [_Ex parte Termini Legalit eft, quia terminatur in fatisfa&ione, Legi pr£Jlavda : Liberavit me a Lege mortis, &c. And heme, he faith, the denomination is properly takgn.

Anfo. 1. The Reader here feeth that all this Zeal is exercifed in a Game at Words, or Logical Notions > and the Church muft be called for the umpirage, to ftand by in Arms to judg that he hath won the Day : What if the denomination be pro-ferly to be taken from the Terminus ? Is it as dangerous as you frightfully pretend to take it aliunde ? 2. But ftay a little : Before we come to this, we muft crave help to underftaud what hetalkethof; Is it, 1. Jujiificatio.Juflificans (a&ive-fumpta) ? Or, 2. Juiiificatio Juftificati (pajfive) ? 3. Or Jujlitia ?\

1. Thefirft is ACiio, and the Terminus of that A&ion is two-fold. 1. The Objedt or Patient (a believing Sinner). 2. The EiFeft, Juftificatio paf-five, neither of thefe is the Law, or its MalediSi-en. But which of thefe is it that we muft needs name it from ?

2. The pajfive or effetiive Juftification is in re-fpedt of the Subjects Reception called Vajfio ; In

refpedt[

(149) refped of the form received, it is as various as I before mentioned. >

1. The Effed of the Donative Juftification of the Law of Grace, is Juftitia data j a Relation (oft defcribed). *

2. TheEflfed of the Spirits giving us Inherent Righteonfnefs* is a Quality given* Afts excited^ and a Relation thence refulting.

3. The Effed of Justification per fententiam Judicisy is immediately a Relation, Jus Judica-turn*

4. The Effed of an Advocates Juftification, is Juftitia & ferfona ut defenfa feu vindicata.

• 5. The Effed of Executive Juftification* is Adu-al Impunity or Liberation. And are all thefe one 'Terminus* or hence one name then ? Thefe are the 'Termini of Juftificatio Jujiificantis* ut Afiionit > and nothing of this nature can be plainer, than that, 1. Remilfion of fin (paflively taken) the Reatus or Obligatio ad foenam, (the fir ft ad quern, and the fe-cond a quo) are both the immediate Termini of our Ad of Jnftification. 2. That the Terminus Jufti-ti£> as it is the formal Relation of a Jufxified Per-fbn, as fuch, if? the Law as Norma AUionum, as to Righteous Adions, and the Law or Covenant, as making the Condition of Life, as to thofe Adions, fub ratione Condition^ & Tituli. And the Promiflb-ry and Minatory part of the Law, as Juftitia is Jus prtmii-, & impunitatis. Firft, The Adions, and then the Perfon are Juft in Relation to the Law or Covenant, by which their Actions and they are to be judged. But the remoter Terminus is the malum a quo y and the bonum ad quod. And as a quo., it is not only the evil denounced, but alfo the L 3 Reatus,

( xyo )

Keatus, or Obligation to it, and the efficacious Ad of the Law thus curfing, and the Accufation of the A&or or Accufer, ( real or poflible ) that is fuch a terminus.

II. But when he faith, Ex parte Termini Lega-/#<?/?, either (till he taketh legal generally, as comprehending the Law of Innocency, of IForhs, and of Grace, or not. If he do, I muft hope he is more intelligent and juft, than to infinuate to his Reader, that I ever mention an Evangelical Juftifi* cation that is not fo legal, as to be denominated from the Law of Grace, as diftinct from that of Works: If not, he was indebted to his intelligent Reader for fome proof, that no Man is juftified againft this falfe Accufation s [ Thou art by the Law of Grace the Heir of a far forer punifhment, for defpiGng the Remedy, and not performing the Conditions of Pardon and Life. And alfo for this thou haft no right to Chrift, and the Gifts of his Covenant of Grace ~]. But no fuch proof is found in his Writings, nor can be given.

III. But his Q Quia Terminator in fatisfaUione Legi prtftanda ]. I confefs it is a Sentence not very intelligible or edifying tome. i. Satisfafiio pro-prie & ftritte fie difta differt k folutione ejufdem quod fit, folutio £quivalentis aim indebite : Which of thefe he meaneth, Satisfaction thus ftri&ly taken, or folutio ejufdem, I know not: Nor know what it is that he meaneth by Legi prtjlanda: Indeed folutio ejufdem is Legi prtftanda, but not prt-fiita by us fperfonally or by another) : For we neither kept the Law, nor bare the full Penalty > And

the

( i5i )

the Law mentioned no Vicar mm ObedientU ant pcen& i Chrift performed the Law, as it obliged him-felf as Mediator, and as a Subje£r, but not as it obliged us h for it obliged us to Perfonal performance only : And Chrift by bearing that Punifhment ( in fome refpedts) which we deferved, fatisfied the Law giver', (who had power to take a Commutation) but not the Law: unlefs fpeaking improper-]y you will fay that the Law is fatisfied, when the remote ends of the Law-giver and Law are obtained. For the Law hath but one fixed fenfe, and may be it felf changed, but changeth not it felf, nor accepteth a tantun&cm ? And Chrift's fuffering for us, was a fulfilling oE the Law, which peculiarly bound him to fuffer, and not a Satisfaction loco fo-lutionvs ejufdem : And it was no fulfilling the Penal part of the Law as it bound us to fuiflfer : For fo it bound none but us h fo that the Law as binding us to Duty or Suffering-, was neither fulfilled, nor ftriitly fatisfied by Chrift > but the Law-giver fatisfied, and the remote ends of the Law attained, by Chrift's perfedt fulfilling all that Law which bound himfclf as Mediator.

Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Punifhment, or both, and what by fa-wfattion I am not fare ; But as far as I can make _ fenfeof it, it feeneth to mean, that Poena is fatif-ifattio loco obedienti&, and that Punifhment beingour Due, this was fatisfactio Legi pr&jlanda, (for he ftith not Pr&fiita). But .then he mult judge that we are juftified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfe& Obedience. And this Will not ftand with the fcope of other PafTages, where he endureth not

L 4 my

( 152 )

jny Opinion, that we are not juftified by the fac hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Keatus Culpa in fe, but by Chrift's whole Righteoufnefs from the TLeatus ut ad p&nam.

2. But if thisbehisfenfe, he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus a quo, that Justification is properly denominated from. And why fo? i. As Juftitia and Jujiificatio paffivefumpta,vel ut effeHus^ isRelath, it hath neccffarily no Terminus a quos And certainly is in fpecie, to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quern* And as Jufiification is taken for the Juftifiers At\ion\ why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus adquem, as a quo ? Jujiificatio efficiens fie dicitur, quia Juftum facit: Jujiificatio apologetica, quia Juftum vindicat vel probata Jujiificatio per fententi-am, quia Juftum aliquem effe Judicat : Jujiificatio executiva, quia ut Jujlum eum trattat.

But if wemuft needs denominate from the 7Vr-minus a quo, how ftrange is it that he (hould know but of one fenfe of purification ?

3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, \_ In fatisfattione Legi pr<zftita y though he fay prtflanda, and fo denominated! from the Terminus a quo : But if fo, 1. Then it cannot be true ; For fatisfacere & Ju-fiificare are not the fame thing, nor is Juftifying giving Satisfaction i nor were we juftified when Chrift had fatisfied, but long after ; Nor are we juftified eo nomine, becaufe Chrift fatisfied, (that is, immediately) but becaufe he gave us that Jus adivpunitaiem & vitam & fjtiritum fan&um^whkh is the Fruit of his Sitisfa&ion. 2, j^nd as is faid, if it be only in jatisfadioney then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it

bound

( 153 )

bound us : for to fatisfie for not fulfilling, is not to fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is juftified, for no Man hath iatisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law, by himfelf or another : But Chrift hath fatisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for fin.

His Liberavit nos a Lege Monti, I before (hewed impertinent to his ufe, Is Liberare & Juftificare, or Satisfacere all one ? And is a Lege Mortis^ cither from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the fole malcdi&ion ? There be other A&s of Liberation befides Satisfaction: For it is [The Law of the Spirit of Life ] that doth it: And we are freed both trom the power of indwelling-fa (called a Law) and from the Mofaical Yoak, and from the Impot-fible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.

§. 7. HeaddethaThird, Ex parte Medii, quod efl JujHtia Cbrifti Legalis nobis perfidem Imputata: Omnem itaqtte Jufiificationem proprie Legalem ejfe conftat*

Anfo. 1. When I read that he will have but one fenfe or fort of Juftification, will yet have the Denomination to be exterminO) arid fo juftifiethmy diftinftion of it, according to the various termini h And here how he maketh the Righteoufnefs of Chrift to be but the MEVWMof our Juftification, (though he (hould have told us which fort of Medium he meaneth) he feemeth to me a very favourable confenting Adverfary: And I doubt thofe Divines who maintain that Chrift's Rignteoufnefs is the Caufa Formalis of our Juftification, (who are no (mall ones, nor a few, though other in anfwer to the Papifts difclaim it) yea, and thofe that make it

but

( XJ4 )

but Caufa Materials, (which may have a found fenfe) will think this Learned Man betrayeth their Caufe by prevarication, and feemeth to Cct fiercly againftme, that he may yeeld up the Caufe with lefs fufpicion. But the truth is, we all know but in part, and therefore err in part, and Error isincon-ilftent with it felf. And as we have confliding Flefli and Spirit in the WiU, fohave we confli&ing Light and Darfyiefi, Spirit and Flejh in the Under-(landing > And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book, that in one line the Flejh and Varkpefl faith one thing, and in the next oft the Spirit and Light faith the contrary, and feeth not the inconfiftency : And fo though the darj^ and ftejhy part rife up in wrathful ftriving Zeal againft the Concord and Peace of Chriftians, on pretence that other Mens Errors wrong the Truth, yet I doubt not but Love and Unity have fome intereft in his lucid and Spiritual part. We do not only grant him that Chrift's Righteoufnefs is a Medium of our Juftification, (for fo alfo is Faith a Condition* and Dijpofitio Receptiva being a Medium) > nor only fome Caufe, (for foalfo is the Covenant-Donation) ; but that it is an efficient meritorious Caufe y and be-caufe if Righteoufnefs had been that of our own, Innocettcy would have been founded in Merit, we may call Chrift's Righteoufnefs the material Caufe of our Juftification, remotely, as it is Materia Meriti, the Matter of the Merit which procureth ir.

2. But for all this it followeth not that all Juftification is only Legal, as Legal noteth its refped to the Law of Innocency : For i. we are juftified from or againft che Accufation of being non-performers ot the Condition of the Law of Graces

( IJS )

2. And of being therefore unpardoned, and lyable to its forer Penalty. 3. Our particular fubordi-nate Perfonal Righteoufnefs coniitfing in the faid performance of thofe Evangelical Conditions of Lite, is fo denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace, fas it inftituteth its own Conditio on) as the meafure of it, (as ReUitudo ad Regu-lam). 4. Our Jut ad impunitatem & vitam, refill-teth from the Donative Ad of the Law or Covenant of Grace, as the Titulus qui tjl Fundamentum Juris, or fuppofirion of our Faith as the Condition. 5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judiris, by which we (hall be judged at the Laft Day. <5. The fame Judg doth now per fententiam concept am judg of us, as he will then judg per fententiam prola-tam. 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law, this fame Law of Grace, which in prima inllanti doth make us Righteous, ( by Condonation and Donation of Right) doth in fecundo inftanti> virtually juftifie us as containing that regulating ufe, by which we are to be fententially juftified. And now judg Reader, whether no Juftification be Evangelical, or by the Law of Grace, and fo to be denominated : (for it is lis de nomine that is by him managed). 8. Betides that the whole frame of Caufes in the Work of Redemption, (the Redeemer, his Righteoufnefs, Merits, Sacrifice, Pardoning Ad, Interceflion, &c. ) are fure rather to be called Matters of the Gofpel, than of the Law.

And yet we grant him eafily > 1. ThatChrift perfe&ly fulfilled the Law of Innocency, and was juftified thereby, and that we are jjuflified by that Righteoufnefs of his, as the meritorious Caufe.

2. That

2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death, ao cording to the tenor of that Law, and that Guilt being remitted by Chrift, as aforefaid, we are therefore juftified from that Law, (that is, from its Obligation of us to Innocency as the neceflary terms of Life, and from its Obligation of us to Death, for want of Innocency): But we are not juftified by thatLaw,eithtr as fulfilled or as fatisfied by us our felves, either perfonally or by an Instrument, fubftitute or proper Representative, that was Vicarius ObedientU aut pan** 3. And we grant that the Jews were delivered from the pofitive Jew-ifh Law, which is it that Paul calleth, "the Law of Works. And if he pleafe, in all thefe refpedfc to call Juftification Legale we intend not to quarrel with the name, (though what I called Legal in thofe Aphorifins, I chofe ever after to call rather, Juftitia pro-legalti). But we cannot believe him, 1. That it is only Legal h 2. Or that that is the only (ormoft) proper denomination.

§♦ 8. He proceedeth thus, [Andit will be vainjf any argue, 'That yet nme can b$ faved without Evangelical Works, according to which it U confejfed that all men Jhall be judged : for the diftinUion it eafie Cwhich the Author of the Aphorifms fomewhere ufeth) between the firji or Private, and the laji or Public^

Juftification* In thefirft fenje it U never faid,That

Works juftifie, but contrary, T'hat God juftifieth htm that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5« I« the latter we confefs that Believers are to be jujiified according to Works, but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Juftification maketh men jujl before God, but only fo pro-nounceth them*

Anfw. 1. This is fuch another Confenting Ad-

verfary

t *57 ) verfary as once before I was put to anfwer > who with open mouth calls himfdfconfequentially what he calleth me » if the fame Caufe, and not the Per-fon make the Guilt. Nay let him confider whether his grand and moft formidable Weapon Q So alfo faith Bellarmine, with other Papifts'] do not wound himfelf; For they commonly fay, That the firjl Justification is not of Workj* or Works do not firft ju-ftifie us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papifts ? If not, let him ufe better Arguments himfelf.

2. But why is the firft J unification called Private ? Either he meaneth God's making us juft con-ftitutively, or his judging us fo : and that per fen-tentiam concept am only, or prolatam alfo.

i. The common diftin&ion in Politicks, inter judicium Privatum & Publicum, is fetcht from the Judg, who is either Perfona privata vel publica ; a private Man, or an authorized Judg judging as fuch : And fo the Judgment of Confcience,Friends, Enemies, Neighbours, mere Arbitrators, &c. is Judicium privatum ; and that of a Judg in foro, is Judicium publicum, (yea, or in fecret, before the concerned Parties only in his Clofet, fo it be deci-five): If this Learned Do&or fo underftand it, then, i. Conjiitutive Juftification (which is truly firft ) is publick Juftification, being done by God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who fure are not herein private authorized Perfons. 2. And the firft fentential Justification, as merely Virtual, and not yet Attual, viz. as it's virtually in the Ju-ftifying Law of Grace as norma Judicit is publicly in fuo genere, being the virtus of a Publick Law of God, or of his Donative Promife, 3, And the

( *$* )

firft ABual Justification, per Deum Judicem fer fententiam concept am (which is God's fecret judging the Thing and Perfon to ■ e as they are) is (fecret indeed in fe, yet revealed by God's publick Word but) publick as to the Judg. 4. And the firft fin-tentia prolata ( the fourth in order ) is fomeway publick as oppofite to fecrefie, (for, 1. it rs before the Angels of Heaven i 2 And in part by Executive demonftratious on Earth): But it is certainly by a publicly Judg, that is, God. 5. And the firft Apologetical Jvftification by Chrift our Interceding * Advocate, is publick both quoad perfonam, and as openly done in Heaven : And if this worthy Perfon deny any Juftiftcation per fententiam Judicis, upon ourfirft Believing, or before the final Judgment, he would wofully fall out with the far greateft number of Protectants, and efpecially his clofeft Friends, who 11 fc to make a Sentence of God as Judg to be the Genus to Juftification.

Bat if by £ Private and Publicly purification ^ *> he means [fecret and open "]• *• How can he hope to be undeiftood when he will ufe Political Terms unexplained, out of the olual fenfe of Politicians : But no men ufe toabufe words more than they that wonld keep the Church in ftimes by wordy Comro-verficr, as if they were of the terms of Life and Death, 2. And even in rtiat fenfe our firft Jnftifi-canon is publick, or open, quoad Aaum Jujiifican-cmtis,^ being by the Donation of a publick Word of God \ Though out id ejfeffum in recipiente, it muft needs be fecret till the Day of Judgment, no Man knowing anothers Heart, whether he e indeed a found Believer : And fo of the reft as is in-1 united*

Con-

( 159 )

Concerning what I have faid before, fome may Objed, i. That there it no fuch thing as our Jnjiifi-cation notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2, "That the Sententia Concepta U God's Immanent Atts, and therefore Eternal.

Anfve. To the firft, I fay, 1. It is certain by Luk. 15. 10. that the Angels know of the Conver-ficn of a Sinner, and therefore of his Juftification and publickly Rejoyce therein. Therefore it is notified to them, 2. But I refer the Reader for this, to what I have faid to Mr. Tombes in my Vijputation of Juftification, where I do give my thoughts, That this is'not the Juftification by Faith meant by Paul, as Mr. Tombes aflerteth it to be.

To the Second, I fay, Too many have abufed Theology, by the mifconceiving of thediftindion of Immanent and Tranfunt A8s of God, taking all for Immanent which effed nothing ad extra. But none are properly Immanent quoad ObjeUum, but fuch as God himfelf is the Objett of, ( as fe in-telligcre, fe amare ) : An Ad may be called indeed immanent in any of thefe three refpeds j 1. Ex parte AgentU > 2. Ex parte Objefti ; 3. Ex parte ejfetius. 1. E* parte agentis, all God's Ads are Immanent, for they are his Effence. 2. Ex parte Objettivel Termini, God's Judging a Man Juft or Unjuft, Good or Bad, is tranficnt j becaufe it is denominated from the ftate of the Terminus or Ob-jed : And fo it may be various and mutable deno-minatively, notwithftanding God's Simplicity and Immutability. And fo the Sententia Concepta is not ab JEterno. 3. As to the Effed, all confefs God's Ads to be Tranfient and Temporary. But there are Tome that effeQ not (as to judg a thing to be what it is)* 5. Either

3. Either this Militant Difputer would have his Reader believe that I fay, That a Man is jufiifiedhy Work*) in that which he called [making juft, and the firft Juftificj'ion']) or not: If he would, fuch untruth and unrighteoufnefs (contrary to the full drift of many of my Books , and even that which he feledled to oppofe) is not a congruous way of difputing for 'truth and Rigbteoufnefs : nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modeft. If not, then why doth he all along carry his profefTcd agreement with me, in a militant ftrain,perfwading his Reader, that I favour of Socinianifm or Popery, or fome dangerous Error, by faying the very fame that he faith. O what thanks doth God's Church owe fuch contentious Difputers for fuppo-fed Orthodoxnefs, that like noctambuli, will rife in their lleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an Allarm on their Drums, and cry out, "the Enemy, The Enemy, and will not let their Neighbours reft!

I have wearied my Readers with fo oft repeating in my Writings ( upon fuch repeated importunities of others) thefe following AfTertions about Works-

1. That we are never juftified, firft or lafr, by Works of Innocency.

2. Nor by the Works of the JewHh Law (which Paul pleadcth againft).

3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of Commutative Juftice, or of diftributive Governing Juftice, according to either of thofe Laws (of In-nocency, or Jexvifh).

4. Nor by any Works or Ads of Man, which are^fet againft or inftead of the leaft part of God's

(iSi).

A&s, ChrifVs Merits, or any of his pan or honour.

5. Nor are we at firft justified by any Evangelical Works of Love, Gratitude or Obedience to Cbrifti as Wor\s are diftinguifhed from cur firft faith and Repentance.

tf. Nor are we juftified by Repentance, as by an inlirumental efficient Caufe, or as of the fame receiving Nature with Faith, except as Repentance fignifieth our change from Unbelief to Faith, and fo is Faith it &\{.

7. Nor are we juftified by Faith as by a mere Ad, or moral good Work.

8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Inftrument of our Juftification.

p. Much lefs by fuch Works of Charity to Men, as are without true love to God.

10. And lead of all, by Popifhbad Works, called Good, (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Auftericies, &c.)

But if any Church-troubling Men will firft call W/ Atts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS, and next will call no Ad: by the name of Jnjlifying Faith, but the belief of the Promife ( as fome ) or the accepting of CbriFFs Righteottfnefs given or imputed to w-> zsinfe, our own (as others) or [the Recumbency on this Righteoufnefs ^ ( as others ) or all thefe three Ads ( as others ) \ and if next they will fay that this Faith juftifietb us only as the pro-per Inflrumental Caufe > and next that to look for Juftification by any other Ad of Man's Soul, or by this Faith in any other refped, is to truft to that Juftification by Workj^ which Paul confuteth, and to fall from Grace, I do deteft fach corrupting and

M abufing

abufing of the Scriptures,and the Church of Chrift. And I aflert as followeth i

i . That the Faith which we are juftified by, doth as cflentially contain out belief of the Truth of Chrift's Perfon, Office, Death, Refurre&ion, In-terceffion, &c. as of the Promife of Imputation.

2. And alfo our confent to Chrift's Teaching, Government, Interceffion, as to Imputation.

3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spirit, and promifed Glory, as well as Imputed Righteoufnefs of Chrift.

4. Yea, that it is effentially a Faith in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoft.

5. That it hath in it eflentially fomewhat of Initial Love to God, to Chrift, to Recovery, to Glo-» ryi that is, of Volition * and fo of Defire.

6* That it containeth all that Faith, which is ne-ceflarily requifite at Baptifm to that Covenant', even a confenting-prattkal-belief in God the Father^ Son> and Holy Gbofi ; and U our Chriftianity it felf.

7. That we are juftified by this Faith, as it is £ A moral Ail of Man, adapted to its proper Office, made by our Redeemer, the Condition of bh Gift of Jujiification, and fo vs the moral receptive aptitude of the SubjeS, or the Vijpofitio materia vel fubjetti Re-cipientii] : Where the Matter of it is [An adapted moral Ad of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio forma-iiioi its Intereft in our Juftification is [ Conditio prxflita'] fpeaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel Vijpofitio morale Receptiva ] fpeaking logically i which Dr. Twifs ft ill calleth Caufa dijpofitiva*

8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith, (in God the Father,

Son,

Son, and Holy Ghoft) is this Faith denominated from its terminus a quo (principally).

p. That we are continually'juftified by this Faith as continued, as well as initially juftified by itsfirftAdt.

10. That as this Faith includeth a confent to future Obedience^ (that is, Subjection) fo the performance of that confmt in fincere Obedience^ is the Condition of our Juftification as continued (Secondarily) as well as Faith (or confent it felf ) primarily ; And that thus James meaneth, that we are Juftified by Works.

n. That God judging of all things truly as they are, now judgeth Men juft or unjuft, on thefe Terms.

12. Arid his Law being Norma judiciiy now ver-tually judgeth us juft on thefe terms.

13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by, we (hall at the laft Judgment alfo be judged (and fo juftified) thus far by or according to our fincere Love, Obedience, or Evangelical Works, as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace,which juftificth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified, by and for the Merits, perfedr Righteoufnefs and Sacrifice of Chrift, which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Univerfal Conditional Juftification and Adoption, before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatfoever.

Reader, Forgive me this troublefom oft repeating the ftate of the Controverfie 5 I meddle with no other. If this be Juftification by Works, I am for it. If this Doftor be dgainft it, he is againft much

(i«4)

cf theGofpel. If he be not, he had better have kept his Bed, than to have calPd us to Arms in his Dream, when we have fadly warred fo many Ages already about mere words. For my part, I think that fuch a fhort explication of our fenfe, and re-)edion of ambiguities, is fitter to end thefe quarrels, than the long difputations of Confounders.

4. But when be faith, [_}Vorhj mahe not a Man 70/?, and yet rre are at lajl juftified according to them ], it is a contradiction, or unfound. For if he mean JVorks in the fence excluded by Paul, we are not juftified according to them, viz. fuch as make, or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of ' Debt : But if he take JVorks in the fenfe intended by James.fincere Obedience is afecon-dary conflitutive part of that inherent or adherent per-fonal Righteoufnefs, required by the Law of Grace, in fubordination to Chrift's Meritorious Righte&ufnefs h And what Chriftian can deny this > So far it maketh us Righteous, fas Faith doth initially). And what is it to be jujiified according to our Worlds, but to be judged, fo far as they are iincerely done, to be fuch as have performed the fecondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life ?

5. His [_ According'] but not [_exoperibuf~\ at the Laft Judgment, is but a Logomachie [ According ~\ fignifieth as much as I affert: But £ ex ~) is r.o unapt Prepofition, when it is but thefubor-dinate part cf Righteoufnefs and Justification, of which w r efpeak, and fignifieth (with me,) the fame as [ According ].

6. His Tropical Phrafe, that [ffcrkj pronounce us jujl~] is another ambiguity: That the Judg

will

will pronounce us jufr according to them\ # the fore-faid fecond part of the Conftitutive Caufe, or Matter of our Subordinate Right eoufnefs, is certain from Mattb.25. an( * ^ e k°P e °^ Scripture ; But that they are only notifying Signs-, and no part of the Caufe of the day to be tryed, is not true, (which too many aflat).

§. p. He proceedeth, £ If there be an Evangelical Justification at God's Bar, dijiintt .from the legal one, there will than alfo be in each an abfolution of divers fins : For if the Gojpel forgive the fame fins as the Law, the fame thing will be done, and-a double Jufiification will be unprofitable and idle* If from divers fins, then the Law forbids not the fame things as the Go/pel, &c^j

Anfw* It's pitty fuch things (hould need any An-fwer.

1. It's a falfc Suppofition, That all Justification is Abfolution from fin : To juftifie the fiucerity of our Faith and Holinefs, is one ad or part of our JulHfication, againft all ( poflible or a&ual) falfe Accufation.

2. The Law of Innocency commanded not the Believing Acceptance of Cbrift's Righteoufhefs and Pardon, and fo the Remnants of that Law in the hand of Chrift ( which is the Precept of perfect Obedience de futuro ) commandeth it only confe-quently, fuppoling the Gofpel-Promife and Inftitu-tion to have gone before, and fele&td this as the terms of Life* fothat as a Law in geftere (exiftent only in jj>eciebns) commandeth Obedience, and the Law of louocency in jpecie commanded [.perfonai

M 3 perfect

ferfetl perpetual Obedience^ the Condition of Life\ ; fo the Gofpel commandeth Faitb in our Redeemer, \ as the new Condition of Life : on which fuppofiti-on, even the Law of lapfed Nature further ob-Hgeth us thereto: And as the Commands differ, fo do the Prohibitions.

There is a certain fort of fin excepted from pardon, by the pardoning Law, viz- Final non-performance of its Conditions : And to judg a Man not guilty of this fin, is part of our Juftification, as is aforefaid.

§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical Jujlification are Jpecie di(iin£l^ then fo are the Courts

in which we are juftified. If diftintt and fubordi-

nate, and fo he that U juftified by the Law, is jufti-fed by the Gojpel, &c]

Anfw. i. No Man is juftified by the Law of In-nocency or Works, but Chrift : Did I ever fay that, [ That Law juftifietb us "]•> who have voluminoufly wrote againft it > If he would have his Reader think fo, his unrighteoufnefs is fuch as civility forbids me to give its proper Epithets to. If not,againft What or whom is all this arguing ?

2. I call it [Legal] as it is that perfedfc Righte-oufhefs of Chrift our Surety, conform to the Law of Innocency h by which he was juftified (though not abfolved and pardoned) : I call it [ pro Legale juftitia ], becaufe that Law doth not juftifie us for. it ( but Chrift only ) but by it given us ad cffefta by the New-Covenant > we are faved and juftified from the Curfe of that Law, or from Damnation, as certainly as if we had done it our fclves: I call

Faith

( i*7 )

Faith our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, on the Reasons too oft mentioned. Now thefe may be called two Justifications-, or ( rather ) two parts of one, in feveral refpe&s, as pleafeth the Speaker. And all fuch Word-Souldiers (hall have their liberty without my Contradiction.

3. And when will he prove that thefe two Sorts, or Parts, or Adts, may not be at once#tranfa£ted at the fame Bar ? Muft there needs be one Court to try whether I am a true Believer, or an Infidel*, or Hypocrite > and another to judg that being fuch, I am to be juftified againft all Guilt and Curfe, by vertue of Chrift's Merits and Interceflion ? Why may not thefe two parts of one Matfs Caufe be judged at the fame Bar ? And why muft your Pupils be taught fo to conceive of fo great a bufine(s>in it (elf fo plain?

§. 11. He proceedeth, £ The Vfe of this Evangelical Jujiification is made to be-, that we may be made -partakers of the Legal Justification out of us, in Chrifl: And fo our purification applyeth another Justification) and our Kemiffion of fins another.

Anfw. No Sir » but our particular fuhordinate fort of Righteoufnefs, confiding in the performance of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz* a believing fuitable Acceptance) is really our Vifpofitio receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that Pardon and Glory, which for Chrift's Righteoufnefs if freely given us. And our per fond Faith and Sincerity muft be juftified, and we in tantum, before our Right toChrift, Pardon and Life can be juftified in fom

( i*8 )

2. And to juftifie us as fincere Believers, when others are condemned as Hypocrites, and Unbelievers, and Impenitent, is not Pardon of Sin. Thefe Matters (hould have been put into your (excellent) Catechifm, and not made ftrange, much lefs ob-{cured and oppofed, when laying by the quarrels about mere words, I am confident you deny none of this.

§. 12. Headdetb, [Then Legal Justification U

nothing but a bare word, feeing unapplyed > as to the

Matter it U nothings as it is not called Healing by a

^Medicine not applyed h nor was it ever heard that one

Healing did apply another ].

Anftv. Alas,^alas, for the poor Church, if this be the Academies beft! forrow muft excufe my Complaint! If it be an Argument it muft run thus; If Legal (or pro-legal) Righteoufnefs (that is, our pare inChrift's Righteoufnefs) be none to us (or none of our Juftification) when not-applyed, than it is none alfo when it is applyed : But, &c»

Anfo. It is none till applyed : Chrift's Merits,-or Legal Righteoufnefs juftitie himfelf, but not us till applyed : ( Do you think otherwife, or do you wrangle againft your felf ? ) But I deny your Con-fequence : How prove you that it is none when applyed therefore ? Or the Cure is none when the Medicine is applyed ?

Perhaps you'l fay, That then out Per fowl Righteoufnefs-) and fubordinate JufiificatioHi is ours before Chrifi's Righteoufnefs, and fo the greater depended on, and followeth the lefs.

r Anfa>. i. Chrift's own Righteoufnefs is before ours. 2. His Condition, Pardon to fallen Mankind is before ours. 3. This Gift being Conditional, excepteth the non-performance of the Condition i And the nature of a Condition, is to fujpend the effett of the Donation till performed. 4. Therefore the performance goeth before the faid Effed*, and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any caufe of it, but a removal of the fujpenfion ; nor hath the Donation any other dependance on it. And is not all this beyond denial with Perfons not ftudioufly and learnedly mifled ?

But you fay, It was never beard that one Healing apply ed another*

Anfo. And fee you not that this is a lis de nomi-ne^ and of a name of your own introdu&ion for illuftration ? If we were playing at a Game of Tropes, I could tell you that the Healing of Mens Vnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their Guilt v And the healing of Men's Ignorance,Pride, and Wrangling about words, and frightning Men into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death, is applicatory as to the healing of the Churches Wounds and Shame. But I rather chufe to ask you, Whether it was never heard that a particular fubordinate perfonal Kighteoufnefl ( even Faith and Repentance) was made by God the Condition of our Right to Pardon, and Life by Chrift's Righteoufnefs ? Did you never teach your Sholars this, ( in what words you thought beft ? ) And yet even our Faith is a Fruit of Chrift's Righteoufnefs •, but neverthelefs the Condition of other Fruits.

If you fay that our Faith or Performance is not

to

( vj% )

them ) and tell me true, that [ No Man out of So» I I cinus School bath, &c.3 To fay nothing of many late Writings near us.

2. If I have, i. never written one word againfi: [ Imputation of Righteeufnefs ~] there or elfewhere ; 2. Yea, have oft written for it j 3. And if thofe very Pages be for it which he accufcth \ 4. Yea, if there and elfewhere I write more for it than Olevi-an, Vrfine, Tardus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Pifcator, an ;- he reft of thofe great Divines, who are for the Imputation only of the Paflive Righteoufnefs of Chrift, when I profefs there and often, to concur with Mr. Bradjhaw, Grotius, and others that take in the Adtivealfo, yea and the Habitual, yea and Divine refpcdlivcly, as advancing the Merits of the Humane 5 If all this be notoriously true, what Epithets will you give to this Academical Doctors notorious Untruth ?

3. When that Book of Aphorifms was fufpended or retraced between twenty and thirty years ago ( publickly ), becaufe of many crude Paffages and unapt Words, and many Books iince written by me purpofcly, fully opening my mind of the fame things 5 all which he pafleth wholly by, fave a late EpiiUe •> what credit is to bt given to that Man's ingenuity, who pretendeth that this being in all mens hands, the anfwering it will fo far clear all the Controverfie.

§. 2. Dr. T". [He hence ajfattltetb the Sentence of the Reformed •> becaufe it fuppofeth, m he faith, that we were in Chriji, at leafi, legally before vpe believed^ or were born. But what proof of the confequence doth

he

( *7* )

he bring ? ^ ( The reft are but his Reafoiis againft the Confequences, and his talk againft me > as pouring out Oracles, &c )

Anfw. i. Is this the mode of our prefcnt Academical Difputers, To pafs by the ftating of the Controverfie, yea, to filence the ftate of it, as laid down by the Author, whom he oppofeth in that ve^ ry place, (and more fully elfewhere often) ? Reader, the Author of the Aphorifms, pag. 45. and forward, diftinguifhingas Mr. Bradjhaw doth, of the feveral fenfes of Imputation, and how Chrift's Righteoufnefs is made ours, 1. Beginneth with their Opinion, who hold, Q "that Cbriji did fo obey in our jiead, as that in God s ejieem, and in point of Law we were in Cbriji dying and fuffering, and fo in bim we did both perfectly fulfil the Commands of tbe Law by Obedience-^ and tbe e threatnings of it by bearing tbe Penalty, and thus (fay they ) is CbrijVs 'Righteoufnejs imputed to us, viz. His Pajjive Righ- . teoufnefs for the pardon of our fins, and deliverance from the Penalty } His Active Righteoufnefs for tbe making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the Kingdom h And fome fay the Habitual Righteoufnefs of his Humane Nature, injiead of our own Habitual Righteoufnefs '<> Tea, fome add tbe Righteoufnefs of the Divine Nature ].

The fecond Opinion which he reciteth is this, £ "that God the Father accepteth the fujfcrings and merits of bis Son, as a valuable confideration on which be will wholly forgive and acquit the Offenders, and receive them into bis favour, and give them tbe addition of a more excellent hapfinefs, fo they will but re* c he his Sen on the terms exprefpd in the GofteL

And

And as difjindfc from theirs, who would thus have the Paffive Rigbteouftefs only imputed^ he pro-felTeth himfelf to hold with Bradjban>, Grotius^ &c. that the A&ive alfo is fo imputed, being Jufiitia Meriti, as well as Perfon^ and endeavoureth to prove it: But not imputed in the firft rigid fenfe, as if God efteemed us to bavebeen^ and done, and buffered our felves in and by Cbriji^ and merited by him. Thus he ftates the Controverfie i And doth this Do&or fight for Truth and Peace, by i. paffing by all this i 2. Saying, I am againft Imputed Righ-teoufnefs \ 3. And againft the Reformed ? Were not all the Divines before named Reformed ? Was not Camero, Capetlus^ Placeus, Amyrald, Vall^m^ Blonde^ &c Reformed > Were not Wotton* Brad-fharv, Gatakgr^ &rc. Reformed ? Were not of late Mr. Gibbons^ Mr. Truman^ to pafs many yet alive, Reformed? Muft that Name be (hamed, by appropriating it to fuch as this Dodtor only ?

2. And now let the Reader judg, with what face he denieth the Confequence, (that it fuppofetb as to have been in Cbriji legally^ &c.) When as I put it into the Opinion oppofed, and oppofed no other. But I erred in faying, that [ mofi of our ordinary Divines ] hold it', But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed.

§. 2. Dr. 5f. £ 2. Such Imputation of Rigbte-oufnefsj he faith, agreetb not vpitb Reafon or Scripture : But vobat Reafon meanetb be ? Is it that vain y blind) maimed) itnme afur ably procacious and tumid

Reafon of the Cracovian Pbilofopbers ? Next be

faith

( 175 ) ,

faith, Scripture is filent of the Imputed Rigbteouf-nefs of Cbrifi i what a faying is this of a Reformed Divine ? fo alfo Bellarmine, &c

Anftv. Is it not a doleful cafe that Orthodoxnefs muft be thus defended ? Is this the way of vindicating Truth ? i. Reader, my words were thefe, ( juft like Bradjhaws ) Q It teaebetb Imputation of Chrift's Righteoufnefi in fo ftriB a fenfe ^ as will net* ther jiand with Reafon^ nor the Vo&rine of the Scrip* ture> muchlefi with the T HRA S E of Scripture^ which mentioneth no Imputation of Cbrift or bis Rigb-teoufnefs ]. i. Is this a denying of thrift's Righ-teoufnefs imputed ? Or only of that intolleraole fenfe of it > 2. Do I fay here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteoufnefs, or only that ftridi fenfe of it ? 3. Do I not exprefly fey, It is the Pbrafe that is not to be found in Scripture,and the unfound fenfe, but not the found ?

2. And as tothePhrafe, Doth this Do&or, or can any living Man find that Pbrafe in Scripture, {_ Cbrifis Righteoufnefs is imputed to us~\} And when heknoweth that it is not there, are not his Exclamations* and his Bug-bears Q Cracovian Re a* fon> and Bellarmine] his difhonour, that hath no better Weapons to ufe againft the Churches Peace ? To tell us that the fenfe or Dodhine is in Scripture, when the queftion is of the Pbrafe^ or that Scripture fpeaketh in his rigid fenfe, and not in ours, is but to Ipfe time, and abufe the Reader, the firft being impertinent;) and the fecondthe begging of the Queftion*

$• 3.

( »7* )

§. 3. Dr. 2*. 7^ Gr^ rrW anfwering to tm* putation, is ten times in Rom. 4. And what U imputed but Rigkteoufnefl ? we have then fome imputed Rigbteoufnefs* The ghtejlion is, only what or wboft it is, Chri(i's or our own ? Not ours, therefore Chrijis : If ours-, either its the Rigbteoufnefs of Worlds, or of Faith, &ci

Anfw. t. But what's all this to the Phrafe ? Could you have found that Phrafe £ Chrifl's Rigli-teoufnefs is imputed ] , why did you not recite the words, but Reafon as for the fenfe ?

2. Is that your way of Difputation, to prove that the Text fpeaketh of the Imputation of ChrijFs Rigbteoufnefs, when the Queftion was only, hi what fenfe ? What kind of Readers do you expeft, that (hall take this for rational, candid, and a Plea for Truth )

3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced, it is moft plain, that Paul meaneth by [imputing it for Rigbteoufnefs "] that the Perfon was or is, accounted* reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Rigbteoufnefs is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Believer : fo that what-ever be the matter of it (of which next') the formal Relation fure is our own, and (o here faid : And if it be from the matter of Chrift's Rigbteoufnefs, yet that muft be our own, by your Opinion. And it muft be our own, in and to the proper Efrtfs, in mine. But fure it is not the fame numerical formal Relation of [ Rigbteoufnefs 3 that is in Quid's Perfon, and in ours; And it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not in Chrift, that is called Abraham's Reputed Righte-

oufnefs

(177) oufnefs in the Text: I fcarce thijjk you will fay the contrary. \ fc

§. 4'. Dx. 7V £ B&* F**/£ ^ 80* imputed to us for Righfeoufiffs.

Anfa. Exprefly againft the words of the Holy Ghoft there oft repeated. Is this defending the Scripture, exprefly to deny it ? Should hot reverence, and our fubfcription to the Scripture fuffici-ently rather teach us to diftinguifh, and tell in what fenfe it U imputed, and in what not-, than thus to deny, without diftinftion, what it doth fo oft affert ? Yea, the Text nameth nothing elfe as fo im-jwted, hut Faith

§• 5. If h be imputed^ itU either as fomeVirtue y ior Humane Wor^ ( the to Credere ) or at it appre-hendeth and applyeth CbrijVs Righteoufnefs ? Not {the firft) -— If Faith be imputed relatively only-> as it apptyeth to a Sinner the Righteoufnefs of CbrijU its manifeji that it's the Rigbteoufnefs of thrift only that is imputed^ And that Faith doth no more toRigb-teoufnefs^ than an empty hand to receive an Alms.

Anfw. 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving hand, and not as a mere empty hand. And voluntary grateful Reception may be the Condition of a Gift.

2. You and I (hall (hortly find that it will be the Quefiion on which we (hall be justified or Condemned 3 not only whether we received ChrifVs Righ-teoufnefs, but whether by Faith we received Chrift in all the Eflentials of his Office, and to all the eflential faving Ufes : Yea, whether according to the fenfe of the Baptifmal Covenant, we firft be-

N lievingfy

Hcvingiy receivdhand gave up out felves toGod tta Father, Son, and Holy Gboft, and after performed fincerely that Covenant.

3. But let me defend the Word of God : Faith is imputed for Righteoufnefs, even this Faith now defcribeds 1. Remotely, ex materU aptitudine, for its fitnefs to its formal Office > And that fitnefs is, ft Becaufe it is an Aft of Obedience to God, or morally good, (for a bad or indifferent AU doth not ju-tfifie). 2. More fpecially as it is the receiving, trufiing, and giving up our felves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, to the proper ends of Redemption, or a fuitable Reception of the freely offered Gift * and fo connoteth Chrift the Obje£ ( for the Objeft is efTential to the A& in Jpecie > 2. But proximately Faith is fo reputed, or imputed, as it is the performance of the Condition of the Jufti-fying Covenant or Donation.

And to be imputed for Righteoufnefs, includeth, That I It u the part required of us by the Law of Grace, to makg us partakers of the Benefits of Chriji*s Righteoufnefs, which meriteth Salvation for us in-jiead of a legal and perfed Righteoufnefs of our own, ( which we have not ). Or, £ Whereas we fell fiort of a Righteoufnefs of Innocency, Chriji by fuch a Righteoufnefs hath merited our Fardon and Salvation, and given title to them by a New Covenant of Grace 3 which mdkfth thti Faith the Condition of our litle ', and if we do this, we (hall be judged evangelically Righteous h that is, fuch as have done all that was ne-cefjary to their right in Chriji and the Jaid Benefits, and therefore have fuch a Right ]•

This is plain Englifh, and plain Truth, wrangle BO more againit it 5 and againft the very Letter of

the

( 179 )

the Te*t r and againft your Brethren and the Churches Concord, by making Men believe that there are grievous Differences, where there are none.

Reader, I was going on to Anfwer the reft, but ray time is fhort, Death is at the door : Thou feeft What kind of Work I have of it, even to deteft a Learned Man's Over fights, and temerarious A«cu-fations. The wearinefs will be more to thee and me, than the profit: I find little before, but what I have before anfwered here, and oft clfewhere» And therefore I will here take up; only adding one Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epiftle to Mr* IF. Aliens Book of the Two Covenants, and this Do&or, like an Erie* ttiy of Peace., aflaulteth.

N % CHAP.

(i8b)

CHAP. VIII.

The Concord of J? rot eft ants in the Matter of Juftification defended^ againft Dr. Tul-lies Oppositions, who would make Discord under pretence of proving it.

§. i.T T THile 'truth is pretended by moft, that

V V by envious flriving introduce Confufwn* and every evil Wor\^ it ufually falleth out by God's juft Judgment, that fuch are almoft as oppofite to Truths as to Charity and .Peace. What more palpable inftances can there be, than fuch as on fuch accounts have lately aflaulted me : Mr. Vanvers> Mr. Bagfhan>-y &c. and now this Learned Do&or. The very ftream of all his Oppofition againft me about Imputation, is enforced by this oft repeated Forgery, that I deny all Imputation of Cbriji's Rigb-teoufnefs: Yea, he neither by fear^ modefty, or i#-genuity, was retrained from writing, pag* 117. £ Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem "] [ He dert-deth all Imputation ]* Judg by this what credit contentious Men deferve.

§. 2. The conciliatory Propofitions which I laid down in an Epiftle to Mr. W. Aliens Eook, I v^ill here tranfcribe, that the Reader may fee what it is that thefe Militant Do&ors war againft,

Lefi

Left any who kfloxo not how to flop in mediocrity, fliould be tempted by Socinians or Papifts, tbihbik that we countenance any of their Errors, or .that our Differences in the point of Juftification by Faith or Works, are greater than indeed they are > and left any weak Opinionative Perfons, (hould clamour unpeaceably againft their Brethren, and thinly to raife a name to themfelves for their differing Noti• ons i I (hall here give the Reader fuch evidences of our real Concord, as (hall filence that Calumny-

Though fome few Lutherans did, upon peevifh fufpicioufnefs againft George Major long ago, aflert, That [ Good Works are not neceffary to Salvation ]: And though fome few good Men, whofe Zeal without Judgment doth better ferve their own turn than the Churches, are jealous, left all the good that is afcribed to Man, be a diflhonour to God > and therefore fpeak as if God were honoured moft by faying the worft words of our felves * and many have uncomely and irregular Notions about thefe Matters ; And though fome that are addidted to tidings, do take it to be their Godly Zeal to cen-fure and reproach the more underftanding fort., when they moft grofly err themfelves : And though too many of the People are carried about through injudicioufnefs and temptations to falfe Doctrines and evil Lives;> yet is the Argument of Proteftants thusmanifefted.

i. They all affirm that Chrift's Sacrifice, with his Holinefs and perfedt Obedience, are the meritorious Caufe of the forgiving Covenants, and of our Pardon and Justification thereby, and of our Right to Life Eternal, which it giveth us. And that this Price w;*s not paid or given in it felf in> N 3 mediately

( i8a )

mediately to us, but to God for us * and fo,that our forefaid Benefits are its Effc&s.

2. They agree that Chrift's Perfon and ours were not really the fame v and therefore that the fame Righteoufnefs, which is an Accident of one, can* not poflibly be an Accident of the other.

3. They all deteft the Conceit, that God fhould aver, and repute a Man to have done that which he never did.

4. They all agree that Chrift's Sacrifice and Merits are really fo effe&ual to procure our Pardon, Juftification, Adoption, and right to the fealing Gift of the Holy Ghoft, and to Glory, upon our Faith and Repentance *, that God giveth us all thefe benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for the fake of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, as if we had fatisfied him, and merited them our felves: and that thus far Chrift's Righteoufnefs is ours in its Effe£te> and imputed to us, in that we are thus ufed for it, and (hall be judged accordingly.

5. They all agree, that we are juftified by none, but a practical or working Faith.

<5. And that this Faith is the Condition of the Promife, or Gift of Juftification and Adoption.

7. And that Repentance is a Condition alfo, though ( as it is not the fame with Faith, as Repentance of Unbelief is) on another aptitudinal account V even as a willingnefs to be cured, and a willingnefs to take one for my Phyfician, and to trufthim in the ufe of his Remedies, are on feve-ral accounts the Conditions en which that Phyfician will undertake the Cure, or as willingnefs to re-tuna to fubjedfton and thankful acceptance of a jpurchafed Pardon, and of the Purchafers Love and

Future

(183)

future Authority, are the Conditions of a Rebel's Pardon.

8. And they all agree, that in the firft inftant of a Man's Conversion or Believing, he is entred into a ftate of Juftification, before he hath done any outward Works : and that fo it is true, that good Works follow the Juftified, and go not before his initial Juftification: as alfb in the fenfe that Attftm fpakeit, who took Juftification, for that which we call San&ification or Conversion.

p. And they all agree, that Justifying Faith is fuch a receiving affiance, as is both in the Intellect and the Will *, and therefore as in the Will, parti-cipateth of feme kind of Love to the juftifying Qb-je&, as well as to Juftification.

10. And that no Man can chufe or ufe Chrift as a Means ((o called, in refpedt to his own intention ) to bring him to God the .Father, who hath not fo much love to God, as to take him for his $nd in the ufe of that means.

11. And they agree, that we (hall be all judged according to our Works, by the Rule of the Covenant of Grace, though not for our Works, by way of commutative, or legal proper merit. And.Judging is the Genus, whofe Species is Juftifying and Condemning: and to be judged according to our Works, is nothing but to be juftified or condemned according to them.

12. They all agree, that no Man can poffibly merit of God in point of Commutative Juftice, nor yet in point of Diftributive or Governing Juttice, according to the Law of Nature or Innocency, as Adam might have done, nor by the Works ot the Mofaical Law#

N 4 *3» Tfc?y

cms.

( 184 )

13. They all agree, that no Works of Mans are to be truRecJ in, or pleaded, but all excluded, and thi Conceit of them abhorred.

1. As they are feigned to be againft, orinfteadof the free Mercy of God.

2.As they are againft, or feigned, inftead of the Sacrifice, Obedience, Merit, or Interceffion of Chrift.. ' - ' - ■

3. Or as fuppofed to be done of our felves,with-out the Grace of the Holy Ghoft.

4. Or as fuppofed falfly to be perfed.

5. Or as fuppofed to have any of the afore-dif-claimed Merit.

S. Or as materially confuting in Mofaical Obfer-vances.

7. Much more in any fupcrftitious Inventi-is. '

8, Or in any Evil miftaken to be Good.

S>. Or as any way inconfiftent with the Tenor of the £eely pardoning Covenant. In all thefe fenfes Juftification by Works is difclaimed by all Protectants at leaft.

14. Yet all agree, that we ajre created to good Works in Chrift Jcfus, which God hath ordained, that we fhould walk therein *, and that he, that nameth the Name of Chrift, muft depart from iniquity, or elfe he hath hot the Seal of God ; and that he that is born of God finrieth not w that is, predominantly. Ancl that all ChritV's Members are Holy, Purified, zealous of Good Works, cleaning themfelves from all filthinefs of Fkfli and Spirit, that they might perfect Holinefs in God's fear, doing good to all Men, as loving their Neighbours as themfelves > and that if any Man have not the

Sandti-

( i8y )

Sandiifying Spirit of Chrift, he is none of his, nor without Holinefs can fee God.

15. They all judg reverently and charitably of the Ancients, that ufed the word Q Merit of Good Works], becaufe they meant but amoral aptitude for the promifed Reward, according to the Law of Grace through Chrift.

16* They confefs the thing thus dekribed them* felves, however they like not the name of Merit* left it (hould countenance proud and carnal Conceits.

17. They judg no Man to be Heretical for the bare ufeof that word, whoagreeth with them in the fenfe.

18. In this fenfe they agree, that our Go(pel* Obedience is fuch a necellary aptitude to our Glori-. fication, as that Glory ( though a free Gift ) is yet tt uly a reward of this Obedience.

1 p. And they agree ,that our final Juftification by Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pafs upon the feme Caufes, Reaforis, and Conditions, as our Glorification doth.

20. They all agree, that all faithful Minifters muft bend the labour of their Miniftry in publick and private, for promoting of Holinefs and good Works, and that they muft difference by Difcipline between the Obedient and the Difobedient. And O ! that the Papifts would a? zealoufly promote Holinefs and good Works in the World, as the true ferious Proteftants do, whom they fadioufly and peevi(hly accufe as Enemies to them > and that the Opinion, Difputing, and name of good Works, did not cheat many wicked Perfons into felf-flattery and Perdition, while they are void of that which

they

they difpute for* Then would not the Mahometans and Heathens be deterred from Chrifiiam-ty by the wickednete of thefe nominal Chriftians, that are near them : nor would the ferious pra&ice of thatChriftianky, which themfelves in general profefs, be hated, (corned, and perfecuted by fo njany, both Protectants and Papifts i nor would fo many contend that they are of the True Religion, while they are really of no Religion at all any farther, than the Hypocrites Pidure and Carcafs may be called Religion : Were Men but refolved tol>e ferions Learners, ferious Lovers, ferious Pra-#ifers according to their knowledge and did not live like mockers of God, and fuch as look toward the Life to come in jeft, or unbelief, God would vouchfafe them better acquaintance with the True Religion than moft Men have.

§. 3. One would think now that this fhould meet with no (harp Oppofition, from any Learned lover of Peace j and that it fhould anfwer for it felf, and need no defence. But this Learned Man for all that, among the reft of his Military Exploits, muft here find fome Matter for a Triumph.

And 1. Pag. 18. he afTaulteth the third Propof. £ 'they all detefi the Conceit, that God fljould aver, and refute a Man to^have done that which he never did]*

And is not this true ? Do any foher Men deny it, and charge God with Error or Untruth ? Will not this Man of Truth and Peace, give us leave to be thus far agreed, when we are fo indeed ?

But

( i «7 )

But faith he, £1^ the Orthodox abhor the con? trary, if [_ to have done it ~] be taken in fenfu forcnfi, (for in a Phyfteal and Ferfonal they abhor it not, but deride it): Doth the Aphoriji abhor thefe and fuch* l*kS fyyMgfi C We an d ea h buried, rifen from the Dead with Chriji ? ~]

Anfvp. i. Take notice Reader, that it is but the Words, and not the Matter that he here aflaulteth » fo that all here feemeth but lis de nomine. He before, fag 84. extolleth Chryfofiom for thus expounding, [ He made him fin for us 3 * that U, to be condemned as an Offender, and to die as a Blajphe* tner. And this fenfe of Imputation we all admit» ( But Chryfojiom in that place oft telleth us. That by [ Sin 3 he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man by his Perfecutors, [ not by God ] and one that fuflfered that curfed Death,which was due to wicked curfed Men : And which of us deny not Juftifica-tion by Works as Chryfojiom doth ? I fubferibe to his words, £ It U God's Righteoufnefs \ feeing it it not of Worlds (for in them it were neceffary that there be found no blet) but of Grace,which blottethout and extinguijheth all fni: And thifi begetteth us a double benefit, for it fujfereth us not to be lift up in mind, be-caufe it U all the Gift of God r and it Jhetvetb the greatnefs of the benefit ]• This is as apt an Expret iion of my Judgment of Wor^s and Grace as I could chufe. But it's given to tome Men to extol that in one Man, which they fervently revile in others. How frequently is Chryfojiom by many accufed as favouring Free-Will, and Man's Merits, and fmelling of Pelagianifm ? And he that is acquainted with Chryjojiom, muft know, That he in-cludeth all thefe things in Judication. I, Remif-

fion

fion of the Sin, as to the Punifliment. 2. Remiffi-on of it by Mortification, ( for fo he calleth it, in Rom. 3. j?. (mibi) 63.) 3. Right to Life freely given for drift's fake. 4. And Inherent Righte-cufnefs through Faith : And he oft faith, That this is called the Righteoufnefs of God,becaufe as God,who is living, quickeneth the dead, and as he that is firong giveth ftrengtb to the wealth fo he that is Righteous, doth fnddenly make them Righteous that were lapfed into fin ~], as he there alfo fpeaketh. And he oft tells us, It is Faith it ft If, and not only Chrift believed in, that is imputed for Righteoufnefs, or Ju-frifieth : And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Reward, Lthc Retribution of Faith ]. And pag. 8p. he thusconjoyneth [Faith and Chriji's Death] to the Queftion, How Men obnoxious to fo much fin are jufiified, [_ he Jhemtb that he blotted out all fin, that he might confirm what he Jaid both from the Faith of Abraham by which he was juliified, and from our Saviours Death by which we are delivered from fin ]• But this is on the by.

2. But faith Dr. T. 'The Orthodox abhor the con* trary in fenfu forenfi.

Anfw. How eafie is it to. challenge the Titles of Orthodox, Wife, or good Men to ones felf ? And who is not Orthodox, himfelf being Judg ? But it feems with him, no Man muft pafs for Orthodox that is not in fo grofs an error of his Mind, ( if thefe words, and not many better that are contrary muft be the difcovery of it ) viz. That will not fay, that in fenfu forenft, Godejieemetb Mentokave done that which they never did. The beft you can make of this is, that you cover the fame fenfe, which I plainlier expr^fs 3 with this illfavoured

Phrafe

( iSp )

Phrafe of Man's inventing: But if indeed yotx mean any more than I by your fenfus forenfu, viz. that fuch a fuffering and meriting for us may, in the lax improper way of fome Lawyers fpeaking, be called, [ Our own Doing, Meriting, Suffering, Sec.*] I have proved, that the Dodhine denied by me,fub-verteth the Gofpel of Chrift.

Reader, I remember what Grotm ( then Orthodox, thirty years before his Death ) in that excellent Letter of Church-Orders, Predeflination, Per-feverance, and Magiftrates, animadverting on Molimm, faith, How great an injury tbofe Divines, who turn the Chriflian Dottrine into unintelligible Notions and Controversies, do to Chriftian Magiftrates * becaufe it is the duty of CMagiftrates to difcern and preferve nectffary found Doflrine, which theje Men would make them unable to difcern. The fame I muft fay of their injury to all ChriftianS, becaufe all (hould hold faft that which is proved True and Good, which this fort of Men would dif-able them to difcern. We juftly blame the Papifls for locking up the Scripture, and performing their Worfhip in an unknown Tongue. And alas, what abundance of well-meaning Divines do the fame thing by undigefted Terms and Notions, and unintelligible Diftindions, not adapted to the Matter, but cuftomarily ufed from fome Perfons reverenced by them that led the way ? It is fo in their Tractates, both of Theology and other Sciences j and the great and ufeful Rule, Verba Rebus aptanda funt, is laid afide : or rather, Men that understand not Matter, are like enough to be little skilful in the exprefling of it: And as Mr. Pemble faith, A cloudy unintelligible ftile, ufually fignifieth a cloddy

dy unintelligent Head, (to that fenfc ): And as Mr. J* Humfrey tells Dr. Fnllmod* ( in his unan-fwerable late Plea for the Conformifts againft the charge of Schifm ) pag*ip. [So overly are men ordinarily rvont to fteak^ at the firfl fight, againjl that rpbicb others have long thought upon ] > that fome Men think, that the very jingle of a diftin&ion not underftood is warrant enough for their reproaching that Dodrine as dangerous and unfound,which hath coft another perhaps twenty times as many hardftudies, as the Reproachers ever beftowedon that Subjed.

To deliver thee from thofe Learned Obfcurities, r ead but the Scripture impartially, without their Spe&acles and ill-devifed Notions, and all the Do-dhine of Juftification that is neceflary, will be plain to thee : And I will venture again to fly fo far from flattering thofe,called Learned Men, who ex-pe<ft it, as to profefs that I am perfwaded the common fort of honeft unlearned Chriftians, ( even Plowmen and Women ) do better underftand the Dodrine of Juftification, than many great Difpu-ters will fuffer themfclves or others to underftand it, by reafon of their foreftalling ill-made Notions: thefe unlearned Perfons commonly conceive,r.That Chrift in his own Perfon, as a Mediator, did by his perfe& RJghteoufnefs and Sufferings, merit for us the free pardon of all our fins, and the Gift of his Spirit and Life Eternal, and hath promifed Pardon to all that are Penitent Believers, and Heaven to all that fo continue, and fincerely obey him to the end > and that all our after-failings, as well as our former fins, are freely pardoned by the Sacrifice, Merits, and Interceflion of Chrift, who alfo giveth

us

(ipi;

us his Grace for the performance of his impofed Conditions, and will judg us, as we have or have not performed them ]. Believe but this plain Dc-dkrine, and you have a lighter underftanding of Juftification, than many would let you quietly enjoy, who tell you, [ That Faith is not imputed for Righteoufnefs i that it juftifieth you only as an In-ftrumental Caufe, and only as it is the reception of Chrift's Righteoufnefs, and that no other Ad of Faith is juftifying, and that God efkemeth us to have been perfe&ly Holy and Righteous, and fulfilled all the Law, and died for our own fins, in or by Chrift, and that he was politically the very Per-fon of every Believing Sinner ] i with more fuch like.

And as to thisdiftin&ion which this Do&or will make a Teft of the Orthodox, (that is, Men of of his Size and Judgment ) you need but this plain explication of it.

i. In Law-fenfe, a Man is truly and fitly faid bimfelf to have done tbat^ which the Law or his Contract alloweth him to do either by bimfelf or another j ( as to do an Office, or pay a Debt by a Subflitute or Vicar). For fo I do it by my Inftrument, and the Law is fulfilled and not broken by me, becaufe I was at liberty which way to do it. In this fenfe I deny that we ever fulfilled all the Law by Chrift \ and that fo to hold fubverts all Religion as a pernicious Herefie.

2. But in a tropical improper fenfe, he may be faid to [ be eftetmed of God to have done what Cbriji Aids who Jball have the benefits of Pardon, Grace y and Glory thereby merited, in the manner and measure given by the free Mediator, as certainly as if be

had

(19*) m lid done it himfelf]* In this improper fenfe we agree to the Matter^ but are forry that improper Words fhould be ufed as a fnare againft found Do-<ftrine, and the Churches Love and Concord. And yet muft we not be allowed Peace ?

§. 4. But my free Speech here maketh me remember how fharply the Dodtor expounded and applyed one word in the retraced Aphorifms : I faid (not of the Men, but of the wrong Opinion op-pofed by me) [ It fondly fuppofetb a Medium betwixt one that is jufti and one that is no finner] one that hath his ftn or guilt taken away> and one that bath his unrighteoufnefs taken away : lis true in bruits and infenfibles that are not fubjeSs capable of Jufiice, there is, &c. 'there is a Negative Injuftice which denominateth the Subjeft non-juftum, but not in juftum, where Kighteeufnejs is not due. But where there is the debitum habendi, its privative. The Dodor learnedly tranilateth firft the word [fondly"] by [jiolide]\ and next he (fondly , though not jiolidej would pcrfwade the Reader, that it is faid of the Men-> though himfelf tranflate it [ Vd-Urina ].

And next he bloweth his Trumpet to the War, with this exclamation, £ Stolide ! 0 vocii mollitiem^ & modejliam! 0 ftolidos Ecclefia Reformat* Cla-rijfimos Heroas ! Aut ignoravit certe , out fcire fi difftmulat-) (quod affile eft calumnW) quid ifti ftatu-ant) quos loquitur, jiolidi tbeologi ].

Anfxv. 1. How blind are fome in their own Caufe } Why did not Confciencc at the naming of Calumniefay, [_ I am now committing it ?] It were better write in English, if Latin tranflations miift

needs

peeds be fo falfe ! we ufe the word [fond'] in out Country 5 in another fenfe than [foolifh] \ with us ic figniheth any byaffed Inclination, which beyond reafon propendeth to one fide : and fo we ufe to fay, That Women are fond of their Children, or of any thing cver-Uved: But perhaps he can ufe his Logick, to gather by confequences the Title of the Perfon y from the Title of his Opinion, and to gather \_foo-lijhly"] byconfequence out of [fondly]* To all which I can but anfwer, That it he had made him-felf the T'ranfljtor of my Words, and the Judg of my Opinions i if this be hisbeft, he fhould not be chofen as fuch by me.But it may be he turned to K> ders ViQionary Jk found thert[ fondly,vide foolijhly]*

2. The Stolidi Tbeologi then is his own phraie ! And in my Opinion^anot.hcr Mans.Pen might better have called the Men of his own Opinion X^JLcckfe Reformat* clariffimos Hereof] compared with others! J. take Gataker, Bradjhaw, Wqtton, Camera, and his followers \ Vrfine, Olevian, Pifcator, Varaut, Wen-deline, and multitudes fuch, to be as famous Heroes as himfelf: But this alfo on the by.

§• 5. But I muft tell him whether I abhor the Scripture Phrafe, Q We are dead, buried, and rifen mth Chrifi ].

I anfwer, No* nor will I abhor to fay, That in fenfu forenfi, I am one political Perfon frith Chriji y and am perfectly holy and obedient by and in him? and died and redeemed my felf by him, when he ihall prove them to be Scripture Phrafes: But I de-fire the Reader not to be io fond, (pardon the word ) as by this bare quefUon to be enticed to believe, that it is any of the meaning of thofe Texts that ufe that Phrafc which, he mentioned^ that O Itegallyl

( IP4 )

£ Legally, ox in fenfu forenfi, every Believer is efteem* ed by God to have himfelf perfonally died a violent death on the Croft, and to have been buried, and to have rifen again-, and afcended into Heaven, nor yet to be now there in Glory,becaufe Chrift did and doth all this in our very Legal Perfon. Let him but i. confider the Text, 2. and Expofitors, 3. and the Analogy of Faith, and he will find another fenfe > viz. That roe fo live by Faith on a dyings buried, rifen and glorified Saviour, as that as fitch he dwelleth objectively in our Hearts, and we partakf fo of the Fruits of his Death, Burial, and Refur-reliion, and Glory, as that roe follow him in a Holy Communion, being dead and buried to the World and Sin, and rifen to newnefs of Life, believing that by his Power we Jhall perfonally, after our death and burial, rife alfo unto Glory* I will confefs that we are perfectly holy and obedient by and in Cbriji, as far as we are now dead, buried, and rifen in him.

§• 6* And here I will fo far look back, as to remember, That he (as fome others) confidently itelleth us, That Q the Law bound us both to perfeU Obedience, and to punishment for our fin, and there-fore pardon by our own Suffering in Chrift, may ft and -with the reputation, that we were perfectly Obedient and Righteous in Chrift^

Arifw. And to what purpofe is it to difpute long, where fo notorious a contradiction is not only ivot difcerned, but obtruded as tantum mn ne-'ccfliry to our Orthodoxnefs, if not to our Salvation? I ask him,

1. Was not Chrift as our Mediator perfe&ly holy habitually, and actually, without Original or Adtual Sin ? 2. If

S; If all this be reputed to be in fe, bur owna* fubjetted in and done by 0#r felves political, or itf /^jfa forenfi \ Are we not then reputed in foro> to have no original or a&aal fin, but to have innocently fulfilled all the Law, from the firft hour of our lives to the laft > Are wt reputed innocent in Chrift, as to one part only of our lives, (if fo^ which is it ? ) or as to all ?

3. If as to all, is it not a conlradiUion that in Law-fcnfe, vve are reputed perfedlly Holy and Innocent, and yet fihners.

4. And can he have need of Sacrifice or %rdon^ ithat is reputed never to have finned (legally ) >

5. If he will fay that in Law-ienfc, we have or «are two Perfons, let him expound the word Perfons [only, as of Qualities and Relation^ (nothing to 5ur Cafe in hand) > or elfe fay alfo, That as we ire holy and perfeft itl one of ouroVvn Perfons, and fwfuly Unrighteous, or ungodly in another^ foaMan may be in Heaven in one of his own Perfons, and On Earth, yea and in Hell in the other : And if he mean that the fame Man is juftified in his Petfon iit Chrift, and condemned in his other Perfon > confi-der which of thefe is the Pbyfical Petfon, for t think its that which is like to fuffer.

§•7* f*g* 22 4- He hath another touch at my Epiftlc, but gently forbeareth contradiction as to Num. 8. And he faith fo little to the 1 ubj& need-eth no anfwer.

§.8. pag. 127. He affaulteth the firft Num. of N. 13. That tve all agree againji any conceit of Worfa that are agalnji or injiead of the free Mercy of God].

Aud what hath he againft.this ? Why that O 2 which

which taketh vp many pages of his Book, and feemeth'his chief ftrength in moft of his Contert, ziz.. [the Papifis fay the fame"] and [fo faith £e/-Ltrmine'}. It's firange that the fame kind of Men that deride fanatic}^ Sellaries, for crying out in Ghurch-Controveifies, [O Anticbriftian Topery y Bellarmine^ Sec. ] fhauld be of the fame Spirit, and take the fame eeurfe in greater Matters, and not, perceive it, nor aeknowledg their agreement with fhem ! But as Mr. J* Ukmjrey faith in the forefaid; Eook of the word [ 5chifrn-> Scbifm ] oft canted out ag|in-ft them, that will not facrilegioufly fur-rer-der their Confcjenfes, or defert their Miniflryv [2lv great Bear bath been fo oft led through the }treas\ that now the Bvys lay by all fear, and laugh, mmdkg fpart at bim\ fo fay I of this Sectarian Bugbear, . f Popery-, Anticbriftian, Bellarmine ] either ihfcPapiits really fay as we do,: or they do not. If not,, is this Do&or more to be blamed for making them better than they are, or for making us rvorfe ? whiih evfr it be, *iruth fhould defend Truth. If they. dd,;Iiieartily re Joyce, and it ihall be none of my labour any more (whatever I did in my Confejfion of Rdi tb) to iprove -that they do not* Let who will manage fuch ungrateful Work. For my part, I take it for a better Character of any Opinion, that Papifis and Proteftants agree in it, than that the Protcftarits hold.italope. And fo much for [_Pa-pfis and BeVartnine'] though I think I know better what they teach, than his Book will truly tell mc.

§.£. Eutheaddeth, \JJumatte J unifying IForbj are in reality adverf* to the free Mercy of God, there* for?tcrbe accounted of no value to %igbttoufnefs 1..

t Avfxv*

| Anfo. i. But whofe phrafe is Juftifying Work? ?

2. Doth not the Holy Ghofi fay, That a Man is juftified by Wor^ and not by Faith only? Jam.2.

3. Doch not Chriil fay, By thy words thou Jhalt be juftijied ? .

4. Do not I over and over tell the World, That I hold Justification by Works in no fenfe^ but as fignifyingtbe fame as [According to Works'] which you own? And foboth Name and Thing arecon<* fcifed by you .to be Script urak

5. I have before defired the Reader to turn to the words, [ Righteous-, Righteoufnefs^ JyjlificatZ-on-) &c. ] in his- Concordance. And it there he find Rightepufneji mentioned as-conGlting in feme Adtsof Man, many hundred times, Jet him next fay if he dare, that they are to be had in no price to Righteoujnefs : Or let him read the Texts cited by me in my Covftffion of Faith.

,6. Becaufe, Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedience, are that whofe fincerity is to be judged in order to our Life cr Death ere long* I will not fay that they are to be vilified as to fuch a Righteouf-nefsor Juftihcation, as confifteth in our vindication from the charge of Impenitency, Infidelity, Unholinefs, Hypocrifie, &c. The reading of Mat* '25. refolved me for this Opinion.

§. 10. Next he noteth our detefting fuch Works as are againft or inftead of Chritt's Sacrifice, Righ-teoufnefs, Merits, &c. To this we have the o!d Cant, The Papifis faytbelil^e.

Reader, I proved that the generality of Protectants are agreed in all thofe twenty Particulars, even in all the material Doctrines about Man's Works and Juliification, while this warlike Dodlor

would fet us all together by the ears ftill; he is over-ruled to aflert that the Papifts alfo are agreed with as. The more the better, I am glad if it be fo, and will here end with fo welcome a Conclufi-on, that maketh us all herein to be Friends: only adding, That when he faith that £ fitch are all Wbrkf vchatever^ ( even Faith it felf) which are called into the very leajl part of Jujlification ^ > even a? a Condi tion or fitbordinate perfonal Evangelical Rigbteouf-nefij fuch as Chrift and James* and a hundred Texts of Scripture aflert * I anfwer, I cannot believe him, till I ceafe believing the Scriptures to be true*, which I hope will never be : And am forry that fo worthy a Man can believe fo grofs an Opinion, upon no better reafons than hegiveth : And yet imagine, that had I the opportunity of free conference with him, I could force him to manifeft, That he himfelf diifereth from us but in meer words or feebnd Notions, while he hotly proclaimeth a greater difcord.

A N

ANSWER

TO

Dr. TULLIES

Angry Letter.

LONDON,

Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinfiv, at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675.

p

V a ;

(2^» dnftper to Dr. Tullies ^#jgr)i Letter.

Jleverexd Sir,

f I had not before perceived and lamented the great £z# 0/ Contenders? the dangerous /We /ir 7g-norant Chriftians, and the great Calamity of the Church, by making Verbal Differences fecrn #&-1 ierial? and variety of fome Arbitrary Logical Notions 5 to feem tantum non? a variety of Religions \ and by frightning Men out of their Charity, Peace, and Communion, by Bugbear-Names, of this or that Herefo or dangerous Opinion? which is indeed but a Spedfrum or Fan-tafm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain, your Ju-Jlificatio Paulina? and your Letter to me, might be iufficient means of my full Convidtion. And if once reading of your Writings do not yet more in-creafe my love of the ChrijUan fimplicity? and plain old Divinity? and the amicable Communion of pra&ical Chriftians upon thofe terms, and not med-!ing with Controversies in a militant way, till by lc>ng impartial ftudies they are well underfiood, 1 1 " mu:i

v z )

muft confefs my non-proficience is very unexcu-fable.

With your felf I have no great buGnefs: I am not fo vain as to think my felf able to underjland you, or to be underjlood by you : and I muft not be fo bold as to tell you why, much lefs will I be fo injurious to the Reader, as by a particular examining all your words, to extort a confeflion that their fenfe is left or tporfi than I could wi(h : For cut bono ? What would this do but more offend you ? And idle words are as great a fault in writing as in talk : If I have been guilty of too many, I muft not fo much add to my fault, as a too particular examination of fuch Books would be. But for the fake of your Academical Toutb, whom you thought meet to allarm by your Caution, I have anfwered fo much of your Treatife as I thought neceffary to help even Novices to anfwer the reft themfelves. For their fakes (though I delight not to offend you) I muft fay, That if they would not be deceived by fuch Books as yours, it is not an Anfwer to them that muft be their prefervative, but an orderly ftudying of the Doctrines handled \ Let them but learn truly the (everal fenfes of the word £ Justification], and the feveral fort x, andjwbat they are y and ftill conftrain ambiguous words to confefs their fenfe, and they will need no other Anfwer to fuch Writings.

And as to your Letter (pafiing by the fpume and paffion) I think thefe few Animadverfions may fuffice.

§. I. Between twenty and thirty years ago, I did jn a private Difputation prove our guilt of the (ins of our nearer Parents > and becaufe many

doubted

V3 7 doubted of it, I have ott fince in ether writings mentioned it: About three years ago, having two Books of Mr. William Aliens in my hand to perufe, in order to a Publication, ( a Perfaafive to Vnity^ and a T*reatife of the 'Two Covenants) ', in a Preface to the latter, I faid, [that mo{\ Writers, if not tnoft Cbrijiians, do greatly darken the Sacred Vdttrine 9 by overlooking the Intereji of Children in the AUiom of their neara Parents, and thinly that they participate of no guilt, and fuffer for no original fin, but Adam 5 / only, &c *] You fattened on this, and warned feriontjly the Juniors, not rajhly to believe one that brings forth fuch Paradoxes of bis ( or that) Tbeo* logie , which you added to your £ 0 c£cos ante iheologos quicunque unquam fuijiis ~\: The charge was expreffed by Q aliud inveniffe peccatum Origu nale, multo citerim quam quod ah Adamo traduQum e(f]. Hereupon I thought it enough to publilh that old private Difputation* which many before had feen with various Ceufures : Now you fend me in your Letter the ftrange tidings of the fuccefs : You that deterred your Juniors by fo frighful a warning* feem now not only to agree with me, that we are guilty of our nearer Parents fin, and contradi additional pravity from them as fuch, ( which was my AfTertion ) but over-do all others, and Truth it fclf in your Agreement! Now you take it for an injury to be reported to think otherwife herein than I do: yea, and add, Q Which neither I, nor any Bo~ dy elfe I know of, denies as to the thing, though in the extent, and other circumjiances, all are not agreed^ and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me 3« This is tOQ kind : I am loth to tell you how many

that

that I know, and have read, deny it, left I tempt you to repent of your Agreement.

But doth the World yet need a fuller evidence, that fome Men are de materia agreed with them, whom they raife the Country againft by their Accusations and Sufpicions ?

But furely what paflion or fpatling foever it hath occafioned from you, I reckon that my labour is not loft; I may tell your Juniors, that I have fped exr traordinary well, when I have procured the pub-lilhed confent of fuch a Doctor. Either you were of this mind before or not ; If not, it's well you are brought to confefs the Truth, though not to confefs a former Error. If yea, then it's well that foloud and wide a feeming difagreement is confef-ied to be none, that your Juniors may take warning, and not be frightned from Love and Concord by every melancholy Allarm.

Yea, you declare your conformity to the Litany, \Remernber not our Offences, nor the Offences of our Wore fathers'], and many words of indignation you ufefor my queftkming it. All this I like very well as to the Caufe * And I matter it not much how it looks at me : If you agree more angrily than others difagree, the Caufe hath fome advantage by the Agreement. Though me-thinks it argueth fomewhat unufual, that feeming Diflenters (hould clofe by fo vehement a Collifion.

But yet you will not agree when you cannot chufe but agree, and you carry it ftill as if your Allarm l*ad not been given without caufe: Muft wc agree, and not agree ? What yet is the Matter ? Why it is [ a new original fin 1. My ordinary exprcffions of

i :> ; it may be fully feen i« theDifputatioh : The phrafe you laid hold on in a Preface is cited before, [That rre participate of no guilty and fuffer for no original fin but Adam's only J, I denied. And what's the dangerous Errour here ? That our nearer Parents fin was Adams, I may prefume that you hold not. That we are guilty of fuch, you deny not: That it is fliy I find you not denying : fure then all the difference muft be in the word [_ ORIGINAL ].

And if fo, you that fo hardly believe your loud-noifed difagreements to be but verbal, muft patiently give me leave here to try it. Is it any more than the Name ORIGINAL that you are fo hei-noufly offended at ? Sure it is not: Elfe in this Letter purpofety written about it, you would have told.your Reackr what it vs. Suffer me then to fum-mon your Allarm'd Juniors to come and fee what a §p%ruw it is that muft affright them ; and what a Poppet-flay cr dreaming War it is,that the Church is to be engaged in, as if it were a matter of Life and Death ? Audite juvenes ! I took the word [ORIGINAL] in this bufinefs to have feveral fig-nifications. Firft, That is called [ ORIGINAL J Sin, which was the ORIGO of all other fins in the. Humane World : And that was not Adams fin, but

2. That which was the ORIGO of fin to all the World, fave Adam and Eve, communicated by the way of Generation : And that was Adams and Eves conjunct, viz. i. Their firft finful A£s » 2. Their Guilty 3. And their habitual pravity (making it full, though in Nature following tfic Aft;. This Sin, Fa6t, Guilt, and Habit, as Accidents'

cidents of the Perfbns of Adam and Eve, are not Accidents of our Perfons.

3. Our pergonal participations I. In the guilt of the fin of Adam and Eve h 2. And of a vicious frivation and habit from them, as foon as we. are Perfons. Which is called Original fin, on three accounts conjunct > t. Becaufe it is a participation of their Original Aft that we are guilty of > 2. Becaufe it is in us ab Origine, from our firfi Being i 3. And becaufe it is the Origo of all our Atiuat Sins*

4. I call that alfo [ORIGINAL] (or part of Original Sin) which hath but the two later only 4 viz. 1. Which ism us AB ORIGINE, from our firft perfbnal being', 2. Which is the Root or ORIGO in our felves of all our Attual Sins: And thus our Guilt and Vice derived from our Hearer FarentS) and not from Adam^ is our Original Sin \ That is, 1. Both Guilt and Habit are in us from our Original, or firft Being > 2. And all our Actual Sin fpringeth from it as a partial Caufe : For I may prefume that this Reverend Dodor doth not hold that Adanfs fin derived to us is in one part of the SouU ( which is not partible ) and our nearer' Parent's in another 5 but will grant that it is one vi-tiofity that is derived from both, the latter being a! Degree added to the former \ though the Reatws having more than one fundamentum^ may be called diverfe. That Origo & AUive & paffive dicitur, Ifuppofe we are agreed. Now I call the vicioui Habits contracted from our nearer Parents by fpe-cial reafon of their own fins^ fuperadded to the degree, which elfe we fhould have derived from

Adam-i

\ / )

'Adam, a part of our original fwfut Pravity, evert a fecondary p^rt. And I call our guilt of the fins of our nearer parents ( not Adam's ) which you will, either a fecondary Original Guilt, ex Sin, or a fecondary part of our Original Guilt. See then our dangerous difagreement: I call that ORIGINAL, which is in us ab Origine, when we are firft Perfons, and is partly the Root or Origo in us of all our following Actual Sin : though it was not the Original Sin of Mankind, or the firft of Sins. The Do&or thinks this an Expreffion, which all Juniors mud be warned to take heed of,and to take heed of the Dodfrine of him that ufeth it. The Allarm is againft this dangerous word [ ORIGINAL 3-And let a Man awake tell us what is the dan-' ger.

But I would bring him yet to agreement even de nomine, though it anger him. I. Let him read the Artie, p. of the Church of England, and feeing-there Original Sin is faid to be that corruption of Nature whereby we are far gone from Original Righte-oufnefs, and are of our own Nature inclined to eviU fo that theflejh lujieth againft the Spiriu'the luft of the flejh called <p£pVH[JU)c ortpuoi, which fome do ex* pound the Wifdom, fome Senfuality, fome the AffeRi-en> fame the deftre ef the ¥lej!>, not fubjeVt to the Law of God}: Seing a degree of all this fame Lu(i is in Meji from the fpecial lins of their Fore-fathers, as well as from Adam's h Is not this Degree here called Original Sin f { why the Church omitted the Imputed Guilt aforefaid, I enquire not ).

2. If this will not ferve, if he will find me any Text of Scripture, which ufeth the Pbrafe, [ORIGINAL Sin], I will promife him. hereatter to

ufe

ufe it in no other fenfe, than the Scripture ufcth it*

3. If that will-not ferve, if the Matters of Language will agree, ( yea, to pafs by our Lexicons, if the Doctors of that Univerfity will give it us under their hands ) that the word [OPxIGINAL] is unaptly and dangerouily applycd to that finful Guilt and Pravity which is in us ah Origine No\\r£ exiftenti*-> and is the internal Radix vel Origo of al! our A&ual Sin, in part of Caufality, I will ufe that Epichete fo no more.

4. If all this will not ferve, if he himfelf will* give me a jitter Epitbete^ I will ufe it: And now we over-agree in Do&rine, a word (hall not divide us, unlefs he will be an^ry becaufe we are agreed, as Jonri was that the Kmhites were fpared,becaufe it iecmed to difgrace hjs Word.

§. II. fag. 4, 5,&c. You invite me to, \_a full entire retractation of my "Doctrine of Jujiifcation Cyou add, By IVerty) and the feenndary Original Sin 1-

1. Will you take it well if I retrad that which you profefs now to hold, and know none that de-nyeth, then there is no pleafmg you: If I muft be thought to wrong you for feeming to differ from you, and yet muft xetrad: all: What, yours and all Mens >'

2. Do you meaa the words or the finfe of Jufti-fcathvi{zs you call itfiy Wcrksftot the words,I take you for a fubferiber to the 3? Articles-; and therefore that you reject not the Epiitleof St. James: And for the finfe, I copfefs it is a motion iuitable to the Intereft of your tndtife, (though not of the Truth ) : He that Q&imbt confute the Truth,

would

Would more eafily do his Work, if he could pet-fwade the Defenders of it to an Entire RetraUatU vn* Hereupon, pag. 5. you recite my words, of the difficulty of bringing fome Militant Divines to yield : Your Adtnoniticn for Self-Application of them is ufeful, and I thank ybu for it: But is it hot a ftreight that fuch as I am in, between two contrary forts of Accufers? When Mr. Vanvers* and Multitudes on that fide, Reproach me daily for Retra£fations,and you for want of them ? How natural is it now to Mankind, to defire to be the Oracles of the World, and that all (hould be SU lenced) or Retratted> which is againft their Minds ? How many call on me for Retractation ? Mr# Tombes, and Mr. Uanvers, for what I have Written for Infants-EaptUtrt : The Papifts for what I have Written againft them : And how many more ? And as to what I have RetratiedQne reproached me for it, and another either knoweth not of it, or perfwadeth others that it is not done.

You fay, pag. 6. \jA great out-cry you have fnadi of m§i as charging you with things you have Retra*

Eled . And pag. 7. What's the reafon you have

not hitherto direttod us to the particulars of your Re± cantation, what, when, where ?— — Tou diretl one indeed, to a fmall BooJ^ > above Twenty years a-gd retraced* —- All I can pick^ up of any feeming Retractation, is that you fay, that Works are necefi \fary at leajl to the continuation of our Junification.

Anfw. Either this is Written by a Wilful, or a Heedlefs miftaking of my words. The hrft I will not fufpeft*, it muft therefore be the fecond* (for I muft not jfudg you Vnable to underftand plain English;* And is it any wonder if you have

P many

many fuch Miftakes in your difputes of Juftificatr-on, when you arc fo heedlefs about a matter of Fadt ? Where did I ever fay, that I had Recanted? Or that I Retraced any of the Do&rine of Juftifi-cation, which I had laid down ? Cannot you di-ftinguifh between Sufpending, or Revoking, or Retracing a particular Booh^, for the fake of feveral Crude and Incongruous Exprefiions, and Retracing or Recanting that VoBrine of Juftification ? Or can you not underftand words, that plainly thus Diftinguifh? Why talk you of what, and when y and where, and conjefture at the words, as if you would make the Reader believe, that indeed it is fome confeffed Errors of mine, which you Con* futed ? and that I take it for an Injury, becaufe I Retra&ed them? And fo you think you falve your Confutation, whatever you do by your Candour and Juftice: But you have not fo much as Fig-leaves for either. It was the Afhorifms, or Boo}^ , that Tfaid was above Twenty years a go Revoked : When in my Treatife of Infant-Baptifm, I had craved Animadverfions on it, and promifed a bet* ter Edition, if I Publifhed it any more*, I forbad the Reprinting it,till I had time to Correct it j and when many called for it, I Hill denyM them. And when the Camhridg Printer Printed it a fecond time, he did it t>y Stealth, pretending it was done beyond Sea. In my Confeffion Twenty years ago, I gave the Reafons, Preface, pag. 3 J• [I find that there are fome Incautelous I'affages in my Aphorifms, not fitted tp their Reading, that come to fucl^ Poyjon, and feei^ for a Word to be Matter of Accufation and

Food for their Cenfuring opnionative Zeal. > And

pag, 42. If any Brother underftand not any word in

my

my Aphorifms which is here Interpreted, or miftaty myftnfe pbout the Matter of that Bookj which is here more fully opened \ I muft expeft, that they interpret that by this* And if any me have Jo little to do as to write againji that Book^ (which is not unlikely} if he take the Senfe contrary to what I have here and elfe-where fince then Publijhed, I jball but negteft him as a Contentious, Vam Wrangler, if not a Ca-* lumniator]. I Wroce this (harply, toforwarn the Contentious, not knowing then that above Twenty years after,Dr. "tully would be the Man. Pag, 43, [If any will needs take any thing in this Bo<\ to be rather a Retractation, than an Explication 3 of what 1 have before faid, though I (hould beft know my own Meaning \ yet dofuch commend me, while they ft em to blame me : I never look^ to write that which Jhall

have no need of Correttion* And Cap. j pag.2.

[_Lefi Iff^ould prove a further Ojfesice to my Brethren^ and a Wrong to the Church, I defired thoje who thought it worth tbtir Labour, to vouchfafe me their Animad-verfwns, which I have fpent much of tbefe 'three la(t years in considering, that I might Corrett what-ever was difcovered to be Erroneous , and give them an account of my Keafons of the reft I have not only fince SVPPRESSEV that Boo]^ which did offend them, but alfo laid by thofe Papers of Vniverfal Redemption, which I had written, left I jhould be further offenfive, Sec.'] In my Apologie elfe-where I have fuch-like PaflTages, ever telling Men that [It was the firft Boof^ 1 wrote in my Vnexperienced Touths that I take the Do&rines of it to be found I and needful, fave that in divers places they ar* unskilfully and incduteloufly worded. (As the Word [CovenauQ is oft put for [Law,~] <kc*) And thac

I wrote my Confeffion, and Dilutes of Jujtifica-tion, as an Exposition of it v and that I Retraced, or Sufpended, or T^evokfd , not the VoSrine, but the Bao^ till I had Corrected it, and did difown * it as too unmeet an Expreflion of my Mind, r which I had more fully expreft in other Bookj.

And is not this plain Englifh > Doth this war-rant a Wife and Righteous Man, to intimate that I accufe him cf writing againft that Do&rine of Juftihcation which I Recanted, and to call for the What, and Where, and When ? Yea, and tell me, that I [refer yott to afmallBoo}^] when inftead of referring you to it, I only blame you for referring to that alone, when I had faid as before ?

When many Divines have publifhed the firft Edition of their Works imperfe&ly, and greatly corrected and enlarged them in a Second ( as Hez*h\s Annotations, Polanus his SyntJ£ka% and many fuch) all Men take it for an Injury for a Neighbour twenty years after , to feledt the firft Edition to confute as the Author's Judgment: Much more might I, when I publifhed to the World, that I S*fyended the whole BooJ^ y and have thefe tivemy four years hindred the Printing of it * profdlingthat I have in many larger Books, more intelligibly and fully opened the fame things.

Yea, you fear not pag.2%. to fay, That I tell you of about 60 Bookj of Retractations, in part at lea\i which I have Written] > when never fuch a word fell from me. If I fay, That one that hath publifhed his Sufpenfion of a fmall Boo\ written in Totttb, not for the VoRrine of it, but feme unfit ExpreiTions, and hath fince in al-mort thirty Years time, written about fixty Eooks, in many or

moft

tnoft of which is fomewhat of the fame Subjedfr,

and in fome of them he fullier opcneth his Mind > (hould be dealt with by an Adverfary, according tolbmeof his later and larger Explications, and not according to the Mode and Wording of that one Sufpended Book alone : Shall fuch a Man as you fay, that I [tel you of about fixty Bocks of KetraS at ions']? Or will it not abate Mens reverence of your difputing Accuratenefs,to find you fj untrufty in the Recitation of a Man's words ? The truth is, it is this great Defeft of Heed and Accu-ratenefs, by hafty Temerity, which alfo fpoileth your Difputations.

But, fag. 7. the Aphorifms mud be, [the tneft S dollar-like ^ and Elaborate (though Erroneous) JZookJn Controverfte, you ever Compcfid~\» Anfw. U Your Memory is faulty : Why fay you in the next* that I appeal to my Difputation of Jullifieation and fome others > but you cannot *trudg up and down, to every place 1 would fend you, your Legs are too rveakj Either you had read all the fixty Books which you mention (the Controverfal at leaft) or not: If not, How can you tell that the Aphorifms is the moft Elaborate > If yea, Why do you excufe your Trudging, and why would you feledi a Sufpended Book, and touch none that were Written at large on the fame Subject > 2. By this (I fu,-pofc to make your Nibble to feem a Triumph) you tell your Reader again, how to value your Judgment. Is it like that any Dunce that is diligent, (hould Write no more Schollar like at Sixty years of Age than at Thirty > And do you think you know better what of mine is Elaborate, than I do? Sure that Word might bave been fpandi p 3 When

( 14 )

When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath

coit me mor: Labour than all that Book j and perhaps one Scheme of the Diftin&ions of Juftifica-tion, which you deride. If indeed you are a com^ pecenr Judg of your own Writings, Experience affurethme, that you are not ib of mine. And J>4g. 25. you fay, You deprenot to be -preferred be* fore yonr Betters, leajl of all when you are fingularh as here I think you are.

§• III. Pag. g. You are offended for being put in the Cub, with divers mean and contemptible Ma~ lefattors.']

Anfw. O for Juftice ! 1. Was not Bellarmin^ or fome of the Fapifls and the Socinians, as great J Ivfalefadtors, with whom (as you phrafe it) you I put me in the Cub? 2. Are they MalcfaUors fo | far as they agree with you in VoVtrine, and are yon Innocent ? VV 'hat is the Difference between your T'reatife, in the part that toucheth me, and that of Mr. Eyres, Mr. Crandon, and fome others fuch ? Dr. Owen, and Dr. Kendale, indeed differ e4 from you i the latter feeking (by Bifhop V(her) an amicable Clofure, and the former (if I underftand his Book on the Hebrews) lefs differing from me in podhine, than once he either did, or feemed to do. (And if any of us all grow no Wifer in thirty years Study, we may be afhamed). But to give yOu your due Honour, I will name you with your Equals, as far as I can judg, viz* M4ccovius> Onto, Coccejus, and Cloppenburgius, ( I mean but in the Point in Queftion h it's no Difhonour to you to give fome of them Precedencie in other things). It may be alfo Spanbemw, was near you. But

* *5 ;

(if I may prefume to liken my Betters) no Men feem to me to have been fo like you, as Guilielmus Rivets (not Andrew J, Mr. George Walter\ and Mr. Roborougb. (I hope this Company is no Di(honour to you). And very unlike you are he Klan\, Cameron Vavenant* Dr. Hammond, Mr. G*taker* Mr. Anthony Wotton* and in Complexion Scoins and Oc\im, and fuch as they : If yet I have not Choftn you pleating Company, I pray you choo fefo your felf.

But you fay on, \Jlad you not (inyour Memory many Scores of gwateji Eminence and Repute in the Cbrijiian World* of the fame Judgment with

me Know you not J fpeak the fame thing with all

the Reformed Churches, &c. For fljjme let it be

the Church of England, with all the reji of the Reformed, &c.]

Anfw. x. I know not what you hold, even when I read what ycu write : (I muft hope as well as I can, that you know your felf): How then (hould I know who are of the fame judgment witft you?

2. Yet I am very confident, that all they whora you mention, are of the fame in fome thing or other* an<^ in particular, that we are Juftijiedby Faithy and not by the Works of the harp* or any Worlds in the fence denied by St. Paul, &c.

,3. Do not I, with as great Confidence as you* lay Claim to the fame Company and Concord ? And if one of us be miltaken, muft your bare Word determine which it is? Which of us hath brought the fuller Proofs ? I fubferibe to the Dodtrine of the Church of England* as well a< you * and my Condition thefe thirteen or fourteen years, giveth

P 4 as

as much Evidence, that I am loth to fubfcribe (a ^vhat I believe not, as yours doth of you. And U you that know which of my Books is the moft | v'v Elaborate, fure know, that in (hat Book* which I Wrote to explain thofe Aphorifms (called my Conftjftdn) I cite the Words of above an Hundred frotejiant Witneffes* that give as much to Wor\s as I do; And that of this Hundred, one is the An-guftine Confeflion, one the Weftminfter Synod, one the Synod of Dort, one the Church of England* e^ch one of which being Colle&ives, contain many. (And here I tell you of more). And have you brought more WitneflTes ? Or any to the contrary ? Did you Confute* or once take Notice of any of thefe ?

q. Do you not here before yon are aware, let your Reader know that it was, and Hill is, in the Dark, that you Alarm the World about our dangerous Differences* and run to your Arms undrcft, before your Eyes are open ? Qui conveniunt in ali-quoterth* &c. They that agree with the Church of England* in the Dodhine of Juftification by Faith,do fo far agree between the^rifclves : But Dr. iullie* and R. B« do agree with the Church of England* in the Do&rine of Juftification by Faith. Ergo. —- The Article referreth to the Homilies, where it is more fully Explained.

5. May not I then retort your Argument, and bid you [Tor fhame let it be no longer Bellarnine, and R. B. but the Church of England, and all the Reformed* andR. B-] ? Difprove the Witnefles twenty "years ago, produced by me in this very Caufe * or elfe fpeak out, and fay, \jfhe Church of England, And the reji of the Reformed, bold Juftification by

JForkjy

( iy )

tForl^y ]uft as Bellarmine and the Papifls do] whicfy is it which you would faften on me, who agree with them (as if you had never there read my Anfwer^) Mr. Crandon, objecting the fame thihg)* W*' ■"'

§. IV. Your Cenfure, pag. 10, n. of my Windingsj Clouds of Novel Vijiinttions, Preambles* Limitations^ &c. is juft fuch as your Treatife did bid me expett: Till you become guilty of the fame Crime, and fall out with Covfufon, and take not equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained, inftead of Univocals, in the ftating of your Quefiions, I (hall never the more believe that Hannibal is at the Gates, or the City on Fire, for your Allarms.

§. V. Pag. ii. Where you tell me, that [Tou have no Profit by my Preface: I (hall not deny it, nor wonder at it > you are the fitted Judge : Where you fay, that \lhsve no Credit,"] You do but tell the World at what Rates you write. Honor eft in konorante. And have all my Readers already told you their Judgment > Alas! How few ? In all London, not a Man hath yet given me Notice of hisDiflike,g^ Diflent. And fure your own Pen is a good Confuter of you. It is forne Credit, that

I"fuch a Man as you, is forced to profefs a full Con-fent to the Dodhrine, though with paflionate Indignation.

■ You tell me of [Nothing to the Queflion]* But will you not be angry if I fhould but tell you, how little you did toftatezny Queftion,anJ in Re3-fon muft be fuppofed, when you aflaulted my

Dodfrine,

(18 )

Do&rine, to take it as I jiated it i which I have fully (hewed you ?

You tell me, that You Charged me only with new Original Sin , underived from Adam , mnhriowny unheard of before, in the Chrifiian World. ^

Anfrp. Ve re, is not our Guilt of nearer Parent's Sins fuch which you and all that you know f now atfaft) confefs? Ve nomine, i. Tcil the World if you can, when I called it [_New Original Sin, or underived from Adam, or uneven, or unheard of]. There are more ways than one of Derivation from Adam. It is not derived from him by fuch Imputation as his rirft Sin ', but it is derived from him as a partial Caufa Caufa, by many Gradations. All Sin is fome-way from him. Either you mean that I faid, that it was not Derived from Adam, or you gather it by fome Confequence from what I faid. If theFirft* (hew the Words, and the Shame fhall be mine. If not, you know the old Law, that to falfe Accufers, it muft be doite as they would have done to the Accufed. But if it be your Confequence, pjove it, and tell the World, what are the Premifes that infer it.

§. VI. Pag. 12. You friendly hektoie to profit by my felf, however you profefs that you profit not by me! What I have faid to you againft [Ha-fly Judging], I have firft faid to my (elf, and the more you warn me of it, the more friendly you are: If it be not againft fuch as you but rny felf it is againft my fejf that I have a Treatife on that Subjedh but I begin to think my felf in this more Seeing than you j for I fee it both in my felf and you, and you fecm to fee it in m?, and not in

your

(i'p)

yourf4f* But with all Men, I find, that to fee the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard, and to love the Glafs which (h-weth them, is not cafie* especially to fomc Men that neither are low, nor can endure to be fo, till there is no Remedy.

But, Sir, how eafie a Way of Difputing have you happily light on, Who inftead oi Examining the hundred Witnefles which I brought, and my elfe-where oft proving the Doctrine oppofed by me to be Novel, and Singular , do in few words talk of your holding the Voftrine delivered to the Saints, and of the many Worthies that concur with you, and of my pelting at their Heads, and dr aging them by the Hoary-heads, as a Spectacle and Byword to all, f by proving their confent by exprefe Citations ) what Armies, and of what Strength appear again/} me, whofe Names I defie and wound* through yours* ?

Anfo* And is not he a weak Man (hat cannot talk thus upon almoft any Subjedt > But who be thefe Men, and what he their Names ? Or rather, firft, rub your Eyes, and tell us what is the Con-troverfie ? "fully fometimes talkt at this rate in his Orations, but yefily much better in his Philofo-phy. •

And you fee nocaufeto repent, but you blefs God that you can again and again call to all Youth, that as they love the Knowledg of truth, they take me not for an Oracle in my bold dividing Singularities'].

Anfw. That the Name of 'truth is thus abufed, is no News *, I would the Name of God were not; And I am forry, that you fee no Caufe to repent 9 I am obliged to love you the better 5 for being

againli

(20) againft dividing Singularities in the general Wi/-thn \ I hope if you fytew it, you would not be fir them , as in fwgular Exigents. Eat fure, cone at Oxford are in danger of taking me for an Oracle ? This is another needlefs Work. So Span-hemius took that for a Singularity, which DalUus in a large Catalogue, hath proved the Common Judgment of the Church, till Contention of late cauted fome Diflenters.

Will you ceafe thefe empty general Oftentations, and choofc out any one Point of real Difference between you and me about Juftification, and come to a fair Trial, on whofe fide the Churches of Chrift have been for 1500 years after Chrift', yea, bring me but any two or one confiderable Per-fon, that was for a thoufand years for your Caufe againft mine, and I will fay, that you have done more to confute me by far, than yer you have done> and if two only be againft me, I will pardon you for calling me Singular.

§* VII. Tag* 13, 14., 15. You again do keep up the Dividing Fear, are offended that I perfwade you, that by Melancholy Phantafms you fee not the Churches together by the Ears, and mal$ People believe that they differ, where they do net: And you ask, Who began the Fray ?

Anfa* 1. Do you mean that I began with you ? You do not fure: But is it that I began with the Churches, and you were necejjitated to defend them ? Yes, if Gallus, Ambfdorfus, Schluffelburgtus, and Dr. Crijpe^nd his Followers, be the Church ? But, Sir, I provoke you to try it by the juft Teilimony of Antiquity, who began to differ from the Churches.

In this Treatife I have given you feme Account, and VoJJius hath given you more, which you can never anfwer: But if my Dodtrine put you upon this Neceflity, what hindred you from perceiving it thefe twenty years and more, till now > O Sir, had you no other worj^ to do, but to Vindicate the Church and Truth ? I doubt you had.

§. VIII. But fag. i$. You are again incredulous, that [All the Difference betwixt you and me> or others of the fame Judgment in the Point of Jufli-fcation, is meerly Verbal \ and that in the Main we are agreed^. And again you complain of your weal^ Legs.

Anfw. i. I do agree with very many againft their wills in Judgment (becaufe the 'judgment may be conftrained)? but with none in AffeUion^ as on their part. Did I ever fay ; that I differed not from you? I tell you, I know not what your Judgment is, nor know I who U of your Mind ? But I have not barely faid-> but oft proved, that (though not the Antinomians) the Protectants are moftly here agreed in the Main. If you could not have time to read my larger Proof, that (hort Epi-ftle to Mr, Allen's Book of the Covenant, in which I proved it, might* have ftopt your Mouth from calling for more Proof, till you had better confuted what was given.

But you fay, [Are ferfeU ContradiBions no more than a difference in Words ? Faith alone, and not Faith alone ? Faith with and without Wor\s ? Ex-wife our Dulnefs here].

Anfw. i. Truly, Sir, it is a tedious thing, when a Man hath over and over Anfwered fuch

Ob-

V ** )

<3bje&ions -, yea, when the full Anfwers have beert twenty years in Print, to be put ftill to fay ovei all again, to every Man that will come in and fay, that his Legs are too weaf^ to go fee what .was an-fwered before: How many fcore times then, or hundreds, may I be called to repeat.

2. If I muft pardon your Vulnefs, you muft pardon my Chrijiianity (or chufe) who believe that there is no fuch [jperfeB Contradictions] between Chrift's, [_By thy Words thoujhalt be Jujlu fed] md Paul's, [Jujiified by Faith, without the Work* of the Law] or [not ofWorhf] \ and James's [We ate jujiified by Works , and not by Faith only]* Muft we needs proclaim War here, or cry out, Herefie, or Popery ? Are not all thefe Recon-cileable? Yea, and Pauls too, Rom. 2. The Doers cf the Law {hall be jujlified* •

3 • But did I ever' deny that it is [by Faith alone and without Workf] ? Where , and when ? But may it not be, by Faith alone in one fenfc, and not by Faith alone in another fenfe >

4. But even where you are fpeaking of it, you cannot be drawn to diftinguifh of Verbal and Real Differences. Is it here the Words , or Serfs, which you accufe ? The Words you dare not^deny to be Gods own in Scripture, fpoken by Cbrift, Paul, and James* My Senfe I have opened to you at large, and you take no Notice of if, but as if you abhor-ted Explication and Vifiinaion, fpeak ftill againft the Scripture Words.

§. IX. Pag-16. But you fay, [Let any difcern^ ing Reader compare the 48 §. of this Preface with the Words in pag. 5. of your appeal to the Light ,

and

vtnd 'tislikflyhe hill concur with me> in that Me* lancholy Phantafm , or Fear: For 'tis worth the noting , how in that dar\ Appeal where you dijtin-guifh of Popifh Points-* i. c fome-where the Difference is reconcileable , others in effett but in words > we have no Direction upon which Ranl^we mufi befiow Juftification, nothing of it at all from yott> Name or 'thing: But why? next te the All-feeing God? you Jhould krtow beft your felf\

' Anfa. Alas, Sir, that God fhould be in fuch a manner mentioned ! I anfwered this fame Cafe at large in my Confeffiori,Apologie, Difpute of Juftifi-cation, &c. Twenty years ago, or near* I have at large Opened it in a Folio (Cathol. € theol.) which fOu faw, yea, in the very part which you take Notice of h and now you publifh it [worth the Noting? that I did not aljo in one Jheet of Taper? Printed the other day againit a Calumnieof fome Sectarian Hearers, Who gave me no Occafion for luch a work. Had it not been a Vanity of me , Should I in that fheet again have repeated, how I and the Papifts differ about Justification ? Were you bound to have read it in that flieet,any more than in many former Volumns ? It's no matter for me s But I ferioufly befeech you, be hereafter more fober and juft, than to deal with your Brethren, the Church and Truth, in fuch a manner as this ! But by this Talk I fufpe<5t, that you will accufe me more for opening no more of the Difference in this Book. But, *. It is enough for to open my own Meaning, and I am not obliged to open other Mens: And my own I have opened by fo many Repetitions, info many Books, as nothing but fuch Mens Importunity and objlrufted Minds, could have Excufed.

2. The

( »4 )

t. The Papifts minds fure, may be better knbT*a by their own Writings, than by mine : The Council of Tmtf, telleth it you : What need I recite it? 3. I tell you again, as I did in my Confeflion, that I had rather all the Papifts in the World agreed with us, than difagreed : I like a Dodhine the better^ and not the worfe, becaufe all the Chrifti-an World confenteth to it. I am not ambitious to have a Religion to my felf, which 4 Papift doth not own. Where they differ, I am forry for it t And it pleafeth me better, to find in any Point that we are agreed, than that we differ. Neither you, nor any fuch as you, by crying [0 Po~ fijhl Andchriftian ! ] (hall tempt me to do by the Papifts, as the Dominicans,*\\& Janfenifts, and fome Oratorians, do by the Calvinijis: I will not with Alvarez, Arnoldus, Gibieuf, &c. make the World believe, that my Adverfaries are much further from me than they are,for fear of being cenfured by Fadli-on, to be one of them. If I would have been of a Church*Fa#ion, and (old my Soul topleafe a Party, I would have begun before now, and taken a bigger Price for it y than you can offer me if you would,

Pag, 17. You fay, \Vile one Diftinttion or Eva~ fion on another, as long as you pleafe', as many fe-veral Faiths, and Work/, and Jujlifications, as yon can name y all this mil never make two Poles meet].

Anfw. And do you cry out for War in the Dark-nefs of Confution, as long as you will, you (hall never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptifm* and Lift my felt under the grand Enemy of Love andCencord, nor to Preach up Hatred and, Vivifion

fcr

v (»5j for nothings in the Name of Chrift. If you will handle fuch Controverts, without Viflinguijhing of. Faiths, Works-, and J'mftificatioHi* I will never perfwadeany Friend of mine to be your Pupil, or Difciple. Then Simon Magm*$ Filth, and the Devils faiths and Peters faith muft all pafs (or the fame, and juliifie accordingly. Then indeed, Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoft, yea, and Chrift, as our Teacher, King and Judg, &c. mufl: pafs for the Works by which no Man is Juiiiried ! If Uiftinttion be unfound, detedt the Error of it: If not, it is no Honour to a difputing Dodlor to reproach it,

§• X. Batpag.ij. you kt upon your great undeceiving Work, to (hew the evil of ill ufing Words : [Words (you fay) as they are enfranchijed into Language, are but the Agents and Favors of things, for which they continually negotiate with our Minds, conveying Errands on all occafwns, &c. (Let them mark, that charge the vanity and bombafiof Metaphors on others, one word [Signa] fhould have ferved our turn inftead of all this). [Whence it follows, that their itfe and fignification is Unalterable, but by theftampof the /% public^ ujage and imposition from whence at firji they received their being, &c."]

Anfw. 0 Juniors,\\\]\ not fuch deceiving Words fave you from my Deceits ? But, 1. Is there a Law, and unalterable Law for the ienfe of Words? Indeed, the Words of the facred Text muft have no new Senfe put upon them. 2. Are you furc that it was Public}^ ufage, and Impoftim from whencp they iirft received their being ? How (hall we know

CL that

( *6 ) that they grew not into publick ufe from one Mans firft Invention, except thofe that (not Public^ ufe^ but) God Himfelf made ? 3. Are you fure that all or moft Words now, Latine or Englijb, haw the fame, and only the fame ufe or fenfe, as was put upon them at the firft ? Is the change of the fenfe of Words a ft range thing to us h 4. But that which concerneth our Cafe moft, is, Whether there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greeks in the Scripture, or of Latine , JLnglijh, or any common Language, which have not many Significations ? Your Reputation forbids you to deny it. And (hould not thofe many Significations be di-ftinguifhed as there is Caufe ? Are not Faith, Workj, Juft 1 Juftice, Juflification, words of divers fenfes in the Scripture > and do not common Writers and Speakers ufe them yet more variouily > And (hall a Difputer take on him, that the ufe ox fgnification of each is but one % ox two, oris fo fixed that there needeth no diftindtion ? 5. Is the change that is made in all Languages in the World, made by the fame publick ufagtf and impofition, from which at firft they received their being? 6. If fas you fay) the fame thing tan be re-frefinted by different words, only when they are Sy* nonymous-i Ihouid we not avoid feeming to repre-fent the fame by Equivocals y which unexplained are unfit for it ?

Pag- 20. You tell me what fadwo?\ you are doing \ and no wonder, Sin and Pafllons are felf-troubling things ; And it's well if it be fad to your fclf alone, and not to fuch as you tempt into Mif-fakes, Hatred, and Divifion. It fhould be fad to every Chriftiau, to iee and hear thofc whom they

are

\*/)

are bound to Love, reprefented as odious: And you are ftill, pag. ip. feigning, that [Every eye may Jet Men dealing Blows and Deaths about, and therefore we are Hot wife if we thinkjhem agreed*

But doubtlefs, many that feem killed by fuch Blows as fome of yours, are ftill alive ? And many a one is in Heaven, that by Divines pretending to be Orthodox* were damned on Earth! And many Men are more agreed than they were aware of. I have known a Knavifh Fellow fet two Per-(bns of quality on Fighting, before they fpake a word to one another, by telling them fecretly and falily what onefaid againll the other* Many differ, even to perfecuting and bloodflhed, by Will and PaJJion and Pra ft ice, upon a falfly fuppofed great-difference in Judgment, I will not fo fuddenly repeat what Proot I have given of feme of this in the place you noted, Cath. "fheoU Confer, ir, 12, & 13. There is more skill required to narrow differences, than to widen them > and to reconcile^ than to divide \ as there is to quench a Fire, than to kindle it *> to build , than to pull down > to heal, than to wound.

I prefume therefore to repeat aloud mycontraiy Cautions to your Juniors.

Toung-Men, after long fad Experience of the fin-ful and miferable Contentions of the Clergie, and confequently of the Chriftian World , that you may efcape the Guilt, I befeech you, whoever contradi-lieth it, consider and believe thefe following Notices : I. 'that all Words are but arbitrary Signs, and are changed as Men pleafe\ and through the Penury of Jthem> and Mans imprfeftion in the Art of Speakj Q^2 mgi

( *8 )

ln& there are very fen? at all, that have not various Significations.

2. That this Speaking-Art requirethfo much time andjiudy, and all Men are fo defetlive in it, and the variety of Mens skill in it is fo very greats that no Men in the World do -perfectly agree in their interpretation and uje of Words. The doleful plague of the Confufion of Tongues, doth (till hinder our full Communication, and maketh it hard for us to underftand Words our felves, or to be underftood by others \ for Words mud have a three-fold aptitude of Signification, i. To fignifie the Matter, z. And the Speakers conceptions of it. 3. And this as adapted to the hearers Mind, to make a true Jrnprefiion there.

3« That God in Mercy hath not made Words Co neceffary as Things, nor neceflary but for the fake of the Things: If God, Chrift, Grace, and Heaven, be known, believed, and duly accepted, you (hall be faved by what Words foever it be brought to pafs.

4. Therefore Real Fundamentals, or Necejfaries to Salvation, are more eafily defined than Verbal ones: For more or fewer Words , thefe or other Words are needful to help fome Perfons, to Faith, and Love, and Holinefs, as their Capacities are different.

5. But as he that truly helieveth in, and giveth up himfelf to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, according to the fenfe of the Baptifmal Covenant* is a true Chriftian, to be loved, and fliill be faved j fo he that underftandeth fuch Words, as help him to that true Faith and Confent, doth know fo much of the Verbal part, as is of ne-

cefllty

( 29 )

ceffity to his Christianity and Salvation.

<5. And he that is fitch, holdeth no Herefie or Error inconfijlent with it: If he truly love God, it's a contradiction to fay, that he holdeth an Error inconfijlent with the Love of God.

7. 'therefore fee that you Love all fuch as Chrijiians, till fome proved or notorious inconfijlents nullifying his Profejjion dif&blige you.

8. 'fake your felves to be neither of Roman, or any other Church as Vniverfal, which is lefs than the Vniverfality of all Chrijiians headed by Chrift alone.

9. Make this Love of all Chrijiians the fecond fart of your Religion, and the Love of God, ofChrijiy ef Holinefs and Heaven, the firji » and live thus in the ferious praBice of your Covenant, even of Simple Chrijiianity: For it's this that will be your Feace> in Life and at Death.

io. And if Men of various degrees of Learning (or Speaking-skill) and of various degrees of Holinefs , Humility, and Love , jhall quarrel about Words, and forms of Speech , and jhall hereticate^ and revile, and damn each other, while the Effentials are heldfa(l and praViifed, difcern Right from Wrong as well as you can \ but take heed that none of them make Words a fnare , to draw you injurioufly to thin\ hatefully of ycur Brother, ; or to divide the Churches, or Servants of Chriji : And fufpeU fuch a Snare becaufe of the great ambiguity of Words, and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honefty in all Matters of debate: And never difpute ferioufly, without firji agreeing of the Senfe of every doubtful term with him that you Difpute with\

Q.3 Dr.

( 3°) Dr. Ttullfs Allarm , and other Mens militant Courfe, perfwaded me as a Prefervative, to com* mend this Counfel to you.

§. XL Pag. ip. You next very jufty commend tJMetbod, ordering, and exprefling our Conceptions, of which fyou fay) I feem to make little account in Comparifon]'

Anftv. i. Had you faid, that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours, your Authority might have gone for Proof with many: But you could fcarce have fpoken a more incredible word of me, than that I feem to make little account of Method, I look for no fharper Cenfure from the Theological Tribe, than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method* You fhall not tempt me here unfeafona-bly, to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accufation.

2. But yet I will ftill fay, that it is not fo ne-cefFary either to Salvation , or to the Churches Peace, that we all agree in Methods and Expreffions, as that we agree in the hearty reception of Chrift, and obedience to His Commands > So much Method all muft know, as to know the Beginning and the End, from the Effetts and Means, God from I the Creature, and as our true confent to the Bap- I tifmal Covenant doth require \ and I will thankfully ufe all the help which you give me to go further : But I never yet faw that Scheme of Theolo-gie, or of any of its Heads, which was 3ny whit large, (and I have feen many) which was fo exa& in Order, as that it was dangerous in any thing to for fake it. But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method^ with a Man that talkcth as you

do

(so

do of Dijlinguijhingi and handleth the Dodlrine of Juftification no more Methodically than you do.

§. XII. But pag. rp. youinftance in the difference between Proteftants and Papifts, about the NeceJJity of Good works, which is wide in refpeU of the placing or ranking of them , viz. "the one ftretch-iigit to the firfl Juftification, the other not, but confining it to its proper ranl^ and province of Inherent Holinefs^ where it ought to k??p~].

Anfw. Wonderful ! Have you that have fo loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Juftification, brought your own, and as you fay, the Proteftants difference to this > Will none of your Readers fee now, who cometh nearer them, you or I ?

i. Is this diftin&ion our proof of your accu-ratenefs in Method, and Order , and Exprejjion ? What meaneth a di(tindtion between [Firft-Ju-ftification,'] and [Inherent Holinefs~\ ? Do you difference them Quoadordinem, isFirft and Second? But here is no Second mentioned : Is it in the nature of the things {Juftification, and Inherent Ho-linefs]? What fignitieth the [FirjF] then ? But Sir, how many Readers do youexped: who know not, i. That it is not to the Firft Juftification at all, but to that which they call theSfcaWor In-creafe^ that the Church of Rome aflerteth the ne-ceflity or ufe of Mans meritorious JFbrkj ? Sec what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. T'heoL Lib. 2. Confer. 13. pag* 26J. &c. faving that fome of them are for fuch Preparatives as fome call Merit of Congruity^ and as our Englifh QI4 Divines

Divines do conftantly preach for, and the Synod of Don at large aflat > though they difown the name of Merit, as many of the Papijis do. They ordinarily fay with Auftine, Bona of era fequuntur Jujiijicatum, non pr£cedmt Jujiijicandum.

2. But, I hope , the word [Firjf] here over-ilipt your your Pen, inftead of [Second'] : But fu]> pofe it did fo : What's the difference between the Papijis firjl or fecond Jnjiification, and the Prote-jiants Inherent Holinefs ? None that ever I heard or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papijis take Jftftijication for Inherent Holinefs ? And is this the great difference between Papijis and Protectants, which I am fo loudly accufed tor not acknowledging? viz. The Tapirs place Good-Workj before Jh-flif cation, that is, Inherent Holinefs \ and the Pro-tejfants more rightly place them before Inherent Holinefs ? Are you fcrious, or do you prevaricate \

The Papijis and Protectants hold, that there are fome Duties and common Grace, ufually preparatory to Converfion ( or S an <3:i treat ion ) > which fome Papijis (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and fome will nor. The Papijis and Protejiants fay, that Faith is in order of nature, at leaft, before that Habitual Love, which is called Holinefs, and before the Works thereof. The Papijis and Protejiants fay, that Worlds of Love and Obedience, follow our Firft San&ification, and make up but the Second part cf it, which confifteth in the Worlds of Holinefs. If youfpeaknotof Wor\s in the fame fenfe in each part of your Aflignation, the Equivocation would be too grofs, viz. If youfhould mean [Papijis rar\ the necefftty of preparatory Common Works, or the Internal aft cf Faith, or Love, ft retching it

to

t& the Firft Juftiftcation i and Proteftants rank, other Works, viz. 'the fruits of Faith and Lottf, with Inherent Holinefs. All agree, i. That Common Workj go before Sanftification. 2. That Internal Love, and other Grace, do conftuute Sandtification in the Firft part of it. 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace, are the effects of the Firft Part, and the conftitutive Caufes of rhe Second Part of San&ification \ as the word cx-tendeth alfoto Holinefs. of Life: And whilft Papifts take Jufiification for Sanftification, in all this there is Ve re no difference. (But your accurate Explications by fuch terms, as [Stretching, Confirming, Province, &c^j are fitter tor tally, than for Ariftotle).

And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of, that we mufi in this take heed of joyning with the Papifts ? Do you mean [Kanl^ Good-Works with Inherent Holinefs, and not with the FirfiSanUifcathn, and youthen do widely differ from the Papifls~\? Will not your Reader fay, 1. What doth Inherent Holinefs differ from the Firft SanVtif cation ? 2. Voyou not invite me thus herein to he a Papift, when they rank them no where but, as you fay,, the Proteftants do ? 3. Do not you here proclaim, that Papifts and Proteftants differ not about the neceifity of Good-works to Juflification ? But yet I that would make no Differences wider than they are, can find fome greater than you have mentioned.

Truly Sir, I am grieved and afharned, to fore-fee how Learned Papifts will make merry with fuch Paifages \ and fay, See here how we differ from the Proteftants ! See what it is for, chat the Prote-

flam

(34)

ftant Doftors feparate from the Church ef Rome / viz. Becaufe we make Good-Works necejfary to the Fiji Justification, which unlefs equivocally fpoken, irfalfe > and becaufe the Protejiants rank^ them with Inherent Holinefs, as we do~]. What greater advantage will they deiire againft us, than to choofe us fuch Advocates ? And to (hew the World that even where their keeneft Adverfaries condemn them, and draw Men from them, they do but ju-ftifie them?Whoknoweth what a Temptation they may make of fuch paffages to draw any to Popery ? It is my aflurance, that fuch Over-doing, is Vndoing', and that miftaken Accufations of the Tapifis greatly advantage them againft us, which maketh me the more againft fuch Dealing > be-fides the fwfulnejs, of pretending that any differences among Chriftians, are greater than indeed they are.

But may not I think that you take the word \_Jujiificatio>t~] herein the Froteflant Senfe , and not in the Fapijis , when you fay that they rank^ Good-worlds-necejfity as jiretcht to the Firji Juftifi-cation ? No fure : For, i. Proteftants ufe not to difxingnifli of a Firji and SeeW Juftirication, which Papiftsdo, but of Juftification as Begun, Continued^ and Confummate. 2. If it were io, it were not true: For the Firft Jujiification in the Proteftart Senfe, is our firji right to Impunity and Life Eternal, freely given to Believer /, for the Merits cf Chrijis perfect Righte oh fnefs and Satisfatlhn- And Papifts do not make Good-work^ ( unlefs Equivocally fo called) neceffary to this > but as a Fruit to foU low it.

As

(35) As for Remiflion of Sin y I have elfe-where proved, I* That moft commonly by that word the Papifts mean nothing, but that which we call Mortification, or Putting away, or deftroying the Sin it fellas to the habit and ceafing the A&.2.That moft of them are not refolved, where the Remiflion of the Punijhment (which Protcftants call Ro miflton of Sin, or Forgivenefs) fhall be placed: They differ not much as to its 7/W, but whether it be to be called any fart of Justification : Some fay, yea > feme make it a di[\in& thing. Moft de-fcribe Justification by it felf, as confitfing in our* Remiflion of, or Deliverance from Sin it felf, and the infufed habit of Love or Righteoufnefs (all which we call SanAification), and the forgive-nefs of the Penalty by it (elf, not medling with the Queftion, whether the latter be any part of the former , fo much are they at a lofs in the Notional part among themfelves. But they (and we) di-fiinguifli of Forgivenefs, as we diltinguifti ot Penalties: We have a right to Impunity as to ever-lafting Damnation, upon our firft being Juftified * but our Right becometh afterward more fully and » many other Penalties are after to be remitted.

§. XIII. Pag. 20- In my 4.2. Vireft. for the Cure of Church-divifions, telling the Weak whom they muft follow, I concluded, 1. 'that the necejfary Articles of Faith muji be made our own, and not ta^en meerly on the authority of any s and we muji in all fuch things of abfolute neceflity keep company with the Vniverfal Church* 2. that in Matters of Peace and Concord the greater part muji be our Guide. 3. that in Matters of humane Obedience,

cur

( 3* )

our Govermurs muft be our Guides* And, 4. In Matters of high and difficult Speculation, the pidg-mentof one Man of extraordinary Undemanding and Clearness, is to be preferred before the Rulers and the major Vote. I inflamed in Law, Philofophy, Phyfick^, Languages, &c. and in the Controverts of the Object of Predejlination, the nature of the WiWs Li-berty, Divine Concourfe, the determining way of Grace, of the definition of Juflification, Faith, &o^| Here I was intreated before God and my Confcience, to fearch my fdf, with what Defign or Intent I wrote this, and to tell you, Who that One is, that we may hgow whom to prefer, and to whom, in the Do-Urine of Juflifi'cation, &c.

Anfw. How greatly do you di(honour your felf, (and then you will impute it to me) by infifting on fuch palpably abufive PafTages ? Had you not been better, have filently part it by > 1.. Doth not the World know, that Heathens and Chriftians, Papifis and Proteftants, are Agreed on this general Rule? 2. And will you make any believe that Definition of f unification^ none of thefe Worlds of Art, which depend ' on humane Skill ? How then came you to be fo much better at it than I? I find not that you afcribe it to any fpecial Revelation which you have. And if you fhould afcribe it to Piety, and fay, Hoc non efl Artis, fed Pietatis opus : I would go to many a good Woman before you. Nor do you plead general Councils, nor the Authority of the Church. 3. And what fober Scholar will you make believe, that by laying down this common Rule, I fignitie fome One fin-gular Perfon > as an Individuum determinatum m

whom'

( 37 )

whom therefore I mult acquaint you with? Thefe things ^re below a Grave Divine.

Pag. 21. Where you called me to ferioufnefs or diligence in my fearch, and I told you by what, and how many Writings, I have manifested my almott thirty years Diligence in this Controverts and that I am now grown paft more ferious and diligent Studies i that I might (hew you what a trifling way it is, for a Man to wrangle with him thac hath written fo many things, to tell the World what his (tudiesof this Point have been, and never to touch them, but to call him a-^n? to ftriow diligence : You now expoftulate with me, whether you accufed me for want of diligence ? I talk not of Accusing, but I tell you, that I have done my beft > and that it were a poor kind of dealing with your felf, if you had written againft many, as you have done againft me twenty five years ago, and very often, if inftead of taking any notice of your Labours , I fhould call you .now to diligent Studies.

As for your LefTon, pag. 22. that tumbling over many Books without meditation, may breed but Crudities, &c. It is very true, and,the calamity of too many of the literate Tribe, who think that they have deferved Credit and Reverence, when they fay the words which others, whom they would be joyned with, have faid before them : Want of good Digeftion is a common Difcafe of many that never complain of it, nor feel any pre-fent trouble by it.

Pag* 22, 23. You infinuate that about RetraBa-tion\ which I before detected : I told you when, and where, I Sufpended or Retraced the Book,

and

( 3* )

and for what Reafons, and you prefently feign a Retra&ation of the Dodhine, and of about fixty Books of Retra&ions.

It's well that fag. 23. you had the juftice not tojuftifieyour [Nee dubito quin imputatam Chrifii juftitiam incluferii] i But to confefs your Injuftice, was too much : It is not your own Retaliation that you are for, it feems.

§. XIV. Pag. 23, 24. You talk as if my fup-polingthat both [Jufiice] and [Imputation], are capable of Definitions which are not the Things, were a Fallacy, becaufe \jr~\ isa disjun&ive* viz. When I fay that the Definition of the one, or the other, is not the "thing. Do you grant it of them Disjundively, and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunft? Yes, you fay, [Imputed Jujiice cannot differ from its true definition, unlefs yon will have it to differ really from itfelf]. And, pag. 34. you fay, [I am afhamed you fyould thus over and over expofe your felf as if fuppofing (Definitions) true, they were not the fame Re, with the De-finitum. Good Sir, t a\wh at you pie afe in private, tofuch as underftand not^ whit you fay, and let them give you a grand Xo<p£s for your pains h but you may do well to ufe more Civility to the reafon of a Scholar , though he hath not yet worn out his Frefh-mans Gnrn |.

Anfw. This is no light or jetting Matter: The comfort of Souls dependeth on it. I fee fome Men exped: that Reverence of their Scholarfljip fhould give them great advantage: But if one argued thus with me for Tranfubftantiation, I would not turn to him, to efcipe the Guilt of Incivility.

If the Definition, and the Definitum, as in que-ftion now, be the fame 'thing , wo to all the Unlearned World, and wo to all Frcfhmen, that yet have not learnt well to define > and wo to all Divines that differ in their Definitions, except thofe that are in the right.

I know that a Word and a Mental Conception* are not Nothing: They may be called things-, but when we diftinguifh the things from their Signs* \ "Names , or Definitions , we take not the word [things^] fo laxly, as to comprehend the faid Signs* Names, &c. When we fay, that the thing defined is necejfary, but to be able to Define it, cr a<9:ually to Define it, is not neceffary (to Salvation) it is notorious that we take Definition (as Defining) actively, as it is Attus definientis, and Definire fure is not the fame with the thing defined. I. have heard before your Letter told me, that Vefinitum & definitio idem funt: But, I pray ^you, let us not quibble almoft all the World under a fentence of Damnation. As long ago as it is fince I read fuch words, I remember our Matters told us, (I think Schibler in his topichs for one ) that when they are taken Pro terminU Logicis definitio & definitum nonfunt idem i but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos fignificatis \ and that there they differ in Uliodo fignificandi efientiam, the definitum fignifying the EJfence confufedly, and the Definition diftindly. If you will take the Res definita* for that which is ftridtly nothing but Kei concepts inadtquatus feu partialis* (that is, a Species) and that not as the thing is Exifient extra intelleUum, but as the conception is an operation of the Mind, fo I confefs, that he that hath a true Conception of

a

( 4° )

a Species as meerly denominated, or as defined, hath the fame conception of it : And alfo the "thing named, and the thing defined, is rhe fame thing in it felf. Homo & Animal rationale, are the fame> that is, ic is the fame ejftnce, which is denominated Homo, and defined Animal rationale. And it is the fame Conceptus mentis, which we have (if true) when we denominate , and when we define. But as things 3re diiiindt from the hnorvledg and figns of Things, nothing is Res, that is not exigent i and nothing exijietb but in Singulars for Individuals) : And as nothing can bedehned but a Species, foa Species , or any Vniverfal, is nothing but a Notion, or Ens rationU, fave as it exijiethm the faid Individuals. And in the Individuals, it is nothing but their being as partially^ or inadequacy taken, or a Concegtut objeclivut partialis, (whether it be of a thing really, or only intelletiually partible, or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of, ijno & fimplici conceptu aUivo). Now if you take the word [Definition] for the Species, as exijient in Individuals, it is really a part of the thing > that is, a Partial objedive concepts, or fomewhat of the thing as Intelligible: Eut this is to take [Definition] in Senfu paffivo, for the Thing defined > which our CafedilHnguifheth.

But Sir, I crave your leave, todiftinguifhRf-al objetlive Beings , from, i. The Knowledge 2, and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by which we fyiow them, and exprefs our knowled^ of them : God , Chrift, Grace , Glory , Pardon, Judication, San&ification, the Gofpel-Doctrine, Precept, Promifes, Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definite

(4i) in cur Cafe, riot as they are in effe cognifd? ofc jii the notion oi idea of them, but in effe reali. To Define properly, is either, I. CMentally to con ceive of" thefe things, 2. or Expreffively? to flg-nifie fuch Conceptions&gxecahHy to the nature of the things known? or Expreffively defined : Which is, if the Definition be perfedr, undelr the notions of a Genus , and Differentia* The Definition as in Words\ is but a Logical Organ-, (as Names are alfo Notifying figns) : Mental defining? is but the fa id di-jiinil knowledg of the thing defined, and is neither really the "thing it felf? nor ufually of necefiity to the Thing: Which two, I ihall prove diftindtly as to the fenie of our Cafe.

> i. The Definition of Juftification, is either out Difiinti knowledge or Expreffion of it: Juftificati-on is not our DifiinU. tyowledg? or Expreffion of it: Therefore the Definition of Juftification, and ]u-ftificatioii, are not the fame.

Juftification In fenfu attivo , is riot an A& of God, and In fenfu paffivo, is the Relative ftatc of Man therebyefFe&ed : But the Definition of Juftification is neither.

The Definition of Juftification , is a work crtf Arr, but Juftification is a Work of Grace.

A wicked damnable Man, or a damned Devil 3 may define Juftification, and fo have the Definition of it h but not Juftification it felf.

The Definition cf Juftification , Faith , Love, &c is Quid Logicum y but Ju{lification , Faitb % Love? &c. are things Pbyfical and Moral.

A Man is Juftiried (or hath Chriits Righteorfnefe imputed to him) in hfc fieep, and when he tbink«

R eth

(if* )

e'th not" of ir, but he hath not the Acftive definition o( Juitification in his fleep, &c

Other things be not the fame Really with their Definition, therefore neither is Jujiification, Faith, &c.

The Sun is not really the fame thing with a Definition of the Sun s nor Light, Heat, Motion, &c» A Brute can fee , tafte, feel, fmell , that cannot define them. If ycu have a Bifhoprick, becaufe you define a Eiihopiick, or have a Lord-(hip, a Kingdom, Health, &c. becaufe you can define them, your Axiome hath flood you in good fiead.

The Definition is but Explicatio rei : But Rei explicatio mn ejl ipjares.

Individuals (fay moft) are not Definable: But nothing is truly Res? but Individuals. Vniverfals as they are in the Mind*> are exijient Individual Atts, Cogitations-) Notions': As they arc out of the Mind y they /are nothing but Individuorum quid intelli-gibile* I

The.Definition.of Learning, of a Do&or, &c. may be got in a day : If Learning and Do&orfhip inay-bcio, wharufelefs things are Univcrfities aad Eooks ?

Perfwade a hungry .Scholar, that he hath Meat and£?nni> os die Ambitious, that he hath Preferment h or the Covetous, or Poor, that he hath Money, becaufe he hath in his Mind, or Mouth, the Dx(\mtion cf it> and quibble him into fatisfa--&ion by telling him,that Deftnitio & defini turn font idem re.. We kjiorv and exjrejs things narrowly by Xamts, and. largely and dij&nctly by Definitions : The Definition here, is Explicatio nominU } (as Animal

(43)

mal rationale, of the name Homo) h and both Name and Definition, as they are Verba mentii vel oru^ or Verborum fignificatio, arefurely divers from the things named and defined, known and expreiTed \ unlefs by the Ihing you mean only the Knowledge or Notion of the Thing.

Therefore though Cut competit definitio eidern quoq\ competit definitum, & contra., & quod convenii definitioni convenh definito: Yet fay not that Imputed Righteoufnefs in Re , is the fame with the 'Definition^ as it is the Vefiners adh

By this time you have helpt Men to tmderftand by an In fiance, why St. Paul fo much warncth Chriftians to take heed left any deceive them by vain Philofophy, even by Sophiftry, and abufed arbitrary Notions.

Remember, Sir, that our Cafe is of grand Importance^ As it is ftated in my Dirett. it. which you aflaulted v it is [Whither if the ^uefxionwere of the Objett of Predejiination, of the nature of the WilVs liberty , Divine concowfe-> and determining way of Grace , of the Definition of Juftification> Faith, &c. a few well fiudied Divines are not here to beyreferred before Authority, and the major Vote* Such are # my words. 1 afllrt, 1. That the Defining of Jptftification, Faith, &c. is a work of Art. 2. And I have man/ and many times told the World (which you feem to (hike at J that Chri-ftians do not differ fo much in their Real conceptions of the Matter, as they do in their Definitions! i. Becaufe Definitions are made up of Ambiguous words, whole Explication they ate not agreed in j and almofl all Words are ambiguous till explained i and ambiguous Words are not lit to define, or

R % be

( 44 )

be defined, till explained. And, 2. Becaufeboth feledring fit terms, and explaining them, and ordering them, are works of Art, in which Men are unequal 5 and there is as great variety of Intellectual Conceptions, as of Faces. 3. And I have often (aid, That a Knowledg intuitive, or a Simple apprebenfion of a thing as Senfate, or an Internal experience, or Refleft aft , and a general notion of fome things,may prove the truth of Grace, and fave Souls, and make us capable of Chriflian Love and Communion, as being true faying Knowledge 4. And confequently I have often faid, that many a thoufand Chriftians have Faith, Hope x Vefire , Love , Humility, Obedience, Judication, Adoption, Union with Chrift, who can define none of thefe : Unlefs you will fpeak equivocally of Definition it felf, and fay as good Melan-dbon, and as Gutberleib, and fome other Romifts, that Notitia intuitiva eft definitio , who yet fay but what I am faying, when they add, \Vel fal-tem inftar defininonis^. If all are without Faith, Love, Juftification, Adoption , who cannot give a true Definition of them, how few will be faved ? How much more then doth Learning to Mens fal-vation, than Grace? And Arijiotle then.is not fo far below Paul, or the Spirit of Chrift, as we (juftly) believe.

. The Cafe is fo weighty and palpable, that you have nothing to (aj i> but as you did about the Guilt of our nearer Parents fins, to yield all the Caufe, and with a paiTionate clamour to tell Men that I miibkeyou, or wreft your words; of which I Hull appeal to every fober Reader, that will pe-jrufc the words of mine which you affault, and yours

as

( 45 )

as they are an Anfwer to mine.

In a'word* you go about by the abufe of a trivial Axiome of Definitions* I. To fentence moft Chriftians to Hell, and call them into Dcfperation, -as wanting the Grace which they cannot define, 2. And to deftroy Chriftian Love and Concord, and tear the"Church into as many Shreds, as there be diverGties of Definitions ufed by them. 3. And you would tempt us to think much hardljer of your (elf,.than we mult or will do*, as if your Faith, fufttfication, &c. were unfound, becaufe your Definitions are fo.

I know that Vnim rev una tantum eft Definitio* (peaking, 1. Not of the 'terms , but the Senfe. 2. And fuppofing that Definition to be perfectly true; that is, the truth of Intetedion and Exprejfion con-filling in their eongruity to the thing* while the thing is -one and the fame , the conception and ex-pnjfion which is perfectly true, mult be fo too. But, 1. Our underjiandings are all imperfeft, and we know nothing perfe&ly but Secundum qutdam i and Zanckez faith truly, that Nihil fcitur, it we call that only Knorvledg which is perfeU: And con-fequently no Mental Definition is perfedt. 2. And Imperfections have many degrees. 3. And our 'terms* which make up that which you know I called a Definition in my Din 42. (as it is in words) are as aforefaid, various* mutable^ and varioufly underflood and u(ed.

§. XV. Tag. 24. Again you are at it, \jVhom do you mean by that one rare Tirfin, rvhofe fingh Judgment is to be preferred in the point of J ujh fie a-tion> and to whom}*

'Anfw. i. No one that knoweth not the difference between an Invididuum vagum & determina-fum. 2. No one that is of fo hard Metal, as in defpite of the plaincii words, to infinuate to the World, thatthefe words [A few rvell-ftudied Judicious Vivines^do fignihe only one > and that thefe words [One Man of extraordinary underjianding and clearness \ (is to be preferred before the Rulers and major Vote, in difficult {peculations) do fignifie one individuum determinatum in the World,and that the Speaker is bound to name the Man. No one that thinketh that Femble.who in his Vind.Grat.\\at\\ al-moft the very fame words, faid well, and that I who repeat them, am as criminal as you pretend : No one who either knoweth not, that almoft all the World (tvtn Papiftsj agree in this Rule, or that thinketh his judgment fit herein to bear them all down : No one who , when his abufes are brought into the open Sun-fhine, will rather accufe the Light than repent.

But, fag. 25. After fome words to jeer away Conviction, you cell me, [IF* muft have fome better account of you , qnem quibus , than what you have given us yet. I (hall ta^e leave to prefent cur indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and truer ft ate of the Queflion, far more fuitable both to my plain meaning and the clear purport of your Vi-\ caiou Let the Cafe be this : 'there is One who of late hath raifed much dufl among us, about the grand Article of Justification \ Whither it be by Faith without JForkj, or by Faith and JForkj too ? All our old Remwned Divines on this fide and btyond the s are unanlmoufly agreed^ that funification is by Faith alone^ i. e. without TForks* This one Ferfon

hah

hath oftenpubliped his Judgment to the contrary —— fo that a poor Academical Do£}or may very rationally enquire of you, Who in this caje is to be preferred* "that one, or thofe many ?

Anfvp. There was-a Difputant who would undertake to conquer any Adverfary : When he was asked, How # He faid he would pour out upon him fo many and fo grofs untruths, as (hould leave him nothing toanfwercongruoufly,but a Mentirvs\ and then all the World would judg him uncivil, and condemn him for giving fuch an unreverent anfwer. But you (ball not fo prevail with.me, but I will "call your Reader toanfwer thefe Questions:

i. Whether it be any truer, that [This is the clear purport of my Direction], than it is that I fay, There vs hat one Star in the Firmament, becaufe I fay that one Star is more Luminous than many Candles ?

2. Whether if a difeafed Reader will put fuch a Senfe upon my words, his Forgery be a true Jiating of the Queftion between him and me, with out my content ?

3. Whether'an intimation that this ONE is either Vnicus, or Primus-, or Singular, in the definition of Juflification , or the jntertft of Works, be any truer, than that he is the only ejected Mi-nifter in England, While the'writings of Bucer^ Ludov. Crocius, Joh. Bergius, Conrad. Bergius, Calix-tusyfiacem-i le Blanks Dave. Gatafy Wott.Freft. Ball, and multitudes fuch are vifible dill among us ?

4. Whether he deals truly, wifely,'ox friendly with the,holy Scripurcs, and the Protcftants, who would perfwade the Ignorant, that this is the true ihte of the Controverfie , [Whether it he by fmh without Worlds, or by Faith arid Wurkj too, y that we

1\ 4 are

(48;

fie jnftifted] While the Scripture fpeaketh both, and all Proteftants hold both in fcveral fenfes > And whether this eafie ftating of Controverfies, without more Explication or Diftindiion, be wor? thy an Academical Difputant ?

5. Whether it be true or notorioufly falfe, that ^AU our Renowned Divines on this fide^ and beyond the Seas, are agreed"], of that in this Queftion of the intereft of Works, which this one contra-di&eth?

6. Whether this Do&ors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof, than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred fyea many Hundred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is of the contrary jj

7. Whether it be ^n ingenuous way befeeming Academics, to talk at this rate, and affcrt fuch a ftating of the Queftion and fuch content, without one word of notice or mention of the Books, in whjch I ftate the Queftion, and bring all this evidence of content >

8. If fuch a Doftor will needs enquire, whether the fecret thoughts of the Writer meant not bunr felf, when he pretenaeth but to accufe the Rule there given, and fhould enquire but of the meaning of the words, whether it favour more of Rationality-, or a prefumptuous ufurping the Prerogative of God ?

§. XVI. Tag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful, you are conltraincd to ccme # nearer yet, and you cannn deny my Rule of Diredfc. in other Points, but <5nly thofe of [High and difficult $e-wlation] : And , do you deny it there ? You

will

( %9 )

will deal with it but as the application of that Rule to the Definition of Juftification ? (And fhall we lofe your favour, by forcing you to lay by your Oppofition as to all the reli ? ) But here you fay you [exceedingly differ from me'] , Or elfe you would be afhamed of fo much Combating in the dark : Exceeding oft fignifieth fome extream.

Your Reafons are,/i. Ton hold not the VoBrine ef Juftification to be properly of Speculative concern* but wholly PraUical: Where yet you confefs, that in all PraUical kitowledg^ there be fome antecedent contemplations of the Nature^ Properties-, End^ Ob-jf#,~and that to know the certain number of Paces home-ward^ is a Speculative nicety"]*

Anfw. And can you find no fairer a fhift fo? disagreement ? I would fuch as you made not the Doftrine of Juflification too little PraUical? I am far from thinking that it is not Pradfical : But is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature^ Properties^ End, , Objeft , or fome of thefe which you call Contemplations ? Make not plain things dark, Sir : The ufe of Art is not to (hut the Windows , and confound Mens Minds. I take all Tibeologie to be together, Scientia-ajfeBiva-prattica\ for out Intellect, WilU and PraBice-, mud be pof-feft or ruled by it: But it is firft Scientia^ and we muft know before we can will and praUife. And though all right knowledg tend to Pra&ice, yet forgive me for telling you, that I think that many holy Perfons in Scripture and Primitive times, loved and pra&ifed more than you or I, -who knew not how to form an exa& Logical Definition. And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit fpi-ritually, by Scripture Notions; may pra&ife them

as

(5°)

as fully, as he that knoweth and fpeaketh them in the Notions of Arijlotle j or elfe the School-Men excel the Apoftles. Though ambling be an eafie Pace, which Horfes are taught by Gives and Fetters, it followeth not that a Horfe cannot travel as far in his natural pace. When you have faid all, Logical defining (hall be a work of Art, and the Church Jhould not be torn , and Souls (hall not he damned^ for want of it. < He that Lovetb, Be-lieveth) Hopeth, Obeyetb, and by doing them hath a refle&ing perception what they are, and hath but fuch a knowledg of the Gofpel as may be had without a proper Definition, (hall be faved.

2. Pag. 28, 2?. you fay, [Nor is the VoUrine of J' unification fo high and difficult , but that the mean-ejl Chrijiian may underhand it Efficiently to Salvor \ tion^ jo far as words can make it intelligible"].

Aujw. Your own blows feem not to hurt you,

I thank you for granting fo much hope to the mean-

t e(l Chrifiians. But what's this to your Cafe?

1. Do the meaneft Chrifiians know how to define Juftification,- and all the Grace which they have >

2. Are they acquainted with all the [jVords that Jhould make it intelligible ?~]

Pag. 29. you add, [You Wve done little fervice to your weaker Chrifiians to perfwade them otherwife (as well m to 'the great blejfid Charter of Salvation) and to lead them cut of the plain road into Woods and Mjzes-> to that one Man of extraordinary Judgment and Clearnefss no body mufl kttow what his Name is 9 or where he dwells* and fo to whirle them about til!you have made them giddy ].

Anfw. How eafie is it to talk at this rate for any Caufe in the World ? Is this Difputing Or Rea-

fon-

(5D

foning? Cannot I aseafilyfay thus againft you ? But the question is of Things vifible: I willingly appeal to any intelligent impartial Divine, who will read what you and I have written of Juftifi-fication, which of us it is that hath done more to bring Men out of Woods and Mazes? into the plain-eftRoad? Let them, that have leifure for no more, read but my Preface to my Difyut. of Jujiif. and mark which fide wrongeth weaj^Chrifiians? and the Charter of Salvation*

§. XVII. Pag. 29. you add, [Sir, I underhand

fnnething at thefe years-, without your Tutorage? of the duty both of Pajlors and People: But I kvtow not what you mean to make the way to Heaven {revealed Sufficiently to all? &c) to be a matter of high ab-jirufi Speculation , as if none but great Scholars? and Men of extraordinary Judgment ? could by the right ufe of Scriptures? and other ordinary common means? be able to find it out? till they have met with that EliaSy &c.~]

Anfa. Still I fee we (hall agree whether you will or not: O, Sir, it is juit the contrary that I wrote for : And I need but repeat your words to anfwer you. I am not difparaging your under-ft'anding, otherwife than you may fo call the vindicating of needful truth : Nor did I ever prcfume to offer you my Tutorage : You fpeak all this with too much tendernefs. But that which I have written almoft all my Books of ControverGe againlt, is this making the Way to Heaven move difficult and bewildring, than the Scriptures make it, Therefore it is that I have perfwaded Men to lay lefs (Irefs on arbitrary .humane Notions: But the que-

(ft)

ftion is now, whether it be your Courje or mine, that is guilty of this ? Are Logical definitions the necejfary Way to Heaven ? Doth the Scripture diffidently reveal fuch Definitions to all ? Do all ordU nary Believers by' the ufe of the Scripture, know how to define ? Do not Logicians make true defining one cf the fureft figns of clear and accurate knowledg? Why fhould you and I difpute thus about Matters of Fail ? I know by the principles of Conformity, that your Judgment is not like to be narrower than mine about the ftate of determinate Individuals : I fuppofe you would take as many to the Lords Supper as Believers, as I would, and ahfohe as many, and pronounce as many faved at Buryal. Let you and I call but a dozen of the next Families ^together, and defire every Man and Woman of them, to give you a Definition of Ju-ftification, (out of the hearing of the reft) and if they all give you a true definition, and one definition* I will write a Retra&ation. I know you not*, but by your now telling me, of your underfianding of the duties of Paftors and People, I may fuppofe

that you have been-a Pafiour, felfe ). And if

fb, that you have had perfonal conference with ntofi (if not all) of your Flock. If you have found them all fuch able concordant Definers of Justification, you have had a more learned Flock than I had. I doubt your Learned Scholars could not doit, till they met with fome fuch Elias or Art-ftmle, as you ! Yea, let us take only fuch as by their Lives we commonly judg truly Godly Chrifiians :^ And if all tbefe give you one and a true definition of Juftification, then do you tell them that Defining is no fuch difficult work, but ordinary Chri-

ftians

( n )

(Hans may and do attain it, i and I that make it difficult, make the way to Heaven difficult, for Defining is the way to Heaven : But if not one of many Score or Hundred (till you teach them a-new) do give you a true and the fame Definition h I will go on and ftill fay, that They wrong Souls* the Go$el* and the Church* who pretend fuch neceffity and facility of defining* and vpill cenfure* reproach* or damn all that agree not with them in a Definition, when they have as real though kfs diflintt a knowledg of the thing.

Idoubt-not but you.know how much difference there is among Learned Men about Definitions themfelves in general: Whether they belong to Metaphyficks, Logicks, or Phyficks ? Whether De-finitio Phyfica ('as Man is defined per Animam* Corpus &Vnionem) be a proper Definition? Whether a true Logical and Thyfical definition fhould not be the fame ? Whether Definitio objettiva be properly called Definitio* or only FormalU? Whether Accidents may be properly defined ? An Genus definiri poffit ? An pars Logica definiri poflit ? An indi-vidua pojjint definiri ? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non potefl Individuis definitio fubftantialis \ & quidem effentialis Phyftce > efi enim de ejfentia hujiu hominU' h£c anima cum hoc Corpore «> Imo & effentialis Me-

taphyftce fi individua rette poflent penetrari* iflo~

rum definitio eftet omnium perfettiffima ) An ea qu& differunt definitione dijiinguantur realiter ? With a multitude fuch. And is the Art of Defining fo eafie* as that ordinary Chrijtians J'alvation muft lie upon it, when fomany things about Defining are among the fubtileft Do&ors undetermined >

And

r 54)

And as Ignorant as I am, while you fuppofe me unable to define Jujlification, I would wi(h you (not for my fake,but theirs) that you will not fen-tenceall as unjuftified to Damnation, that are not more skilful in defining than I, and that you will not rejedi all fuch from the Sacrament and Communion of the Church,

§. XVIII. Yet again, fag. 30. you tell me, [/ cannot well fwallow down in the lump , what yon would have me and others to do^ when yon direct us to prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority of Votes-, till you acquaint us who that Gentleman ht 1 , and what fort of Rulers and Majorities yon mean].

Anfw. What you cannot fwallow you muft leave : I will not cram or drench you. I could wifh for your own fake, that you had not thus often told the World of filch.a Malady, as that muft needs be which hindreth your fwallow : When, j. You your (elf receive the fame Rule in other Inftances, and make all this ftir againft it only, as to the Definition of purification, even the Logical definition, which is Afius definienm, called Vefi± nitio formality and not the Definitio objeBiva, as the Ipfum definitum is by fome improperly called*. £. And when the words in that Inftance are not ' [OWE MAN] but* \a few Men] which your Eyes may Hill fee> and when in the Gewr*/direction where one Man is mentioned, there is no fuch word as [that one Man], or the leaft intimation of an lnd\viduum deter minaturns You greatly wrong your Honour by fuch dealing > As you do by adding,

( 55 )

x. [For the fingle Verfon (that Monarch in Divinity) to whom we are upon differences to make our Appeals, &o]

Anfw. If you hold on thus to talk as in yout fleep, and will not (hut your Chamber-door, but commiffion the Prefs to report your words to the World, how can your beft Friends fccure your reputation > Is not all this talk of fingle Verfon^ and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effc&s of a Dream, or fomewhat worfe ? Thefe Fittions will ferve no honeft ends. But you next come indeed to the true difficulty of the Cafe, and ask :

[Ibefeechyou Sir, how Jhaliyour ignorant or'weaker Chrijiian be able to jpidg of fitnefs ? . He had

need to have a very competent meafure of Abilities himfelf, wha is to give hi§ verdift of another's y

This is very true and rational: But it coricem-eth you as much as me to anfwer it, unkfs you wii! renounce the Rule. And feeing you grant it m other Infta rices, if you pleafe to anfwer ycur own queftion as to fhofe other, you have anfwered it as fo this: And if you will not learn off your felf, I am not fo vain as to think,'that you will learn of me.

In cafe of Subtilties which depend upon Wit y and Art, and Indujiry, in that proportion which -few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but one of thefe ways that can be taken y Either wholly to fufpend our Judgments, and not to meddle with-them, til! #ve can reach them our fdves *, Or' to take them fide humana, or as probabilities on the Credit of fome Men, rather than others: As to the firft, lam for a? much fnfpenfon of Judgment*

as

as will ftand with the part of a Learner (where we mufi learn > and in ufelefs things for a total fuf-penfion). But where Learning is a duty, all Men come to Knowledg by degrees* and things ufually appear to them in their probability^ before they appear in ascertaining evidence*, Therefore here the Queftionis, Whofe judgment I {hall take zsmojl yrobable? (Were the cafe only, how far we fhould Preach our Judgment to others, there Rulers muft more determine 5 or if it were, How to manage our Judgment Co as to keep Unity and Concord, the Church* or major Vote muft over-rule us). But it being the meer Judgment or Opinion that, is in question, either we muft adhere to the Judgment* 1. Of Rulers zsfuch* 2. Or the major Vote as fuch* 3. Or to thofe that are yioft Excellent in that part of Knovpledg : Wiiy fhould I wafte time to give you the Reafons againft the two firft, which are commonly received ? When even the Papijis* who go as far as any I know living in afcribing to One Man* and to major Votes, yet all agree, that a few fubtik Votlors* yea one in the things in which he excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council: And therefore the Scotifts prefer one Scotus* Lyche-tus* Memijfe* Rada* &c. before a Pope or Multitude * and fo dtf the Nominals* one Ockam y Gregory , Gabriel, Hurtado , &c. and fo the other Seds.

The thing then being fuch as neither you, nor any Man can deny, the difficulty which you urge, doth prefs you and all Men : And ic is indeed one grand calamity of Mankind* and not the leaft hin-derance of Knowledg in the World h that he that hathitnots kpoweth not what another hath, but by

dark

.( 57 )

dark Conje&ures. 4, And therefore Barents and Pupils know not who is their beft Tutor: The hearers that are to chute a Teacher, hardly know: whom to chufe > for, as you fay truly, he mult know much that muft judg of a knowing Man.

God hath in all Arts and Sciences given fomej few Men an excellency of Wit and Reach above the generality of their Prokffion , and they have a more clear and folid. Judgment: If all Men could but know who thefe be y the World would in one Age be more recovered from Ignorance than it hath' been in ten. But the power of the Proud, and the confidence of the Ignojrant , and the number of all thfe , and the Slanders and Scorn , and pecvifh Wranglings of the common Pride and Ignorance againft thofe few that know what they k^qw not, is the Devils great means to fruftrate their endeavours and keep the World from having knowledg. Tl is is certain and weighty Truth, and fuch as you fhould make np Malignant applications of, nor ftrive againft. Mankind muft needs acknowleclg it. Your urgent queftioning here [Voyou not mean your felff] doth but expofe you to pity, by opening that which you might have concealed..

And to your Queftipn 1 fay, could I enable all Ignorant Men to know who are the beft Teachers, I fhould be the grand Benefadpr of the Woild: But both the blefitng of excellent 'teachers, and alfq of acquaintance with them and, their worthy is giveq by God, pmly as it pleafeth Him, freely, even to the unworthy, and partly as a Reward to thofe that have been faithful in a little , and obeyed lower helps \ f for there is a Worthivefs to be found irv Jjme Houfes, where the Preacher countth with the

S vuicc

( 5* )

voice of Peace* and unrvor thinefs^ which oft depri-veth Men of Inch Mevcies.) Both abfolutcly Fm-Grsce , and alfo Rewarding-Grace, do here (hew themfelvc?.

But yet I odd, i. That Light is a felfdetnon-ftrating thing, and will not eafily be hid. 2. And thofe that are the Children of Light, and have been true to former helps and convidlions, and are willing to fell all for the Pearl, and fearnot being lo-fers by the price of Khmledg, but would have it whatever Labour or Suffering it muft coft, and who fearch for it impartially and'diligently, and forfeit it not by Sloth, or a flefhly , proud, or worldly Mind, thefe, I fay, are prepared to difcern the Light , when others fall under the heavy Judgment of being deceived by the Wranglings y Scorns•> Clamours and Tbreatnings of PROUD IGNORANCE. And thus one Jugufline was a Light in his time, and though fuch as Profpcr, Fulgen-tius^ &c knew him, Pelagius and the Mafiilienjes wrangled againft him: And Luther^ Melanclbon, JSjtcer.Pbagius, Zuinolim^Cahin-.Mufculus^ Zanchius were fuch in their times \ and fome difcerned them to be fo, and more did not: If Men muft "have gone by the judgment of Rulers, or the major Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Reformation > If you can better dired Men how to difcern Gods Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do it, and do not cavil againft it.

As for your [Ouefmgle Proteftant in fuch a cafe as JyMHcation\ and your [Irvijh it be not your meaning] Pac 31, they deferve no further anfwer, 1 1 all the anger, p^-3 I 5 3 2 3 33*

§. XIX,

§. XIX. Eut fag. 34- Note again, x. That it 33 not Objective Definitions, (as feme call them) but [Logical , Artificial Definitions,] fuppbfed to be Mens needful Acts, which you fay are Re, the fame with the Definition. .2. And that yet you tnuft have it [fuppofed that thefe Definitions are true"]. And I fuppofe that few Good ChrilHans comparatively know a true, one, no, nor what a Definition,(or the Genus and Differentia which con-ftitute it) is.

You fay, [I absolutely deny what you fo rafhly avow, that the Definition of Justification is controverted by the greateji Divines i This is one of your liberal Difiaies .' "Ike Reformed Divines are all, I thinly, before you, agreed about the nature of Jujiification, its Caufes, &o and consequently cannot differ about "the Definition]*

Anfrv. i. But what if all Divines were Co it-greed ? So are not all honeji Men and Women that muft have Communion with us: Therefore make not Definitions more necefiary than they are, nor as fieceffary as the Thing.

2. You muft be conftrained for the defending of thefe words, to come off by faying, that you meant, That though they agree not in the Words-> or Logical terms of the Definition* but one faith, 'this is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but thatv one Uiihthtii &nd another that is the Formal, or Material Caufe, &c. yet de ire, they mean the fame thing ^ wcid they fo happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions: And if you will do iri this^ as you have done in your other Quarrels comeQtf by faying as I faV, and (hewing Men the power

Si ci

of Truth, though you do it with never fo much anger, that you mtfi agree, I (hall be fatisfied, that the Reader is delivered from your (hare, and (hat Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or fay of me.

3. But becaufe I muft ncjw anfwer what you fay, and not what I fon fee you will or mufi fay, I muft add, that this paifage feerneth to fuppofe that your Reader liveth in the dark, and hath read very little of Juftihcation* 1. Do all thofe great Divines, who deny the Imputation of Cbrifts aUive Rigbte-oufnefs, and take it to be but Jujlitia Perfon£, mn Meriti, and that we are JufHfied by the Tajfive only, agree with their Adversaries, who have written againft them, about the Definition and Caufes of Jujtification ? Will any Man believe you, who hath read Olevian,Vrfine, Partus, Scultetus, Pifcator, Ca-rolus Molhi£Hs , JVendeline, Beckman, Alftedius, Camero, with his followers in Prance, Forbes, with abundance more, who are for the Imputation of the Paflive Righteoufnefs only ? Were Mr. Anth* tFotton, and Mr. Balmford-, and his other Adverfaries, of the fame Opinion in this? Was Mr. Bradfhaw fo fottifh as to write his Reconciling Treatifecf Juftirication in Latineznd Englijb, to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while he knew that there was no difference, fo much as in the DetinirionPWas hemirtaken in reciting the great differences about their Senfes ol \ Imputation of Chips Right eoufnffs, if there were none at all >■ Did Mr. Gataker a^ree with Lucias and. Pifcator, when he wrote againft both fa^ the; Streams)? Did Mr. Wotton, and Jobfr GW^/^ree with Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. RotfohiW? Doth Mr. Larrfon,

• hi

in his 'theopoliiiea agree with you, and fuch others ? Doth not Mr. Cartvprigbt here differ from thofe that. hold the Imputation of the Adlive Righteouf* nefs >

What abundance of Protejiants do place Juflitv cation only in Fogivenejf of Sins ? And yet as many (I know tfot which is the greater fide) do make that Forgivenefs but one parr, and Imputation of Rigbteoufnefs another. And how many make fvrgivenefsno part of Juftihcation, but a Concomitant ? And many inftead of [Imputation of Rigbteoufnefs] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the JakSi or merit of Cbrijis Rigbteoufnefs imputed"] (viz, as the Meritorious. Caufe). And Partus tells us, that they are of four Opinions, who are for Cbrijis Rigbteoufnefs imputed') fbme for the Toffive onlyi feme for the Pafliveand A Hive j fomc for the FaJJive, Active, and Habitual > fome for thefe three and the Divine. And who knoweth not that fome liereibdiftinguifh Caufcs and Eifl&s, as that our Original Sin (ox Habitual &y fome) is pardoned for Phnrts Original ("and Habitual ;Holinefs: Our Omiffions for Cbrijis AUive Obedience, and our Com-tnijfions for His Pafftve ? Or as more fay that Chrilfs Faflive Rigbteoufnefs as Satisfaction, favcth us from Hell or Punifliment, and His Afiive as meritorious, procureth Life as tbcrewaid > When many others, rejecting that Divifion, fey » That both freedom from PunHhment, and right to Glory are the conjundt effetfs of His Habitual, Active, and Paflive Rigbteoufnefs, as an entire Caufe (in its kind)> a? Gull. Forbes, Grotius , Bradjbaw , and others truly fay : Befides that many conclude with Gataker-> that thefe are indeed but one thing and S 3 effect^

( 6i )

cffefr, (to be Ghriped> and irof fo he Damned cr PurJfhidji feeing not to be Glorified is the P,£>u

■ ■•?. and that the remitting of the whole Penalty damni & fenfus, and Co of all Sin of Orniilion and Commiffioir, is our whole Juftifkation.

And I need not tell any (Man that hath read frtch Writers, that they ordinarily diftinguifli of Ju-ftificatibn, and give not the fame Definition of one fort as of another\ nor of the Name in one Senfe as in another.

Many confefs (whom you may read in GuiU T-rb^s, and V'v.k. le ~E!an-'\) that the word \Jjn-] is divers times taken in Scripture r as the Fapifts do) as including Santtificathn : And Co {inch Beza agairil :/;, jMg. 218. as cited by

G* Forbes, [Si jf»/fi •;: generdlii ias*>

Ui interdum ufurpatur ab ,<_ erit ejus ffi£txj0ed pars an:[pedes 1 : And as I I him (mihi) pag. i~$. Qusmvis Jttftifijcatiomi n -men interdttm generjliter accipiatnr fro cm'iillius jn lifid dono cuarn a patre in Cbrijlo accipimus^ Sec,

A.:d how little are we agreed whether T ■'■: ■;-;-iiatkm be a part cf Ju'tificatiw or not f Tea, Jdoption eifner •? Sa:: re*** [H~c apfirmo, t

k did JuftiHcationem ef}Can}< n; Nam ciliatio cum J j s filhs V-

•*To which Beza ibid* faith, f Re-

conciliation] Neutro modo idem eft RecwciUjt:

J:<iificaih Si

nis Definition en d negare ■ &t.

Of the three ! of Ci-rifts Right

sufs imputed to make up three parts of our Juftiirca-

don.

lion, fee him de Tredeft- pag. 405. Col* 2. which Terkjns and fome others alfo follow,

Olevian (as all others that groily miftakc not herein) did hold, that God did not )uig us to have fulfilled all the Law in Chrijl *, and that our righ-teoufnefs confifteth only in the Remiffion of Sin, and right to Life as freely given us for anothers Merits: But Seza infifteth full on the contrary, and in his EpiUle to Olevian, (pag.iq&.EpiJhzf*) faith, §htidvanius eft quam Jujium arbitrary qui Legem non impleverit ? Atqui lex non tantum prohibet fieri quodvetat^—. verum pr&cipit quodjubet .^—t- Ergo qui pro nm peccatore cenjeturin Chrifto, mortem qttidem effugerit j fed quo jure vitam Jirgterea petet^ nift omnem juftitiani Legis in eodem Cbrilio impleverit} (This is;the Do&rine which Wotton zvl&Ga-taher (in divers Books largely) and Bradjhaw, after many others do Confute;. Yet. faith he* Afr-que vero id objiat y quominus nojlra Jujiificatio Remifi fone peccatorunk apte & rede definiatur\ y Which is a contradiction. fc Yet was he for Love and Gen-• tleneG in thefe differences* ibid.

Yet Qu. &.Reffj. Cbri{t~pag. 670. He leaveth out Chrifts Oiiginal Habitual Righreoufnefs, [Nm iila efientialis qua Veiiatis efi v ms ilia Habitualis^ tit

italoquar, Puritas Carnis Chrijii*- §hi£ quttm

. non dijlinguerct Ofianderfadtfiime eft hallucinatus.

And ibid*, 6j.o. he.givcth us {his ddcription'of .. Juflitication.

Qu % ghtid Juftificationem vocat Paulus hoc loco ? R. IHud quo Jujii fimus , id eft, eoufque perfe&i^ integri , a/z^u^'Jo* iy afjuOfAOi , ut plemjjime, non tantum aboleatur quicquid in^nobis totis in eft turpi* tudinU) qua Veus fumme pmus ojfendi ullo modo S 4 s pfijjjtt

( <H )

fnffit^verum etiam in nos comperialur quicquid in hat humans naturs ufque adeo poteft eum deleftare y ut illudvita £terna pro bona fuavoluntate coronet"].

Yet (as in his Annot. in Row. 8. 30. & alibi) he confeffcth that Juliification in Scripture, fometime is taken for Sanftification % (or as including it) fo he taketh our Santtification to contain the Imputation of Chri/ls Sandcity to us. (Qu. & Refp. pag. 67 1-) I> Vico noftras Perfinas* imputata if-fiusperfeHafanUitate& inlegritate, plene fandas & integras-> acproinde Vatri acceptas y non in nobis fed inChrijio cenfemur. 2. And next the Spirits San-dification v and thus Chrift is made Sanclification to us.

Dr. Tmfle, and Mr. ?erpble-> Vind. Grat. diftin-guifhof Juliification as an Immanent Ad: in God From Eternity, and as it is the notice of the former . in our Consciences : But doubtkfs the commoneit Definitions o( Juftificacion agree with neither of thefe: kn&'tjemble of Justification otherwife cte-finethit fas Mr. Jejfop faith Dr. TiWiffe did).

Lud. Crocius Syntag. pag. izi^. thus defincth it, [Jrtftificatio Evangelica eft a8uj Divinx gratis, quaDeus adopt at peccatorem per approbationem obe-dtenti£ Legis in fpovfire atque intercefloreCbrijfo, & per Kemijjionem peccatorum ac Juftiti* imputMi-onem m eo qui perfidemCbrijlo'eft infitus~\. And fairh, pag. 1223. [Fides pia juliifisat qmtenus no-tat Obedientiam quandam expeftantem promiffionem at donum gratuttum — & afponitur illi Obedienii£ qu£non expe&at premiflionem ut donum amnino graiu-tium fed ut mercedem propofitamfitb Condition* opefis alien m prater acceptationem & gratitudinem debitam, qu£Jua Natura in omni donations quamvis gratuita

requiri

reqniri filet. Et ejufmodi Obedientia peculiaritet

opus ab Apoflolo, & Latiw proprie Meritum dicitut > & quifub hac conditione obedittnt Operantes vocantur> Rom. 4. 4. 6c 11. 6* This is the truth which I affort.

Conrad. Btrgius Prax. CathoL difij. pag. £83. tells us that the Brcme Cat chifm thus openeth the Matter: £Qu. ^uornodo Juftificatur Homo coram Dee ? R. Accipit Homo Remijfionem peccatorum & Juftificatur, hoc eft, Gratus fit coram Veo in vera Converfwne, perfolam fidem } per Cbrijium-> fine pro-prio Merito & dignitate.

i Cocceius difp. de via falut, de Juft. pag. i8p. Originate Cbrifti Juftitia correfpondet nofiro Originate peccato^ &c vid. cat. plnra vid. defxder.

Macoviut Colleg. de Juftif. diftinguiftierh Juftifi-cation into ASive and fjjpve, and faith, Jnftifica-ih Attiva ftgnificat abfolnhncm Z>*\ qui Hominem renin a reatit abfolvit : And he would prove this to be before Faith, and citeth for it (abulively) Varans and ^fifianus-, and thjnketh that we were abfolved from Guilt from Chrifts undertaking our Debt, ihefi 12. thus arguing, [Cnjns debita apud Credit or em aliquti recepit exfihenda , & Creditor iliiits fponfionem it a acceptat, ut in ea acquiefcat* iHe jam ex parte Credit'om liber eft adebitU : Atqne Elettorum omnium in fwgulari debita apud Deum Fatrem Cbriftus, ex quo fadus eft Mediator, recepit ■ ixolvenda, & Veus Pater illam jponfionem acceptavit* Sec. Paflive Juftirtcation, which he fuppofeth to be our application of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to our felves daily as oft as we offend, 7^. 5. (And part 4- difp, 22. he maintaineth, that "there are no

Dip-

{66)

Difpoptioni to Regeneration)* Others of his mini I p3fs by.

Sfantemm VifpuU de Jufiif. faith, that £The Fmnoi Faflive Jujiificatiou confifteth in the appre-hmfiw zndfenfe of Remiflion of Sin and Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs incapable Subjects] grcfly : Whereas A&ive Juftification (Juftificatt-tis) ever immediately caufeth Faffive (Jullificatfa-nem'juftificati) which is nothing but the eifed of theA&ive, (or as moftcall it, Aftio ut in patiente): And if this were the Apprehension and Senfe (as aforefaid ) of Pardon and imputed Righteoufnefs, then a Man in his fleep were unjuftified, and fo of Infants, &c. For he that is not Paflively juttified, is not at all juftified.

I told you elfe-where, that:'the Synopf Leidenf 3e Jitftif-.pag- 415. Tb. 23. faith, That Chrifts Righteoufnefs is both the Meritorious , Material, and Formal Caufe of our Juftification.

What Fayusj and Vavenant, and others fay of flic Formal Caufe* viz. Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed, I there (hewed : And how Parous, Job. Cro-ciuf> and many others, deny Chrifts Righteoufnefs to be the Formal Caufe.

Wendeline defineth Juftincatiop thus ( Theol. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Jujlificatio eji actio Dei gra-tnita , qua peccatores Eletti , malediSioni legii ob-noxiii propter juftitiamfeu fatUfacthnem Cbrijii file applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali Di-vimy remffis peccatis, a maledittioue Legisabflvnn-tut & jufti cenfenlur. And pag. 615, 6*6. He maintaintth that SjObedientia aciiva, ft proprie & accurate- loqiiamur, non eft materia nofr£ Jujiifica-ihniS) nee imputatnr nobis, ita ut nojira cenfeatur,

&

(*7).

& nobis propter earn peccata remittantur, & debiium legls pro nobis folvatur \ quemadmodum Paffiva per imputationern cenfetur mftra, &c Et poft [_Si dicitf Cbrijium fattum ejfe hominem pro nobis, hoc eft, no-ftro bono % conceditur : Si pro nobis, hoc eft^ noftro loco y negatur : Quod enim Chrijius no{lro loco fecit , & faBus eft) idnos non tenemur facer e & fieri, &c.

Rob. Abbot appro vet h of "fhompfns Definition of Evangelical Jutlification, (pag. 153O that it is, Gjhta'pxnitemi & Credenti remittuntitr peccata, & jus vita atertt£ conceditur per & propter Chrifti obe-dientiam illi imputatam: (Which is found, taking • Imputatam foundly, as he doth).

fob. Crccius, Difp. 1. p- 5. thus defineth it, [Afiio Dei qua ex gratia propter fatisfaciionem Chrifti peccatoribus in Cbriftum totius M*ndi redemptorem unicurn, vere credentibits gratis fine operibus ant mentis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & juftitiam Chrifti imputat ad fui nominis gloriam & illorum fa-hitem jeternam- And he maketh only [Cbriftsfullfa-wfaUion for Sin,to be the hnpxlfwe-External, Meritorious, and Material Caufe, as being that which is imputed to us h and the Form of JufUfication to be the Remijfion of Sin, Original and Attual, or the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs (which he make th to be all one) or the Imputation of Faith for Righteoufnefs]].

Saich Bifliop Downame of Juftif. p.305. [To be Formally Righteous by Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed^ never any of us, for ought I hnpw, affirmed* The like faith Dt. Prideaux, when yet very many Pro-teftants affirm it.

Should I here fet together forty or fixty Definitions of Proteftants verbatim } and (hew you how 1

much

( *8 ;

much they differ, if would be unpleafant, and tedious, and unneceffaryo

And as to thofe fame Divines that Dr. 7Wlj>na-meth as agreed, Dr. Vavenants and Dr. Fields words I have cited at large in my Confef. faying the fame in fubftance as I do v as alio Mr. Scndderi, and an hundred more, asisbeforefaid*

And let any fober Reader decide this Controverfie between us, upon thefe two further Considerations.

i. Perufe all the Corpus Confeffionum-> and fee whether all the Reformed Churches give, us a Definition of Juftification , and agree in that Definition : Yea, whether the Church of England in' ns Catechifm, or its Articles, have any proper Definition : Or if you will call their words a T)efi-nition, I am lure it's none but what I do confene to. And if a Logical Definition were by the Church of England and other Churches held necejfary to Salvation, it would be in their Catechifms (it not in the CreedJ): Or if it were held neceffaiy to Church-Concord, ard Peace 3 and Love, it would be in their Articles of Religion, which they fubferibe.

2. How can all Proteftants agree of the Logical Definition of Juftification, when i. They agree not of the fenfe of the word [/fuliifie^] and of che fpecies of that Juftification which Paul and James fpeakof? Some make Juftification to include Pardon and SandHfication, (fee their woids in G. Forbes, and Le Blanks) h man? fay otherwife. Moft lay that Paul fpeaketh moft ufually of Juftification in fenfu forenfu but whether it include [Making ptjl~] as fome fay, or only [Judging juji] as others, or Nolle punire-y be the a& as Dr. T&ijfe? they agree not. And fome hold that in Janes Jujiification is

that

(*p)

that which is coram homimbm, when faid to bi hj Workj* but others {truly) fay, it is that coram Deo.

2. They are not agreed in their very Logical Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions are reduced > no not fo much as of the number and nature of C3ufes, nor of Definitions (as is aforefaid) : And as I will not undertake to prove that all the Apoftles, Evangelifts and Primitive Paftours, knew how to define Efficient, Matertil^ Formal and final Causes in general, fo I am fare that *//good Chriftians do not.

3. And when Juftification is defined by Divines, is either the Attus JuflificantU, and this being in the predicament of Adion, what wonder if they difegree about the Material and Formal Caufe* of it?

Nay, it being an Ad of God, there are few Divines that tell us what that Ad is: Veur operatur per effentiam: And Ex parte agentis, his Ads are his EJfenee, and all but one. And who will thus difpure of the Definition and Caufes of them, Efficient, Material, Formal, Final > when I pre-fumed to declare, thac this Ad of Juftifying is not an immanent Ad in God, nor without a Medium, but Gods Ad by the Inftrumentality of his G°fpet~Covenant or Promife , many read it as a new thing* and if that hold true th&t rhe Firft Juftifi. catioft by Faith, is that which Gods Gofpel- Donation is thtlnftrumentof, as the Titulusfeu Funda-mentum Jurti^ being but a Virtual and not an Adn-al Sentence, then the Definition of it, as to the Caufes, muft differ much from the motf cc>mmoa Definitions,

But

( jo )

But rnoftProteftants fay chat Juftificaiion is Sen* ientia Judicii. (And no doubt but there are three feveral/irf/. or Ads called Juftification, i. Constitutive by thtVonative Covenant,!. Sentential^. Executive.) And here they are greatly at a iofs, for the decilion ot thtCzCc^wbat Ati of God thUSententia Ju-cU is.What it will be after death,we do not much dif. agree; But what it is immediately upon our believing It mult be an Ad. as in patiente, or the Divine efTcnce denominated from fuch an ejfeft. And what "Judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tfombes faith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels : But that is not alitor the chief; fome run back roan Immanent Ad.; mod leave it undetermined : And lure the Name'of Sentence in general, fignifieth no true Conception of it at all, in him that know-eth not what that Sentence is, feeing Univerfals are Nothing (out cf us) but as they exift in individuals. Mr. Larvfon hath faid that wihch would reconcile Frotefhnts,andiomePapift5,as to the Name, viz* that Gods Execution is his Sentence > He Judgeth by Executing : And fc as the chief punifhment is the Privation of the Spirit, fo the Justifying Ad, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we difagrecd about Active JuiUfcation (which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fullicr to open.)

And as to Pajjive Jujtificatjok (or as it is Statw Jujiificati) which is indeed that which it concerned us in this Controverfie to open, I have told you how grofly fome defcribe ft here before- And all a-gree not what Predicament it is in : fome tike it to be in that of Action, ut recipittir in pajfo > and fome in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct: But moft

place

. (70

place it in Relation h And will you wonder if all Chriftian Women,yca or Divines,cannot define that Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions of the Efficient? Material^ Formal and Final C^fi^ of that which mud be defined (as it is capable^) by itsfub)etttim-> fundamentum and terminus.

1 would not wifh that the Salvation of any Friend of mine (or any one) (hould be laid on the true Logical Definition of Juftification, A&ive or Paflive, Constitutive^ Sentential or Executive.

And now the Judicious will fee, whether the Church and Souls of Men be well ufed by this pretence, that all-Proteftants are agreed in the Na-ture, Caufes and Definition of Juftification \ and that to depart from that one Definition (where is it?)is fo dangerous as the Doctor pretendeth,becaufe the Definition and the Vefinitum are the fame.

§ XX. P. 34. You fay [Ton tremble not in the audience of God andMan tofuggeji again that bard-frcn-, ted CalumHy y viz. that If refer a Majority of Ignorant* before a Learned mm in bis own profeflion*

Anfiv. I laid it down as a Rule, that "they are mi to be preferred: You affault that Rule with bitter ac-cufations, as if it were unfound (or elfe to this day I underftand you not.) Is it then [a bard fronted Calumny] to defend it, and to tell you what is contained in the denying of it. 'the audience of God muft be fo dreadful to(you and)me, that (without calling you to confider whether theCalumny be not notori-ouily yours) I heartily defire any judicious perfon to help me to fee,that I am here guilty 5 ifk be fo.Eut you add> .

"[Ton

(72;

M [Tou hncvp not what the Event of all this may be : tc Forfuppnje now being drag^d in my Scarlet^ (a habit " more j nit able for him that Triumphs) at the Wheel of " your Chariot in the view of all menjfhottld happen to %i be degraded and turned out of my literate Society \ < c rvmld it not trouble you? no doubt: but then it might ct happen to be too late* .

Anfa. i. It would trouble mc : becaufe (though I know you not)our fame here faith that you are an honefl^znd very modeji man^ud thofe that areNickna-med Calvintjts prefer you before moft others of your rank. But alas, what is Man.and what may Temptation do?

2. did you think that your Scarlet or Mafierjhip did allow you to write copioufly,as you did^againii your Neighbour who never medled with you, and made ifc a crime in him,whom you accufe,to defend himfelf, and & righteous caufe ? I fee in this age we deal on hard unequal terms with feme Men that can but get into Scarlet.

3. You would imake your Reader believe by thefe words that you are really Melancholly, and fear where no fear is* A Reverend Do&or,whofe Book hath the Patronage oi One of the greateft Eps. of England writeth againft one of no Academical degree^ who hath thefe 13. year$ and more been judged unworthy to preach to the mod ignorant Congregation in the Land, and by the (Contrived) G'ifiiii-<5tion oiNwcovfor mills from Conformifls^ goeth un-der the/'corn and hatred of fuel), as yoii pretend to be in danger of, and hach himfelf no fecurity for his liberty in the open Air s that this Learned man in His honour,fhould conceit that an Anfwerfrom this hated perfon might endanger his degradation and

turning

turning out oFhis place, is fo ftrange a fanciers will make your Readers wonder.

4. But whether you are Melancholly or no I know not j but if you are not unrighteous, I know hot what unrigbteoufnefs is. Will you bear vVith the diverfion of a ftory ?

When the Moors were fentenced to ruin in Spain, OheoftheDifciplesof Valdejfo fa Scholar) fell into the difpleafure of the Bp. of Toledo: A Neighbour Dodtor knowing that the Bps.favour might beitead

him . (whether accidentally dr contrivedly I

know not) hit upon this happy courfe : The Scholar and he being together inafolemn Convention, the Scholar was taking Tobacco, and the Dr. feeing the fmok threw firft a Glafs of Beer in his face, and cryed Fire, Fire h The Scholar wiped his face, and went on'St he Dodtdr next threw an tnk^bottle in bis Face, crying ftill Fire, Fire* The Scholar being thusblackt, perceived that he was like to betaken for a Moor, and ruined, and he went but and care-Fully wafli'd his face:the Do&or charged him openly for afFrotiting him (yea and injurioiifly calumniating him) by the fa&: For faith he, there was neceflary Caufe for what I did : There is no fhioak without fome fire: that v^hich fired you might next have fired the Houfe, and that the next Houfe, and fo have btimtdoWn all the City ; and your adlion intimateth as if I had done caufelefly what I did, and done you wrong : The Scholar anfwered himi I knevir nor,Sir,that it was unlawful to wa(h me,but ' I will take no more Tobacco that I may no rfiore offend you h But if in this frofty weather the ihickj Mefs of my breath (houid be called finoal^ may I not wa(h my face, if you again caft your ink upon it > T No,

No, faith the Do&or, It is not you, nor any private man that muft be judg whether you are on Fire or not,in a publick danger;Muft theCity be hazarded,if ,you fay that it is not Fire ? The Scholar asketh, ma I not refer the cafe to the ftanders-by,and wafli my face if they fay. It was no Fire? No, faith the Dr. that is but to call in your AfTociates to your help, and to add Rebellion and Scbifm to your difo-bedicnce; I perceive what principles you are of. \Vhv then, faith the Scholar, if I muft needs be a Moor? my face and I are at your mercy.

But pardon this digreffion,and let you and I ftand to the judgment of any righteous and competent Judge, whether you deal not with me in notorious injuftice, fo be ic the Cafe be truly ftated.

The perfon whom you affaulted is one, that attempted (with fuccefs) the fubverfion of Antino-mianifm and the clearing of truth ; their Ignorance of which was the Caufe of their other Errours. But having let fall, (for want of ufe in writing) fome incongruous words fas Covenant for L<*b?, &c.) and that fome what often, and fome excepting a-gainft the Book, he craved their animaverfions,and promifed to fufpend the Book till it were corrected h and purpofely wrote a far greater Volumn in explication of what was dark, and defence of what was wrongfully acaifed,and many other Volumns of full defence: No man anfwereth any of thefe ; but after twenty years, or thereabout, (though I protefxed in print againlt any that would write againft the A-phorifms, without regard to the faid Explications) you publifli your Confutation of part of thofe Apho-rifms, and that with molt notorious untruth, charg ing me to deny all Imputation ofCbrijlsRigbteoHfneff,

when '

When I had there profeft the Contrary, arid taking no notice of any after-explication or defence, and parallelling me with Bellarmine^ if not with Here-ticks or Infidels (for I fuppofe you take the denyers of all Imputation to be little better.) This Book you publiftr without the lead provocation with other quarrels,dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who firft fi-lenced me j (as if i muft go write over again all the Explications and Defentes I had before written, becaufeyou (that are bound to accufeine) are not bound to read them:) and this you do againft one that at that time had been about 13 years filenced, ejedted, and deprived of all Ministerial maintenance^ andofalmoft all his own perfonal Eftate, defirjng no greater preferment than leave to have preached for nothing, where is notorious neceffity, could I have obtained it, fometimes laid in the common Jail among Malefactors, for preaching in tny own lioufe, and dxvellingrvithin jive miles of it: after fined at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for nothing > looking when my Books and Bed are taken from me by diltrefs, though I live in conftaht pain and langour, the Conftable but yefterday coming to have diftrained for fixty pound for two Sermons 5 hunted and hurryed about to Juftices at the will of any ignorant Agent of-— that will be an Informer, and even fain to keep my doors daily lockt* if it may be to fave my Books a while : ITet the exciting of wroth by publicly Calumny againft one fo low already, and under the perfecuting wrath of your friends-) was no fault, no injuftice in you at all \ {nor indeed did I much feel it. )

But for me who am thus publickly by vifible Calumny traduced>truly to tell you where you oriftake, _ T a and

( 7«)

and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more than me, and if alfo I offer peaceably to wafli my own face, this is hard fronted Calumny, dragging a Do£*or in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot; which might occafwH hti degrading and turning out^ &c*

This over- tendernefs of your honour as to other mens words, (and too little care of the means of it, as to your own) hath a caufe that it concerneth you to rind out. Had you the tenth part as many Books written againft you,asare againft me (by Quakers, Seekers, Infidels, Antinomians, Millenaries, Ana-baptiils, Separatifts, Semi-feparatifts,Papifts, Pfeu-do-Tiknus, Diocefans, Conformifts, and many E-nernies of Peace, (to whom it was not I, but your felfthat joynedyou) it would have hardened you into fome more patience. If you will needs be militant you muftexped replies : And he that will injuriously fpeak to the World what he (hould not fpeak, mud look to hear what he would not hear* But you add*

Sir,the Name and Quality of a DOCTOR and Mafler of a Literate Society, might have been treated more civilly by you*

Anftv. i. I am ready to ask you forgivenefs for any word that any impartial man (yea or your Reverend Brethren of that Academy themfelves, whom I will allow to be fomewhat partial for you) (hall notifie re me to be uncivil or any way injuria ou c . 2. But to be free with you, neither Dcxftor-fliip, Mafttrfhip nor Scarlet will Priviledg you to fight againii Truth, Right, and Peace^ and to vents grofs roiftakcs : ai:d by gtofs untruths in matter offa£t % \ fuch as is yom[Omnem ludibrio habet imputationem'] bate your poor Brethren, and keep the long-con

^ 77 ;

confuming flames ftill burning, by fal(e reprefentirig thofe as Popi(h,and I know not what, who fpeak not as unaptly as your felf, and all this without contradiction. Were you a Bp. my Body and Eflate might be in your power^ but 'frutby Juflice and the Love ofChrijtians ', and the Churches peace^ iliould not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretenfe of reverence to your Name and Quality. I am heartily defirous that for ORDE R-fake the Name and Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently, u-fed. But if they will think that Errourjnjufiice.znd Confupou muft take fandhiary under bare Ecclefia~ fiical or Academical Names and robes, they will find themfelves miftaken : Truth and Honedy will conquer when they pats through Smithfidd* flames ; Prifons confine them not i Death kills them not ^ Nofiege will force an honeft Confcience by famine to give up. He that cannot endure the fight of his own excrements muft not difhrhem up to another mans Table, left they be fent him back again. And more freedom is allowed againft Peace-Breakers in Frays and JFarsAhan towards men that are in a quieter fa>rt of Controverfie.

§ XX. P. 36. 37* You fay \T? or your various Definitions ofjujiification^ Constitutive^ SententialJLx-

ecutive^ inForo Dei> inforoCdvfcienti^ &c — •

What need this heap of di\\inUions here y when you bfiow the quefiion betwixt us is of no other Juftificati-on) but the Conjiitutive inforo Veijhat which maketb us righteous in the Court of Heaven ? I have nothing to do with you yet in anyelje, as your own Confcience will tell you when you pleafe : If you have not more Juftice and civility for your intelligent Readers* 1 wifh you T 3 ' -would

would Jhem more Companion to your Ignorant Hotna* gets, and not thus abufe them with your palpable Eva* (Ions.

Anfw. Doth the queftion, Whether the feveral forts of JuftiHcation will bear one and the fame J)efinition y dcferveall this anger (and the much greater that followethj ?

i .Seeing I am turned to my Reader,' I will crave his impartial judgment: I never received and agreed on a (tare of the queftion with this Dodlor ; He wri:eth agamft my books : In thofe Books I over and over and over diftinguifh of Juftification, Qm% ftiiutive, Sentential^ and Executive (befides thofe Subordinate forts,by Witnefs,Evidence, Apology,bcc.) I oft open their differences: He writeth againft Oie,as denying all Imputation ofCbrifts Right eoufnefs, and holding Popijh Juftification by works, and never tells me whether he take the word \_Juftiftcation\ in the fame fenfe that I do, or in which of thofe that I had opened : And now he palTionately appealeth to my Confcience that 1 kttew his fence : What he faith [my Confcience will tell me~\ it is not true : It will tell me no fuch thing ; but the clean contrary, that even after all his Difputes and Anger, and thefe words, I profefs I know not what he meaneth by I [_Juftification.~]

2> What [Conflituttve inforo~Dn,that whichma-\ keth us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth j with him, I cannot conjeSure. He denyeth not my | DiftindHons, but faith, what need they: I ever di-ftingnifhed Makjng Righteous s JudgingRighteous. Executively tifeing as Righteous : The firft is in our fives ', The fecond is by Divines faid to be inforo Ztafj an act of Judgment > the third is upon us after

both;

(79)

both; nowhefeemeth to confound the two ft ft, and yet denyeth not their difference i and faith, he meaneth [Conflitutive inforo : J H? that is made Righteous is fuch in fe *, and as fuch is Jufiifiable inforo :] Wc are CMade Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputes antecedently to judgment ; We are in forofentenced Righteous by God as Judg: fo that this by fentence prefuppofeth the former ; God never Judgeth us Righteous and Juftifieth us a-gainft Accufation, till he have firft Made us Righteous and Juftified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and "Donation. Which of thefe meaneth he ? I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I, but hi* Intelligent Reader. He taketh on him to go the Commoneft way of Proteftants: And the Commoneft way is to acknowledg that a Conftitutive Juftification^ or making the man Jujh (antecedent to the Afiusforenfis) muft need go iui\ : but that it is the fecond which P^/ufually meaneth, which is the attus forenfts-> the fentence of the Judg inforo , contrary to Condemnation: And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to fentence as Righteous are all one ? and that we are made Righteous in foro other wife than to be juft in our fives &n& fo Ju-ftifiable inforo^bctbxc the Sentence ? or do Proteftants take the Sentence to be Conjlituting or Making us Righteous ? All this is fuch talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunnyan of the Covenants,or any of my Ignorant Homagers*, I ihould have faid, the Author is ajlran-ger to the Contr over fie >into which he hath rajhly plunged himfelf: but I have more reverence to fo learned a man, and therefore blame my dull underfhnding.

3. But what if I had known (as I do not yet)

what fort of Juftification he meaneth ? Doth he not

T 4 know

fyiow that I was thendcoaing the Qfe with him, whether the Logical Definitions of Jujlification, Faith, &o are not a work of Art, in which a few well Jiudied judicious Divines f thefe were my words) are to be preferred before Authority, or Majority of Votes. And Reader, what Reafon bound ine to confine this Cafe, to one only Jort of Jufiifi^ . cation^ And why, (I fay, why) muft I confine it to a fort which Dr. 'fully meaneth, when my Rule and Book^ was written before bii^ and when to this day I know not what he meaneth? Though he at once chide at my DilHnguifliing, and tell me that All Protefiants agree in the Nature^ Caufet, and Definition, (and if all agreed, I might know by other Mens words what he meaneth) yet to all be-fore-faid, I will add but one contrary Inftance of many.

Onto, in his very Methodical but unfound Idea *fbeol. (Ggnalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Justification fo, as I fuppofe, beft pleafeth the Do-d:or, viz. [Efl AUio Dei Judicialis, qua redemptos propter pafjiones )uftiti£ Divin£ fatifaUorias a Chrifto fujientataf, redemptifque imputatas-, a peccatis puros, & confequenter a pxnis liberos, itemque propter Obe-dientiam a Chrifto Legi Divine pr&ftitam redemptifque imptttatjm> jufiitia pr£ditos, & confequenter vita dterna dignn, exmiferecordia pronunciaf\. In the opening of which he telleth us, pag. 243. (a-gainft multitudes of the greateft Protectants Definitions.) [Male alteram Juflificationls partem, ip-fom Jufiitt£ Iwptttationem ftatui , cum Juflificatio • Hon fit ipfa Imputatio, fed Pronunciatio qu£ Imputation ', tanqnam ftmdmento jatto, nititur.

And

And he knew no fenfe of Juftification, but [Vel ipfam fententiq Jnftificatorif in mente Vivina pro* tationem-> five Conftitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifeftantemRevelationem : And faith, Priori modofattum eftautem omnemfidem, cum Deur cmnesfluibus pajfiones & juftitiam Chrijli imputabat* innocent?s & jujios reputaret, cum ejus inimici> ade-oque fine fide effent, (To that here is a Juftification of Infidels,as innocent for Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed to them); Quare etiam ut jam faUa fide appre-hen4enda eft* The fecond which follows taith, is Faith, ingenerating a firm perfoafion of it, Is not here fad defining, when neither of thefe are the Scripture- Juftification by Chri(i and Faith ?

And fo §. 32. the rime of Juftification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feel-. ing of the former: And the time of the former is prefently after the Fall > of all at once: And hence gathereth that [Ex eo quod Juftificatio did-tur fieri propter pajfiones & obedientiam Chrifti } qui-bus ad perfeUionem nihil dee ft , nobis imputatas (before Faith or BirthJ confequitur innocentiam & juftitiam in Kedemplis quam primum pcrfedas & ab

omni macula puras ejfe ] and fo that neither the

pronunciation in mente Vivina * or imputation ullti gradibut ad perfeUionem exfurgat.

But what is this pronunciation in mente Vivina? He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes aSiones Vivin£> fi ex eo aftimentur quod re ipfa in Veo funty idem funt cum ipfo Deo^ ideoque dependent iam a Caufa externa non admittant: Si tamen confiderentur quoad rationemformalem hujus vel illius denominationis ipfts impofit£ in relatione ad Creatu-tqs confijhntem } ipfts caufeimpulftv* affignare j>of-

" j'unt

(§2) funu &c. This diftin&ion well openeth, how God may be faid to juftifie in His own Mind: But what is that eifeft, Vnde effentia vel mens Divina it a denminatur juftificans ? Here he is at a lofs, neither truly telling us what is Jufticatim Confti-tutive> Sentential, nor Executive (but in the little part of [Feeling] Gods fecret Aft) yet this dark Definer duly faith [Ex fenfu Scripture verijpme affirmetur hominem per fidem folam jujiificari^ quia ex nofira parte nihil ad Jufiificationem confer endum jDeus requirit, quam ut Juftificationem in Cbrijio fun-datam credamus, & fide non producamus y fed red-piamus.

It yet you would fee whether all Proteftants agree in the Definition of JufUtication, read the multitude of Definitions of it in feveral fenfes > in Learnrd Alftediushis Definit. Tbeol. c. 24. §.2. P a S # ?7* &c. [Juftificatio bominis coram Deo eft qua homo in firo Vivino abfolvitur, feu jujius ejfe evinci-tur contra quemvis a&orem, Deo ipfo judice^ & pro eo fententiam ferente~}. But what is this Forum ? Forum Vivinnm e(i ubi Veus ipfe judicis partes a gi*-> & fert fententiam fecundum leges a fe I at as ? But where is that Eft internum vel externum ? Forum divimm internum eft in ipfa bominis Confcientia, in qua Veus r fbronum juftitia erigit in bac vita ibi agendo partes aUoris & judicis : Forum Confdentin (But it is not this that is meant by the Justification by Faith). Forum divinum externum eft % in qua Deuspoft banc vitam extra bominem exercet judicium ', 1. Particulare, 2, Vniverfaie* This is true and well: But are we no where Juftified by Faith but in Confcience^ till after Death ? This is by not confi-dering, 1. The Jus ad impunitatem & vitam do-

natum

uatum per fxdus Evangelicum upon our Believing,, which fuppofing faith and Repentance is our Con-ftitutive Juftification, (virtually only fmtential). 2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life* pronounced fpecially by 'Execution. Abundance of ufeful Definitions fubordinate you may further there fee in Alfiedm, and fome wrong, and the chief omitted.

The vehement paflages of the Do&ors Conclu-(ion I pafs over > his deep fenfe of unfufferable Provocations, I muft leave tohimfelfj his warning of the dreadful "tribunal which I am near, it greatly concerns me to regard : And Reader, I (hall think yet that his Conteft (though troublefome tome that was falily affaulted, and more to him whofe detedfced Mifcarriages are fo painful to him) hath yet been Profitable beyond the Charges of it to bim or me, if I have but convinced thee, that i. Sound mental Conceptions offo much as is neceffary to our own Justification, much differ from proper Logical Definitions : And that, 2. Many millions are Jujii-fed that cannot define it: 3. And that Logical Definitions are tVorkj of Art more than of Grace, which require fo much Acutenefs and StyU that even worthy and excellent Teachers may be, and are difagreed about them, efpecially through the great ambiguity of Words 1 which all underjiand not in the fame fence^ and few are fufficiently fufpicious of, and diligent to explain. 4. And therefore that our Chriiiian Love, Peace, and Concord, Jhould not be laid upon fuch Artificial things. 5. And that really the Ge~ nerality of ?rote\\antszxt agreed moftly in the Matter, when they quarrel (harply about many Arti-' ficial Notions and Terms in the point of Juitifica-

tion*

(U)

tion. (And y?t after all this, I (hall as earneftly as this Dodtor, defire and labour for accurateneft in D'ulinguijhing, Defining ani <JMetbod-> though I will not have fuch things to be Engins of Church-Diviiion.)

And laftly, Becaufe he fo oft and earneftly prek feth me with his §>uem quibus, who U the Man> I profefs I dreamed not of any particular tMan : But I will again tell you whom my Judgment magnifies in this Controverfie above all others, and who truly tell you how far Papifts : and Proteftants agree, viz. Vine, le Blan^ and Guil. Forbes, (I meddle not with his other Subjects), Placeus (in Thef. Salmur.) *Davenant> Dr. Field, Mr. Scud-der (his daily Walk,fit for all families) Mr. Wbtton* Mr. Bradjbaw, and Mr. Gataker, Dr. Prefton^ Dr. Hammond. CTratt. Cat.) and Mr. Lawfon (in the main) Abundance of the French and Breme Divines are alfo very clear. And though I muft not provoke him again by naming fome late Englijh men, to reproach them by calling them my difciples y I will venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our wrangling tedioufnefsfiuX Mr* trumans Great Propit. and Mr. Gibbons ferm. ofjufiif may fervehim well without any more.

And while this worthy Do&or and I do both concord with iuch as Vavenant and Field as to Ju^ (tificationby Faith or JFarj^, judg whether we differ between our felves as far as he would perfwade the World, who agree in tertio ? And whether as he hath angrily profeft his concord in the two other Gontroverfies which he raifed (our Guilt of nearer-Parents fin> and our preferring the judgment of the i mfefiy 6cc.) it be not likely that he will do fo alio

mihis,when he hath leifure to read and know what it is that I fay and hold, and when we both under-ftand our felves and one another. And whether it be/a work worthy of Good and Learned men, to al-larm Chriftians againft one another for the fake of arbitrary words and notions(which one partly ufeth lefs aptly and skilfully than the other) in matters wherein they really agree.

2 Tim. 2. 14. Charging them before the Lord that

they ftrive not about words Jo no profit, but to thefub-

.verting of the Hearers (yet) ftudy tojberp thyftlfap*

proved unto God, a workptan that need not be ajhamed 9

rightly dividing the mrd of'truth

Tm

VYYlVir I If I TIIITYIT YY?

T^o Spares more quenched, which fled after the rest t from the Forge of Dr. Tho. Tully.

Did I not find that fome Mens lgno~ ranee and factious ^ealoufie is great enough to make them com-buftible Recipients of fuch Wildfire as thofe Strictures are 5 and did not Charity oblige me to do what I have here done, to fave the afTaulted Charity of fuch Perfons, more than to fave any Reputation of my own, I fhould repent that I had written one Line in anfwer to fuch Writings as I have here had to do with : I have been fo wearied with the haunts of the like Spirit, in Mr. Crandon^ Mr. Bagfhxw 7 Mr* Danversy and others, that it is a work I

have

have not patience to be much longer in, uii-lefs it were more neceffary.

Two (beets more tell us that the Do&or is yet angry 5 And little that's better that I can find. In the firft, he faith again, that [/ am bujie in fmoothing my way where none can ftumble in^ a thing never quefti-oned by him-> nor by any Man elfe 7 he thinks^ who owns the Authority of the fecond Com-mandment\. And have I not then good Company and Encouragement not to change my Mind >

But, i. He feigneth a Cafe dated between him and me, who never had to do with him before, but as with others in my Writings, where I ftate my Cafe my felf.

2. He never fo much as toucheth either of my Difputations of Original Sin , in which I ftate my Cafe and defend it#

3. And he falfly feigneth the Cafe itated, in words (and he fuppofeth in a fenfe) that I never had do do with: Saying. £J charge you with a new fecondary Origin if "in y whofe Pedegree is not from Adam : / engage not a fyliable further^. And pag. 8. Ton have averted that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original father ; tfo line of Communication between them; a

Jin bejides that which is derived from Adam,

I S3 J

as you plainly and positively affirm]. I never faid that it had no Pedegree, no line of Communication, no kind of derivation from Adam. 4. Yea 5 if he would not touch the Difputation where I ftate my Cafe, he fhould have noted it as ftated in the very Preface which he writeth againft • and yet there alfo he totally overlooketh it, though opened in divers Propofitions. 5. And the words in an Epiftle to another Mans Book,which he fafteneth ftill on were thefe 5 [Over- looking the Interefi of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents, and think that they participate of no Guilt, and fuffer for no Original Sin y but Adams only]. And after, [they had more Original Sin than what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells me, that [/ feem not to underfiand my oven Queflion, nor to know well how to fet about my Work] • and he will teach me how to manage the Bujinefs that / have undertaken , and fo he tells me how I MUST ftate the Queftion hereafter, (fee his words). Reader, fome Reafons may put a better Title on this Learned Do&ors actions; but if ever I write at this rate, I heartily defire thee to cad it away as utter DISHONESTY and IMPUDENCE,

It troubleth me to trouble thee with Repetition*. I hold, i. That Adams Sin is imputed (as I opened) to his Poflerity. 2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains nature received from Adam, was the dif-poiitive enclining Caufe of all his A&ual Sin : 3. But not a neceffitating Caufe of till thofe Ad§ • for he might poflibly have done lefs evil and more good than he did* 4. Therefore not the Total principal Caufe • for Cains free-will was part of that. 5 Cains actual fin increased the pravity of his ba\ ture. 6. And Cains Pofterity were (as t opened it) guilty of Cains actual fin i and their Natures were the m^re depraved by his additional pravity 5 than they would have been by Adams (in alone (unlefs Grace preserved or healed any of them).

The Do&or in this Paper, would make his Reader believe that he is S^ for no meer Logomachies'] and that the difference is not in words only^ but the thing* And do you think that he differeth from me in any of thefe Propofitions, or how this §n is derived from Adam i Yet this now muft be the Controverfie de re.

Do you think (for I muftgoby thinking)

that he holdeth any other Derivation than

this i Or did I ever deny any of this ?

( 90 )

But it is vain to ftate the Care to him:

He will over-look it, and tell me what I fhould have held, that he may not be thought to make all this Noife for nothing.

He faith pag 8. Hfit derive in a direct line from the fi'ft 'franfgrejjion^ and have its whole Root fafhnsd there ^what then* why then fome words which he fets together are not the befl fenfe that can be fpoken. It is then but words, and yet it is the thing: What he may mean by [ a direct Line\ and what by [whole Root fafiened'] I know not ; but I have told the World oft enough what I mean •, and what he meaneth, I have little to do with.

But if he think, i. That Adams Perfon did commit the fin of Cain, and of all that ever were fince cpmmitted; and that Jw das his ail 7 was Adams perfonal act. 2. Or that Adams Jin was a total or necefjitating Caufe of all the evil fince committed; fo do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt net). And now I am caft by him on the ftrair, cither to accufe him of differing de re-> and fo o£ Doctrinal erronr, or elfe that he knoweth Len the difference is dere, and when

wmine^ bu'eis fo ufed to confufipn, that Names and Things do come promifcuoufly

\ y >

into the Queftion with him: And which of thefe to chufe, 1 know not.

The Reader may fee that I mentioned [^Actual Sin, and Guilt'] : And I think icw will doubt D but Adams [Actual fin*, and Cainsi] were divers • and that therefore, the Guilt that Cains Children had o( Adams fin and of Cains was not the fame: But that Cauja caufe is Caufa caufati, and fo that all following Sin was -partly (but fartly) caufid by Adams , wc fliall focn agree.

He addeth that I muft make good that new Original Sin (for he can make ufe of the word New 5 and therefore made it) doth mutare naturam^ as the Old doth. Anf. And how far it changeth it, I told him, and he taketh no notice of it: The firft Jin changed Nature from Innocent into Nocent; the Second changeth it from Nocent into more Nocent: Doth he deny this * Or why muft I prove any more < Or.doth nothing but Confufion pleafe him <

3, He faith-, I muft prove that the Derivation of Progenitors fins is conftant and necejfary y not uncertain and contingent. Anf. df this alfo I fully faid what I held, and he diffembleth it all, as if I had never done it: And why muft I prove more? V 2 By

£y what Law can he impofe on me wha€ to holdf

But really doth lie deny that the Reatus ellipse , yea and ad Fcenam , the Guilt of nearer Parents fins is necejjarily and certainly the Childs, though Gmce may pardon \tt If he do nor, why doth he call on me to prove it* If he do confefs the Guilty and deny it necejfary^ when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Caufe i For We take a Relation (Tuch as G«//f is) neceffa-Xtly to refidt a pofito fundamento.

§• »> He next cavilleth at my Citation^ about which I only fay , either the Reader will perufe the cited words, and my vpordsj which /hew to what end I cited them (to prove own Guilt of our nearer Parents fins) or he will not. If he will not 7 I can-pot expert that he will re ad a further Vindication : If he willy he medeth not.

§. 3. His fecond Spark is Animadver-jions on a flieet of mine; before mentioned, # which are fuch as I am not willing to meddle with , feeing I cannot either handle them, or name them as the nature of them doth require, without offending him: And if what is here faid (of Imputation and Re-

pre-

V ^?

-presentation) be not enough, I will add no more, nor write over and over ftill the fame things, becaufe a Man that will take no notice of the many Volumns which an-fwer all his Obje&ions long ago, will call for more, and will write his Animadverfions upon a (ingle Sheet that was written on another particular occafion, and pretend to his difcoveries of my Deceits from the 57-lence of that Sheet 7 and from my naming the Antinomians.

1 only fay, i. If this Mans way of Dif-pytting were the common rvay y I would abhor Difputing^ and be afhamed of the $ame.

2. I do friendly defire the Author of the Friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock , and all o-thers that would faften fuch Do&rines on the Non-Conformifts 7 as a Chara&er of the J? arty ^ to obferve that this Dodor fuffici-ently confuteth their partiality; and that their Academical Church-Do&ors, are as Confufed, as Vehement maintainers of fuch expreflfions as they account moft unfavoury, as any even of the Independents cited by them: Yea, that this Do&or would make us queftion whether there be now any Amino-mians among us 5 and fo whether all the Con-formifts that have charged the Conformifts,

yea,

<94)

yea or the Sectaries, with having among them Men of fuch unfound Principles, have not wronged them, it being indeed the Do-<ftrine of the Church of England which they maintain^ whom I and others call Antino-mians and Libertines: And I hope at leaft the fober and found Non-Gonformifts are Orthodox, when the vehementeft Sectaries that calumniated my Sermon at Tinners Hall) are vindicated by fuch a Do&or of the Church.

3. I yet conclude, that if this One Mans Writings do not convince the Reader, of the Sim and Danger of Aliarming Chriftians a* gainft one another, as Adverfaries to great and neceffary Doctrines, on the account of meer Words not underjlood^ for want of accu-ratenefs and skill in the expreflive Art, I take him to be utterly unexcufable.

Pemble Vind. Graf. p. 25. It -were fomewbat if it were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burthen h where many weah^ Men may bear that which One or few cannot: But in the fetrch of Knowledg, it fares as in difcrying a thing afar off* where one quick-fight will fie further than a thoufand clear Eyes.

F I $C J S.

I had not time to gather the Errata of any but the Firft Book: Corre6t thefe Greater, or you will nufunderitand the Matter.

PAge, 17. Line 2. Read felf, the AB. p. ^4. 1. 30. r. as obliging, p. 58.I. 20. for of r. or, p. 59. ]. i, and a. r. who is not. p. 86. I. 32. for OURS r. OUR Righ-teoufnefs. p. 88. J. 7. for Covenanted r. Connoted, p. 97. J. 31. r./Wfuffering. p. 103. I. 9> 10. for have us Holy, r. leave us unholy, p. 110. 1. 10. for we, r. were. p. 11 i.l. penult. and p. U2. 1. 5. and 10. for our, r. one. I. 21. for but,r.tnuft. p. 115. 1. 25. for raze out, r. rake up. p.117. J. 18. r. perfo natingReprefentation. p. 118. 1.2. for Mtmfler^ r. Meriter. p. 119. h 16. for are, r. are not. p. 140. 1. 23. for if, r. that, p. I2<<. I. 23. for arrive, r. arm. p. 149. 1.19. x.andxhs. p. 153. 1. 2$. r. and mil. p. 15:4. I.26. r. our own-innocency, it, p. 1$;* I.29. r. Private, but. p, 169. 1.2. r. conditional. p. 177. I.9. r.fufficiency. p, 181, 1. 27. for argument, r.a-greement.

The LeiTer Errata.

PRefacep. 3. I. 16. r. eternal. Contents, p. 2. I. it. v) Woven, p. 11. 1. 4. for no, r. in. 1. 17. r. prattend it. 1. 27. r. fufficere. p. 12. 1. 1. r. ficantur: 1. \6. r.im-petrando, 1. antipen. r. Credimus. p. 13. 1. ? 0 r. priced it. p. itf. I.26. r. SchlufTel Burgius. p. 2*. 1. 9. for that, r. the p. 36. l.anttpen. dele by. p. 5?. J. 10. for no, r. not. p, 60. I. j 5. for then, r. there, p. 64. 1. ?. for of* r.or. p. 68. 1. 28. r./<? to. p. 80. I. 17. r. if you will fontes. p. 91. 1. 20. dele ^£e. p. 94. 1. 2.for£atf, r. rffcr. 1. II. dek and. p. JQ2. I. r. r. per, p. 104. 1. antipm. r. Albericus. p. 155. 1. 20. r.prx^ dicus- I.23. r. aliquem. p. in. 1. 28. r. relatione, p. i\6. 1. it. r. fulfiiUrs. p. 120. 1. 11. r. Vafquez. p. 150. i 26, f. indebita?, p. 1^7. 1.29, for if, r.is. p. 184. 1. penult. {$12$, r. and.

In a Cnrfory view of fome Pages, I fince fee thefe faults.

PReface, Page §. Line 22. forand, r. as. Book i« P. 172. J 1. r. /j it true.*

Anfwer to the Letter, P. 93. 1. ult. for Conforming r. Nonconformifls. Book 2. Part 3. P. 16. 1. 20. for turn* r.tu. P. 54, 1. 14. for apt, r.yet,l. 28. for produceth, r. pro-ceedeth. P. $<$. 1.13. for ml], r.not. P. 6$. 1. 13. for Guilt, r. Gift. Book 2. Part 1. P. 259. 1. 8. r. Can/as. P. 268* 1. 4. for firft, r. full. P. 269. 1. 28. fore jure, r. iu re.

And! muft tell the Reader that it is io long fince the Pa-pers to Mr. Cart-wright were written, that it there be any paiTage which in my later Writings I correct, I multdefire him to take the latter as my Judgment: For I am none of thofe that pretend my Youthful Writings to be fufficiently Accurate, much lefs Faultlefs, or ihat to avoid the Imputation of Mutability, profefs to be no wifcr than I was "between twenty and thirty Years ago. I find fomewhat, Book 2. Part 3. P. Jltji. which needeth this, E .plication, v/^.

\Goda* Judg of lapfed Man* when He was judging him> added an Aft of Grace, which tn federal refpefts is, I. A Tromtfe. 2. A Deed of Gift* 3. An Aft of Oblivion or unt^erfal conditional Pardon. 4. A Law% ?. And as it hath nfpeft to Chriils abfclutely promifed <Wforefeen Merits, it may be faid, to he like or tquivolent to an umVerfal conditional Sentence : But taking the word [Sentence] finctly as it is [ a Sentence of the Individuals according to the Rule of a L aw as tyr or irol?en\, fo it is not properly a Sentence as tow (as is after proved.)

May 26, t6$i.

An Account of my Confide-

ration of the Friendly y Mo-deft 3 Learned Animadverfioiis of Mr. Cbr. Cartwright of Tork , on my Aphorifms.

Of God's Legislative and Decretive Will.

Aphor. as cited by Mr. O

^ a 8 e2# !S^Hl^ W tn &i° n of God's Will, into his Will of Purpofe, and bis Witi of Precept^ 8cc It is Hear of' Kin tp the common dijiinSion of Voluntas figni & Eeneplaciti, hut not the f&me.

Mn C's AntJnadverfidns.

I think it is the fame as Pr&ceptum is called Volnntia^ pgn:^ though fomeNdo no* fo clearly and fully explain rhfc Diftinttiori as others do.

t

R. B's Reply. I am glad you begin with this Diftindiion, that I j may have my appjehenfions of it more fully clear-/ ed 5 where they are right, confirmed* and if tin/ found, that they may be changed. For I confefs, / rrtake ufe of this Diftin&ion, as a Key to my*unde/ ftanding of very many points in Divinity, to whif it is not commonly applied. The confounding pf our Ethicks and Phyilcks, and foof their difti/3: Fountains, doth introduce confution into the n^in Bodjj'of Theology, with thofc that are guiltyjof it: And it is eafie to coneeive-that it is neceffar}' to the underftanding of Theological Controverfiesj to avoid that confution, and know to which of thefe the Queftion doth belong. It is eafie to conceive what work it would make iu -Pbilofopbical Dif-courfes, to confound our Pbyfick>s and Ethick/* and it will have no better effect in Theological* Therefore, as I take Vebitum to be the aired proper Object of our Ethickj v and Ens Re ale, of our Phy-licks (for I take not the term (JPhyficks] in the common retrained fenfe, as its Objecft is only Cor-fns Naturale > but as it is ovTo\o^a, as fomecall Metaphyiicks, and containeth much of.Metapbyficks-> (for I conceive that which treateth de Ente Reali (hould be one entire Do&rine) Pneumatichj, and cemmm. Pbyficks all : So 1 take [Etbickj^ in fo ^ ar g e a fence, as to comprehend Oeconomicks, Politicly, and all Morality:) So I do diftinguifh of Go£s Will here, according to thefe different Otyefts. As Ens Re ale, is the Objett, or ProdnVx of his Will, for want of a better name, I call it, his Decretive Will, or Will of Purpofe: And becaufe in molt of our Theological Difcourfcs, we are fain to fpeak of

God's

God's Will, according to the impeded manner of mans will, as if it refpedted its Objed as prcfent, * paft,future > therefore Resfutur£,& Rtrum futuritio \ are ufually made the Objects, or Produdh of God's Decree or Purpofe((ox man purpofetb only de futnro :) (And indeed quoad hominem, the thing being truly future, fo God mzy be fa id to Decree that quoad bo- , mintm it Jhall be future j though <p/0tfi ipfum Ve-um non eji futurum.) But I fometime fay, <Eventiis is the Objett of thU Will i meaning thereby Res eveniens,znd fo connecting the thing with its Emanation from its firfi Caufe h and intending the Comprehenfion of all Beings, part, prefent, and future. And alfo, that I may comprehend Privations, which as they are Redu&ively belonging to the Dodfrine of Beings '•> fo may they alfo to the Objettof God's Willde Eventu. For as mans Will may be de Agere vel non Agere, de ejfe vel non ejp ; fo we may conceive of Gods Will: (Though Scot us hath Chewed the truth of this Conception to be very difputable.) Therefore when I fay that Ens Reale is the Objett, oxProdttQof thU Will of God, I mean both the Ejje & non Effe, Beings and Privations *> but one dire&ly and properly, the other but confequenter & reduSive: As in faying Vebitum is the Ob)eti, or rather Product of God's Ethical, or Legislative Will, I mean both the Debere & non T>e-bere > but the former only direQly, the latter but indirectly, confequenter & rednftive ; as proceeding only from God^s not-commanding-ox-prohibiting , % and properly being Nothing, and having no Canf? \# in Morality: I mean, the j Non-d beo agere ;} for in the [Vebeo non agere'] which is caufed by Prohibitions, the Vebitum is Pofithe formaliter, though J%

B 2 the

the quafi fubjetta materia, vel res debit a , be but nominal, and really nothing.

i. So that by God's Decretive Will, I mean only his J^iV/ dfe Eventu, vel de Ente qua tali S and by his v/ Legijlative Will, I mean only his Wi// <& Debito : So that I primarily diftinguifti of the ObjeCts, or Products of God's Will *, and thence of bis Will it felf. This I expreffed fully in my Aphorifms : So that my main fcope is, but to keep open the diffe-( /frence between Naturality, and Morality in all our Y Difcourfes. /i 2. And I have there alfo manifefted, that therefore I take the A& of Willing in God to be the /famein both. Veile Vebitum, is as properly Velle y as is Velle Eventum. 3. And that 1 diftinguifti of the Objefts here, but formaliter: For Vebitum is Ens quoddam (ac-jp u L f -. cording to the common Do-

CjodsVviil is 1. De . o . D t>i l r *l» t,

£«f. /**«*«. », /, Anne ' Th ° U S h I th \ nk ? aS

^w, i.iQe je:^^ iV.r- Burgerfdic* Metapb. Relations tural't. z. De Ente Mo- are inter entia & Nihil:) But

r dlbo'''' De3ur ' ^ l Imean therefore Vditumqua Vebitum , #* Eventum qua Eventum, vel Ens qua Ens.

4. And therefore as the Do&rine de Eventu vel de Ente, is far more Comprehenfive than the Doctrine dejure (Jut vel Vebitum being but an in-ferior Species of Ens j taking Ens fo largely as to comprehend Modalities and Relations:) fo God's

/inil de Ente vel Eventu, comprehendeth his Will de Vebho: But yet his Will de Vebito, qua Vebitum, miy well be diftinguifhed from his Will de Ente . qua tali i as the Specific^ nature from the Gene* ^ rical.

51

anu SDemtifce Mill ?

5. I alfo (and principally) (hewed you, that I comprehend two things in my phrafe of [God's Legislative Will,] or [his Will de Debitor] u The Immanent Will of God de Vebito ', which is as true, ^ and as Eternal an Adt, as his Velle Eventum. 2. The fignal Will of God, which is hti Law : This I told -ycu, I call hti Will but Metonymically.

6* Both thefe together^ and neither alone, do Conflituere Vebitum\ 1. Not God's Immanent aft alone-, or dire&ly > for it is not properly Lex, till it befignifiedy much lefs Lex promulgata. 2. Nor theism, or fignum confidered in it felf, abftra&ed from the Willfignifiedh but only confidered Formali-terutfignum, and fo with its correlate *, ^iz. The Immanent Will fignified.

7. My full meaning therefore is, but to diftin-gui(h God?s Law> from his other Ads and Works* Butlchoofe to call it [hti Legislative Will,] rather than [hti Law:] 1. Left it fhould be thought I include only the Law materislly, and exclude the Immanent Will, which was from Eternity de Vebito. 2. Becaufe if I (hould diftinguifh between [God's Will,] and [hi*Law] it would plainly (bund as if I contradiftinguilhed his whole Will from hti Law, and fo even his Will de Vebito , which is the Soul of hti Law , the Signum being but the Body.

8. And I fully told you, that therefore I call it his [Legiflative Will,] rather than (as others hitherto) his \Will of Pfecepr,] becaufe the Law hath feveral farts, which conftitute a feveral Vebitum : Precept is but one of thefe parts, but I fpeak of all. The falfe Definitions of Law have long wronged the World i while men reduced it all to Precept,

<kv

6 sDf <5oVS HE0iflatii)S

or to be Regula attionum moralium* The Law de-termineth (in the large, and yet proper fence, as I will take Law} de omni Vebito, Moraliter & proprie . fie ditto: i. What (hall be due from us \ that is, in the Precept and Prohibition. 2. What (hall be duet* us ; that is, in, i.The Promife. 2. The threat : Be-fides Fundamental Viftributions.

So that the Produd of God's Legiflative TVill> is, 1. Vebitumrei libere & abfolute Vonat<e. z.Vehhum officii nojiri (in agendo & non-agendo.) ^Vebitum pr&mii. 4. Vebitum poen£.

Thus I have all ck>fc together, and once again told you my meaning (as plain as I can with brevity) in this Diftindion. And underfhnd, that I undertake not to (hew you how far other mens fence of it is the fame with mine : But our Que-flion is, Whether this that I have opened, be the Schoolmens fence of their Diftindion of [Voluntas figni & Beneplaciti /] I conclude, that it is not, and that for thefe Reafons*

1. Implere& permittere naturaliter (ut apermtf-fione morali diftinguitur) which are fome of theit figna-t are utterly unreducible to this Legiflative Will.

2. Both the terms of their Diftindion, and their Explication, .(hew that they intend not todiftin-gui(h God's Will ab objeftis v Event and Right : But as it is in it felf , and as it is manifefted to us : And therefore Voluntas figni with them, is Voluntas fignificata, or fignum Voluntatis: But not one ad of that Will tlgnified asdiftindfrom another fas to our apprehenfion}) but the fame that is before termed Voluntas Beneplaciti^ is it as fignified. And therefore feme of them do again fubdiftinguilh their

five

am s>tttttif)tMiVLi 7

five figns , noting, that fome of them (Vr&ceptum, prohibition Confilium) do determine Duty h and the other fignific Event. So Lorn- ^ L uSo Dor ^ bard himfelf more tully and mi; s in Sent. ibil $ plainly than almoft any of his Viguer'tM inftnur £*. followers \ And fo Aquinas § - l i P a £' **' ***** and many more alfo do. And «* ^* *' l ' * fo they may as well fubdiftinguifh the Voluntas Be-neplaciti, into Beneplacitum de Evemu, & de Debito. I could by multitudes of their'fayings, manifeft this that I fay, of the plain importance of their words, were it not a vain lofs of time and labour, fpecially to you that I know have fo frequently read it.

3. And therefore they ufe the Diftin&ion of Voluntas fecret a & revelata-> as the lame in fence with Beneplaciti & figni: But it is not the fame with mine \ for Voluntas de Eventu eft partim fecreta partim (in propbetiis & Caufis fecundis) revelata.

4. And they plainly exclude the Immanent Aft of God's Will de Debito*, from their Vol. figni) by the very name. For the Immanent Aft is not fui ipfms fignum nee alterius.

5. And as plainly do they exclude it by faying, that Volunt. figni is but Metaphorice Gods Will> Whereas the Immanent Aft is properly his Will, and the fignum is more Metonymice than Metaphorice hi$ IVill. I think I needed no mope proof > but if thefc convince you not, the matter is of very fmall moment what * ivy mean. Divers of our own more clear Divines indeed, do come near my meaning in their Diltindion of Vol Pr<ecepti &;ffipbfili ; A ; judicious Davenant Pijfertat.de Redempt. tftiivi pag.126. Rivet. Exercit. in Gen. icj. pig. (m'ibi)

* B 4 ' 524.

s j£)f mows %t$mmz

524. VojpHsHijl. Pelag. Lj f part. 1. Tbef 1. &2. fer tot. & in Tbef. de Pelagianifmo T>. Cbamer Pan-prat. 'Tom. 3. /. J.c 6. ad loc. 1 r X%m. 2*&2 Pet. 3. Conrad. Bergius Prax. Catbol. dijf. 6. />.888. Zan-chins fometimes exprefleth it one way, and fomer times near as I > as, Tom. operum ult.p. (mihi) 6jp. & deNatvtra Dei, I. 3. c. 4. /?• 257, 258. per tot. <0* 254. Efpecially Rutherford (cited by you, who followeth Twifi) and Camera pag. 642. Oper. w fol. Gen. com. Tilen. moft plainly : And la?//} moft frequently, Vindic.Grat.L2.part. 1. Crim.%. §.i.e^§*u.And Difcovcry of Dr^jcJ^iVVanity, ad §.2. pag.<$3^&p. <ft6->& 550. And Confider. of Tilenus againft Synod. Dort. pag. 166. & Vindic. &rat. L 2. part. 1. p. (Volum. minoris) \q$, 174. Amyraldus Specim. Animadv. Special.p.ji. Learned Rob. Baronius in Philofoph. Tbeolog. Ancill. Exercit.3. Art. 14. pag. 2ii- And indeed the firft that made me fenfible that this Diftin&ion differed from the School-diftin&ion of [Benepl. & figni^] was Tvp'ifs and Camero: Yet it muft be acknowledged, that faijl himfelf (who makes more ufeofit than all others" that,I have read) overlooked fat leaft ufually)thc Immanent Will of God de Debito^ and fpake only of the Precept it (elf i and therefore cal-leth it God's Will Metaphorically. If I may prefer Truth before Modefty, I muft fay, that Dr. Trvifl faw further into the nature and ufe of this Diftin-cftion than others before him had done j but yet his Notions were very imperfedt of it,and his Improvement very fhort, in rtfpcd): to its defert and ufe. And therefore he called it but Voluntas Prtcepti, and applied it only to matter of Precept and Prohibition i but faw not that it belonged alio to Promife and

Cornminationy

Commination, even to the whole Law. And though he makes Fr&cipere &. Vet are to be the Objects of of this Will (which clearly implies, that he took in the Immanent A& of which they were the Objedts) Lib. 2.part. 1. Crim.%. §.11. yet he fo often con* tradi&eth it by fpeaking'otherwife, that I doubt it fell from him ex improvifo. One more let me name you, whom you muftoppofe with me, and that is Molintus Anato % Armin. c.4. where he fpeaks againft them that call the Decree God's Secret Will, and the Commandment his Revealed Will, as fpeaking incon-fiderately. §. 8. & §. 9. he faith, Thomas and the Schoolmen do dijiinguijh God's Will into Volun. Bene-placiti & Volunt. Sgni: The members of which Vi-Jtinttionfall one into another ; For many things of his Vol. Beneplaciti, arefignifiedtoo ; Neither is the word Beneplaciti,n?/;ic& U in Gr. ivStmoL, fufficiently applied here s For ivSbtdct doth for the moji part include Love and Good-will, &c. And §-3,4, 5* he well explains the Legiflative Will in part. And he faw, §• 6, 7* that even Tromifes and Threatnings were reducible to it. But yet he thought it was improperly * and fo §. <5, & 7. it is plain that he did not fully yet underftand the due extent of this Will: Elfe* 1. He would have acknowledged the Immanent AU, as well as the Signal. 2. And have feen, that the parsLegis prxmians & puniens (i.e. Om-minatio) do as properly Conjiituere Vebitum pr&~ mii & pxn£, as the Prtceptum doth the Vebitum officii: and confequently are mod proper figns of God's Will de Vebito. 3. And he would not have turned here to difpute againft Conditional Will in God h but would have feen, that God hath doubt-iefs a Conditional Law , and fo a Conditional Will

de

de Vebito, whatever he hath de Eventu* But enough of mens Opinions. To proceed.

Aphor.

Pag.3. A Nd indeed the Schoolmen do intend no other

jCxWilL.but the fame which they call Benepla-

citi > vphofe Objett is Event, m it U uncertainly repre-

fented to m by thefefigns \ (vh.contained in that Verje,

Praecipitac prohibet, permittit, confulit, implec.) And becaufe they are fitch uncertain figns (the con-trary to what they feem to import being oft certain) therefore they tell m that this U but Metaphorically called God's mil, &c.

Animady>erf.

1. I do not fee how Impletto, fulfilling j or Operation work-ing 5 as Aquin. hath it, Part. 1. 7.19.*. 12. can be called an uncertain fign: For if God fulfil, or worl^ a thing, it is a fare and undoubted fign that he doth will it m For he doth not work either againft or befides his Will; fbitisalfo in refpec~t of Permtjfion- For if God permit a thing to be done, it is certain that his Will is to have it done. Non fit alt quid nifi

** r ^ omnipotent fieri velit, Vel finendo ut fiat 9 vel ipje factendo. Aug. Enchir. c.9$.

2. Aqutn. indeed (/W.) a. II. makes Volunt. fign/to be Metaphorically called God y s Will j and fo doth Dr. Twifs, yet he underiteod (andfol fuppofe did Aquinas') the DiiUn&i-onfo, as to be in effect all one with yours. Voluntas figni proprte praceptum diciturjmproprie licet ufitate dtciturVoluntas. At Voluntas Beneplac'tti Voluntas proprte dicfa. Pr&cepta enim judtcant quid Deus yelit ejje noftrt officii ut a nobis fiat • non

¥ autem ]udicant quid fit deereti fui^ ut tpfe factat , W fieri permittat. Dr.Twifs.Vind. 1.1. digr.z.c.i$. Voluntas figns Im-y proprte dicitur Voluntas : Stgmficat emm tantum quid ab hc^ ji mine fieri Debeat, aut quidplacitumfit Deo^ fifiat. At Voluntas Bemplactti\ proprte £J fimpltctter eft Voluntas, qua nempe deerevit^ quid futurumfit^ Deo aut efficient**) autptr-mittente.lbidX 1 .part.i.feft. 12. §.2. Obfcrve, that he fpeaks of Voluntas fign i Jo far forth as this Signum is Praceptum ^ and in that refpeft I take Voluntas fignt-, to be the fame with the y/tll of Precept^ as vcu call it. And fo (it feems) did Dr. Twifi

take

ants &ectetff>e mill n

take it 5 for you fee he makes mans duty to be the Object of Voluntas jigm, even as you do of God's Will of Precept. When therefore he fa;th,That Volunt.figm is improperly called God's Will \ he means only,that God's Precept is improperly called his Wtll, it being properly the fign.or figntfic at ion of hisWill: Not but that God truly-, and properly vvillerh that which the Precept N£ kj containeth y Not always that it frail be donejzat always?tlm it /** {hall be be mans duty to do it,as the Doctor exprefly fpeakeih, and (I fuppofe the Schoolmen m?ant no other wife.) But, Rhe-t erf or t is doth yet more plainly defci ibe Vol.Jigni z {cy as you do God's Preceptive Will.Voluntas approbans^feufigm }nonreve-Itt nobis Intenttonem feu decreturn Dei. H&c entm &Jis#ilia y [Cain, Saul, Juda, obedite^Credits'] non halent hoc pro re ,. figntfcata, aut \olita a Deo-, \_Mea h*c eft Intentto, 2? De-cretum eft apvd me ab aterno , ut obtdtretps^ &c.] Sed tan-tumdicit Dent 5 Hocpr&cepto Caino, Cf Saulo, &c. prcpofito, ego indico & revelo, mthi gratam ££ acceptamejft obediential <, adquam ex leg&& dibit0 obligauefti* Creator* Veftro y fiquidem et acceptt ejfe velitps^ Jive aftu obedtatii , {he non. Rhetorf. Exer. 2. c. 1. §. ?. yuando Dem Juffit Abrahamum Immotarc jiltum, nontenebatur Abrahamus credere Immola-tio*em Ifaaci ejfe Decretam $5 Intent am a Deo y fed Jui ejfe officii ut Immclaretlhzcmw. ibid.

Keply. 1. I never intended when I wrote that, to aflert, That Impletion was an uncertain fign of God's Will: But the other four figns are uncertain, as to the Event. But I fee I fhould have Co cauteloufly -expreffed my {elf, that my fpcech might itot have been fo liable to mifinterpretation. Yet if I mi-ftake not the ufual meaning of the Schoolmen, that under the Will Beneplaciti & figni, even under each branch, they comprehended God's Will about wbatpever Objett > then Impletio Voluntatis Bene-placiti de Eventu non efi fignum Voluntatis Bevepla-citi de Jure. The killing of Chrift was no fign, \7> that it was God's Tleafure that it fhould be the Jews 'V duty to kill him. Your yielding the three firfi co be uncertain figns s (hews that the Schoolmens DiiHndii-

iz $>t $Oti'£ JUgtttatifce

on is not the fame with mine : For they are not »»-certain figns of God's Immanent Will de Debito. 2.1 perceive no proof of your Aflertiort,That Per-v/ miffion is a certain fign of God's Will de Eventu : [If ( God permit a thing (fay you) to be done, it is a certain fign ic is his Will to have it done.*] I believe not this. Indeed, if a thing be done on God's Permiffion-> it is a certain fign he would permit it to be done: But /ti*Sb»k* n ot, if be permit it, therefore would be have it done \ that is, the eve #*(that it U dme) whether by Permijfi-on, or Efficiency, is a certain fign that he Willed that Event, or to permit that Event. Bnt_lhsJ^rm iffion_ is no fuch fign that he Willed the Ev^t,buroHTYJt ~ jTaTfe nTTiai he WilleJtT^ t Permi{Jion.Tot GQ&fl&z Tnitreth that which neveFcometh to pafs. Doth j£e not permit the wicked to amend ? ^^DrunHr3

^ ^befoberT^ c. T think he doth^r-mit **,and more tha n permit it. I ndeed, wTieretfre Creature

*~~TTtBnotfH interpreteth the Schoolmen thus : Voluntas figni eft ilia fecundum quam Deus denomtnatur Volens non fecundum rei verttatem^ fed per quandam Metaphoram & Stmtlitudsntm, quta Caufando alt-

hath a natural^ or adventitious inclination to the Ad (as a (tone to fall downward, a (inner to do wickedly, &c.) and there are the mediums at hand which are ne-ceflary thereto,there Gods bare Permiffi-on is certainly con-nexed to the following Event j and confequently,

is

quoseffcftus fe gerit per modum Volenti* in quantum aliquid ve/ pr&-ctpit, yel conful/tj velfacit: ut do-cet D. Thorn, in i. dilr. 45. q.i. a.4. &l.q.I9. a.n.& \i.Obquamcau-fam divtnum confdium vel pr&cep-turn dtcuntur etiam Voluntas Jignt per Metonymiam ^ quiafunt enettut K$Jigna eyufdem diyina voluntatis ', adeum modurn quo ulttmum tefta-rnentum, quod quis mortens condit, appellare jclemu* ulttmam tUipi4 Vo-Luntatem^ CV. Pennot.Propugn.l.4. c. so. p. 224.

is align, that (in fome fort) he willeth if. But whereth e^Crcaturej ngcjs God's attualhelp^jyxa^ his fecial Grace to perform any act, I think bti bare term ijfion is nojuch fign that he tvillethlhe Ev ejj^ IftrBe, lure God willeth the SanftificationTor R5-pentance of Reprobates, when he doth fo much more than permit it > (except we take up Dr, ivoijfe^s poor conceit, that Aftus elicitus volendi videtur proprie did nonpojfe impediru Quia turn dicifolet aliquti impeding cum non finitur facere quod vult. Vind. Grat. 1.2. part. 2. Digref. 6. p. 360. As if the not-hindering of an AUive Power to move, according to the inclination of its Habits* and the drawing of its Objett* weie not properly Permijjion.) If you take permitterc* either properly for non-im- \ pedire* as it refpe&eth Ads i or improperly, for non-alteration* as it refpe&eth Qualities : In both fenfes, Permijjion is no fign that God willeth the Event. I | believe you judg, that iwifi in his Digreflion hath juftly queftioned P^rtyVs faying, §hticquid non im~ fu^ pedit Veus* ideo evenit quia Dew non impedit. /**

All this I fpeak of Permijfion-Natnral •> for as for tJMoral-Permijfion* either per Legem* vel in Mori-bus, it is beyond all doubt, that it is no fign infallible of God's willing the Event of the thing permitted. And for Auftin's faying (cited fo commonly) what is it to your purpofe > If it be tru'e 3 that Non fit aliquidnifiomnipotens fieri velit* vel finendo, &c. (the [fit ] is thefignum*) doth it therefore follow, that Non fermittitur aliquid nifi quod Vein fieri ve-lit ? But if Permijjion be a fign of God's Will, what fiiall we think of that Dodtrine, that denieth that there is any fuch thing as God's Permijjion of any Adiion that ever was done in thte World ? I think

the

14 €>t <&0&8%t&fiM\)Z y Scc.

the Dodrine of [The Neceffity of Phyfical efficient Predetermination to every % aVt of the Cxeature,~\ is guilty of this, asitsdired Confequence (if I may fo far excur) which yet fome Divines, e{pecially T»?i/?> do lay fo great weight on *> when it is not from Chrift, or Paul, but the Dominicans. For how can God be faid to permit that ad, which he is the principal determining efficient Caufe of.

As for your Allegation out cf Aqu. tmfi y and Rmherford,thd.t they mean as I: I anfwer, i.Their making Voluntas fjgni but Metaphorically Voluntas-* fiiews the contrary. 2. Youconfefs that it is but [Co far forth as this Signum is Pr&ceptum: ] But then furethe Diftindion, 1. Speaking de figno ut figno ^ & de prtcepto ut figno h and 2. Of four more figns, cannot be the fame with mine. 3* iwiffe's is above half the fame as mine* for indeed I re* ceived it from him : But, 1. He (aw further into it than the Schoolmen (or than moft of our own) and Rutherford follows him. 2. Yet he feems to take no notice of the Immanent Will de Vebito^ whereof the Precept is fignnm : Nor yet doth he extend it to the whole haw , but only to Precept : Nor do I find him fpeaking, as you friendly inter-piet him , that [It it -properly the fign, or fignifica-tion of hti Will, &c] I make God's Will de Vebito (which I fliall take leave to call, his Legiflative^ or Ethical Will) to ftand at the top in the Series of our Ethickj-, indeed the Fountain of all Due : And his Will de Ente, vel Events to (land at the top of our Philofophy de Ente. Laftly, I will not contend any more about this, feeing I am glad if you be in the right: For as itconhrmeth me, to have you of my Judgment > fo will it do more, to have Co many fuch as thofe named. Aphor»

£>f ZMolutt $?omfff& i?

Aphor. Pagep.npH^ Abfolute Promifes , are but mere X gracious Predictions what God will do for Vis EleSl.

Anmadverf

1 diflikenot this : but your fclf elfevvhere feetns todiiW*; it; viz. Offend, p. 49. For it being obje&ed, [But all thefe are rather Prophecies, than Promt ft s^\ You anfwer. If that which exfrejfeth the engaging of the Word, or Truth of God, be not a Promtfe, Iwovldjtu would tell m* what is.

Reply. In the laft you perfwade me, that others agree with me more than I was aware of: And here you agree with me 5 but I agree not with my felt If I can butfo well accord with you, and others all along* I hope to be fairly reconciled to my felf, and then we are all agreed.

1. How far this Promife belongeth to God's Le-giflative WilU and how far to his IVillde Eventu^ I fully told you my thoughts, Append, p. 43,44. To which I need not add much more.

2. You know the chief part of my words there, are tJiofe which you leave out : I fay, [If that which exprejfeth the engagement of the Word, and Truth of God, to bcftow good upon a man, &c-l Mere Prophecies may difcover God's mind to do good h and thence we may collet, that they (hall certainly be fulfilled, becaufe the Speaker is true. But they are not an engaging of God's Word and Truth, to bejhw good on anyman^ or Society : For if they fo engage, it is to fome body, and to them it is a Promife.

3. Thefe Abfolute Promifes are direSly Predi3i~ ons-i and fo belong to the Will of Purpofe, or de Eventft : But, as is explained Append, p. 44. they

are

are alfoTromifes, and therefore called by the Apo-file, a Covenant > and fo belong to the Legiflative IPUL There is nothing written in Scripture, but what belongs to God's Law-, and refpedteth Due one way or other: But then fbme parts are ejfenti-ally and dueUly God's Law, and do dire&ly determine of Vue. Others do direUly fpeak de Events and do but indirectly fpeak de Vebito > or it may be are but fubfervient to thofe parts which do fpeak de Vebito, and fo belong Redu&ive to the Law h or arc Ad\unUs of it: And fo are all Scripture-Pr^fe-cies and Hijlories » as in mens Laws, the Preamble and Hiftorical Narratives of the Occafion of the Law, is an Adjunft, and in fome fenfe a part of the Law.

4. There are Promises that properly belong not to the Legiflative Will-, nor do (peak de Vebito : The Englifh word Promife y comprizeth all thofe three, or is applicable to them all j which Grotius mentioned de Jure Belli, U 2. c. 11. p. 210. 1. AJfertio explicans de futuro animnm qui nunc eft. 2. Pollicitation cum Voluntas feipfam pro futuro tempore determinate cum figno fufficiente adindicandam perfe* verandi necefjitatem* Neither of thefe, as fuch, belong to Law, or fpeak de Vebito Conftitutive. But the I aft doth^ which is, 3. Promijjio perfefta : ubi addeterminationemtalem accedit fignum Volendijus proprium alteri conferre, fimilem babens effefium tfrta-tern alienatio dominiu Ell enim aut via ad aliena-tionem rei , aut alienatio farticula cujufdam noftra libertatti. Illuc pertinent promijfa dandi: hue pro-mijfa faciendi*

Aphor*

£>f ZUolntt $?ontffc& 17

Aphorifm. lbid.rr*Hofe Promifes faUnndiY the WtUof Purpifhj JL not of Precept*

Animadyerf. It feems you take the word [Precept] very largely, ind improperly. For otherwife it might feem fupeiftuous to add this. For how fhould a mere abiblute Promife fall under the Will of Precept ? This were to make a Precept of a Promife.

Reply. Did I not tell you, that I chufc to call it the Le-giflative WVl^ as extending it ad Vebitum pr<emii & potnttt well as ad Officium^xbitx than by any other term > If I make any ufe of other mens terms>mufl: I therefore be tied to their fenfe, contrary to that which I have fully exprefled to be my own ? But if you think that the Authors of that Difiin&ion, or the ufes, do fo reftrain it to Precept, how can you then think that they mean the fame that I do ?

Aphorifm. Page i5.fTp Hat this Life promifed in tbefirjiCc-X. venant, was only the continuance of that ftate that Adam was then irt in Paradife^ is the judgment of moft Divines*

Animadvert.

Whether moft Divines be of this judgment or not, I will hot enquire : By divers paffages in your Book you feem to at. fent unto it, but fo cannot I for thefe Reafons 1

i. Adam by his Tranfgrefllon became liable to the fecend Death: Therefore if he had been obedient, he had enjoyed the happinefs of the life: to coriie. For the Reward of Obedience ftiould have (it's likely) held proportion with the puniilv-mentaf Difobedience.

z. It fecms incongruous, that a rational and uudet funding Creature, being perfectly righteous, and holy, andever^ Vrzv obedient, fhotild alwavs lead au Animal and Natural

€ life,

life and never attain to greater happinefs than this life affords.

j. Adam perievering in the ftate of Innoccncy, ftiould have procreated Children, and his Children other Children, and fo on. Therefore if Adam and his rofterity ftiould always have lived upon the Earth, how, in an ordinary way of Providence, could the Earth have been able either toiuftain, or fupport all that ever fhould be born, all from the very firft ftill remaining, and more and more continually fucceeding to all Eternity > If you fay , that a fter fome continuance of time, the Propagation of Mankind lhould have ceafed; v/<„ when the Earth was fo full, that it could well bear no more: Where doth the Scripture warrant this conceit ? Rather it intimateth, that many having lived fbme time upon Earth, fliould have been trandated into Heaven.

For, 4. It feems that Paradife was a Type of Heaven, whither man, if he had kept his firft eftate, fhould have been translated ; And that the Tree of Life was a Type of Eternal Life, Re\,. 2. 7. & 22,. 14. And though I like not to be peremptory in things of this nature, yet there may feem to be fome probability in that opinion, which fome of old have entertained y v/^. That if man had not fain into Difobedience, he fhould have lived a thoufand years upon Earth, and then have been conveyed to Heaven. For though Adam, and divers of his Oif-fpring, lived many hundred years, yet neither he, nor any after him, did reach unto a thoufand. See Mr. Mede y p. 284. Edit. Lat.

Reply. Here are two Queftions to beconfidered : 1. Whether Adam (hould have been tranflated to Heaven by a Local removal ? This is it that I faw no Scripture for, or convincing Reafon, and therefore darit not affirm, nor receive as certain. 2. Whether Adam lhould have attained to a far higher degree of Happinefs in that Paradife he then was in, by God's fuller manifeftation of himfelf to him, as to the Saints in Heaven : This I never denied, nor yet affirmed, nor medled with. And indeed, fince I wrote that Book, I am grown to a greater doubt-

fulnefs

pjomtfea to Adam. 19

fulnefs of the whole > and will not now dare to affirm or deny either of the Queftions. For I do not know fo much as to make me any thifg confident. I confeft while I looked merely at exprefs Scrip* ture-words , I was loth to affirm what Scripture affirmed nots and therefore inclined to the Nega-/ tiveof the firft Queftion. But fince, upon the confideration of the drift and reafbn of Scripture - Dodhine, I am much ftaggered. And indeed, that which ftaggered me was none of the common Arguments brought againft M.Balli Gatakjeri Camera^ and the reft that go that way that I then did h but the mere Confidera-tions define, and how far it is Natural, and how far^not, as I was ferioufly reading Scotus y Rada, and others, of that weighty, knotty fubjed. I dare not now be fo bold, as to affirm, That Adam was created in Patria, and not in Vik \ that is, in the full fruition of his Happinefs *, rather in the way to it, with an imperfed: tafte of it. Eut efpecially lam very jealous left I fhould give advantage to Infidelity, and the denial of the Glory of the Saints in Heaven, if I (hould go too far in aliening the Supernaturality of if. If Adam had not z Pa en-tia Natural^ of ftich a Beatitude, it would riijfe doubts whether n>e have i feeing he was as pafcdt quoad Hnmanitatem as we, and fo potentially as

C2 capable

It is long (nice this vvas written, and finer I have been fuiiy convinced? that Adam was made for Heaven, that is, the Saints ftate of Glory : i* From the natural tendency of all the fuperior faculties of the Soul. 2. From manv Scripture-texts , which defcribe Redemption in words importing our Reftauration to a Blef-fednefs which v/e loft, as to the title and hopes of it. Therefore I hope my doubting then, will further no ones doubt-ins.

20 mut %\h voas

capable of fuch a BlefTednefs: And if he had a Potentia Natural;* to it, then it would feem that it was not gften him in vain ; and that he had not attained the perfe&ion that he was made for, if he had not attained all that he was made Potentialiter capable of. Some more fuch School-Reafons of late have daggered me in this, and made me molt incline to think, thzt'Adam (hould have had the fame, or near the fame degree of Glory as we. But yet I have much to fay on che other fide : However> I little know where he (hould have enjoyed it, or how removed to it, if removed* I mud needs therefore confefs my ignorance here, till God be pleafcd to remove it. But I confefs I had before thought on your Keafons, and they feemed not cogent to me : For, i. If by the fecond Death, you mean the fame degree of Punifhment which is due to the Defpifers of Chrift, I deny that Adam was liable to it : If you mean, the perpetuating of his Souls fufFerings, I grant it : But all that will thence follow is, that his felicity (hould have been perpetuated,if he had not finned. For it will not follow,that becaufe Adam was to go to his perpetual Death, by ,the temporal Death which he had deferved, that therefore he was to go to Glory by a change, or removal. For the place where Adam^s Soul fhould have fuifcred, none knows it. And 2. God could encreafe Adam's happinefs, without any removal by a fuller Manifeftation of himfelf to him. How far the Life hereafter fhall be Animal, or Natural, is fcarce well known by us now ; nor how far God might have removed Adam's ftatefrom prefent imperfections, even in that Paradife. And, 3. It (eons vain to put fuch a Q^eltion, How God

fhould

PJOttttfeD tO Adam. 21

fhould provide room for Mankind, and fo to objedt difficulties to God ; efpecially confident^, that God knew there would be no place for fuch difficulties^ feeing he had decreed to permit Mans fall. And, 4. It follows not, [Paradife was a Type of Heaven, therefore Adam fhould have been tranfiated to Heaven.] Laftly, where, or what chat Paradife was, little do I know.

Aphorifm. Page i^rrsHe fame Damnation that followeth the JL breach of the New-Covenant -> it could not be ("viz. which was threatned in the firft) no more than the life then enjoyed^ is the fame with that which the New - Covenant promifeth.

u4nimach>cl.

You fhould fay, [A^ mere than the life then from if J is the fame ', &c.*J For other wife your Comparison is not ecpiai. Now to me it is more than probable, for the Reafons pre-allcdged, That the Lire promifed in the firft Covenant, was the fame wih that which the New-Covenant doth promife, and confequently, that the fame Death and Damnation (for fub-ftance) is threatned in both Covenants. And do not many yet lie under the firft Covenant, and that mall be punimed merely as TranfgreiTors of that Covenant, the New-Covenant having never .fo much as been made known unto i hem > See Rom, z. 12. And fhall not the Damnation of fuch, be (for fub-ffance) the fame with the Damnation of thofe that tranfgrefs the New-Covenant ? Shall not both go to the hrae Hell, and endure the fame Torment, though not in the fame degree? See iThejf.i.y,S>9.

In the append* p. 10. you argue thus, [Ifjou faj that Adam fhould ha^e died^ ani rofe again to Torment, what Scripture Jatthfo i z. Where fhould he haye rtfen ? 3. Tot* contrad'ft many Scriptures^ which mal^e Chri(I the Mediator the only Procure.' of the Re fur region.'] •

Anfw. i. The Scripture (heweth, that man tranfgrefilng the firft Covenant, fhould die the firft Death, Gen.z.\j. and

iz mfytt iLxft urns

3.19. -And not the firil Death only, but alfo the fecond Deaths if it be not prevented by that Mercy which is held out in the New-Covenant. The wages offm if deaths faith the ^poi'tle, Rom. 6. 23. And the Death which he fpeakcth of, is oppofed to etrenal Life^which is the free-gift of God, through Jefus Chi ift our Lord ; and therefore it-mult extend to that which the Scripture calls the fecond Death. And feeing the Body is co-partner with the Soul in the Tranfgreffion, it is not probable that the firft Covenant doth denounce the fecond Death only 2gainft the Soul, and not againft the Body alfo, on which (after the Soul is feparated from it) it cannot be inflicted without a Refurre&ion.

2. Ads.m^ and fo others, ihould have rifen either (as now they lhall) in the end of the World, or when it ihould have pleafed God to raife them.

3. Though Chriit as Mediator be now the only Procurer of the Refurre&ion, yet it follows not, that if Chriit had not been Mediator, there fhouldhave been no Refurre&ion ; no more than it doth follow, that then the Sentence of Damnation fhould not have been executed upon TranfgreiTors. That which you cite in the ^/>W. p. 30. from.i Cor. 15.12. &21. 22. fpeaksonlyof Re fane ft ton unto Glory , as is clear by Ferfi^. &42 ; SV.

Reply.

I confefs that I then fuppofed there was no other Life promifed, than that which was enjoyed > and that the right to it was from aUual Collation^ and not by Promife: My Reafon was, becaufe I found no fuch Promife. And mod Divines fay, that the words of the Commination implying a Promije^ are our proof that it was a Covenant or Promife* Now I found no Promife certainly implied in the words of the Commination, but the continuance of that Life which he had. For to fay, [_Tboujhalt die^\ implies indeed [otbcrmfe ihoujbalt not diei] But no more, *

pjOmtfeD tO Adam^ z$

I *have (hewed you now what makes me (Wpend * my judgment : And for *Andfince refolved your further Reafon, \jfbat me. many lie under tbefirft Covenant, that (ball bepHnijb-ed merely as tranfgrejfors of that Covenant, the New-Covenant having never been made known to them. I reply far more confidently, that 1 am ftrongly per-fwaded you will never prove it while you live. I do not think that any man living, is now under the mere Covenant of Works , as Adam was, Sine Fcedere novo, vel Gratia remediante. Prove that God deal-eth with anyone on thefe terms now only, [Obey perfectly, and live f] or, \If thou ever (tn> thoujhalt die everlastingly^ I do affirm indeed, That men may be faid to be under the Law of Nature jlill \ but not merely, nor alone, as Adam, without any Remedy. I could well find in my heart to joyn iffue on this point, and flay longer on it, but that it would be a Digriffion, being on (b light a touch. Only thus much,

i. The Covenant of Works doth not allow men (or God, according to that Covenant, doth not five men) fuch rich and numerous Mercies,as the pooreli Indians do enjoy > therefore God dealeth riot with them merely on the terms of the Covenant of Works.

2. The Mercies given, according to the mere Covenant of Works, are not given to lead men to Repentance j (for it alloweth no Repentance, but that of Veneration :) But the Mercies that Pagans have, are given to lead them to Repentance \ tbereioie they are not given according to the mere Law of Works.

3* If Chrift, as Mediator, (hall judg all, then aU

C 4 arc.

24 Wat %ife urns

are forae-way of that Kingdom whereof he is Kiog 1 and under thofe Laws by which he ruleth: But, &c. therefore, &c. And therefore not under the mere Law of Works. The common Anfwer, [That be trill judg the Devils^] is betide the bufinefs. He judgeth them as Captives-, Enemies * but he judg-. eth all wicked men as Rebellious Subjetts. It will not follow £He judgeth Foreign open Enemies as a Conqueror, and not as their King*, therefore fo he doth by Domeftick Rebels :~\ All wicked men are Chrift's Subjeds de Jure^ though not by Con-fent de FaBo. They jnay have his Mercies alfo, though they know not him: As many are God's SubjeHs, and have bit Mercies (as will be conteffed) who yet know not God.

4. If all frail be judged at laft, according to the well or ill-ufing of the Talents of Mercy, then not merely according the Law of Works : But the Antecedent is plain, Mrt.25. & Fajjim > therefore,^. No Scripture that I know of, doth once intimate, that God will fay at laft to any men, [Go ye Curfed^ becaufe ye once finned y\ or merely, [becaufe ye finned,'] but becaufe ye finned againji Mercy that tended to Recovery. But much more might eafily be faid to this.

Rom. 2.12. which you cite, hath not theleaft colour for your AfTertion, that I can fee. The Law was of narrower extent, as to its Promulgation and Obligation, than the Grace of the Mediator is: Where doth God fay, As many as have finned without Mercy or Grace (that is, Mercy contra Meritum) ]hall perijh without Mercy > or Grace? That is it that ybu fhould prove.And as little is, i.fhejfi 1. 7,8. to p \A purpofej which plainly fpeaketh of fuch zscbty

not

pjOttttfCD tO Adam. z$

not the Go$el 7 and perfecuted the Apeftles : Or if it had not * yet it fpeaks of none that partaked not of the Mercies of the Mediator.

To that you fay againfi the paflage in my append, p. io. I reply* Adam (hould have fuf-fcred perpetual Mifery (call it tirft or fecond Death, as you p/eafe :) But your Conje&ure at a Probability from the Bodies co-partnerflnp , is no proof. Is it not as probable , that the Body being the Souls Infhument, and a&ed by it, that everlaft-ing Diflblution (hould have been its punifhment, its nature being alio more fubjedt to Diflblution than the Souls * and that Diflblution being a real and grievous punifhment? Doubtlefs it would have been a Privation of its Perfedion, and that for fin, and therefore a punifhment, and the Soul that was chief in fin, to have iuffered peipetually, according to its more durable nature. Philofo^hers commonly fay, It is only the Soul that feelt, and fo puffers now, and not the Body itfelf. And if fo, then the Body would not fuffer pain hereafter, but only the Soul in that Body. But I am glad you feem not to be of Tmjfe's opinion, that Melius efi Miferum ejje, quant hqh ejfe , or elfe you would not think it no punifhment to the Body, to be for ever diflblved, while the Soul is tormented. But here I aflert nothing, but only oppofe Conjc&ure to Con-je&ure, waiting for your better proof, feeing you affirm. And,

2. Your fecond is a bare Affirmation, without one Scripture-proof, That Adam fhould have rifen again. And,

3. But it follows, that feeing Scripture menti-oneth no Refurre&ion but what is procured by

Chrirt,

i6 m$tt %\U tbas, &c;

Chrift, that therefore it is to us uncertain whether there fhould have been any. And if all (hould have rifen, whether Chrift had died and rifen or not, then how will it appear, that any mans Refurrefti-on was purchafed by Chrift } For whereas you di-ttinguift of Refurre&ion to Life and to Death, that is not de Re , but de Confequente. Indeed the Life following that Refurre&ion is then from Chrift \ But what need he procure a Rejurre&ion for them which (hould rife without his -procurement ? And for the Text, i Cor. 15.21,22. I confefs, the end of Faul was to contirm and comfort Believers > and therefore vetf m 2$. he applies it to them only : But it follows not therefore, that he fpeaks only of the Caufe of their Refurre6tion. He feems to extend it to all that die in Adam \ and many other Texts which Tie not now ftand on, feem to fay as much*

Aphorifm. Page24*\7E*I doubt not, Weems hk Interpreta-\ tisn is the plain truth that the words y [Trom the foundation of the WorkT) have reference to the [^Writing of their names in the Book of Life] and not to the (laying of the Larnb> &c.

AnimaJbotrf So alfo Mr. Mede doth expound it: And the Explication is probable from 2fc?v. 17. 8. But fo alfo is the othe* Expofi-tioa from 1 Pet. 1. i9;io>

Reply. There is great difference between [Fore-ordaining) before the foundation of the World,and [Slaying] before it. However, as long as we are agreed of the matter of Qo&rine in it, the matter is but fmall.

Aphor*

Aphorifm.

Page 49.TF n>e did perfectly * What I mean by the

A ofcy tie Law in Di^naiqn of Impute

Cbriji (or Chnft for utj ac fenfe . j muil defi f e

cording to thatftriU * Imputa the Reader to fee in

tion, then there is no ufe for M r ; ^radjbaw of Ju-

[uff<rin g for difobedknc, ' ffi^gffife

ilfh Edition : For I hold the Imputation of Chrift's Active Righteoufnefs, as he doth, in the larger fenfe. See *U# my Life of fgft'h, 2nd, appeals to the Lights and, Dtftute of Imputed Righteoufnefs, fince this written \ befides my Dtffvte

Animadverf. Though I could never fee any neceflity of having Chrift's Attire Rtghteoufnefs imputed to us, yet this Argument fecms not forcible enough againft it. For though we mould perfectly obey the Law in Chrift, that (I fpeak of obeying actively) feems not fufficient to fatisf e for our difobedienre in Adam* but that in that refpeft fuftering ihould be requifite.

Reply, Hitherto your difference with me is fmall, in comparifon of our agreements. And feeing you yield, that according to that Do&rine [ef tbeftrift Imputation of Chrift's A Ciive Rigbtedufnejs] there is no need of his Satisfaction for any fin % but only Original. I need not trouble my felf and you in driving the Argument higher, there being enow more, and thisConfequence fufficing to deftroy the faid Dodhine of ftri& Imputation. And withal, you muft remember, that on your own Supposition (which is, that Chrift obeyed not ncftro loco , as we were in Adam before the fall, or in the fall \ which is true) it followeth, That therefore Chrift's A&ive Imputed Righteoufnefs (were there fuch a thing in

the

28 j©f tije Petite ana ^atttoe

the fenfe oppofed) would be nofufficient perfect Righteoufnefs to us: For it would not cover our unrighteoufnefi Original , but only Attual. But I doubt you will make men angry with you, as they are with me, for your denying this Imputation of Active Rigbteoufnefs : And yet I deny it lefs than you. For I judg that even Chriit's Attive Righteoufnefs is for us, and fo imputed to us quatenus Sa-tufafloria & quatenus Meritoria'** as Mr. Brad/harp bath well opened it.

2. Yet I think that Chrift's Satisfa&ion is here by them made needlefs. For did not Adam himfelf obey perfectly in Chrift, according to that Dodfrine. And then what need had Adam ot Chrift's Satisfaction. And do they not fay, that Chrift's Obedience is imputed to us, as it is a perfed Obedience/?™ omni tempore? and if fo, then it muft be a cover to our firft difobedience in Adam, as well as to all that follows.

Aphor. Page ^^n^Hougb the Sufferings of Cbrifl have X the chief place therein-, yet his Obedience, as fuch 5 may alfo be Meritorious and Satit-

fatiory.

Adnimackvtrf You mean his Active Obedience : For there is alfo Paflive Obedience^ as well as Active.

Reply. I do mean all Obedience, as Obedience: For I fup-pofe you mean CbrijFs Sufferings as Penal (when you call them the Satisfaction , and exclude the Active Righteoufnefl) and not dire&ly as Obedience : Though, no doubt, they muft not be feparated from the confideration of their being Voluntary and

Qbedi-

ffitg|)teottfnef£impttteft* z?

Obediential* But to tell you my thoughts, I thihk the phrafcof [Pajjive Obedience'] is very dark, if you underftand it in the fame near fenfe as you do \_A8ive Obedience :~] For all Obedience is fo called formally, in reference to fome Law or Command of a Superior to which we obey. Now Poena, or Suffering, is not the dired and proper matter of any Precept,as a Precept: The Law doth threaten Punifliment, and not command it. Yet as Suffering is the remote matter, fo it may be called, Pajjive Obedience h (that is, Gcd commandeth us to fubmit to Sufferings.) SubmiiTion and Patience is the diredfc matter of Obedience i and Suffering the Remote : And therefore I will not quarrel with the phrafe of [Pajjive Obedience*]

Aphorifm. Page 5^. A Nd fo Rom. 5. ip. By the Obedience jlV of one, many are made righteous*

Antmady>trf That place will evince nothing for you, becaufe it may, and probably fliould be interpreted of Obedience by Suffering. He humbled himfelf, and bu.tme obtd'ttnt unto deaths &c. Phil. 2.8.

Reply. It But it feems to fpeak of Obedience, as Obedience : And then it is not much matter, whether the matter of it be doing, oxfufferhtg. For in (Thrift's fuffering, if it were not only his fujfering,zs fuffering or Penalty, but alfo as Obedience, which was Satisfactory : Then why may not his Active Obedience, at Obedience, alfo be Satisfactory ? For k quatenus adomne valet confequentla. However, there \s the fame formal Nature of Obedience in Attive Obedience, as is in Pajjive. Nay, ever, pjjfue Obedience

is more properly and nearly Atiive \ and but improperly and remotely Paffive. For the A& of WiU ling Submijfion, is that which is commanded, and is the materia proxima & propria of Obedience: The Penalty (as I faid even now) is not command-ed'diredtly and properly, but threatned : And the pain, as pain, is but remotely the matter of Obedience, as the Objed of our Patience.

2. And Rom. 5.1^. feemeth to include Attivc Obedience, as well as Paffive: For it feems to intimate fab Obedience as is oppofed to Adam's Vif-obedience. However, it is fuch as is oppofed 'to Difobedience in general, and therefore it is (as I faid) Obedience qua talis, and not as Suffering.

Aphorifm. Page 58.COw JVorkj he performed, which were w3 our duty indeed', but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himfelf: Such were all the Obfervances of the Ceremonial Law, &c.

Ammad\erf Chrift raking upon him the form of a Servant, and being made under the Law, I fee not but he was bound in all things to obey- the Will of God 3 and roobferve his Law. Reply. * rant* I fuppofe * No doubt ofthat : But, was £s much as moil J# The doubt is, Whether it agamit the A&iveRidi , „_... V ^ j „#

tcoufnefs,asfuch, befng were the Will of God, that the matter of our Ri^hteoufnefs ^ and yet he concludeth, that Outcyutd aeiiiqs fecit &p&ffia eft ad^uodipfe^ tanqua-m Dei flms% n'on futt obit gat at, eft Sat it fa ft 10 e)u*-> quampo nobis pr&ft t tit<> & juftitia qir<& njbps credent thus a Deo gratps tm-pxtatur. E/t emm SatisjA.lrio £^ut pollet \>el tmplettoni Le-gts per oheiientikm^ "re! fyrrtx sterns, propter peccata ; ad antrum alterutrurn nos Itge Mtgamur. Urrin.Cnt.q.^o.a: t.4. p.3^2. Ifckei&as P.irzvs his judgment as well as Vrjmfs'.

any

3&igf)teottfttefs imputes 31

any but finners fhould be obliged by his Law to ufe thofe Ceremonies, which in their nature imply the lifers to be finners, and intimate aconfdfionoffin, in ordinary performers > and in their end do tend to recovery from fin ? And indeed, Chri'ft did not perform thefe to the fame ends as finners did, and as they were mainly intended for fuch in theit Inftitution.

2. I faid he was not bound to perform them [in regard of bhnfelf:~) that is, [finaliter? he was no finner, and had no fin to pardon of his own, nor any finful wants to be fupplied 5 and fo had not thofe ends of his own to move or neceflitate him to ufe them, as others had ;] But he ufed them, both to (hew his fubje&ion, and take up that burthen cf tedious Ceremonious-Worfhip, which juftly lay on us , and alfo to give us an example, &c.

3. It hence therefore follows, that feeing he ufed the anions (as Circumcifion, Offerings, &c.) fe-parated from their Legal ends, to other ends of his own, that his primary obligation to them was ex vi Jponfioms proprU (as was all his obligation to fuffer) and not ex Lege; (For elfe the Law would have obliged him to the A# and End together..) And then the Law did after oblige him upon his fubje&ing, and fubmitting himfclf voluntarily thereto i, and that but limitedly and in part, fo far as he fubmit-ted to it a , that is, to the fame Action, but nofrfor the fame Ends: Becaufe it could not oblige him beyond that his undertaking, and voluntary fubmiffion. So that I conceive, ifChrift had flood before God, only in the perfbn of God man in Righteouf efs, he fhould have been obliged only to obey thofe Laws which belong to the Righteous, and have nothing

cither

cither in the end of them,or burdenfomnefs of them, which proceedeth from (in : But feeing Chrift undertook to be in that low condition, and bear all that burden of fotnal Attions, and direft Sufferings which finners had fubje&ed themfelves to by fin > therefore he would be made under the Law, and Co undertake thofe Legal performances. And therefore it is in rejpeS of us\ as the Undertaker of our burden, that he ufed them > who otherwife, in re-fpecffc of bimfelf (though fuppofing him man) being perfectly righteous, fhould not have been obliged to thofe duties that were ordained for finners, as finners. This is my meaning : But for the thing, it being of no greater moment, I leave it to your better judgment, and will not contend.

Aphorifm. Page 5?.\7Ef when he voluntarily put bimfelf in X the jiate of a fervant , and under the Law, not fur his own fake, but for ours, bis Wbr\ is nevertbelefi Meritorious.

Animadyerf.

Chrift putting bimfelf intheftate of a fervant, and under the Law, though voluntarily, yer now his Obedience is necef-fary : For it is neceiTary that the Creature (hould be obedient to the Creator.

2. Hence it follows^Thar not thrift's A&ive Righteoufnefs, at fuch (as you affirm, page 54, & ? ?.) but in refpect of his Condefccnfion to that low eftate , i$ part of his Sati*-fa&iin* v

"Reply.

This is the main thing that (in this point of

Satisfaction) I differ from you in. I think (and

that fomewhat confidently) that his after-fubjedti-

pq, and the after-neceflity of his Obedience, do not

at

ftiStjteoufttete imputed &

11 evacuate or diminifh the Meritorioufnefs of his V&ions : Becaufe that Neceflity is an affumed, and lot an aliunde-xmpo&d neceifity. And God is not injuft, to forget the fiajtethat the Subjedt was iia vhile he was free '•> nor to fepatate in his Conlidera-ion and Valuation the after-a&ion, from the for-tier free-Engagement, arid the Dignity and Free-lom of the Perfon then engaging. If I being a Free-man, dobinditiy felf to be your Servant, or your Have (I mean to be abfolutely at your corn-tnand quoad aUiones ftrviles) on Condition that you give me for my fervice 20 /. per annum : Doth my fervice deferve none of this wages after, becaufe I being once bound, my fervice is neceffary ? And remember, that thus Chrift became bound by quaff-Contra!}) and fo Conditionally i and the Condition was, That his fervice fliould be accepted as Meritorious and Satisfactory, towards the Recovery of firmer*. To fay therefore, That his Service, or A&ions ceafed to be Meritorious i is either to fay, They loft their Dignity (which may not be inn* gined i) or God ceafed or failed to accept them as Meritorious and Satisfactory, and fo broke his Covenant (as we may call it) which is as little to be imagined. Jacob's fervice (as fervice, and not only as fuffering) deferVed Leah and Kacbel y iic. never-thelefs becaufe he became bound to ferve. Nay more, among juft men, it is not only the wages agreed on by Covenants, that is deferved by a painful fervant j but if he do much more, and fo benefit his Matter more, he doth truly defcrve more, and the juft Matter will pay him more \ though not by virtue of the Obligation of the Covenant, yet by virtue of the Obligation of the Law oi Nature,

D - which

34 ©f tije 3ctit>e ana 0affibe

which is before it: So great is the difference between j the ferviceof one that dcth voluntarily oblige hinR-felf,when he was/ai jurit\ and one that is originally under your abfolute Dominion : The one may fell ■ you hisfervice before hand, according to its value, \ which fuppofeth the future reality of that value and I merit i but the other cannot, becaufe he, and all that is his, is properly not his own, but yours.

Add to this what I before told you, that the Godhead was never fubje#:ed(either as to Propriety, ad Vominum > or to Obedience, ad Reliprem) in it felf, but only it may by Communication be called fubjett ; And therefore the Adlions of Chrift, receiving their chief Dignity from his chief Nature* which was never in it felf fubjeB, muft needs be highly Meritorious > both, I. Becaufe of ; the Dignity. 2. And of the Freedom of that Nature.

2. And therefore I utterly deny your Confc-quence on thefe grounds, and affirm ftill , That Chrifi's Attive Righteoufnefs, or Obedience, as filch, U Meritorious and Sawfaftory* And indeed, the Queftion fhould rathe* be, Whether it })e only Poena Chrifti, or Obedientia alfo, that fatisfietb and merit-eth: (as I before hinted.j v I

Apharifin. Page 6o. T^ ft* f ome Work* that are Vue y may yet X2d be Jo excellent , that they may giveSa-\

tUfadion for former injuries, &c. AntmkdverC. I fee not how Works which are otherwife due, can proper- J ly be Meritorious or Satisfactory. This feems repugnant to that of our Saviour, Luke 17. 10. When you b^y>e done alll things that are commanded jou, fay. We are unprofitable fer- f yantty tpe hdye done but what our duty wa* to do*

Reply.

2&igf)teoufttcte imputed 35

Reply>

1. We muft diftinguifti of the Obligation or C<m/e of the ducncfs. 2.-And of ^ Bi& s the Relation in which we con- Catechifm , affirming iider the parties. theObtdienceofChriit:

I. If the Obligation be to be part of his Sat h-merely impofed , per abfilu- ^. tothe hrft C °-turn Vominnm^ then you may carry it your way : But where the Obligation is Self impofed or ajjumed^ or caufed by Conditional Contrail^ and the Condition of this Contradt doth exprefsor imply the Acceptation of the Work, as Meritorious or Satisfadtory > there (as is faid) the cafe is plain againft you.

2. But fupf>ofe it were not fo : Yet, 1. Though it be granted/ that I cannot merit of an equal] by doing way duty \ 2. Nor yet of--atl Absolute Lord^ as fuch : 3. Yet of a RcBor qua ialU^ I may. Not that the Reward is due to me it fenfu abfoluto & fwipliciter. But 1. Comparate\&J'ecundum quid it is* For a Reftor is obliged to make a difference between the molt perfectly obedient Subjects, and that do eminent fervice for the Commonwealth * and the difibedient*, or lefs profitable, and that by rewarding and encouraging the obedient and ufeful. 2.And this is due principally to the Common-Good^ and to the end of Government : And fo the Obligation fecms to be a fine ad Media-, and prudential. I have told you in the Aphorifm, that hwill not differ with you, if you call this (Merit of Governing, and. not Commutative Juftice) but Merit improfrie & p-cundum quid.

Yet, though this be lefs properly [Merit"] where

$6 £)f tlje Petite ana ^affifoe

it is mixt with finful demerits that may cfcud it, it! is more properly Merit, where the Obedience and Serviceabknefs to the Common-Good is abfolute-ly perfect i as in Chrift it was.

V Aphorifm.

Page<$I.np£fe Intercfiof the Divine Nature in all -* the Worh^ of Cbrift, maketb them to be infinitely Meritorious-, and fo fatisfadory*

Antmact\>trf. Vt^ Becnufeit is an Infinite Condefcenfion of the Perfon {o partaking of the Divine Nature to do fuch Works ^ v/*,. Of A ctive Obedience (for of fuch I fuppofe you mean) fo that' jtill, not properly ChriiVs Active Obedience, fimply confi-deied, but his Condcfceniion is Meritorious, and fo Satisfactory.

Reply.

i. If the Intereft of the Divine Nature do put a value on the Penalty as fuch, or on the Condefcen* .fiou as fuch,. then alfo on the Obedience, or Good ABions as fuch \ (for there is eadem ratio \) But; the former you grant s therefore, &c»

2. If Chrift's Csndefcenfion become Meritorious by i the Intereft of the Godhead, then his A8ive Obedience doth f b : (If you mean that Condefcenfion^ not only as at his firjl Vndertakjngi but as mani-fetied and exercifed in the performance :) For his Condefcenfion (fo taken) is his Aftive Obedience\: C»ndefcendere adpoenam ferendam, is Confentire ad yootam aliter indebitam ferendam> and (b not to murmur or rcfiih An4 this is fomewhat antecedent to the Suffering it lelf. (Both Agere & A^ionem fujhenderc , belong to that which we call A&ive Obedience, as dfitind from Paflive \ and thereroie wilich-fbver you inihnce in, it comes all to one.)

2. What,

&<0fKeottfttefe imputes* 37

3. What if Tfhould prove to you, that no fuffer-ng, either as fufferi?tg,or as punifbment can merit ? It mzyfatUfie, but whether it can merit, confider thefe :hings. If it merit, it muft be either for the Innate excellency o( the thing, or for the ends obtained^ or xnerits received by it, by him from whom it fo neriteth. In the former fence, ir can merit but an acknowledgment, and eftimation, and praife- And thus poena qua poena non meretur : 1. Becaufe as it is in patiente,it i> malum & non banian* 2. It is invjlun-\arium quid > and therefore not meritorious.

Objed*. It was voluntary to Chrijh

Anfw. Only indireSc, fecundum quid, ad fnem ulteorirem : But poena qua poena, he naturally continued to Nill: His Nature was againft it •■> and his Will naturally, as it was malum fibi; And therefore he prayed, that the Cup might pafs &c, yet fulm'tted to ir, at his Fathers will and his own. So that it was properly a mllittgof the end, but &c penalty was more properly jubmhtedto than frilled > yet not as poena, vel malum , but as medium ad /z-nem optimum* And then, that Good that PunilTi-ment hath, is as it is a punienie, & in effectn > and fo it is the Punijher that meriteth for his Jujtice > and not the punifbed for Suffering*

Further, it hath no virtuous Moral Goodnefs in it, as it is in the Sufferer : For all (uch Goodnefs is the materia Prtcepti, & non Commihationi*. The Preceptive part of the Law only do;h conftic utc the debitum officii 3 and fo the moral Goodnfo; But poena qua poena non pracipitur.

2. And if you fay, That it is for 'us Eids or Con-fequences, that poena merztur.

I anfwer^ i. So the Tunijher, 01 the punifhed mc-riteth. Thequeftion is only of the pwnijhed. And whatever good followeth : i. If the punifhment be deferved by himfelf. 2. Or involuntary, no thanks is due to him, he merits nothing. And therefore poena culp£ propria cannot be meritorious.And therefore it was in thrift primarily and dire&ly, his Obediential and Voluntary fubmitting to fuch a penalty, which being not for his own faults, did yet tend to fuch excellent ends, which made it meritorious. Take all plainly in this one word as the fum, Chrift's Offerings, as Offerings, were not the immediate matter of his merit s but his Willingness the immediate, and the faffering- willed was the remote* His {offerings were fjtftinorder Satiifattory, and after that remotely Meritorious ; and therefore Meritorious ^czuk firft Satisfactory : But his ASli've Obedience (or to fpeak more properly, his obedience, as obedience, or good-works) was fir ft Meritorious (in order of Nature) and then Sat'vfatiorys and therefore Satisfactory, beuukfirjl Meritorious. Only further conlider, Chrift's Works have a double merit: One of God's Acceptance-, and that he be well pleafed wirh them, and ready to reward them in general : This goeth before their Sattfaftorinefi, and is it that I mean : The other is their merit of a particular benefit of Pardon , Jujlification , &c. for us finners: This followeth after their Sattifa&o-rine$. But in Chrift's fufFering , there is no innate merit (becaufenogoodnefs) as Sufferings but only as a Satisfactoryfuffering, conducing to thofe excellent ends which quatenus fattifa&ioit attaineth ; So that punilhment, as punifhmenr* or fuffering, merits not at all \ but all Merit lieth in two things:

Mate-

Materialiter, 1. Itf rri dignitaie> vel militate^ ad alium. 2. In volttntate agentU; It is therefore Chrift's obedience, and his fuffering as voluntary, and conducible to thofe high and noble ends, and alfo as the matter (as it were, of the Contract between the Father and Son) which is the Meritorious matter.

Aphorifm. Page 65. \ N V fo God having parted with xV that advantage which his Ju[\ice had againfi the finning World , and having relaxed the Law whereby he might have judged \ is therefore faid to judgnoman, but to give all judgment to the Son> John 5. 22,27.

uinimalycrf. God hath not fo committed all judgment to Chiift, but that he alfo will judg, though by Chv\i}^om. 2. 5,£. Atts 17. ;o> 31. that thereto em John ?. 21. is to be underilood* that he judgeth no man immediately by himfelf, but hath committed all judgment to the Son \ t. e. that the immediate execution of judgment mould be from him : Ot as Aujlm expounds it, Secundum hoc dt&um eft (fc. or/ine judicium cvtd.it jlUp) quid ta judicio non in forma Dei y fedtn forma homtnt* apfartbtt. This is intimated, verfzy. and hath given him Authority to execute judgment, becaufe he is tbe Son of Man; iv<,. Be-caufe fo he is meet to execute judgment in an outward and viable manner, fo that every eye inall fee him , and they alfo which pierced him, Revel. 1.7.

Reply. 1. The Text contains fome kind of exclufion of God the Father, [ffhe Father judgeth no man :~] An utter exclufion it cannot be, nor an exclufion of the Perfonor Effence > therefore it rault bean exclufion of him in a certain rejpett* Now your Interpretation containeth no exclufion : For to fay \[he judgeth not immediately^] is to include the Mediant^ but not

D 4 to

4© XBe&on'£ftti»gftt8tt&'

to exclude God : As to (ay, [be judgetb not alone-^s to include an Officiate , but not to exclude bimr

2. And were it otherwifc, how will that agree with our common Do6trine,that ^though God may mi med'M) yet he doth in, and by, and with them, agere immediate in omni attioney & immediationeVir-tutU & fuppofiti ?

3. But yet I never contradi&ed your Interpretation of the Text, as part of the Truth, but it plainly feemsto me to be but part \ and the Reafon you alledge feems to be defective. For no doubt, God could fcive judged the World by convenient, fenfi-ble Manifestation of his Prefence, Power, Juftice, &c as he did in fentencmg Adam when he ha4 finned.

But I think the Text means plainly, that God as mere Legiflator of the Law of Works, judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, as Redeemer and Legiflator of, orjudg according to a Law of Grace, or on terms of Grace. It is not now Veus Creator fecundum fcedus operum folum , fine Remedio: Sed Veuj-Redemptor. I think I could give you good proofs of this Interpretation*

1. The following words (which I think you mifinterprer) feem.tome to confirm it [Becauje be k }be Son of Man *] that is, Becaufe he is the Incarnate'Redeemer or Mediator, and fo becaufe it belongs to his Qffice j and not merely , becaufe he. hath flejb or Humane Nature.

2. If his Dominion over the dead and living, were the end of his Dying, Rifing and Reviving, ^nd fo was thereby procured , then fo was his power of judging (and confe<ju?ntly belongeth to

his

Xfte £>on'£ jfungtng u& 4

his Office, or to Chrift as Mediator , and not merely as being Man : But the former is certain, Rom. 14.^. therefore fo is the latter.

3. If as Redeemer or Mediator, he be the rightful King of all men, then he (hall be the Judg of alt men, as Mediator or Redeemer > (For it belongeth to his Kingly Office to judge, and appoint Judges:} JJut the former is certain, as I could fhew by multitudes of Scriptures. Though quoad confenfum & voluntariam fubjeftionem,on\y the Church be Chrift's Kingdom h yet de Jure y he is King of all the World, and he doth over-rule them, and partly rule them (for the very Law of Nature now is his Law) and that ut Veus Redtmptor & mifericors : They are not ruled merely per Deum Creator em, unappeaftd and implacable for the breach of the firft Law. They that deny this,will have a hard task to juftifie all the Wicked or Pagan World at laft, as not-guilty of finning contra Deum Redemptorem , vel mifericor-dem : (For he fheweth not Mercy according to the tenor of the firft Law,)

4. If he condemn men at laft for not taking him as their King to Reign over them\ or for not improving the Talents of his Mercy, then he judgeth them ex Officio, as their rightful King : But the former is clear, Lukf 19. 27, Mattb- 25, &c. If any think thofe Texts reach but to thofe that have heard the Gofpel > I think it reacheth as far as this,and to all that have received Talents of Mercy ; But that is a fubje& that I may not now digrefs to take in* - 5. The Scripture fully exprefTeth it, to be an a& of CbrijVs power received by him as the Mediator* and fo belonging to his Office i therefore only given hjm as Incarnate^ ox as accommodated with a Humane

4i Xt)e Aon'g jftttjgtng as;

mane Nature, Matth. 28. All povper in Heaven and Earthy is given to me \ therefore the power of judging the World : And this is given to him as ^Mediator, and on his Purchafe, as the Text plainly intimateth, andRwz.14.?. fully exprefleth. Rev. 1,18. He hatb the heys of Death and Hell. There is comprehended the power of judging: And to have thcfe keys, is undeniably belonging to his Office. But I pafs over much more.

And Calvin faith, that Judicium pro Irnperio ac Potejlate accipit Evangelifta, John 5. 22. Secundum pbrafin lingua Hebraic* & nunc firmum tenemus, quod traditum fit Cbrijio Regnum a Parte, ut Arbi-trio fuo cxlum ac terram moderetur. Nam omnia tradita funt illi a Patre (faith Marlorate) Matth. 11.27. & data eft ei omnis poteftas, Matth. 28.18. And therefore if this be CbrijVs Kingdom, it muft needs be his Mediatory Office*

And indeed the whole context, Verfi 23, 24, 25, 26,27,28, &c. (hew that it is a great part of Chrift's Mediatory Office that is here exprefTed. And on Verfi 27. faith Calvin, Iterum repetit datum fibifuijfe Imperium a Patre, ut plenam & in c£lo & in terra rerum omnium pote(iatem babeat, k^oiocbic dignitatem fignificat: Judicium vero pro Regiviine & lm-perio accipitur. Acfi diceret, conftitutum ejje filium Regem a Patre, qui Mundum gubernet atqs exerceat Patrvs ipfiut pot eft at em. So alfo Viodate on the Text, verfi 27. [T0 execute Judgment y\ namely, to rule and govern, verf. 22. [becaufie be if the Son of Man^ not only in quality of true everlafting God, but alfo of Mediator, having taken Humane flefh upon him, AQs 17 31. 1 Cor. 15. 28. in which Nature alfo he is theFathers Grand-deputy,r^7.i3.

And

And Grotius in v. 22. Judicare MundumDeieft> &c. fed nunc judiciariam potefiatemfilio dedit, Adts 17. 31. 1 Pet. 4.5. Nempeubi ipfum Regem confli-tuet) Apoo 1.5. Nam Regum eft judicare ,Pfal.72.J. &c Et Mud iSivoc reSe forte accipias de bis qui-bus Evangelium fr&dicatum efc &c. Whether that be right or not, it feems he thought it wasChriftY Mediatory official judgment that is here meant, and not only His Deputation in general. Vid. eundem in. verf.2j^ &C. and in Mattb. 25.32, So Pelargu* in Matth* 25. 31. part. 3. expounds this Text, Cbriflo datum effe judicium quatenus films bom wis notum eji ex Joh. 5.22. quia vem judicem univerfalem contra tot iniquos judices & mundi principes armatum effe oportet) &c. And Partus in Mattb. 25.31. Ipfe enim conjiitutus a Deo judex vivcrum & mortuorum > quia Pater omne judicium dedit filio-, &c. And no doubt the Judgment there defcribed, is by Chriit as Lord-Redeemer in his Kingly Office, and not merely be-caufe his Humanity ritteth him to be the Fathers Delegate quoad executionem.

Aphorifrn. Page 67*r~r^He fujj>ending of tbe rigorous Execu-X tion of the Sentence of tbe Law , U tbe moft immediate effect of CbrijFs death.

Antmad\>erf Though Chrifr had net died, yet the rigorous execution of the Law (for any thing I fee) mould have been fufpended. For if death had been immediately inflicted 0 n Adam , how could Mankind have been propagated by him > [The immediate execution of the full fentence of the Law upon Ad.r,n , would have prevented the Being, the Sin, and the Suffering of his Poflenty •] as your felf argues againft it, page 33,

Reply.

44 execution fufpettDeD

Kefy.

1. The prefettt death of /*^w would not have been the rigorous execution of the Law * (for the Reafons alledged.) How can you call that the RigoroiK execution, which would have prevented all the following fins of Adam himfdf, and all the fin and fufferingof his Polkrity ? Do not you in your Rabbinical Commentary ^mention their Exposition of MorierU , to be Reus eris Mortis ? &c. And before out of Mede, you make the time to be \jt thoufand years'] that Adam (hould have lived : And you may as probably fay fo of [the day] that death was threatned him, that it was a (honening of that time.

2. If we (hould fpeak of God, as of man, that mull have time for his Confultations (which is not fo h) and fo that while he was confulting of the terms and way of ourRedtmption,he (hould in mere mercy fufpend the execution : Yet, i. That is not the Sufpenfion that I now fpeak of. 2. Nor is that without refped to Redemption, but in order to it (if there were fuch a thing 0 much lefs do I mean a continuance of a finful miferable life, which is a preparative to greater punifhments, which is rather the execution of the Sentence, than the fujpenfwn : But I mean all that which is properly a Jkfpenfion^ following Chrift's interposition and undertaking:Th*t God doth not while they live give them over to as much finfulnefs and mifery as they deferve, and as far abdicate them, and defert them by the withdrawing of all that may abate their mifery, and that he gives them not over as forfaken to defpair, and their lives on earth did not prefently begin to be a Hell. If wicked men are freed from deferved

mifery*

mifery, and that in a way in it fclf, tending to their full recovery (but that they wickedly fru-ftrate it) without any procurement of the Mediator, then it feems God can relax his Law, and forbear the full execution, and confer Grace \ (i. *. Mercy againft defert) without Sattifs8ion\ which though Dr. tmfs affirms, moft others do deny. Could I ftand on it, I take it to be no hard matter however to prove, that de Fatto God (heweth no man fuch Mercies but through Chrift.

Aphorifm.

NOtP they are only Afjliftions of love , and ml punifhrnents*

jinimadverf. They are not fo contradiftinct, but that they may be co-incident. Somepunifhments may be afflictions of love \ v/^,. Such as are for the corre&ing, purging, and reforming of the party puniihed. Caftigatory puniihments are Affli&ions of love j Whom I lote^ I rebu\e and chafien^ Rev. g. 19. Whom the Lord loy>eth, he chajkn-th, Heb. 1 i. 6. Some indeed (not only Antinomians, but others alfo) feemto mike Chaftife-ments no judgments or puniihments; but the Scripture is clear againft them : When we are judged 3 we are chaftencd of the Lord, &c. I Cor. 11.32. / wili corretf thee sn me a fur e, jet WtU I not leave thee wholly unfun'tfhed^ J jr. 46. 18 •

Reply* 1. You are a favourable Animadverter, who Co ordinarily take my part, and defend what I fay, under the name of Animadverfion. You fay as much as I * and in thefe words have fully exprefled the fum of my fenfe. Only once or twice I care-lefly, in compliance with the common Language, ufe the term [Affliction, ] for [Chaftifement > y which is all the occafion of exception that I ye? fee.

4* €>f ^Mictions as penal*

2. Bat it was a great overfight in you, to impute the alledged opinion or words of thofe that I cp-pofe^tome^ as if they were mine. Thefe are my words, [_Tbe common judgment if, That Cbriji bath taken away tbe vpbote Curfe (though not the fuffer-ing) by bearing it bimfelf'i and now tb?y are only afflictions of love, and nn punishments. ■ I do not contradict this Doftrine through afeftation of fingularity, but conftraint of judgment, &o] Had it not been very eafie to know that thofe are not my words or opinion, which I foprofefledly oppofe ? The fame which you fay fome, [not Antinomians] hold, I called Sjhe common )udgment:"]For indeed Peter Martyr, Zanchius, and multitudes of others againft the Papifts, befides late Englifh Writers , commonly fay fo. But yet we have very many accurate Di; vines that fay as much as I, and contradidt them, as you do : And fometimes they contradidt them-felvxs. j My full fcope therefore is to prove, that Cha'[iifements are ajfreciesof Punijhment.

Aphorifm. Ibid. IT U undeniable, that Cbrijl taking the Curfe A onhimfelf, did not wholly prevent tbe execution on tbe Offender, Gen. 3.7,8,10,15.^.

j4mmadwf

Though thofe things that befal the Children of God be in their natrre evil, and a curfe, yet to them they are not fuch, becaufe they are fanfiir-ed to them, and made to work together rbr their good, Rom. B, 28. I Cor. 11.31. l-htl. 1. ii. Poyfon being to tendered, as to be an Antidote, is no Poyfcn, but a Remedy. Bleffings to the wicked, become curfes j fo eurfesto the godly, prove bleflings, Pfal. ii?. 71.

Reply.

jDf Afflictions a£ penal* 47

Reply. Omne malum eft alicui malum : Aut igitur inflU genti, autpatienti: At noninfligettti » ergopatienti: If they be Pocn£ y they are malum Pcen<e: for Bo-num qua tale non eft Tana. But you fay (out of Scripture) they are punishments. If you will denominate the whole Work from the fole prevalent refpe6t, effed and end, then they are to be called Bleffings: God's heavy Judgments on "David for his fin, was not malum Poen^ but a BleJJing\ fo you mean, I doubt not; And fo I agree with you in fenfe. But if (as you fhould) you keep ftill a diftinft conception of their penal Nature^ and their ^-\^v\C dentally* procured Effed: Then in regard of tihe [ former, you muft ftill fay, they are mala Poen&\ and in regard of the latter, they are Paternal Lovs-tokens.

Aphorifm. Page7o«/"TpHi?y are ascribed to God's anger.

Animad^erf, But not to his hatred. Anger may coniift wiih » hatred. There is Caftigatory An- * it (kottld Oe Lric ger, as well as Vindicatory, I ft. f t fo n L 57.17,18. <

Reply. I have little Reafon to quarrel with you, when you fay as I, and almoft repeat my words.

Aphorifm. Ibid*; rr*Hey are called Punishments, &c.

. Anirnatfotrf. Why then do you diftingiiifti them from Panimments, f-68. ^jfisftions of L.QW,andmt Puntftmmts ; They are (as I have

4* &>f Zfdittions as ptn&u

fhewed) Caftigatory Puniihments, but not Vindicatory f 0 r Satisfactory.

Reply. Why do you fay^ Ifo diftinguiflithem ? merely becaufeltellyou, that I oppofe them that do fo? I had rather you had made me the Author of your own words, becaufe you and I are both of a mind. But this I know was your overfight in reading, and therefore I pafs it.

Aphorifm* * Chaftife- Ib.'TPfifc very nature of * AfjUUhn^ is * icnt# -*• to be a loving Punijhment^ &c.

Amr?utdyer r i

I.This is not confident with your ether words even'now cited* wherein you make Afflictions of Love and Puniihments con-tradiftinft one to the other.

2- Neither is it true in it felf. For are no affliSions incident to the Reprobates ? or are they loving Punilhments, andfan-Aified to them >

Reply. r i. You (hould have faid, It is not confident with the words and Do&rine which I oppofe* and that's no wonder.

. 2. I confeft before, that here I put the word [djjlittions'] inftead of [Chajlifements v] which 1 will not excufe, though cuftom may eafily make it intelligible : For that Language is not lingular. If therefore you mean it of Affh&ions in general, I doubt not but they are more incident to the Reprobates than any » or elfe they (hould not be damned* If you mean it of [Cbaftifemms,'] Ianfwer, i.As God in a larger fence may be called the Father of all thofe to whom he (heweth mercy, provideth for them , beareth with them, offereth them Chrift,

aZd

£>i 3tffltrti0tt£ as penal* 49

atid Grace, giveth them in his Covenant of Grace a conditional Adoption > arid fo far he may be called the Father of Mankind, or of Reprobates (as many Divines on the Preface of the Lord's Prayer;) And fo far he may be faid to love them, and to chaftife them. But not in that ftridt fence, as he is the Father of Believers, and loveth and chaftifeth them.

2. So far as God doth good to Reprobates, he loveth them. But he doth them good, he giveth them mercy. Elfe they never fin againft mercy, which who dare fay? therefore they may partake of loving punifhments', no doubt punifhments may do them good.

3* Yet willl not fay, that thefe are fanttifiei to them. As if there were no good below that of San* ftification : But if you will needs extend the word [fanftified 1 to allgood^ I contend net. But till God lay by his Philanthropy, I will not fay, he loveS not all men, at leaft, in this life.

4. And if you had put the cafe of [Vnbelievers^] and not only of [Reprobates'] it might eafily have appeared, that they are loving fUmjbments to matty Vnbelievers \ viz* to the Eledt before Converfion (as Tauls (hiking down by the way, and Manajfeb's chains were, &a) for they-are means of their Converfion *, and in forae fence may be faid to be fan-ftiiied to them, and in another not. And yet God is not then fhi&ly their Father (for they are not adopted till they receive Chrift by Faith, Jobm, 10,1 r.) and therefore they are not lb fatherly Cha~ ftifements. Where alfo you fee , that it is not Chrift's mere bearing the Curfe for men , that makes it no Curfc, or evil to them : For it is evil

E and

5:0 £)f Afflictions as penal.

and a Curfe to many of the Ele<3:, before Conver-fion, for whom yet Chrift died.

Aphorifm. r I ^Herefore to fay > that Cbrift bath takfn away -*• /fo Curfe and Evil, and not the fuffering^ is a contradiSion.

Notfo, feeing fuffering, though fan&ified, is fuffering ftill ^

>ueh fan but (b is it not ftill evil an3 a curic,becaufe now it works For the I good of thofe to whotri it is fan&ified % even as bitter pills and potions work for the good of fick perfons. Reply.

i. By [C»r/T| I mean, only the effeU of the Com-mination of the Lapp of Nature violated, commonly called \the Curfe:'] I do not mean that which makes a man fo unhappy, as we u(e to call men [Curfed'] for.

2.If fan&itied fuffering be not ftill malumjhen it is not malum poena °>and then it is not poena Qwhich is a natural evil inflitted for the defett of Moral good ?3 But you maintain it to be poena*

3. It's a natural evil effe&ing accidentally a greater Good. Here it remains ftill a natural evil when fmitihed. The fandtifying takes not away all the natural evil ; but by a kfs evil preventetha greater. Death is not bonum naturale , becaufe fanQified* Pain is pain ftill, & malum vel difconveniens nature and pnnijhment ftill; The good is accidental to the punifhment, and therefore makes it neverthelefs to be poena, vel malum per fe^ though at the fame time it be by accident majus bonum. What is it that is accidentally good ? is it not malum poena ? If fo, it remaineth malum poena ftill, or elfe you cannot fay that malum poena is accidentally good* And when

ill is done, it is but an improper fpeech to fay, tha c Death and Pain are good, becaufe they are accidentally made the means of our good. The goodnefs is properly in their end, and accidental effeft (and the ! Sandtilier ) rather than in them : And therefore they are more properly faid to be fubmitted to for the good that followeth them, than defired or loved: It is not Pain, or Death ; but Grace and God that I muft/W. Whereas, were they gW indeed them-felves, they might be loved themfelves,

I do leave out the far greateft part of the Explication of my meaning on this fubjedt, becaufe I did it lately and largely on the Animadverfions of another Learned Brother 5 and I am backward to tepetitions, becaufe it ismoft for my own information that I examine your Animadverfions,

I will not contend with you about thefe phrafe ', but only I would advife you, that you take heed of arguing thus : That which works for our £Ood is fandiiiied to us, and fo is no more evil : But fiii worketh to our good 5 therefore it is fcindHft-wd, and is no more evil, but good-

Aphorifm.

WHai Reafin can be given, why G>d Jhoiild not do us all that good without Qvtrfufferings, which now he doth by them, if there were not fin and wrath, and Law in them*

Ain'tmddytrf.

1. Indeed if there were no fin, there fliould be no affliction : as if there were no fickncA, there ihoi.ld be no medicine;

Yet is not the Me dt cine evil, and a curie to the fick t n,1* theris affliction to God's children.

fc » a. The

i. The Scripture doth lhev; us. other reafons of om- fufifer-ing ; as; to conform us to Chrifo Rom. 8.2c. with 17. to try us 3 1 /V/\ 4. 12. Rey.i. jo. & 3.10. and for the mani-fcibition of God's glory, John 9. 3.

1. An over feeing Anf.ver. The &>ueftion is of fins intereft as the efficient meritorious Caufe : The Anfxver is of fin as the terminus amovendus , or privatio finis. We do not differ in that, Whether the curing of fin y be the m/ 0/ Chajiifement ? but where it is fo, yet, Whether fin be not the meritorious Gaufe; fo far as it is evil? You might better have initanced in Chajiifement^ than medicining of Children. No wife Father chafiifeth his Child, but his fault is the meritorious Caufe^ as well as the final (Reductive) (his Reformation I mean.) You njight therefore as truly have faid, [/There would beno"Chafiifemcnt, if there were no fin meriting ir,~] as, [If there be no fin to be cured by it.'} It is ejjtntial to Vumjhment f of which Chajiifement is a Jptciesj that it b<: [_ for fin as the meritorious Cauje^ really or fuppofcd?\

2. Your other aiTigned Reafons therefore are no Rea(bns s for they belong to the final Caufe, and not to the efficient* And you do but leave me to renew my Queition, What reafon can you give, why God fhould have attained all thofe good ends (our* Tryal, Conformity, his Glory, &c) without our Fuffefing, which now heattaineth by it, if fm Were not the meritorious Caufe ? zndfome wrath (till 19 it ? fp*cially, when God hath fully told us, that he ajjjicls not willingly \ that man fuifereth but for bis fin \ that for the iniquity of Jacob is all this-, &c. j and that he will not affli& his Creature without its

deftrt.

€>f Afflictions *& ptnai. 53

Jefert. If by [Conformity to Chrijf] you mean* iot to his Holinefc but to his Snaring : I anfwer, rhatis no good to us of it felf, but anew/; For t was the f^f/ 0/ Pnnifhment that we deferred that le bore \ and therefore if it be a good to be therein :onformed to him; then it is good to bear God's vindicative wrath. Indeed we may have comfprt n our fuffering, in that we fuffer but what Chriit lath fuffered (in leveral refpe&s that I need not xand on :) But the good is, that our Conformity h differing, tends to make us conform in Holincfs, md ib in Glory, in our mealuie.

Aphorifm. 3 J g c 7J • *Tr* He bufferings of ibe gaily\ proceed from X <* mixture of love ani anger\ 3tc.

Anim/tthpeff*

Love and Anger are not oppo/ite, bu{ Love and Hatred : knd you prefcntlv fry, There is no hatred a though there be ngcr.

Reply. They are not fully oppofite, nor inconfiirent h elfe fhould not think Chaftifement is from both. But ure there is fome oppolition : Let their Objecls be adg. The Object of Love, is [Frefent Good ,1 the )bje& of Anger, is [Prejent Evil.'] Is here no op-ofition ? Indeed Ira being in the Irafcibk circa talum prafens arduum, and there being not any mum prxfens ardmm , hath no pcried con-rary. #

But what you here diflike, or wherein we dif-gree, you give me not to underhand. Bat how ou will reconcile your Conceition here, with your >rmerfpeech, that [ San&ified Suffering is not

!•

*4 5Df ^CfflKtioius as penal,

evil,] I know not. For furely if it proceed from Anger in any part, fo far fin is the Caufe fand the fruit of (in is to us evil,) and the effects of Anger, asfuch, will be evil, malum pcen£, to us. As therefore it comes (ton fin, and God's Artger.it full conti-iiueth evil to us: But as it comes from Chrilt's EUod, and God's Love, it is good Accidentally and Eventually , and the good to us is greater than the evil.

Aphorifm. Ibid. TTXE^ is one of the Enemies that it not yet JL^/ overcome, Sec i Cor. J5.26.

Antmadverf Though Death be not fully and perfectly overcome till the Ttefunecticn, yet to the godly it it not <?>//, nor a curfe. The ftingcf it , v/<,. Sin 5 being taken away, it cannot hurt, but only convey unto a better life : To me to hve is Chrift, and to die u { gatn, Phil. 1. %% m The fting of Death is fin , and the ftrength, &c. 1 Cor. 15. 16,%J.

Reply.

1. This isanfwered already.

2. I confefs the fting is taken out.

5. But if it be not evil, then, 1. How is it yet \an Enemy ?~\ an Enemy, and no evil ! 2. Why So you confefs it a Punijhment ? If the fan&ifying remove all the evil, and removeth the penalty-* Good is no punijhment. 3. Then it is a fin to have any fear cf, or averfntfs to Death', (which I believe not.) For good cannot be the objedt of timor or fuga. 4. If it hurt not (as you affirm) why do men groan and fear it, and feek tf> avoid it ? How doth fenfe deceive us, if pain hurt not ? 5- Then why doth God make promifes of longer life, and of recovery fnmfickncfs? And why doth he threaten death, and pain, and flume, and hfs ? &c» Is goody as fuch, * ' the

£>f Afflictions as pmal #

the matter of "threatnings ? 6* Then you may dare to forbear lamenting under God's afHidfcing-ing hand, or taking notice of it as an evil, and lign of his difpleafure! 7. And then you may dare to fay, that you are not beholden to God for delivering you from any evil of fuflfering! For if it had come ( as ficknefs, death, &c* ) it would have been no evil. 8. Yea, it would rather be an evil to you, to fave you from them, if they be merely good. 9. Then you need Cyea may) not pray againlt evil of fuffering > for none may pray againft good as good. 10. Then the godly are uncapable of Cbaftijements, becaufe they are un-capable of evil. But I fuppofe you will take heed of thefe Confequents. But enough of this.

It is gain to die accidentally : Not becaufe death wwt evil, but becaufe it leads to a greater .good ; That which is called Deaths ftmg, is not all the evil of it,

Aphorifm.

THe whole flream of Scripture, tnafyth Cbrijl to manage that which lieth on us for our advantage and good.

Antmadwrfi If it be fo managed, chough in it feff (imply confidered it be evil) yet to us as fo managed, it is good.

Reply. It is evil to fome-body, or not evil. It is not evil toitfelf, though in it felf to us. It is per fi malum poena to us \ it is per accidens good. I doubt not but you will fubferibe to this Explication, and that we in judgment agree.

k E 4 Aphor.

$6 Qi tl$e %m$ SRepeal*

Aphorifm. Page 7p.T Kw0»> fJta* it U the judgment of learned and A godly men, that the Law as a Covenant of \Vor\s, U quite null and repealed, in regard of the fins of Believers*

Antmadyerj. They mean (I fuppofc) fo as that Believers are not to be tried by the Law, to {land or fall by it. See Rom. 6. 14. Gal. 5.13. & 5*18.23. Your felt fays, page 81. [The alteration is not made tn the Larv^ but tn our estate and relation to the Law* ]This is enough. Our eitate and relation to the Law is not now fuch, as that we {hould either be jui~iified or condemned by it. The Law 5 as a Covenant, faith. Do this and It^e, Rom. 10. *y. and, turfed is every cne that conttnuetk not^ &c. Gal. 3.10, Believers are not to live or die upon fuch terms 5 and 'therefore they are not under the Law as a Covenant of Works.

Reply. This v is a point of great difficulty and moment, I agree with your fence (iff underlhnd you)whete-jn I have hitherto been happy almcft all along. But what made you think that I oppofe men that vyere ot my own mind ? Indeed they are two fosts that I here oppofe : 1. Thofethatufe conftantlyto fay, Tihe Law U abrogated, as to the condemningpower of ity to Believers : But not to others, nor to them, as to the commanding power. Thefe (if Truth may take place of Modefty) are the common fort of thole Divines that I have met with, that never ftudied the nature of Laws>and underftand not what Abrogation is, nor how they contradict themfelves in faying, It is abrogated to Believers, &c. When Abrogation is the proper annulling of a Law i and when it is nullot abrogated can oblige none* 2.Thofe that better underftand themfelves in Politicks, and

fay>

*

Of tlje %m$ Repeat 57 .

fay, that the Covenant of Works is abrogated property^ that tf, nulled , fo that no man in the Wrld is under it. This is a very hard, yet weighty Contro-. verfie, I (hall fay little of it with you > 1. Becaufc you-agree with me. 2. I have newly writ largely of it with a very Learned Neighbour Brother, Mr. G. Lawfon (a man as accurately verft in Politicks as any Minilkr I know; this being the main Pubjedof a larger Conteft between him and me > wherein Iconfefs he puts me harder to it than any man that I have dealr with, and I have received much light from his Animadverliorfs.

Aphorifm. Page 82. A Nd abfolute Difcharge ii granted to none JL\ in th'vs Life: For even when we do perform the Condition, yet ftill the Difcharge rwnains wnditional-j till we have quite finijkedour perform* tnce.

u4ntrnadt>erf. There is fuch an abfolute Difcharge granted to fomc in this ifc, that there is no Condemnation belonging to them, Rom. }. t. They h.tvepeace with God through our Lo) d Jefe Chrift) Kom. 5. J. they hat>c cwrlaftinglije ) viz. begun in them-

Reply.

Yet we agree. I am wholly of your mind. But, [• Our Difcharge before believing, is conditional, • is to beginning and end \ and therefore not attual ; For quod eft in conditioner non eft in obligatione: Et vnditionall nihilponit in effe.) 2. Our Difcharge tpon our believing is abfolute and attual quoad pri-mm pojfffionem: But it is ltill conditional quodd ontinuationem & confummationem, till we have fi-ufhed our courfe, overcome, and endured to the nd# Yet it may be fure in Cod's Decree of uphold - g

?s £>f ti)e Hatbs Repeat.

ing us, that we may perfevere, though it be conditional in the Law, or Teftamental-Grant. For it is falfe which fome affert, that, If the Condition be ; certain, it is no Condition, but abfolute. For if it be contingent it fufficeth, though foretyorvn by the Donor.

Aphorifm. Page 83.TF thUwere not jo, but Cbrifibatb abro-1 gated the firjl Covenant, &c.

Animafoerf Your Reafons prove, that the firft Covenant is ftill in farce, but not that Believers are ftill under that Covenant, fa as that either their J unification or Condemnation depend on it. ,

■ Reply. 1. I now fay,the fir ft Covenant is ceafed. 2.Then they prove all that I delire. But why their Jufti-fication and Condemnation depends not on it, when yet the Law is in force, is worth the explicating.

Aphorifm. Ibid.TT THat the Law in force doth not threaten, V V that H not explicitely deferved , or due by Law.

An'tmAdynrf-The Law doth threaten^ but it cannot execute upon Believers what it threatneth : Chiift hath redeemed us from the Curfe'of the Law, Gal. j. I 3. The (Irength of fin ts the.Law, but than}^ be to God who hath ghen m the Ftctdry through *ut Lord 3 : tfm Chrtft, I Cor. 15. %6, 57-

1 Reply.

Still we agree as to the Law de futuro : But I confefs Mr. Vs Arguments are yet very knotty.

Aphor.

Aphorifrn. Ibid*!? would follow that Chrifi died not to pre* A vent or remeve the Wrath and Curfe^ fo de-ferved and due to us>> for any but Adam'j fin > nor to far don our fins at all<> but only to prevent our defert of Wrath andcurje\ and consequently to prevent our need of pardon*

Antmad^erf. The Law is yet in force to fhew us fin, and the defert of it •, bij; not to condemn us for it, if we be in Chrift, who hath iatis£ed the Law tor us, and freed us from the Cuife of it.

Reply, I accept your Conceffjon. But, 1. The Law concurs to the Confiitution of Guilty as well as to the Manifeftation* 2. I fuppofe you fpeak de condemnation efficaci condemnation judievs infepatabiliter connexa 5 and fo it is true, elfe not : For the Law doth condemn us, quantum in fe^ before Chrift do pardon us per legem Remediantem* 3. We are freed by Chrifl's Satisfa&ion, only when the fruits of it are conferred on us h that is on our believing, but not on the mere payment. So your fenfe.

Aphorifrn. Page %5*r~riHe New-Covenant threatneth mt death J, to any fm, but final Unbeliefs or at leaft to no fin without final Unbelief.

Animadyerf. I grant that the New-Covenant, promiring Life on condition of Believing, maybeftid to threaten death only in cafe of final Unbelief; that is, except one continue in Unbelief unto the end, he (hall not perilh : i. Yet when it is faid, that Chrtfi will come in flaming fre^ talking "X>eng?ance on them that knew not God, and obey not the Gofpslof our Lord J efts* Ghxtfc

x Theft

2 Theft i. 7^8. I conceive,that by obeying the Go/pel, is meant obeying the Moral Law, to which even the Gofpel it fclf doth require obedience, Matth. 5. 17,18,19. &i Qor. 9.21. & T/t. 2. 11,12. So that fuch as tranfgrefi the Moral Law, are liable to death, not only ^ theLaw> but alfo by the Gofflel, though the Gofpel withal hold out pardon to thofe that believe, which the Law doth not. 2. Ik-fides, few (I think) will deny, that the Old-Covenant is ftill of ufe to let us fee what is due unto us for fin, and what need we have of Chriit. But when it is faid, that Believers are freed from the Law as a Covenant of Works; the meaning is, that they are not tied to thofe itrid terms which are contained in that Covenant, namely, to obtain life upon conditiotrof full and perfect obedience to the Law, or otherwife for any the leait Tranfgreffion to incur eternal Damnation.

Reply, This is the great Point that fo many op-pofe i wherein yet you agree with me. 1. It is not «nly an implicite Threatnin* (implied in the Promife) to Unbelievers» but an explicate. 2.1 believe not, that by the Gojpel of Cbri(t> 2 Tfbtjf. 1.7,8. is meant directly the Moral Law, as fetch : But obedience to the Moral haw, is implied in it, fo far as it is the LawofCbrijl, to be fmcerely obeyed, as a confequent of Faith, and implied in Faith. 3. I yet difcernnoc that any is liable, or virtually-adjudged to death by the New-Law (as difiind from that of Works) for Vnbelief or THf obedience, but on fuppolition that they be final. Indeed, whether it be final or not, men are at prefent children of Wrath that remain impenitent: But that is; becaufe they are fo by the Law of Wor\s^ and the Law of Grace hath not yet delivered them i but it faith not, that tbeyjhall net be delivered, but on fuppofalof perfeverancc to the end in that Im? penitency, 4. The Old-Covenant is not only of

ufe

u(e to let us jee our Due : but fir ft to confthute that Vue^ and then to manifeji it*

Aphorifm. • plainly td even the Eleci, are under the Law, till

Page %6.QCripttire plainly teacheth, that all men,

they believe.

^niwadyerf True: But not after they believe, as you feem to hold, f, y$, & 79. you plainly declare your felt to difll'nt from rhofe learned and godly men, who exempt Believers from the Law, as a Covenant of Wsrks. Yet you yield as much as they (t prcfume) defirc. K.2y. you cite the words of the Apoltle, They that are led by the Spirit, are not under the Law, and agatnft fitch there is no Law, Gal. 5T. 18, 25. P/tge88. you hy* [The Obligation to Punilhment is dead as to us. Rom.7.6. but not the Law void or dead in it felf. I know not why any lliould defire more than is here granted : Neither do I believe, that thofe learned and godly men whom yet you profefs your felf tod idem from, did intend more.

Hefty.

i. The intent of the firit fort of them cannot be known by their words i for they are felf-contra-di&ory. The intent of the fecond fort is for much mores as you would be quickly brought to believe, if you did but read fome Volumes of Papers written to me on this fubjedt.

2. I am glad that I (b fa*agree with you, that you can fo hardly believe that any others differ from me (that are godly and learned.)

3. For my feenrrng to make Believers under the Law. I anfwer, So do you. They are Jo far under the Law, that it maketh them guilty, that is, ob-Jigeth them to pnnifliment j which is Condemnatio Legit: But this guilt, as it accrues, is remitted i and this Obligation diiTolved > when contrived h and

this

X

6% mtynt fin is Damning

this Cmdemnatio Legis , (hall never procure the Condemnationem Judicis, becaufe there is in force, and (till at hind fitperaddita Lex Gratia Remedians, diflblving theforefaid Obligation.

This is in brief my judgment of that great point.I dare not yield to them that fay, The Law is abrogated (de Futuros) nor to ordinary Divines, to fay, It is abrogated to Believers, left I fhould utterly deny a poffibility of any pardon, by denying all reality of guilt: For where there is no attual guilt (though there may be Potential and Conditional, as fome fpeak) tnere is no place for pardon. Where there is no Obligation, there can be no diflblving of that which is not.

Aphorifm. P a g e Sg.TT THofoever will repeHt, and believe 'in V V him to the end, Jhatt bejufiified, &c

Animadverf. No doubt, as in other Graces, fo in Faith, perfe/erance is required. Now the juft /hall live by faith : But if any man draw bac^ my Soul /ha'd have no pleafare tn him^Heb. 10.38* Yet JuftiEcation is promifed (imply to them that believe: By htm all that believe are )uftified^ A<fts 13.39. It is not fufpend-ed till a man be a Believer to the end. You will fay, The continuance of Justification deth depend on the continuance of believing. I grant it : But true justifying Faith is never loft, nor true Justification ever reverfed. Whom he juftifieth^ them he alfo glorifieth) Rom. 8.30.

Reply. Still we agree, i. As if you marry a Beggar, your Riches and Honor is hers inceptively, ox quoad primam pojp-fjionem (& primum Jus) on her con-fent or Marritfgf-Covenant - But the continuance is on condition of continuing that confent and fidelity. Our fird, qx begun-aStual J unification in Law is on our

firji believing '<> but both the continuance and conformation, and the great Juflification by Sentence at Judgment, and the benefit of Glory to be adjudged us thereupon, are all on condition of our perfeve-rance and overcoming. 2. That juftifying Faith is never loft, nor Juflification hath any intercifion, doth not contradidt, but very well fuit with the neceifity of the faid perfeverance in Faith, as the Vs condition of continued and confummate Juflification. The Decree of God caufeth that perfeverance : s£ But yet the Law (being the Rule for man to live by, and God to judg by, and not the opener of all his counfels) doth not (as a Law) alway take notice of that. As God's Decree is, that all the Eled (hall believe, and yet his Law doth moft fitly require Faith of them, as the condition of their Juflification and Glory.

i

Aphorifm. toreover adz Priviledges and Glory than they fell from*

Ibid. A Nd be moreover advanced to far greater

Ammatbcirf-This fccmetbto imply, thar only an outward and eaithiy „ *

happinefs was promifed in the firft Covenant^ to which I have fr t **t < lw fpoiicn before.

Reply. It neither implieth, nor feemeth to imply any fuch thing , if by \outxvard and earthly\ ~\ ycu mean ob)eUive & materialiter, confifting of outward and terrene bleflings only. But whether Adams high enjoyment of God, (hould have been on Earth, or in Heaven, I cannot tell. I will not pretend to be wifer than I am.

Aphorifm.

Aphorifm. Ibid. A Nd^for their negleti of tbat> fhallfuffer far greater Condemnation.

Ahlma&verf,

Not in kind, but only in degree, as I have alio mewed before.

Reply. I. That's all that I urge and defire you to yield to. The fcratch of a pin, and the pulling off a mans flefli with pincers, are pains that differ not in 3{ kind, but degree: Yet in a Civil or Law fence, they ^T differ in kind: For fo a natural gradual difference^

may confiitute a Civil or Moral fpecifick^ difference. *^ 2. Yet, if poena datnni be any focna^ your Af-

fcrtion is not beyond difpute. For to be an adopted fon in Chrift, and a member of the Son of God, and one with him who is one with the Father, are pri-viledges which I cannot prove that Adam (hould have enjoyed, if he had not finned, nor any of their kind*

Aphorifm. Page 91.TEr. 31.31, cfr\ Heb. %.%>&c. containeth * not the full tenor of the whole New-Cove-venant: But either it is called the New-Covenant^ be-caufe it exprejfeth the nature of the benefits of the New-Covenant^ as they are offered on God*s part^ without mentioning mans conditions^ &c*

AnimAd\zrf.

What conditions on mans part can be affigned, which arc not

\V implied, zfer'ifi. 3 3. & //<?£.8.10. / will put my Law tn thttr

*^ ww.tr d pdrtsi and w til write it in their hearts? Where alio

it is expreffcd that God will' work thefe conditions which he

doth rtquirc; as prefently here you acknowledg, faying* Or

elfe

#?omueS teeming aoiolttte. 6?

tlfe it (peatyh only of what God wA do for his Elect itn giving them the frft Grace, and enabling them to f erf arm the conditions of the Ifew-CoYenant.

Reply. * Memorandum , That I * Since the writing or haveaver,andoyor, aWover &*^*fi I protefled my felt of your Texts fpeak not of tht ^ judgments you confefs,and I firft Grace, havefullier elfwhere exprefled. Only taking it for more difficult than fomefime I have done, I hold it not as fo clear and certain a truth, but that in tnefdefty I may take in the other opinion. If I muft therefore argue againft my felt arid you : I anfwer you , i. If it (hould be but the Confirmation,Radicatioh,or further degree of Gracfc that is here meant, then your Anfwer may be at hand. 2. What condition on mans patt is there, that is not comprehended in circumcifing tht? heart to love the Lord, and the heart of their feed ? and yet it is promifed conditionally, Deut. 31.3. What condition on mans part is there, that is not comprized in the gift of the Holy Gbofi ? Yet God giveth his Holy Spirit to them that ask it. And how oft is the Holy Ghoft faid to be given to them that believe ? And Chrift promifeth, Prov-i. Tnrriye at my reproof, and [I mil pour out my Spirit unto yoH.~\ But this is againft my felf and you*

HAphorifm. E never matyh a relative change, where be doth not make a real alfo.

sfnimadverf I. Yet in your Animadverfions on Mr. Bedford about Bap-ttax, you feeratohold a Relative change in Infants, Without

F any

66 £>f infants

any real change in them", v ^> That they are juftificd and feed from the guilt of fin, and yet are not fanfttfied, as we ufually take the word, by the infufion of Grace into the SouL I cannot fee but rhat generally, as well in Infants as others, Juftification and Sancufkfltion, in that fence, go together, I Cor. 6. II, Rom. %. cf.

2. But to take your vvord^ in the full latitude and extent of them, they feem not true : I-orin the members of the vifible Church, generally there is a relative change; they have fpe-cial relation to God y and yet in many of them there is no real change 5 /. e. they are no moie inwardly holy than mere Aliens.

Reply. I confefs you have now met with me: I ought to have fpoken Co cautelouily,that my fpeeeh might not have been Co obnoxious to a mifinterpretatioru But yet thus far I may juftly Apologize : 1. I did not meaitit of Infants or Ideots/ but only of the Aged and Rational. 2. I plainly fpeakof a real change only/as nccelTary to give title to the relative. And I do not fee yet, but this is true of all, for all your two Exceptions. And firft for Infants, Ianfwere&>

1. They have not the relations of (~ juftified, adopt-ed Church-member, &Cc~] but upon a real change or work, togive them title : But that work is on the Parents (and not requiiite in themfelves ) which gives title both to Parent and Child to the relative benefits. I faid not, that [God never maizes a relative change, where he maizes not a real on the fame perfon.

2. And for my judgment agaliift Mr. Bedford: 1.1 do fhew my doubttulneft in that point: I have proved the relative change on Infants s when you have proved the real on them to be as common, then: I will yiefdtoyou, and thank you. Butyoumuft; be pleafed to confider withal, how to refolve the; difficulties on the other tide > andanfwer both the

Arguments!

MtUtiU <Rwce. 67

Arguments of the Fathers, and Mr, Bedford* and Vavenant, and Ward-, &c. which are brought to prove the -efficacy of Baptifm to its juft end now ponenti obicem, if you deny the ordinary relative change on Infants : or if you yield it, but withal maintain the certain concurrence of an infufion of Grace (as you fpeak) even into them that after pc-rifh i then be pleafed to prove, that fuch true San-dification (for fo you call it) may be loft (which (eems to be againft your judgment) and anfwer the reft of my Arguments againrt Mr. Bedford, it is eafie enough to fee inconveniences feeming to clog an Opinion : But we muft withal confider the inconveniencies of the contrary Opinion. If you maintain, that the Child of a true Believer, pre-fentedtoGod by Baptifm, according to his Ordinance, in Prayer and Faith by the Parents, dojh not receive Remiffion of fin (certainly 0 I think you muft eitherfay, that Kemijjion is not an end of the Ordinance^ and fo it is not a Seal cf Rermflion, or of the Remitting-Covenant ot Grace \ which is not true \) or elfe, that God's Ordinances may mifs of their ends , without mans caufingfanlt i and that God's Covenant to his People and their Seed, may be broken s or elfe (encline to the Anabaptifts, and fay) that All the Seed of true Believers are not in the Covenant of Grace with God, nor (hould be baptized > and we kriow not which of them it is that are in Covenant: Or elfe devife another Covenant of Grace, containing only Church priviledges^ and not Remiffion (which fome call an external Covenant) /* as to the benefit promifed h and fay, that the Seed cf Believers are only in this, and Baptifm fealetli pnlytothis; Which leaveth the Children of Be- }L

F 2 lie vers *

>

<

68 Qf 3Jnfant5

Jievers in as hopelefs a cafe as the Anabaptifts leave them : which contradi&eth Scripture, which ap-pointeth Baptifm for higher ends , viz- for Re-mifiion of fins* and which hath given the Anabaptifts that advantage to infult, by playing upon that new-devifed Covenant > and even baffle us, when we cannot prove it from Scripture, and fo doth much harden them, and encreafe their number (as I know by experience of them.)

For the Text you cite, that i Cor. <5.n. fpeaks exprefly of the Aged h and I think fo doth that Rom. 2*9- The Word faith alfo, He that believetb not^Jhall be damned^ and yet that is not extended to Infants* Ecfides, thofe Infants that have only Remiffion-> andi not the Spirit^ will lofe it (this may be faid i) aud therefore are not Chrift's in that ftrid fence, as thofe that Jhave both. If you fay, What if they die in Infancy ? Thofe of that judgment will anfwer you, That then (if the Parents were true Believers) it is a certain fign that they had the Spirit as well as Remiifion. So much of Infants.

2. And for your fecond Exception, I reply, i. My fpeech fully (hews, that I meant not all Relations , but only faving-Relations > as, Remiffion^ Juftifica* tion^ Adoption^ Sec. But yet I fee no appearance ol Jftrength againft it in your Argument, if I hid cneaai fo. For is there no real change in the members ol the vifible Church ? Of Infants I have ipoke be fore: And if there be none in the reft, then th< Church differs little from the Pagan World, if thei differ only in Relation', and then any man may b< be baptized , whether he profefs Repentance ant Faith or not ? Is the folemn Proftfpon of believing h jf Gmji) and repenting of all fin, and covenanting u i . forfafa

&eiattfte ©ace. 69

forfake the World, Flefli and Devil, and to fight under Chrift's Banner faithfully to the death, is this no Real change >

But 1 know you will fay, It is not true SandH-fication.

I reply, i. Our Queftion is only of a real change^ and not of true Santtification. 2. As their real change is not true San&itication, but Profefiion> or a common change h fo their relative change is not true Ju\iiftcation } but to be annumerated to vifible Pro-efTors, and partake of common Priviledges. Not. 3ecaufe the Covenant of God doth contain no more, or.that they enter any other Covenant > but becaufe they perform not the conditions requitlte to the participation of more, in that they do not fincerely accept the terms of the Covenant, and accordingly re-engage themfelvcs to Chrift, »

Aphorifm.

Page 103 .JUT E muj} have a twofold Righteoufnefs^ * * anfwerahle to the two Covenants^ that txpeftethtobe jujiijied* ("vid. locum.)

You fpeak of a twofold Righteoufnefs, requifitc and necef-fary unto Juftification y but (fo far as I can judg) this Do&rine is not founded upon Scripture. For that (hews us, that Chrill's Satisfaction merely is the Righteoufnefs whe-cby we are juiti-Hed, though Faith be required on our part, that it may be imputed to u* as ours, that fo we may be juftified by it. Faith is :he condition whereby we are made partakers of that Righte-Crtifuefs, v/*,. ChrifVs Satisfaction • and in that refpecl: we ai'c faid to be juiHhed by Faith, Rom. 5.1 .with Acts 13.59. But that < Fairh is a diitinct Righteoufnefs, by which, together with I Chi ift's Satisfaction, we muft be juftified, feems to be as if -ve mould make the Medicine and the applying of it two things :o-ordinatc each with other, when as the one is but fubordinare md fubfervient, as it were 3 to the other, to work the cure; the

F 3 Me.Ucire

jo jJDf tfjc tttjofoto

Medicine being to no pui pofe 5 except ic be applied. It cannot, I think, properly be faid,rhat we are cured pa; tly by the Medicine, and partly by the Application, but by the Medicine as applied : So neither is it proper to fav, th?t we are juftified partly by CbrifVs Satisfaction, and partly by Faith, each of them being a diftin61 Righteoufnefs whereby we are justified, but that we are juftified by Chi ill's Satisfaction as our only Righteouf-nefs in that refpedt J yet not by it limply confidered 5 but as that whereby it is made ours, that we may be juftified by it.

Reply.

You come now a little nearer the quick h and therein feem very ftrongly to diifent from me: But ,%J when all is examined, it proves moft buc in words, /\» while you grant in fenle all, or molt that I deiiret Yet becaufe this is a point of fo great moment, and you think here lieth my 7rpom)V 4^'<^s> I think neceiTary to handle it more fully. And becaufe you pafs over (without taking notice of itj) the Explication of my fence of Righteoufnefs, I muft briefly repeat it.

It is not the particular Vertue called Juftice, by which we give futtm cuiq\ diilributively or com-mutatively., which we now are handling. It is in fenfn forenfi that we fpeak of Righteoufnefs and Ju-ftificjtion. And in that fenfe, Righteoufnefs is either ca%f# vel perfonx* The perfons Righteoufnefs is joyned in the Righteoufnefs of his Caufe, and ever fupporreth it.The Caufe is fometime only one Aftion or Habit, or fome few only \ and then the perfin is juftified but fecundum quid, or as to that Atliott of which he was accufed, and no further (by the Righteoufnefs of that his Caufe.) Sometime the Caufe is all a mans Anions or Uifiofitions which are called in queition, which he is put tojurti-

fie;

ffitgWcottfnefo 71

fie : And if he juftifie all , he fully juftifieth \M perfon, which is called Jufiificatio perfona in the mod ufual fcnfe of that phrafe* But yet a mans Caufe may lye in other things thbn Attions or Difj>o-fttions : (of which anon) and he may have other Ways to be juftihed.

The Righteoufnefi in queftion is contrary to guilt. Guilt is twofold, l.Reatus culpa. 2. Ream poena : The firft fo called, in reference to the Precept or Prohibition : The fecond, in reference directly to the Santtion*

So is there a twofold Righteoufneft, and in either of them is confidcrable, both the form, and the quafi-materia. The Precept commandeth to do, or not do. He that obeyeth accordingly, is righteous^ and not rem culpa. The Santlion cOntaincth Pro-mifes zndComminations, or determineth deyamiis & pcenis: He that is not obligates ad pxnam , is righteous in refped: to the Comminution *, and he that hath jus ad premium , is righteous as 10 the pnmiant a&of the Law.

As Juftification fuppofeth Accufation \ fo Righ-teoufnefs fuppofeth (in the Judicial fenfe of the word) a poffibility of Accufation*

As the Law confilkth of thefe two parts (the preceptive (de agendo vel non agendo.) andtheStf#-Uion\) fo there is a twofold Accusation that wearc Kable to: 1. That we have finned, or have Reatnm culpa. 2. And that we are therefore Obligati ad pxuam, and have no title to the Reward. To be righteous, in refped of the former Accufation (if it be according to the Law of Works at leaft, that we are accuied, or (as I think) the Law of Grace either) is to be Non^peccator^ or to be Innocent. To

F 4 be

j% * Df tl)e tujofoto

be righteous, in refpeft to the latter Accufation*, is to be Non-obligatus ad poenam^ or non-cotodemnan-duss or to be rewarded , if the Accuferdeny his title to the Reward : Or, if this laft be queftiqnable, whether [ m JuJi'] fignifie [Reypardable ?] yet none can queftion the former, Whether it fignifie [non obligatus ad poenam*~\

The formal nature of {Righteoujnefs "] therefore is relative: Even fuch a tranfcendental relation is it, as is Reatusi to which it is oppofed > and as Debt-turn is, which is the common formal nature of all J\ proper Morality* And for the fundamentum and fubjeft of this relation : The firjlfubjett oiRighte-oufnejs which is oppofed to Reatut cup*, is A8io vel Attionis fuftenfio ( under which is comprized the Vijpofition :) And from the AUion, it refulteth to the Agent or Perfon, who is the laft fubjeci of it ; The Perfin is therefore righteous (in this firft fenfe) becaufe his attions and dijpofitiont are righteous.

The fiebjed of the latter fort of Righreoufnefs (which is oppofite to Reatus pxn*) is only the p erf on*

The immediate fundament am of the former Righ-teoufnefs, as it is ferfont, is thejufiitia aUionum &

tab*

diftofitionum, as being to own : And fo it is a r*/*-fiflfc founded in a relation, and fort/? Moral*

The immediate fundamentum of the RighteouC-nefs of his actions \ is yet another relation > viz. Their Conformity to the Precept ox Rule (confider-ing this Conformity in ejfe Reali, as it is prefup-pofed to the qflj Morale*) For it is prefuppofed, that my aftion be the fame that is commanded, considering both the Command and ABion merely in gensre entU^ before we confider that aUion as debi-

tum

turn in generis moris : And the fundamentum of this relation of Conformity, is immediately the proportio quantitative* vel perfefiio ad&quata aftionum quoad xegulam. So that the remote fundamentum of this Conformity, is the fame with the fubjedum, that is, the Aftions themfelves, or the Vijpofitions: Et it a remote fundatur in attione & qualitate : And the nearefi fundamentum is that degree and number of anions, wherein confifteth that perfection which is the Adequation to the Rule \ and Co it is founded in quantitate vel graduali perfetiione. For this Con m formity containeth, as it were, aconjun&ion of a twofold relation, that is, fimilitude (remotius) and equality (propius.) So much of that firft Righteoufnefs, which is a Conformity to the Precept as frecept.

Where obferve next, that this is none pf our Righteoufnefs, as I have proved, I think, in the Aphorifms : That we have no fucb Rigbteoufncfi, as in our own Worbj, is beyond doubt among all good Chriftiam. And that we have no fucb Rigbteoufneft of Cbriji (in this form, orasfuch) imputed to us firi&ly, and in it felf, I perceive you and I are agreed. (Though I will not be fo peremptory as to condemn them that maintain, [the Imputation of Chri(Ts Rigbteoufnefi of this fynd, as made ours only by Faith , upon the right of Vnion , as being Civiliter one * Though I hold it a perfon with * Cbriji i] yet I perilous Poftrine. utterly renounce their Doctrine, that make this Righteoufnefs ours, on the ground of pur intereft in the mere payment, before any Faith ; as if Chrift obeyed in nofira perfona, and (p make us one with Cbriji before Faith: For I could

(hew

74 ©f tfte tifoofolD

fhew, that this overthroweth the main fubftance of the Gofpel. I judg that God doth not for

XChrift's Righteoufnefs efteem us to be non peccatores^ but to be non condemnandos, and fo to be quafi mn peccatores quantum ad reatum pcen£-

It is therefore the fecond kind of Righteoufnefs (nonVebitum^poen*) which * Jus ad impunita- is ours-, and which we have um & warn. h ere t0 enquire after. The re-

lative form of this I have {poke of* The fubjett is the perfon himfelf. (To ' fay, that Chrifi u righteous for us, if vpt our felves v be not alfo righteous^ is no more to our comfort, * than that Chrift (hall be glorified for m , when we our felves (hall perifh.) The fundamentum of this - relation is twofold : The fir ft and immediate, which is the efficient caufe of our Righteoufnefs, is without the perfon , viz. the Donation or Cotiftitution of the Law or Covenant* The fecond fubordinate^ more remote^ and lefs proper foundations is in our title to that Donation : ( I By ritulm here I ca ll it Titulus in the Law-mean but that which we fenfe) , though dm fnnda-muft produce ot our < * 2 P r . J ,

own, td prove our f P e- nienta immedtata factum ducal right: And not the plicetn relationem^ tamen duo funtUmmtum ^uns in fundamenta jubordinata non full fenfe. For that is . j Q . f wiU ^j, thc

the Deed of gift, which ^ -^-n i *u^ r J

therefore is moft pro- lw or Gift only the fnnda-perly our title. mentum and tit!e,and the other

but the condition* This Titulus containethin it two things confiderable: i.Ra-ti'.-nem formalem Tituli. 2. Rationem fundamenta-lem^ vel caufalem. Titulus ad benefcium ex conditions datum (pt£ter iff am donationw) eft condition*

prtftatio*

pr£(tatio. Hie igitur ratio fundamentals eft duplex : 1. Can fa conditions, qua conditio eft. 2. Caufa pr£-ftatiomvel conditionis qua pr£[iit£. Caufa conditions qua conditio e(i itidem duplex. 1 . Kemotior & quaft materials qu£ eft Aptitudorei ad hoc officium. This Aptitude is denominated in its refpedfr to & the ends of the Legiflator: which ends are two, 1. That himfelf and Lavys receive no difbonor or wrong. 2. That the fubjecft or party obliged, have a meet way to receive the benefit. Accordingly, the condition is naturaliter apta, 1. Which confifteth j in the Creatures performance of its duty in perfection (as in the Old-Law 0 orelfe, which fuppofing the wrong of the Legiflator repaired, doth give the Repairer alfo the honor of his Grace (as Faith doth in the New-Covenant :) The former contained a meritorious Dignity > the litter prefiippoftth it eliewhere. 2. Which containeth a fitnefs to the afcertainingour benefit (this is but fubordinatc, or lefs principal.) i.Caufa conditionis qua talis Proxima, eft Inftitutio Legs vel foederis : This is the very immediate fundamentum, whence the formalis ratio conditions doth refult. It is a Condition, becaufe the Legiflator or Donor doth conflitute ie fuch. It is the immediate refult of his Conftitution,or difcovercd will. Where note, that this Ad of the Law [Inftituere conditionem'] is quite different from that other A& which I named a little before, viz. [Conftituere de-biturn pramii vel pcen£.~] Both are contained in one fentence, [If thou obey perfectly to the end, thou (halt lives'] or, [If thou believe, thou Jhalt be juftified y and not come into condemnation, nor perifh.~\ But the former part of the fen fence, | If thou believe^] or, [Whofoever believeth,"] doth inftitute the condition :

And

y6 Of tfjettbofoto

And the latter part doth inftiute the debitum pramib and fo for the debitum potM* Alfo, this Inftitution of the condition as a condition, is quite different from the Inftituting of the duenefs of the fame thing ut ojficium> as a mere duty: Which is done by the Precept as a Precept abfolutely > and not in connexion to the San8ion,thc performance whereof doth only inftitute the firft fort of Righteoufhefs op-pofite to reatus culp£, which I before fpoke of. So much de fundamentali ratione conditions qua conditio.

2. And then for conditio qua praftita, or the performance it felf, which doth moft immediately make it to be Titulus fecundarius > it is the Aftutpr*-ftantis:Thc intereft of the party receiving the benefit, is in all this implied (elfe is it not conditio fr*}lita.) Here note theft Propofitions :

Prop.** The form of this Righteoufnefs, is neither the Law, nor the Title, nor any Habit or Att which make up the title > nor any Merit or Satisfaction prerequifite to the Title : But only the [nm debitum pane,'] to be [not guilty {] non obligatus ad pcenam,\non condemnandus ;"] or, Jus adimpunita-tem (quoad potnam damni & fenfus s jus ad vitam tternam, per Cbrifii juftitiam promeritum & gratis (fub conditione receptionis congrut) donatum.

Prop. 2. Man's own AUtons are not the fundamental immediatum of his Righteoufnefs: But the Conftitution or tenor of the Law or Covenant is it. This will be thought ftrange by fome perhaps, that Adam's perfed obedience did not immediately conftitute him righteous, or non ream poena > but that we (hould be made righteous by God's Law without us, more properly and immediately, than the Habits and A8s of holinefs within us, and performed

aatgijteottfnefe. 77

edby us. But it is clear : For Righteoufiefl (now in queftion) is but the debit urn prtmii, or non debi-tum poena : And debitum is the immediate refit!t ox product of the Law or Gift , and not of our A&ions.

But you may obje&, At leaft our AUs are the material caufe.

I anfwer, If by the matter^ you mean the fub-jett, then they are not here: For here only the ferfon is the fubjed righteous ( non obligates ad pcenam:) But the matter of our Title-condition they may be.

Prop. 3. In feveral fenfes therefore the Form* the Fundamentum and the 'title may be called, \yur Righteoufnefi :~\ But fo, as one be not taken for ♦ the other s i.When we fay,the Form is our Righteoufnefi, it is but au explicatory Proposition de nomine \ for otherwife nihil prtdicatur defeipfo: The fame thing is not the fubjeQ and predicate. 2. The Gojpel-Vonation or Conftitution de non condemnando fideli) may be called our Rightecufnefs fundamenta-liter, as being the dire& efficient thereof: As the Law's Conftitution de non condemnando perfeSe obedient^ was the fundamentum of Adam's Righteoufnefs. 3. But moft commonly we give the name to the conditio prdjiita-, which is our 'title fecondary to Righteoufnefs. Of which in particular we muft (peak more anon.

And thus I have given you my thoughts about the nature of Righteoufnefs in general, and the firft diftribution of it from the two parts of the Law,Pr*-cept and Sanftion.Now I come to the fecond necefla-ry diftribution of it, which is from the two diftintt Laws or Covenants* which is the thing that you

deny :

7* £>f tfte tXDofoltJ

deny: And here I will, r. Prove* that there tiz twofold Kighteottfnejl nectffary in refpedt of the two Covenants* 2. And ihew you the nature of them,and the difference between them. 3. The necelfity hence of a twofold Jujiification > and in particular, of a Jujiification by Worhj. 4. I (hall tell you of fome Learned Divines that fully hold forth this Doctrine as I do. And,

1. That here are two dijiintt Kighteoufnejfes ne-ceflary, I (hall prove now to you from thefe fix fe-veral Mediums 1 which I think beft, both for fpeed and ftrength, to lay all together. Where there are, 1. Dijiintt Laws, which our Righteoufnefs muft refpedt. z. And dijiintt Legijlators or Judges* 3. And dijiintt Accusations. 4. And dijiintt fer-tnini proximi. 5. And dijiintt iermini remotiores* 6. And dijiintt titles : there muft needs be dirtindt Rightcoufneffcs : But fo it is in the prefent cafe i therefore, &c.

Yet one of thefe alone will be a fufficient proof. And, 1. If there be dijiwtt Laws from whofe condemnation we muft be freed, and which require diftindt conditions of that freedom, then there are dijiintt Rigbteoufoejfes : Eut, &c. therefore, &c.

Yet here is a great difference (of which more anon.) The Law of Wor\s doth not jujiifie us, nor ceafe to condemu us, becaufe Chrift fatisfied riot the Law properly, but the Lawgiver : For the Law knows no fatista&ion ftridtly fo called 1 but re-Quucth filutionem vel officii pr<eccpti , velpoem com 1 minatue (fi ita dkam.) It was neither of thefe that Chrift performed : For Attio Noxialis fequitur caput* But yet Chrift jatisjied Cod as the Legijlator tf that LaW) and fo fatisricd the ends of the Law \

fo

fo that though for all this Satisfa&ion, the Law condemns us flill (as knowing no fuch thing as Sa-tisfadtiom it being a/#pra-legal ad: to admit of Satisfaction which is redditio aquivrientii, loco ipfius debiti \) yet J)eus ut }udex Secundum banc legem* condemneth us not: The condemnatio legvs, is but condemnatio virtualti & impropria : Condemnatio enitn firiBifjime fumpta, eft fententia. It is therefore can-demnjtio judicis that is the full proper condemnation r and this we are freed from. Natnefit? that it be not at all > for God fentenced man prefently on the fall in part: But, i.nefit plena & rigorofa » God did not fully then (entence according to the fence of the Law. 2. Ne fit executio vel plena^ vol continuata : So that though it be expoftfatto* when the Sentence is paft, that Satisfa&ion is given, yet it is the ground of our Deliverance, and fo that we are not plene & ad pxnam perpetuam condemnandi perjudi-cem propter violationem iftius legti. The execution would have been full and continued, and that in rigor , if Satisfaction had not been made. Betides, though God had part Sentence on man for his fin at firft, yet not on pirticular perfons for all the fins of their lives, which are after committed againft that Law : So that the Legislator will call Sawfatti-on {Jtighteoiifnefs^] as attaining his Legal ends, though that Lam it felf will not ; And the Law it felf didneceffitateit.

2. And here is a diftinB Legijhtor and Judg. Vens Creator makes the firfi Law^ requiring perted obedience *, and for want of it, beginncth Sentence and Execution, and admitteth of Satisfaction for the flay of it, and for our full deliverance from the incurred mifery. Upon which SatkfaQim received*

he

So £>f t\)t trbofoib

he giveth up all to the Kedeemer^nd himfelf judgeib no man, but giveth all judgment to the John 5. i2. Son: And at the Sons Judgment M will be part of our deliverance to be freed from the Judgment or Condemnation of God as Creator*. I mean, as Judex fecundumfolam legem primam: So that though he judg not, yet that is our freedom > for non judicari hoc modo, is non condemnari.

3. Butmoft plain and undeniable it is, that we are liable in Judgment to diflinft Accufations » not only circumftantially diftinB (for I will not diftribute a CircumftantiU) but even as to difiinft Laws vio-lated, or diftintt fynd of fins, and diftinQ Commina-tuns againft us, and di(lin£i penalties incurred * and diftin& conditions unperformed (of which after.)

1. We are liable to be accufed as ftnners in general, and fo as having broken the firjl Law, and thereby deferved the penalty. This is a true Accufathn, and againft it direQly there is no Juftification* But againft the annexed Accufation, that (^therefore we are per judicem condemnandi ut obligatiad pxnam"] we mutt be juftiried, as by pleading the ViJJblutioft of the Obligation per legem remediantem, as the effi* cient caufe h fo by pleading Cbrift? s Satisfaction as ! the meritorious caufe, and qu*fi materia of our Righ-teoufnefs i and as being a valuable confideration for the diflblvingof our obligation to punilhment.

But then we are liable to a fecond Accufation * j viz. T'hat we have no right in Chrift, and the benefits of hU SatUfaElion: That we are not Believers, and, that therefore we are guilty of that far forer punifb-ntent. Is not this Accufation toto Cceb different from the former > If thti Accufation be true, the iinner muft be condemned for want of title to Cbrift %

and

and that oh t\vcrgrounds, i* Becaufe he is left" undelivered from the condemnation of the firfi Law* 2. Becaufe he is found guilty by the tenor of the^ New-Law, both of the (aid non-liberation, and of the additional punifhment. But if this Accufation be falfe, we are juftified, as we next (hew, by pleading Not guilty.

Furthermore, this Accufation may be threefold > i. That we ztenon-Credentcs,fioi Believer sit alK but Pagans.

2. Or that we are not fmcere Credtnies-, but 'Hypocrites, and not 'Me Betievers.

3. Or thatwe were folifidims , and added not fmcere obedience to eur Faith, and that to the enJv Surely againft thefe ftveral Accufations, we muft havefeveral ways of Juftification.

4. There are alfo feveral Termini ox^ Sentences, from which by Juftification they ate to be Vrecd i that is,both from being fentenced by bod-Creator, M Legiflator ofthefirjl Law UndfronV being fentenced by Chrift the-Redeemer, as Legiflator oftheNen»L nr

5. The Termini rem mores alfo dt: diftind : One Condemnation which we muft be juftified againft is,- that Death threatned Gen. 3. The other Condemnation that by Juftification muft be prevented is, a far forer punifhmenf.

tf. And laftly, there are feveral Titles or Pleas againft thefe fentences. Do you think, if Satan ac-cufe you to be a final Vnbeliever, or an Hypocrite, that it will juftifie you to plead, [Chrift hath fattifled f] Or if he fay, [Thou art afinner,] is it enough to fay, [I do believe ?~\ No: But when he plead-eth, [Thou hail finned, and therefor; foouldeft be condemned accordinpo the L tw :~] We m ift plead, [</***-

8t £>t tyt motoiD

ad Meritum > Cbrijl bath made Satisfaction, and the merit oftbatfufficetb^aiainft the demerit of my /wjand, quoad legit con)litutionem> the Obligation of the firft Law is diflblved by the Grant of the latter. QSo that Chrift's Satisfaction as to the point of Merits (which is the Aptitudo ad officium conditions in the firft Law) is Uco conditions a nobis prtftit* : And fo far is our title. But then becaufe it being not of our own performance) there muft concur our adttal intereft-> to make it to beformaliter titulus to us > and this intereft is by God conveyed by a New-Covenant or Law, and this New-Law or Grant, is again conditional. Hence it followeth, that we are devolved over to the New-Law, before our Juftifi-cation and Deliverance from the Old is abfolute and compleat: And fo, though Chrift's Satisfaction be compleat* and perfeSafatitfaHio, and nothing be wahting quoad meritum\ yet it is but titulttsap-titndinalis, vel conditional** \ wanting nothing in it fel£ but (bmething to appropriate it to us to apply it, and give us intereft : And that If any had ratherxall is, i. On God's part, his Faith conditio TitutL Grant or Promife. 2. On our than tpfe Titttlu*, Ldo . c c .

nor diffikeit, but think P art > the performance of the itthepropereft fpcech. Condition of this New-Law or Promife. So that as to our Deliverance or Juftification from the Condemnation of the firft Law, we have a threefold Title ne-ceflary to plead > or a Title thus divided : i. §>uo-ad Meritum, Cbrifts Satisfadion is our only 'title. 2.§>uoad Appropriationem vel Applicationem: i.God's gift, in Chrift's Teftament. 2. Our performing the Conditions (though the laft be molt imperfedtly called Title-) As if Adam had perfe&ly obeyed,

there

&igi)teottfttef& 8$

there would have been in his Obedience: i. Th e Meritorious Value, i. The perfonal Intereft. So now Cbrifrs Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righte-oufnefs* as to the Merit and Value. But the New-Covenant giveth the ferfonal Intereft: And becaufe it gives it but conditionally , therefore our performance is of neceffity to our ferfonal Intereft as the Condition,

But then here being a New-Law (Lex remedians) made for this Conveyance , here is occafion of a New-Accufation? New Plea, and fo zNew-Righte-oufnefs and Jujiification : So that here is nova caufa? and therefore muft needs be nova. )utiitia & )ufti~ ficatio. The Queftion was in the firji caufe,fJVhetber the Prifoneror accufed be condemnandus as afinner? for breaking the Law of ff r orkj f\ Quoad meritum, it is prefently determined for all: CbrijVs SatiffaSion was fufficiens pretium. But the cafe cannot be fully decided by that, for then the perjonal Intereft is que-ftioncd : Whereupon the caufe is devolved to the New-Law? and the performance of its Condition. And there comes in the fecond caufe : \lVbnber the Defendant have performed tbe Condithn of the New-Law or Covenant ?~\ And here the Condition hath not ad aptitudinem? rationem Meriti: Here he muft be juftitied by producing his Faith in the Redeemer, which is the Condition : Which is the quafumatcria of that his Righteoufnefs, andfo his neareft Title to Juftificatiori. For if he be accufed of final Vn-belief or Rebellion? he muft plead [Not guilty^ And here bti ^#j muft firft be juftitied, before be can be juftified : Not that they muft be juftified agdinft every Charge that can be brought againft them,. oi as not being fififul? ot as being a Conformity to the

G 2 Law

84 iS>f tty ttbOfoiU

Law of Works, or yet fully to the mere preceptive part of the New-Law : But as being the true performance of the Condition oftbeNew-Jjarv i which is the thing to be made good, when the Accufation is, that we have no: performed that Condition.

Note, That where I (aid before, that this fort of Juftification \jo benonobligatusad pcenarn] be-longeth immediately to the man as the only fub-jed, and not firft to his adions : Yet I deny not,but his adions may be the conditional ground of it, as evil adions are the meritorious caufe of guilt > only it is improper to fay, that the attion is guilty-* or obligatm ad p&mm.

For indeed it is another fort of juflitia-> another relation, which we are now fpeaking of, drftind from [non reus pan* :~\ I did not mention it before as a third fort of Righteoufnefs conftituted by the Law : i. Becaufe it is only conditional Laws that conftitute it: And, 2. Not all thofe neither, becaufe fometime a Condition may not be aVxio poteftativa vel arbitraria\ but it may be either fomethingcafu-al,or fome adion or thing that is in anothers power. 3. And it is but fubordinate> or a means to the laft fort of Righteoufnefs .[non ream pom&i] But yet indeed where Laws are (in their Sanation) condi-onal, they caufe a threefold guilt, or a threefold Righteoufnefs: 1. Ream culp£ qua talis (by the Precept:) And fo a Righteoufnefi which is non Reams cup£. 2. Reatur non pr£Jiit£ conditions , qua talis (by the ad: of Law which x:onftituteth the Condition :) And fo a Righteoufnefs which confifteth in performing the Condition* 3. Reatus pcen£ propter non prtjlitam conditionem (by the ad of the Law initltuting fun am:) And fo a Righteoufnefs contrary

aRtgftteOttCnefe* 8?

trary. Now thelaft of thefeis only on the fetfon for the aftioHy and not on the attion. But the two firft, are both firft on the adion> and then on the perfon: Bec&ufe Adam's aftions were conform to the Trecept^ and fo jujl * therefore Adam was reputed conform to the Precept^ and fo jufl. Becaufe Paul did perform the Conditions of the New-Covenant, his a&ion of Faith and fincere Obedience was conform to that Covenant, fo far as it inftituted the Condition * and in that fenfejuft: And if any had accufed Paul's anions as being no true performance of the Condition of the New-Law or Teftament, they might firft be juftified from their own Juftice, and then he confequently be in that point juft by refult therefrom, becaufe the attions were his own, and fo f juftified thereby againft the Accufation of ^-performance.

And this is it that we ufe to call the quafvmateria of our Rrghteoufnefs^z£.tha£ which is x\\zfub)etium primum of it, from whence it refulteth on our felves zsthzfubjetium ultimatum, and there refteth. The perfeCl Obedience of Adam in Innocency, was the fub)eUum frimum juftitU^ from whence it flowed to

fldams perfbn as the ultimate principal fubjeft. n reference to the mere Law of Works, we have no Righteoufnefl ftridly fo called : But as to the Legislator of that Law, and the fententia ]udicvs, we have a Righteoufnefl *, and the fubjetlum primum of that is, Cbrift's Sawfattion without us, which was equivalent to our Obedience or Punifliment. And therefore we ufe to call Chrift's Satisfaction, both the meritorious caufe, and the matter of our Legal-Righteoufnefs. So when the cafe is, Whether we ' are true performers of the Gofpel- condition ? there our G 3 Ferfor-

%6 5©f tye trbofolfc

Performance it felf mud firft be jxft (in that) and jvflified as the fubjettum primum of our Righteoufnefs: And thence we our felves muft byrefult be juft, and fo be juftified by that as the quafi-materU of that Righteoufnefs.So that the fame Faith,which in our firft caufe is but T^itulus ad juftitiam Chrifti fanguine acquifttam (or rather only conditio fituliv is afterwards in ihcfecond caufe, our ipfajuflitis : For when it is ipfe 'fitulus that is queftioned, and fo made the fubje£ of the caufe, then the firmnefs or folidity of that title is alfo the ipfa juftitid. For it is thejujiitia caufa and confequently muft bewi-terially the jujlitiaFerfon£: I fay not his Rigbteouf-nefs univerfal, and in all reftefts > but his Righte-oufnefs fo far, and M to that caufe. Thus I have (hewed you the neceffity of a twofold Rigbteoufc nefs: The proofs from particular Texts of Scripture, c are already in the Aphorifms, and more (hall be faid of it anon, if I find a call to it.

2. Now for the nature and difference oi thefe Right eoufneffes, though it be fully expreffed in what is faid already, yet I (hall add thefe Differences more particularly, wherein the nature will be clcarlier underftood.

i. One Righteoufnefs confifteth in [jour non-obligation to punijbmem by the Law of Works, notwithstanding our finning againft it f] becaufe that Obligation is diffolved upon Satisfaction made by Chrift. The other Righteoufnefs confifteth in, [our non-obligation to the far greater pnnifhment^ and alfo to the non-liberation from former mifery, which are thrcat-ncd by the New-Covenant.] This firft difference is, from the different Laws or Covenants, which have different Conditions \ and the fulfilling of the

Condition

Condition of each Covenant or Law, is that which is by that Covenant called the matter of our Righ-teoufnefs > as that from whence the Immunity from the Penalty doth refult.

2. Herein I exprefs the fecond difference, that it is from feveral punifhments that we are freed from. And therefore it is not the fame Righteoufnefs to be non reus bujus point , and to be non reus alteriui point.

If you fay as fome do, that the New-Law hath no proper penalty of its own.

I anfwer. 1. It is not fo : For even already you acknowledge, that it hath a penalty gradually differing : And the extremeft pain of the Stone is (b gradually different from the leatt pain of that kind, that it may conftitute a fpecifick difference in fome fenfe. »

Obje&. But there are pains gradually different* due by the fame Law.

Anfaer. But when it is due by a diftintt Lan>> on dijlinft termiy there is requifite a diftinU Plea for Abfolution. 2. Non-liberation is the penalty threat* ned by the New-Law. He that believeth not, (hall not be delivered from the Curfe of the firft Law. Here the fame penalty materially^ is the penalty of two diftind Laws, and formally two diftind penalties, viz* of the firft Law, as a penalty firft due by it h and of the New-Law, as it is a non-liberation threatned by it,

Objed. This penalty we fhould have been liable to* had there been no New-Covenant*

Anfw* Not formaliter : For it would have been

but a Privation of the good of the firft Covenant,

but not a Privation (but mere Negation) of the

G 4 Liberation

/

88 £>f tt)c motolb

Liberation purchafed and offered, which is the good oi the New-Covenant. For it cannot be a Privation, till there be fome hope or means of our enjoying it: And therefore to the Devils, the lofs of God is Privatio j but their non-liberation from thatmifery and lofs is no Privation: For they never had means or hopes to attain fuch a Liberation > e. g. If a hundred men lye in Prifon for Murther, and fifty of them be put death without remedy : Thefe die on the Law againft Murther. Eut if the Parliament to the other fifty make a pardoning A<5t of Grace, faying, £A11 that will thankfully accept |t, and come out of Prifon, (hall be pardoned, and the reft fhall die by double Torments:] Here now the additional Torment is for their ungrateful refufal of pardon, not for the firft fault * and t Q he firft deferved death is for both : As it is fuch a deaths it is the penalty of the Law againft Murther j but as it is a death inflifted after the offer of pardon (which did, as it weie, conditionally give a new-life) foit is the penalty of the Law'of Grace, which penalty hath in it more than the former > the lofs or Privation of a New-life, and the non-liberation from the formerly.adjudged death. Thus it is in our prefent cafe fo plainly, that I need not apply it.

3. A third Difference is this : Our firft Righte-qulbefs is without us, in the Merit and Satisfaction of another, Jefus Chrift > and in his free gift by Covenant. But our fecond Rigbteoufnefi is within us, and by us ; For the New-Lawgiver will not admit of a Mediator io believe, and repent, and obey thrift for us\ nor of S'atisfattion for 0111 'final lm pnitency } Rebellion or Unbelief

4, Dif-

4. Difference : The firfi Righteoufnefs is by Divines faid to be the fame thing with Remiflion offin > and in fubftance it is fo. The fecond Righteoufnefs is fo far from it, that (as to the point in queftion) it confifteth in Innocency^ or 1$ot-guiltinefs, that is, of the nonperformance of the Condition of the New-Covenant.

5. The firfi Righteoufnefs is oppofite to that guilt which fin in general procureth. The fecond is oppofite only to that guile which is procured by one kind of fin in jpecial> viz; Rejecting finally the Lord that bought us.

<S; The firfi Righteoufnefs, as it is materially in Chrift's Satisfaction, is not the Idem which the Law required, but the *fantundem. The fecond is the fame which is required by the New-Law^ as its Condition. t

7. The firfi Righteoufnefs, as it is materially- in ChrifFs Satisfaction, is not fa denominated by the Law it felf (which required the Idem^ and not the 'lantundem, ant obedientiam aui potnam delinqueniif y & nonpeenam inno:entU\ but by the Legifiator who is above Law* The fecond Righteoufnefs is a Conformity to the Law of Grace it felf, as it requireth it as a Condition.

8. The firft Righteoufnefs is, that we may be juftified^ condemnatione Legit) by dijfohing its Obligation already contracted- The fecond is, that we may prevent condemnationemhegU nova> and may not contraU the guilt.

9. The firfi Righteoufnefs feemeth to juftifie us againft a true Accufation , \_^fhat we by fin dejerved death.'] The fecond ferveth to julHrie us only againft a falfe Accufation, [that rve have not

performed

90 sDf tl)e twofold

performed the Condition of the New-Covenant, th*t is, that we have finally reje&ed Chrift.

ro.The Righteoufnefs of the firfi Covenants required by the Covenant, lyeth in fo full Pcrfeftioncf duty } that the performance is honorable to the Creature, and would have made the reward to be of Debt: And as it is in Chrift's Satisfa&ion, it is accordingly yet more honorable to the SatUfier. But the fecond Righteoufnefs (the performance of the Condition of the New-Covenant) is purpofcly de-figned to another ufe > to be the Cinntts felf-denying acknowledgment of his fin and mifery, and insufficiency to deliver himfelf, and fo to put all the honor from himfelf of his recovery,and to honor the Free-Grace of the Redeemer. So that it is not CMerit that is its Aptitudo ad officium conditions, but the glorifying of him that hath merited for us.

i y.The matter of the firft Righteoufnefs is incon-fiftent with fin in the Performer* becaufe the Pre-cep and the Condition are of equal extent ; The per* fett obeying of the Precept, is the Condition. But the Righteoufnefs of the fecond Law, may, and doth confift with fin againft the Precept of that fame Law, becaufe the Condition is not of fo large extent as the Duty commanded. Chrift commandetb us much more than he hath dire&ly made the Conditions of his Covenant. Indeed fincere Obedience to him is part of his Condition > and fo the Precept of per-fed duty, is the Rule according to which fincere Obedience doth labour to {quare its anions: And fo the particular duties may be faid materially to belong to the Condition : But it is but remotely, fo far as they are neceffarily the matter of ftneere Obedience. For many a duty may be omitted, and yet Obedience be fincere. 12.Chiefly

12. Chiefly obfervc, that the firft Righteoufnefs is a juftitia ttniverfality whtre it is performed by the perfon himfelf: And it is nniverfalis excepta vel falva cQ'tiditionti neceffttate^ when it is performed by another (byChrift) andfo given us. But the fecontt . Righteoufnefs^ confifting in our performance of the New-Covenants Condition, is but juftitia partictt-laris vel fecundum quid^ a$ to this particular caufe. I fay, that the firft had been juftitia univerfalis, if performed by our felves (vel naturaliter vel civiliter ut per delegatum noftrum :) For then we had been abfolmely and perfeSly innocent. But being performed by another (£quivalenter in Satisfattione) and one that was not our Delegate, but a free Undertaker, therefore it was none of ours upon the mere performance > and therefore the Performer and the Accepter did themfelves choofe on what terms it(houldbe applied to us, or be macle ours quoad fruStus: And the terms refolved on were the New-Covenants Conditions , which are now required of us to our participation hereof. So that nowChrift's Satisfaction is not fimpliciter our universal Righteoufnejs\ for then there were no need of any other of any fort, to any end, no not the Inherent Righteoufnefs, as commonly acknowledged. But it is our univerfal Righteoufnefs, except only as to performance of the Condition of its Application; ForChrift never died for the final nonperformance o( this : And where it is performed fas it is by all that are facred) he need no more to die for their non-performance , than for any nomnial, or falfly-charged fin, which is no fin, but a duty. In all conditional Grants, the Condition is excepted from the Grant. Quod eft in cmditione mn eft in obligation. Fur-

9* dDf tftetlbofolD

Further, where I call the fecond, [a particular Righteoufnefs>~\ underftand, that there is a twofold particular Rigbteoufnefs, according to the caufe. One wheni the caufeisof fmall moment to the plenary Judication and Liberation of the accufed : So any Reprobate, or the Devil himfelf, may be falfly accufed, and may be righteous as to the matter that he is accufed of (as Bradjhaw truly obferves.) But the other is, when the caufe is of fo great moment, that the Juftification or Condemnation, the Life or Death of the party depends upon it, as being the very Condition of that A<3: of Grace, or remedying Law which all our hope is in, and by which we muft be judged : This is our laft.

And here! muft eicher explain or reverfe my fpeechin Apborif.p-20%. [Becaufe there is no danger to us from falfe Accufatim before the All-knowing God> therefore Scripture faith nothing of anyfuch Ju-jiificjtioH*'] Indeed we are in no danger of this or any Accufation (thofe that are in Chrilt : ) But it is evident in Matth. 25. and all other de-fcriptionsof the Judgment-procefs, that the main point chat will be in queftion and tryal will be, Whether we were true Believers or Performers of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace^ or not ? and fo, Whether we have that perfonal Inherent Right eoufnefs, which U the Condition of onr interejl in Chriji and his benefits. And therefore the Accufer hath no hope in any other Plea againft any man, but that he is an Unbeliever y or Rejeder of recovering mercy. He is not fo ignorant of Scripture, as to think to prevail for mens Condemnation, merely b:caufe they are finners , when he knows they will plead, that Cbrijl hath fatisfied. But he will labour to

prove.

fRigflteottfneto 9$

p rove,that Cbrift's Satisfaction fhall not abfolve them, becaufe they have no right in him as having not performed his Conditions for participation. On this the tinner muft (land or fall, and the final,Sentence pafs.

13. The laft Difference alfo efpecially to be noted is, That the firfi Righteoufnefl is necejfary primarily, as being the Creatures Perfettion juftly required by the holy fin-hating Creator- Eut the fecond Righteoufncfs (perfonal) is required propter aliud-, in fubordination to the firft, as a means to its end : And Co ftands in no oppofition to it, nor doth it ar- • gue it of any imperfe&ion > no more than the ne-ceflity of a means doth fignifie any imperfection in the end. The whole reafon and nature of Merit ly-eth in the firft Righteoufnefs: Eut becaufe it was not of our performance, and becaufe the Redeemer never intended Co make us lawlefs or mafterleft, therefore a New-Covenant or Law was requisite both for application,donation,or conveyance oiChrijFs Righteoufnefs to usjand alfo toprefcribe us our duty which fhould be neceffary thereto ; And fo comes in the ne-cclTity of the 2d Righteoufnefs,fubordinate to the. firft

Thus I have (hewed you the differences of thefe two Righteoufneffes. And though fome of them are indeed the fame in fenfe with others , yet if the variety of Notions do but conduce to the clearer Explication of the real.differences, I have a my end. The difference of the two Laws or Co-r venants, is the main ground which (liews the necef-1 fity of this twofold Righteoufnefc. *%

3. I fhould next hence (hew you the neceffity of a twofold Justification. But it is fo evident from what is faid, that I will add but this much: If there be a twofold ' Cwenmu with diftindt (o,iditionr,

end

94 Of tf)e tXbofoiH

and a twofold Accufation, viz* for not-performing the one or the other,then there muft needs be a twofold Juftification : But &c. ergo^ Sec. To be accufed as a finner, that is, £one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them,~] is not the fame as to be accufed to be [an Unbeliever or Rejetter of Chrifiy or one that would not have him reign over us, or one that negle&ed fo great Salvation, and improved not the Talents of the Redeemer's Mercies, or obeyed not the Gofpel, or trod under foot the blood of the Covenant, &c.~\ Muft you not be juftified againft the former Accufation by Cbrift's blood direlily ? and againft the latter by your own Innocency? Will it ferve tojuftifie any man, when Satan accufeth him of final Vnbelief or Impenitency, to plead Chrijl's Saiufahion ? Methmks this caft is Co plain, that I muft defire your pardon that I have ufed fo many words about it.

4. Becaufe I come newly from tranferibing a multitude of Authors that deliver the fame Do&rine as I do, I will now recite the words but of a few (for this is but an Argument againft prejudice*) 1. Judicious Plains in "thef Salmurienf Vol.i. de Jujiif. ^.32,34. §. 37. §-4i* c Idipfum fortajfe bacrati-* one commodw explicabitur. Opponitur Juftificatio c Accufztioni. A dttabus atitem Accufationibut premi-4/ mur in foro divino. 1. Objicitur nor effepeccatores ; Y c hoc ejt [Reos violate condition^ qutfitdere Legali A * lata eft.'] Veinde objicitur nos effe infideles : hoc eft ** [non prtftitijfe conditionem faderit gratis 3 viz. ' Fidetn. Ah Accufatione priore fola fide Jujlifica-c mur, qua Chrijii gratiam & \uftitiam amplettimur. A po(teriore Jufttficamur etiam operibtis quatenus its 1 fides oftenditnr. Ad pop trior em Accufationem re-% Jpicient

XttgHteontnefc 9*

1 fpiciens Jacobus affirmavit merito^ ex operibm jufii-* ficari ho minem, & non ex fide tantum \ Paul us vero Q resident ad priorem , folafide bominem jujlificari ,

§. 42. c In diejudicii quoniam fxdus gratia vim c Legti feu juris obtinet (promulgatum ejl enim in toto 4 orbe terrarumper prtcones Idoneos.) Idunum pro-c bandnm erit, nimirum, nos babuiffe conditionemf<z~ 4 derU gratia, fciU Fidem. Itaqh proferenda erunt c in medium opera, prafertim cbaritatps, tanquam il-c lius conditions, hoc ejl fidei effeSa atq; arguments c demonjlrativa, ut vulgo loquuntur, apojterioru Vid. * ^fbe fin proximam.

2. Ludovicus de Dku in Jac. 2.24. c Facile hie c locus conciliatur cum iis qua Paulus pajjim contra vi-c detur difrutare , ft fiatuamyvt quod eji verijfimum y 4 1. Apofiolurn ]acobum non agere bic de una )ola J:i-*ftificatione qua partim fide^ partim operibus peragd-4 far, fed de duabws dijiinUis, qnarum prior ejl ex ^fide^ & fide tantum, altera ex operibus eji. §)uu)K c enim duplex inflituatur accufatio in fideles > una a c Deo, Lege & Confcientia a quibus vere peccatores ret w aguntur, altera a Diabolo & improbis, a quibus falso 1 kypocrtfeos^ mercenarii animi, impietatis ac nefari-\ orum ret perbibentur, duplex requiritur Jujiificatio \ c una qua in fe vere peccatores abfolvuntur gratuith c propter Cbrijlum a Reatu fuorum pecedtortim, qua 1 Jujiificatio a fola fide eji fine operibus* Altera, qua

* ut vere fanUificati & regeniti, abfolvuntur a falfit

* iUii Viaboli & impcoborum criminationibus* §hia

* jujiificatio petitur ex operibus. Jacobus urget,

, c utramq'y ejfe conjungendam adeoq\ non jujiificari ho-

1 c minem ex fide tantum, Jed & ex operibus* Id eft,

f I c non fufficere ut ptftificetHv ex fide a peccaw qua

' com*

\

96 £)f tl)e ttfcofolti

c commifit, fed requiri porro nt jujlificetur etiam ex c operibus k peccatis quorum falfo AccufatUr & k c qutbus per Regenerationem immunti eft.

c Vide hujus ret pleniorem explicationem in notis ejuf-c dem, in Rom. 8. 4.

3. The fame is fully aflerted by JVbtton de Recon-cil. p. 1.1.2, c. 18. and p. 2, I. 2. c 35. p. 383.11.7. and p.2. l.i.c.7. p. 144. andPart.2, l.i.c.5.p.127. §. 3,4. andc. 6- p. 138. n.2. (I muft content my felt to refer you to the places, to fave the labour Ox tranfcribiug.)

i. Bradjhaxv de Juftific. Lat. cap. 24. §.21,23, 2526. where he tells you of a twofold Righteouf-r.els> and that, c Per jujlitiam Chrifti nob'uimputa-4 tarn non pojjimus diet abfolute jive omi rnodo jufti ac ft c propter earn eo ioco nos ~Deus haberet, ac fi omnia ex c Lege ^fua k nobis requifita pr£jUtijfemus. 'Turn Q emmpoli admijfam& accept am Cbrijii jujlitiam iU c lam, nullum k nobis Veus obedientiam Legi fu£ ex i parte nojirapr£Jidndam exigere poffet. Sed perju-'jlitiam Cbrijii nobis imputatam eatenus nos jujhs J-fados £jiimat Veus, quatenus Leg* divin£ tranf-4 greffores exjiiterimus. Vt in tantum ex ilia Cbrijii c jujiitia jujii faVti dicamur , ia quantum ex inobc-' dientia nojira injujii conjiituti ftmus. Neq> enim c pro eis omnibus fat'vsfecit Cbrijius qu<e ex Lege facere 4 tenebamur (hue enim qui Legem dijfolveret in mun-c dum venijfet:) fed pro eis tantum qu* vel contra Le-' gem feceramus, velcumfacere debetemus nan fecera-c mus. Et cap.25. c Cuipeccati particularU &c Vide • ultra*

I confefsin all this, things are not fpoken (b or daly as I could with them, but the point in quc-|j ftionistullv aflerted. So Veodtte in divers place

And!

fttSt)teouftteC& 97

And Teflardxs moft fully de Natur. & Graf* Syriopjl fag. 164. Many more might be alledged, but thefe may fuffice to my ends.

Thus much for the Explication and Confirmation of my Aflertion. Now to your words: Your Rea« fon why this Dodhine is not founded on Scripture is,becaufe,[' That (hews us that Chrift's Satisfa&ion * merely is the Righteoufnefs whereby we are ju* c ftified, though faith be required on our part, that c it may be imputed to us as ours, &c. Faith is the c Condition by which we are made partakers of that c Righteoufnefs, viz. Chrift's Satisfa&iori : And in c that refpedt we are faid to be juftitied by Faith, c Rom. 5:1. with Atis 13. 39. But that Faith is a c diftiud Righteoufnefs, by which, together with 1 Chrift's Satisfadion, we muft be juftified, feems c to be as if we fliould make the Medicine and ap-4 plying of it two things co-ordinate each with c other, when-as one is but fubordinate and fubfer-c vieht, &c.

Reply. 1. You fay as much as I in fenfe 5 but on^ ly deny the term [Righteoufnefs'] to Faith* while > you yield the thing. '

2. Your Aflertion, That it's without Scripture, is but a Petitio principih and your proof none at all. You (hall fee the contrary fully anon, and did fee Scripture enough cited in the Aphorifm.

3. Quoad meritum & tftateriam jufliite prim* j foederis^ Chrift's Satisfaction is folely and wholly

our Righteoufnefs, atid not our Faith.

4. If Faith be the Condition conftituted by a New-Law or Covenant, by which we are to be judged to life or death, then the performance of

H that

that Condition is the thing materially by which that fame Covenant will judg us righteous, hoh reos pcen£ illius Legti : And fo when the Quefti on is, Whether we have performed that Condition or no } the a&ual performance is our Righteoufnefs as to thatcaufe. Let any unprejudiced man judg, whether this be not clear truth.

5. You confefs, that more than Faith is in the Condition : Repentance, Love, &c* And Jame\ faith, We are jujiified by Works > and Chrift, by om Wards : Therefore it is not true, that \jbU u no\ Scripture-DoUrine and Language Q nor that it i; improper to fay, we are thus juftiiied. And alfc this; is no Phytical Application.

d. If it were improper to fay, We are healed b\ the Medicine^ and by the Application : 1. Then com mon fpeech deceives us. 2. Rules of Logick de ceiveus. 3. Scripture (hould fpeak improperly it-faying, We are juftiiied by Faith and Works, anc not only by Chrift D sSatisfa6tion. 7. The Appli cation of a Medicine hath its interelt in the Cure ex neceffitate & aptitudine naturali immediately But Faith, Repentance and fincere Obedience, havi their intereft in our Juftification * but remotely ql naturali aptitudine > and immediately proxime> e\ Conftitutione Vivina , and in their Moral refped And therefore your example from a Phyfical cafe t an Ethical or Political^ will little hold or illuftrate.

8. But you do very ftrangely feem to overloo the frequently-inculcated paffages of my Book, an fo to miftake and overlook my meaning in that ver poinc, wherein I rood fully exprefs it, when yo (peak of [a dijlintt Kighteoufneji ', together vpu Christ SawfaUim<> &c a§ two things ca-ordinat

rvhi

Kig&tedttfttett* 99

which partly one, partly the other ju(lifie> when one if fkbordinate, &cj What have I faid fo frequently and fully, as that Faith is no part of our Legal Righteouftefi? That it is not joyned with Chriit's Satisfa&ion to make up our Righteoufnefs ? nor is one grain of it? nor hath any Merit in it ? or is accepted for its value ? &c. I fully profefs that they are not coordinate > but that (he very New-Law or Covenant is but fuhordinate to the Old i and confe-quently the Righteoufnefi required by it, is but fuhordinate and fubfetvient to the Righteoufnefs of Chrift's Satisfaction for our fins againtf the Law ; and that it is the Condition of enjoying it: And therefore our Righteoufnefi fo far> hcaufe a Condition in(iituted by a New-Law. It is injurious therefore to talk of Co-ordination as my fenfe, who fo conftantly prof-fs the one to be Jubfervient^ & propter aliud, as your Application of the Medicine is. And I little doubt, but it is proper to fay, He that hath the Medicine, and will not apply it, dies for pvantof Application *, and he that doth apply it* recovers in one refped, through the Medicines iq mother, becaufc he applied it. I think we are igreed, how much of the praife belongs to the Vledicine, and how much to the Application : And tj;hen for the term [Righteoufnefif\ We (hall fee what he Scripture faith of ic anon, when your Exceptions more necefTarily lead me to it.

age 108.

Aphorifm. Vr Evangelical Righteoufnefi U not without us in Cbri(i> as our fro-legal

O

Righteoufnefs U > but confijletb incur own anions of ^aith and Gojpel-Qbedience.

H 2

Animad.

ioo jj)f ti)e ttbofolD

Antmacherf

That Righteoufnefs which the Gofpel doth hot hold unto us, is our Evangelical Righteoufnefs^ and that is a Righteoufnef* without us In Chrift. It is ChrifVs Righteoufnefs which h imputed to us, and made curs to Juftification. Chrift's Satisfaction may be called both our Evangelical Righteoufnefs. as being revealed and offered in the Goipel, Rom. I. 16^17 and alfo [our Legal Righteoufnefs,] as being that which th< Law requiieth, and whereby it is fatisfied, Chrtftbctng th> end of the Latv for Right eoufnefi to every one that belteyreth Rom. ic 4. But othei wife the Scripture excludes Legal Righteoufnefs, and fets'up Evangelical Righteoufnefs, as thatb; which wemuftbe juftified, Rom. 10. 5, &c. Ph-tl. 3*9.

Reply. You fpeak my own words -, yea, fpeak more fo Legal Righteoufnefs than I will. For I do no think, that Chrift's Righteoufnefs of Satisfaction I is that which the Law required (for it required fupfiheium delinquents^ & non Mediator]* \) nor ye I that the Law was fatisficd ftri&ly by it(except quoa I finem remotum : For it is an A& of the Re&or c\ above Laws^ to admit Sawfaftion, which is reddi tio tquivalentti ^ and it fuppofcth a Relaxation the Law, and the Law cannot relax it felf :) An yet you feem to oppofe me for fpeaking of a Legt Righteoufnefi. In what refpedi I call'd ChrifVs S^ tisfadion a [Legal Righteoufnefs3 I told you fu ]) > even the fame in fenfe, as you allow here.

Aphorifm.

PageHo.T^H^ Rigbteonfnefi of the Nett>-Cov\ -1 venant, beeing the performance af i

Conditions^ &c.

jinimad\>erf

This feems to be the n^*™ ^<u'<f ^ the main thing whe»^ in you mjftake. I mould diftinguifh betwht the Righteo

KtSftteDUfnetev ioi

efs of tjie New-Covenant, and the Condition required of u? lat we may partake of it. The Righteoufnefs of the firil Covenant is perfonal Righteoufnefs performed by us, Rom. o. 5. Ihe Righteoufnefs of the New-Covenant, is the Righ-:oufnefs of Chrift imputed to us; but not except we believe 1 him, y*<foi3. 39. I fpeak (as you do) of fuch Righceouf-efs as whereby we are juflified.

Reply. 1. Can you give any tolerable Reafon, why I nay not (atleaft) as fitly denominate Txigbteouf-lefs from the feveral Covenants prefcribing it, and

0 which it is conform , that is, from themoft im-nediate Foundation 1 as you may denominate it from he mere Offer or Vifcovery in the Gofpel to be Evangelical (that is, ab accidente) when you con-efs it is Legal in my fenfe (and more?) And yet his tota lv9 eji de nomine*

If you fay, Why do not I lay down litem dt no* nine^ by (peaking as others >

I anfwer, 1. Becaufe Scripture fpeaks fo before ne. 2. It is neceffary to the right unfolding the main Do&rine. 3. The Scripture-phrafe is be-:ome fo odious, and fo great breaches are made in he Church, by deepeft cenfuring thofe that ufe it, hat it is neceffary to reaffumeit, and vindicate it. \. It tends moft potently to heal our breaches, &c. 3y the way here bear witnefs, that where you give is much to Faith as I '(to be the Condition) and b the tota lis eli de nomine jujiitig, yet you fay 5 his feems to be the 7rp6rov ^tvSbs : So that my ir^pTGV 4-^'^fes is of no higher a nature than de limine 1 if it be an error, as you deem.

1 2. But why fpeak you nothing to difcover this /lafter-faKhood ? yea, when I laid fo plain a ground ar it, which you deny not, viz. from the very dell 3 (cription

loi m tty twofold

fcription of Righteoufnefs r of one fort, and in the mod ufual fenfe >■ But I think I have faid enough before to vindicate it.

Aphorifm. Page 11 i.HP0 affirm , Tbat our Evangelical , or I

-■- New-Covenant Righteoufnefs U in Cbrijl) and not in ourfelves, &o I. It implietbbla-Jpbemy againji Chrift^ as if be bad fin to repent of, pardon to accept^ &o

Antrnatboerf. All this follows, if Faith be our Evaageltcal Righteoufnefs : Not if it be (as it is) our Condition to be partakers of that Righteoufnefs, That Righteoufnefs is to be fought by Faith,! therefore it is called, [Righteoufnefs which is of Faith,] Rom.) jo. 6. Righteoufnefs by faith, Gdt*1-+. The Righteoufnefs^ of God which is by Faith of Jefys Chrift, v/>> as* the object of faith, not as the flibjeft, Rom. 3.22.

Reply. You confefs all that I fay de re> but deny it de nomine JuftitU. You confefs , that all this Blafphcmy follows , if we fay , \_Cbriji repented and believed for us. 2. For the name of [Righteonf nefsf\ the Texts you mention deny it not to Faith. It followeth not that the Condition of the New-Covenant is not Righteoufnefs , becaufe it i< a Condition or means of our partaking of a fur. ther Righteoufnefs. Yet this is all your arguing from the Scriptures cited > or elfe becaufe £Chrift\< . Satisfaction is our Righteoufnefs, therefore there if no other fubfervient Righteoufnefs] which is as weak.

Aphorifm. Page I18.T Ntbif fore-explainedfenfe it i*, tbatmey \ are faid to be perfonally righteous.

Anim

a&tc$teottfitcfeu 103

lathe Scripture men are faid to be perfonally righteous diners ways: 1. Comparatively , as being lefs unrighteous , Jen. 38. 16. 2. In lome particular cafe, pfd. 7.8. & 18.23. j. In refped of ftudy and endeavour to conform to the Will >f God in all things, Luke 1-6. But that any are fo perfonally righteous, as that by their own perfonal righteoufnefs they ire fimply and abfolutely juftified in the fight of God, this the Scripture doth not teach us, but is againftit, Pfal 130.3,4. fc 143. 2.

Reply.

1. Nor did ever I teach it: Aadyet one would think you intimate that I did. [Simply and Abfolutely] are great words. I do uot think that CbrijFs Sawfaflion doth juttitie us fimply and abfolutely : For then how can Faith be the Condition ? It jii-Itifies no man far #<;#-performance of the Condition finally: And he that doth perform it y needs no Ju-ftification for his w^-performance h and therefore ChrifV.s Satisfaction is not fofar his Righteoufnefs, and fo not fimply and abfolutely his Righteoufnefs. This is true, both of our Repentance, Faith, and fincere Obedience. Much lefs durft I ever think that our Faith is fimply and abfolutely our Righte-Dufneft, if thereby you mean as you feem to do, our univerfal Righteoufnefs materially.

2. The comparative Righteoufnefs which you mention, is indeed no Righteoufnefs. And if you would make u(e of tropical terms, you might perhaps have found Unrighteoufnefs it fdf, fomewhere called Righteoufnefs Ironically : Shall we therefore in Difpute fay, Unrighteoufnefs is Righteoufnefs?

3. But your twolaft ConceiTions deflroy your Caufe : For both together make up the Righteoufnefs of Faith which you denyt For, 1. It is

H 4 jujiith

jo4 £>f tl)e ttbofoifc

juftitia caufie particulars, and not univerfalUs but then remember the diftin&ion of juftitia particular** , which I gave you before. It is fuch a juftitia parti* cplarUy as our Salvation or Damnation will be determined by at Judgment. 2. And the matter of this juftitia particulars^ is fincere Obedience added to Faith h which Obedience confiikth in (hat endeavour to conform to God's Will, which you exprefs.

Aphoriim. Page 120. Ty Vt if you confider our aVrions and per- \ \J fons in relation to the Rule of the ; New-Covenant , fo all the Regenerate are personally \ right eous> &c.

Ammacherf But this perfonal Rjghteoufnefs (I fay ftiil) is not that j whereby we are juftified, but that whereby we are fanctified y being indeed one and the fame with Holinefs: And thei efore Rjgh&oufnefs and Holinefs 3 or righteous and holy, are divers times in Scripture joyned rogether, as terms equivalent one to the other: Though in fome refpeft they may be diitinguifhed, Luke 1. jf.'Ephef.Q. 14. Pfal. 147.17. Key;. 22. II.

Reply.

1. I thought all this while you had denied the name of [Righteoufnefs'] to belong to it: But now J perceive you confefs both the name and nature , viztthat it is Righteoufnefs : Only you deny,that we %xe juftified by it > whereby you have faved me thq labour that I intended of proving it further to be Righteoufnefs.

2. But is it not aftrange Righteoufnefs. that will! not JHjlifie ? either you mean v that [we are not itniverfally juftified by itY] and that I know no marj that will affirm. Or you mean, that we are not juftified by it againft the Acjcufationoibcingbreal^ers ofibefirjl Law; But fo we are juftified by it only

a$

a&tgttfeottfnefe. 105:

as the Condition of our intereft in Chrift. Or elfe you mean, that we are not at all juftified by it, that is, not againft the Accufation of non-performing the Conditions of the New-Covenant ** (and this you muft mean, or youfpeaknot tome:) And this is very untrue. For, 1. If you mean it of Juftification conjiitutive^ then to fay, [It U Righteoufnejs-> but will qot juftifie i] is all one as to fay, [Ic U whitenefs^but maigs not white \~\ [It is paternitas velfiliatio, fed non conftituit -pattern vel filium » fanttitM^ fed nm conjiituit fan&um] [eft forma , fed non informai] But [formam fequi debet nomen*'] If you mean it only de Juftificatione perfententiamjudicis, then it is as much as to fay, [We are conftituted righteous hereby^ but Jhall not be judged to be fo\~\ le. the Judg will not judg the righteous to be righteous^ fo far as he truly is righteous. He that faith to the righteous* [Thou art wic\ed^] is not the Judg that muft judg the World.

,3. You will oppofe [that whereby we are juftified^] to [that whereby we are fanttified,'] as if the fame thing might not do both. It conititutech us holy, as it is a fandiifying quality. It denominateth us 'Righteous , as it is the fubjettum primum, or matter of our non-Reatus.

4. The Texts cited make not Righteoufnefs and Holinefs fo far feparate as you confefsj nor yet equipollent terms >' but only to be concomitant, and both together a fit defcription of God's people: Scripture doth not fo ordinarily tautologize, nor is it to be imagined,

5. Righteoufnefs and Holinefs are not all one, fo much as materially. For the matter of our Righteoufnefs is our fultulling of the Condition as fuch >

which

io6 £>f tile mofolD

which is done by the fincerity of Faith and Obedience, if there were no more: But the matter of our Holinefs lieth in our qualities and actions as they refped the Precept or Rule > and fo they may contain in them more than mere fincerity.

Aphorifm. Page 121.T Have been forty to bear many Learned -* 'teachers fpea\thm.

Animacfoerf. You mean, that our perfonal inherent Righteoufnefs is imperfect j and truly I am forty that any Learned Teacher mould diflike this. This perfonal Righteoufnefs is the fame with Holinefs, however you would make them to differ y and Holinefs here is but in perfecting, it is not perfected, zCor. 7. i. Reply. I mean as I fpeak J and that was, [that anyfhould Jay, *fb>t the godly are denominated Righteous (per-fonally) only becaufe their Sanftification and Good* rvorkf have fome imperfett agreement to the Law of Wvr\s :~\ And fo that we are legally righteous in our felves.

2. I think I have plainly (hewed you, that Ho-linefsand Righteoufnefs differ toto codo formaliter > and mttcby though not whsVy, materialiter. Why did you not manifeft the unfoundnefs of the differences which I exprefled, but barely deny it ? Holinefs is imperfed, but Righteoufnefs is formaliter per-fed", or none at all : Yea, the forma fubjefti primi y called the materia^ is perfect too '•> for it lieth in the Metaphyseal truth of our [performing the Condition as fitch i] and therefore is convertible with the entity of that performance. But the aftions whereby we fo perform the Condition, are not perfeUly holy > that is, they are not perfe&ly conform to the

Precept^

Bicrttfeoufttefe* 107

frecept, though they are perfidly, that is, truly a performing of the Condition^ and fo conform to the a&of the Law which conflituteth that Condition.

Aphorifm. Page 12 2. O Ighteeufnefs fignifying a Conformity to l\ the Rule > and a Conformity with a quatenus or an imperftci Rectitude^ being not a true Conformity and ReUitude at all (becaufe the Denomination of the whole attion or perfon> and not of a certain part or refpeft \) therefore imperfeB Righteoufnefs is not Righteoufnefs ■, but Vmighteoufnefs: It U a Contradiction in adje&o.

<Antmad>>erf I fee not but that an imperfect Conformity to the Rule, may denominate a man righteous, though not perfectly righteous • as well as imperfect Qualifications (which you grant} may denominate one holy,though not perfectly holy: Thefe two[Qua^ lihcarion] and [Confoimiry to the Rule,] being indeed the fame, for what fa the Qualificrtion of the Soul,\vhich makes it holy, brr the Rectitude of it $ and its Conformity to the Rule > which makes it righteous } And are not the wi{is of the Regenerate made comformable to the will of God? in fome meafure,and yet not in full meafuie > W:-: there not fomc Conformity to the Law in Paul^ when he could fay, / delight in the Law of God after the inward man f But was this a perfect Conformity when he was forced to fay, But I fee another Law tnmy members , &c. Rom, 7. 12, 23. Reply. 3. That which you fay you fee not, is very dif-cernable, if you will well confidcr what is before laid. As Schibler faith, de Similitudine , in the place I cited, if you fpeak Jlrifie & Philofophice viz. de ipfa relatione^ relatio non tntenditur nee remittitur : And fo imperfedi Conformity is a contradiction, as is imperfect Similitude : But if you fpeak vulgarly and laxly, not de ipfa relatione, fed de relatione fub-

jetto,

ios jj)f tljemofoiD

Jeflo, quando fundatur in qualitate, you may fay, Relatio recipit magU& minus, becaufe that Quality doth fo : And in this fenfe I grant, that FquVs good a&ions (and aJl the Saints) are conform in part (that is, draw near to Conformity to the Law of Works 0 when fpeaking properly, they are Incon-forra. Vide Scbibler. Met. 1. 2. c. 8* fundi. 2. n.i??. &. c. p. Tit. 7. Art. 2. he faith, it is but Locutio popularis & non Fbilofopbica to fay, Similitude is intended and remitted : And faith, that aqualitas con- • fifiit in indivifibili & quafi centra. Vid. Topic c.22. Vtd. Suar. Metapb* Vijp. 48. §. 18,34. Aquinas faith, (though the contrary laxer fpeech may pafs) Relatione* non recipiunt magvs & minus, I2<e. q. 82. a. 4. c.

3. But you muft further remember, that this relation pf [Righteous,"] in the fenfe of the Law of Works, fundatur non folum in Qualitate, fed & in Quantitate : Et relata quorum fundamentum eft quan-tit as non recipiunt magU & minus > inquit Alfted. Me-tapb. & omnes Metapbyfici uno ore. This Righte-oufnefs is quedam IfLqualiias: And Equality is founded in Quantity. Bellarmine himfelf could confefs (de Juftif I. 1. c. 1.) Vorro juftitia unde Juftificatio nomen babet, nihil aliud eft nifi ordinvs Rettitudo : Id enim eft )uftum quod reBum & Adt-quatum & cum Jua regula optime congruens*

If therefore our Queltion be but of one attion-> that adlioa is not ftrittly Conform to the haw of Wor\s (the Precept) which is not perfectly Conform : But when we fpeak not of one a£tion,b\xt of the Rigb-teoufnefs of the perfon which is denominated from all his attions together, I thought the cafe had then been unqueftionable, That there is none righteous,

no

no not one. Do you indeed hold, that a firmer is truly righteous according to the Law of Works ? If he be: 1. It is either with that Righteoufnefs which is a Conformity to the Frecept as Precept, and is oppofite to Reatus culp£ : ([But that is utterly untrue, becaufe though the adhons admit of magis & minus > yet Conformity and relative Equality do not, but ftand in centro. And it is a perfedt conformity, which that Law will call a Conformity, and doth exprefly require.) 2. Or it is with that Righteoufnefs which is in the performing of the Conditio on, and is oppofed to Reams nonprtftit* conditionis ; (But that's as untrue > for in that Law, the Precept and Condition are both of an extent: The Condition is only perfett Obedience.) 3. Or it is with that Righteoufnefs which confifteth in non-dvenefs of Punijhment, and is oppofite to Reatus poena : (But if that were but materially in imperfect wforks, according to the tenor of that Law, thcnChrift died in vain : And it is the perfon, and not the actions, that is the fubjedt of that.)

4« You fay, [Qualification and Conformity'] is the fame* Even as Albedo and Similitudo, or as. Sub-jettum & Accidens, or as Quantity and Relation are the fame.

You ask, \jVhat is the Qualification which makes it holy, but the ReBitude and Conformity to the Rule, which makes it righteous /]

I reply, 1. If you take Holinefs (as now we do) for a Quality, then no relation doth conftitute it certainly. But that Quality may be pajrt of the matter or fubje& of the relation. 2. It's true, that the Subjettum primum, or the materia of out Righteoufnefs (now pleaded for) is the Conformity ot our

anions

no £)f tfyt ttDOfoiO

actions and difpofitions to the Rule. But the Question (you well know} is, To what Rule ? And I fay, I. Not to the Law of Works. 2. Not to the Precept of the Gofpel as fuch, in its fulnefs. 3. But to the New-covenant , as inltituting the Condition of cur participation 6f Chrilt. Our Holinefs is the . matter (as it is fincere, not as in this or that further degree) as it coniirteth in Faith and Repentance, and fincere Obedience, which is conform to the Hew-Lan> quoad Conditioner ; but it is not the Conformity it felf, much lefs is it the Righteoufneft of the perfon, that is formaliter the non-Reatns pxne Le-gis nov£: Leaft of all is it a Conformity to the Law (f Worhs, perfedt or imperfect (for fuch theire is none.) Yet if you will fay, Infenfu popular* & im~ propria (as Scbibler calls it) & non Philofophica, that our Holinefs is imperfe&ly conform to the preceptive part of the New or Old Law, I will not contend about it. Only I muft ftill defire you to know, that by [Evangelicalpergonal Righteoufnefs^] I mean, not Helinefs in that fenfe > but I mean, formaliter our wn-Reatuspcen<e Evangelic*: Et fundamentaliter, 1. Our Conformity to that Law, as requiring the Condition only : And, 2. The ipfa Conditionis pr&-ftatio , wherein that Conformity doth confift : In a word, that we a*e not rn non-pr£jHt<e Conditionis.

But becaufe you io verily think, that the Law of Works doth call all Saints truly righteons , though imperfeftly, I defire you to tell me thefe things: 1. Doth not Chrift juftifiethe unrighteous, as to Legal Righteoufnefs ? How then do you prove them righteous according to that Law ? 2. If the Law of Works call them truly righteous, then it will juftifie them : For it cannot but juftifie the jurt.

3. Doth

3&igt)teoiunei& m

2. Doth not James fay, he that offendeth in one, is guilty of all ? How then can that Law know fuch a thing as imperfe<$ Righteoufnefs ? 4. Doth not God fay, Prov. 24. 24. He that faith to the wicked, [Thou art righteous'] Nations Jhall curfe him, &c. And he that juftifietb the wicked, and condemneth the righteous, even they both are abomination to the Lord. But if the Law pronounce an imperfeft Obeyer righteous, and yet condemn him to Hell, it condemneth the righteous. 5/ May not the damned and Devils be pronounced righteous by the Law of Works in your fenfe > If any degree of (or rather towards)Conformity,give that title ? And fo alfo of all that peri(h. For they do fomewhat, in fome re-fped, which the Law requireth: For I hope you will not fay as the Pharifees, that the perfon is righteous, if mo(l of his anions vfetegoodi and uv righteous, when moft are bad, as Panlus Bur\enf. reprehends them (Addit. in Lyram in Jacob* againft Rab. Mofes, and other of his Countrymen.^ And Burgtnf. thinks James wrote purpofety againft that Do&rine. However you know, that the bed man hath more faulty actions than faultlefs h nay, the beft man never did one work which the Law of Innocency will calljuft, Vid. Melantt.Loc. Com* de bonis operib. p. 311. Pijcat. Calv. Bulling. Pel-lican. Brocbmond. &c* in Jac. 2. io» Dr. T'mfs faith, Vindic. Grat. 1. 2. part. ft. c 15. p. mihi 214. Col. 2. Ad bonitatem moris quod attinety fa ] fum ell alius ifios benos ejp. Bonum enim nm nifi ex Integra caufa conftat: At ex quolibet defedu malum. Et quomodo dicantur illi,per fe boni quos agnofci-mus £tern<e damnations meritorios ? Falfum efi eum qui dat Eleemofynam van* glori* ftudh , bonum

afium

m &f fyt ttbofblb

aUum prtfiare, utprobatum efl* Gjhtodvero addit [^fed perverse ~] perverse facit. Hoc enim innuit, eundetn aUum pffle ejfe '& moraliter bonum, & moraliter malum : quod falfum ejl. Chrift doth not out of the fame mouth fend forth Bldling and Curling. There is no middle here with us,between Guilty, and Not-guilty, that is, Righteous. Indeed, as Viflimilitude and Inequality have degrees, though ftridly Similitude, Equality and Conformity have none? foUn-irighteoufnefs hath degrees. The a&ion alfo of a * Devil may be juft, and juftified fecundum quid, in fome refpeit h but that denominated not the a&idn righteous, much le(s the A&or. I conclude with two Learned mens words : Neqtie putandum eft fieri pojfe ut per Legem, faltem aliqua ex parte juftifice* mur \ (therefore we are not aliqua ex parte juftu) Nam aut Legem tranfgreffus ej, aut non. Si non es Legem hanfgrejfus, Lege Juftificaris : ft tranfgreffus es, Gondemttaris. Inter Legis tranfgrejjionem & non-tranfgrefponem, nihil pot eft ejfe medium* Itacfy aut om-nino, aut nullo modo Lege Juftificamur (veljuftifu-mus.) Placjcus Thef. Salmurienf. Vol. i. p. 29.

§• 13-

And Wotton faith (deReconcil.part.zA. i.c.<$.n*

1 6.) Tlie Righteoufnefs, whereof the Law is the Rule, is not the Righteoufnefs of him that hath once tranf-grejfed the Law. And ibid, n* 4. \Where Righteoufnefs, which is the way to life eternal, is the fame, the Covenant of G°d concerning the obtaining eternal life muft be the fame. For the Covenant is divers, according to the nature of that Righteoufnefs which is under flood to be its Condition; feeing it is evident, that the Covenant doth depend upon its Condition , and from it y as it were, borrows its nature. But in the

Lm

&fgt)tepufnefo n$

Late and the Gojpel, there U not the fame Covenant for obtaining eternal life, Gal. 3. 17. How therefore can the fame Righteoufnefs be faid to be required in the Law and the Gofpel, when it'iA mnfi evident that the Covenants ate divers , or rather oppofite. So far Wotton.

Aphorifm. Page 123. T Could here heap up a multitude of Or-1 thodox Writers, that do call our perfonal Righieofffnefs by the title of Evangelical-, as fignify-iHg by what Rule it doth receive its name*

Ant madderj . Bur do thefe Orthodox Writers fay, that we are juflffed by this Righteoufnefs ? Both imputed Righteoufnefs and inherent ( which is the fame with perfonal) Righieoufnefs, is Evangelical ; $. e* fuch as .the Gofpel doth teach and require, though not both in a like manner j but the one unto J unification, the other unto Sanftification.

Reply.

1. Bat the prefent Queftion is, By what Rule we are denominated inherently righteous ? A man would I think that here you grant, that it is not by the Law \of Wotlq, but of Grace.

2. It is prepofterous to fay, the Law of Chrift requireth Righteoufnefs to Santtification (in the common fence of the word S'anffification \) that is, the form to the matter, the relation to the fubjett : Albs-\dinem adparietem, fmilitudinem ad albedinem,pari-\tatem ad numens, equalitatem ad quantitatem. I Ithould put the other end firft.

3. He that affirms a man righteous, and yet deni-rththat he may thereby be jujtified, fo far as he fs righteous, contradideth himfelf. If you think, 4ut by the words [fofar 7 ~] I yield to different de-

114 £tf tl)t tU)OfOlD

gtees of Righteoufnefs : I anfwer, Not fotmalittr* but only fubjeftivi* vel materialiter > and that only when a man hath many caufes* or his Caufe many -parti > he may be righteous in one Caufe, or one part of his Caufe, and guilty in the reft. But take every Caufe* or part of his Caufe fingly, and he is as to that either Guilty or Not-guilty* that is, Righte* ous. But as to the Law of Works, we are all guilty, and in refped of every action, though not each re-fpedi of each adtion: So that neither perfon nor attion can by it be pronounced righteous. And our Righteoufnefs, or uon-Reatus poena* according to the Law of Grace, doth neither admit of degrees formaliter* vel materialiter immediate* fed tantum quoad materiam remotam. For the materia immediate is another relation {Conformity to the Law as in-ftitutfng the Condition :) and fo it is relatio fundata in relatione. And this Condition again confifteth not in the degree of Holinefs or Faith * but in the fincerity or truth of it. So that though quoad fauRU tat em, a man may have more or lefs Faith and Obedience, yet quoad impletionem conditionis (which is not, to have fo much Faith* but to have Faitb in that degree as may conftitute its fincerity) there is no degree : either we do fulfil it, or we do not, there is no medium.

Aphorifm.

NO man u now under the Law as Adam was be* fore the New-Covenant was made i or fo under the haw alone > as to have nothing to do with the Go-fpel * or fo under the firji Law* as to have no benefit by the new*

SmoM

Animadrverf. None are fo under the Law or Old-Covenant, as to have no relief from the Gofpel, if they will fly to it, and embrace it. But all that remain in unbelief, are fo far under the Old-Co^ yenant, as to have rio benefit by the Gofpel or New-Covenant,. becaufe the benefit is onlytothofe that believe: Faith being the Condition of the New-Covenant, and no benefit is to be had by it, without performing the Condition of it; I fpeak of the Covenant as conditipnal j for otherwise it is alfo abfolute, fo as to promife that which it requireth, J*r.$ 1.33. Hth % 8.10. . Reply. K I think we differ not in this in fenfc. But, 1. I fpeak here (and moft ufually) hot of tjhe Covenant as it is accepted by man, and fo is mutual; But as it is propounded and enadted by God, and offered, and fo is the fame with the New-Law, confiding of Precept and San6tion. 2. So that here I included that Mercy, which in order to the fpecial bieffings of the Covenant, the Mediator of the Covenant doth offer and give to men. And fo, 1. The very Law or Covenant it felf is a mercy to wicked men, however their abufe or reje&ion may make it their mine* The matter of it containeth unfpeakable mercies, even Pardon and Salvation 9 and for the extent of it, it is univerfal, and excludeth none : Though the Vromulgation extend not to all, the u» Hot of the Covenant or Promife in it felf doth. All have there a conditional Pardon and Grant of Salvation freely given them under the hand of God : And though their unbelief deprive them of theadu-al enjoyment* yet^e Grant (conditional) is even \ to the wicked-ail unfpeakable mercy * or el ft the teje&iiig of it would not be fo great a fin, nor To torment tthem for ever. 2. And there are other benefits fubfervient and additional, which the word tnay receive. As to live among the godly, and

iks dDf tt)c tttjofoifc

have their teaching, and examples, and prayers * to have the preaching of the Word, to have external and internal common mercies, leading to Repentance. Thefe are not given merely to Believers, or on Condition of Faith. 3. The like may be (aid of thofe great mercies which are the foundation of the New-Covenant h viz. The Death of Chrift, which was a Satisfaction fufficient for the fins of the whole World, and in fome fort was made for all. 4. Yet I agree with you fully (and often fo exprefled • my felf) that Unbelievers are under the Curfe of the Law, and unpardoned, and without right to Salvation.

Aphorifm. Page i2^ t T7Aitb is our Evangelical Righteoufnefs^

r &c.

Faith is fhe Condition whereby we obtain Evangelical Righreoufnefs: Which Right?oufnefs is indeed Chrift's-Satisfaction; only Faith is required of us, that this Riighteoufnefs may be imputed to us.

Reply.

Enough is faid to this before, 1. ChrijVs Satisfatti-cn is jiridly our Legal Right eoufnefs,zs youcon-fefTed*, becaufe it is a Satisfaction to the Law of Works (as you fpeak) or to God as Legiflator and Judg according to that Law: But accidentally it may be called our Evangelical Rigbteoufnefs, becaufe the Gofpel revealeth and conferreth it.

2. Faith is no part of this Legal Righteonjnefs^ nor tends to fatufie God's jtfftice^ nor deferves any thing of him i but is fas you truly fay) the Condition only of our enjoying it.

j.This

3. This Condition is impofed by a New-Law* which was made for the right conveyance of the fruits of Chrift's Satisfaction : And fo is the Righ-teoufnefsoi that New-Law, as the performance of a the Condition of a Law-Teftament or Covenant, is that which it denominated Righteous, And fo you confefs Faith to be our Evangelical Righte-oufnefs, when-ever you confefs it to be the Condition of that Law or Covenant. And whei^ the cafe in qu ftion is, Whether we have performed or fulfilled the Condition of Chrift's New-Law or Co-venant ? then Faith is that Righteoufntfs by which materially we mu'l be )uftified> or we perifh. This is the fum of all in brief.

Aphorifm. t

Page 127. T T THofoever will accept him^ and believe VV in him y who bath thm famfied, it (hall be as effettual for their J unification^ as if they bad fulfilled the Law of Wor\s tbemfelves.

An'tmadytrf.

Well, yet not properly the accepting Chviit, but his Satisfaction accepted of us, and imputed to ns, i>that whereby we are juilified : As it is not properly tie accepting of a gift, but the gift it fell that doh enrich \ though it mull: be accep ed that it may do it. This fimilitude feems more fuitable, than that of the pepper-corn which you life. Reply.

Why did you not fit againft the Diftindiion and Explication that I gave,/?. 127, 128 ? In point of Satisfaction > Merit oxVahce^ Acceptance^ u e. Faith > is no part of our Righreoufnefs. But God refolved there (hoiuld be forne Condition of our per final performance to make that ours> which naturally was none of our r p but performed by another: And fo ; n

that refpe&, Faith itfelf is imputed to us inficad of the perfonal performance of perfect Obedience t that is, it fhall as fully ferve to our Justification. In our perfeS perfonal Obedience to the Law of Works, thefe two would have been conjoyned, the Value , and the perfonal Performance: But now ChrilFs Sattifafiion is the whole in point of value or merit \ but he bought us to his fervice^ and he re-fblveth that fomewhat of our own performance (hall. intercede as a Condition. And fo Faith is as effe&ual or fufficient a Condition under the New-Covenant, as perfett Obedience would have been under the Old > and Chrift's Satisfaction is of as full a value now, as that Obedience would have been then. I thought this had been plain, ea fie, true Scripture-Dodfcrine, And fo I fee no unfitnefs in my fimili-tude <?f a Pepper-corn, fo be it you will do me that Juftice, as to underftand that I do by it only include the necefftty of the A& of Homage, or acknowledgment of the Redeemers Dominion, and our fob-• jedion'thereto, and that I exclude the rationem prctiu And if the valuablenejs of a Pepper-corn foduld make you think otherwise (contrary to the exprefs words of my Application) you (hall change the name to a grain of Sand* or a verbal Acknowledgment. And yet (be it fpoken in your ear) when v?t preach ad populum of the neceffity of Striving, Running, ufwg Violence for Heaven, working out our Salvation * fojrfaking all for Chrift, fufferin u With him'that we may reign with him, &c. we do not fo fcrupuloufly avoid all that may poffibly intimate rationcm pretii, as a poor Pepper-corn comes too. I well remember you once preached a Sermon with me at Bridgnorth, on that in Ephefians, [See

ffiteftteottftiefe* 119

that ye wa\ circumjpettly >] wherein you (learnedly y honeftly and foundly) fpake as much in the commendation of Holy-walking* as any phrafe of a Pepper-corn intimates at leaft.

2. And for your fitter fimtlitude, I fay, it is eafie to apprehend, that the Gift enricheth quoad Dignitatem » but the Acceptance nt medium fruitionu. But you muft diftinguifh between a gift abfolutely given y (wherein accepting is but naturaliter neceffary, and in fome cafes not neceffary at all \) and a gift conditionally given* Acceptance being the Condition (and given by a Law or A& of Grace',) wherein Acceptance is alfo moraliter neceffary to the a&ual fruition. For in this latter cafe, the tryal of his Title in Law, depends mainly on the tryal and proof of this his Acceptance.

Aphorifm, Page up.rT^He value of Cbrift's SatUfaUion U im~ X puted to us, inftead of the value of a perfeU Obedience of our own performing.

Antmad^erf.

And by this value of (Thrift's Satisfa&ion imputed to 11$, are we juftified j not by our own pcrfonal performance: of Faith properly 5 but only as it fcrves to make ChriiPs Satisfa&ion ours, whereas without Faith we have nothing to do with it. Reply.

Your [but only ai] contradicts your [not properly.'] For it is proper to fay, [\Ve are julified by Faith'] as a Condition h as it is to fay, [fVe arejujii-fied by Cbrifi's Satiffaftion) as the meritorious Caufe. Or elfe Paul (and all the Scripture) fpcaks oftner improperly than properly. For they never fpeak of being juftifiedby ChriiTs Satisfa&ion (though there be that which is equivalent in other termsj but

uo £>i ti)e tttoofolD

many a time they fpeak of being juftifjed by Faith. See Wotton of this.

Aphoiifm. father all privative and finful ^ &c. is a

?3g e l$i*T\Vt whether all tbti ImperfeUion be

queflion, 6cc.

Animadvtrf I think there is no que^ion to be made, bur that the iraper-feflion of Holinefs, which doth proceed from admixture of contrary qualities (as immediately before you grant this doth) is finful, * For, what qualities but finful, are contrary to Holi-nefs ? And is not Imperfection finful , which doth proceed frcm the admixture of finful qualities > Let us cleanfe our fefoes (faith the Apoftle) from alljilthineft of flejh andfrirtt^ ftrfefttng holtnefs tn the fear of God, z Cor. 7. I. It is hlthi-nefs v.hich abiding itill in us ? doth make our HoJinefs here imperfect: From which filthinefs therefore we muft ftill clcanfc our felves, that our Holinefs maybe more and more perfect.

Reply.

1. Cwcedo totum. I never Intended to fpeak • otherwife : When I faid, [It is aqueftion which will be decided , when I Jpedk^ of the extent of the Compandor Rule^] I intended the confuting more fully of them that are otherwife minded,and not to make it doubtful.

2. Yet upon review, as the words He, I muft maintain the Negative in fome fenfe. For the doubt is, Whether <iJ![ thisImperfcdtion be finful?. Eut as it is imperfedt participative & efficienter^ fo it is not finful: For fo it is confidered only as an imperfedt work of God's Spirit, that is, a work -which he hath begun, but not yet finifhtd : And as fo related to bim it is not finful > for he was not bound to pcrfed it fooner, or to fan&ifie us all at once in perfection.

? Afbor*

Aphorifm. Page 132. Ty Ighteoufnefs U not a quality, 4/ Holi-AV nefs is > but the Modification of our A&S as to the Rule% which is not varied fecundum magis & minu~.

Antmadytrf. For anv thing I yet fee^ a thing may be more or lefs con-formed to its Rule; and Right coufnefs (being underiiood of that which is inherent and perfonal) is really the fame with Holinefs, as I have noted before. Neither mould you (as you feem to do) appropriate Righteoufnefs more than Holinefsro our Anions: There is habitual R ighteoufnefs, as well as a&u-al j and actual Holinefs, as well as habitual. Righteoufnefs and Holinefs equally agree, both to our perfons, and to our a£tions a Ephef. 4. 24. & I Pet. I. If.

Reply.

1. If we fpeak of Conformity to a Rule in gene-raljwhen that Relation is founded in §htality<> which admitteth of Intenfwn and Remifftnt, then fufyeflive vel materialiter, the Rtlatln may be faid to be intended or remitted > but not formaliter , vel quoad ejje relatione. I cannot more fully exprefs this, than in SchibleSs words, Metaph. 1. 2. c p. Tit.7. A. 2. t>ico 2. quod etiam relata ex parte fui^ hoc eft*> fecundum ejfe relatione ipfiu6>>nonfufcipiunt magis & minus. fotenfio (n.jfacitut entity fubjetto conveniat perfefti* oremodo^ &remijfio ut modo imperfettiore. Jtfimi-litudo & tqualitas ; v.g. confijlunt in indivifibili: ve-luti fi qua conveniunt fimpliciter in forma aliqua di-cuntur fimilia: & ft habeant eandem \quantitatem di-cuntur paria : & hinc paritas vel £qualitas adeo ex~ ad am convenientiam Significant) & nullam prorfm la-titudinem admvtat ilia £qualitas. Aiq\ hinc imprimis hoc didum Ariftotelis intelligendum eft juxta popu-larem modum loquendi (viz. Relata fufcipere inten-fwiem & remiffionem) quo Arift. in Categories fepius

ufus

ufus efliprout interpretatur Tolet.Conimbric.Fonfeca, &c. Poteji autem iftud loquendi genus fundari inft-militudinibus^ v.g. difcretis : veluti conveniunt alicui reiplura attributa : velutibominv> efle, vivere, intelligent &c. Hinc igitur homo-, v* g. eft fimilior Deo Guam lapti^ quia pluribus attribute Veo convenit quam lapis : fie fiqui conveniant in eadem at ate & (latura & doftrina-i £qualiores funt quam ft in fola state tquentur. 2. Poteji ea tqualitatti (de ea enimpotif-fima eft difficultas) intenfio & remijjio fundari in ma-jori receffu ab extreme Etft (».) tqualitas precise fit quaff in centro pofita y tamen ifto populari genere loquendi Mud cenfebitur xqualius alii quod ab extreme tnagis ad centrum vergit. Veluti, ft numerm aliquufity ut deeemjn duobus extremis eft equality &c. Hie nw tnerut ad novem jzqualior eft iftu quam numerus ad qua* tuar : "quia novem tnagis recedunt ab extremo, h. e. ab uno^ quam quatuor. Cum alias abfolute &Pbilofi-phici loquendo-i hie nulla fimpliciter fit tqualitas*

2. It you fpeak of Conformity to the Rule of Trecep as fuch, the fame Anfwer ferves : It may be conform in pluribus vel paucioribus partibus ma* teri&, but thofe are formaliter conformitates difcret* But yet though depoffe I fay, [it may be") defatto.'] I fay, in our cafe it U not fo: For the Aft is not divisible into parts conform, and parts inconform > and no man ever performeth one aft fully and 4 exa&ly conform to the Law of Works, or (I think) to the preceptive part of Chrift's Law asfuch. But if this were otherwife, it were nothing to our bufinefs: For this is not our Rigbteeufnefs.

3. But (as I have told you) our Righteoufnefs is formaliter non reatus p<xn& \ And is there any degrees of that ? Every man is Guilty^ or Not-guilty.

Guilty

Guilty is varicd,both as to the feveral caufes or parts thereof, and the feveral degrees of penalty due: But when the caufe is one, and it is one penalty that we are accufed to he liable to, we can be but Not-guilty > and if we are pot fo, we are Guilty, 2. This Ndt-guiltintjh as it refpedieth the penalty of the Law of Works, is fundament aliter from the gift of the Law of Grace. And there is here no degrees i either Chrift and his Righteoufnefs is imputed and given to us, or not > but not with a magis or minus* 3. This Righteoufnefs is materialiter ixiCbrifi's Sa-itifaftion y and that alfo is not varied, though he might have fatisfied for fome fins or perfons only, yet he hath done it fully; And between fetisfying and not-fatisfying, there is no mean', nor is this the Righteoufnefs now in queftion.

4. This Righteoufnefs is conditionaliterk in our Faith ', or rather, our Faith is the Condition of if. And this admits not of degrees : For it is the leaji degree of fincere Faith that is the Condition ', and the highcft degree is no more, nor will juftifie more* The ftrongeft Believer doth believe more than the weakeft i but doth not more perform the Condition of JuJiification. For it is the verity of that Faith, which the Gofpel hath made the Condition,which is our fincerityjarid this is convertible with the Entity. 5. And for the Righteoufnefs which is oppofed to Meatus J>a>n£ nova Leg*, it is a relation founded in another relation (Conformity,) and that Conformity is not to the Precept as fuch, but to the Law as requiring the Condition (which great Divines call ihe fpecifickform of the Covenant or Law \) and this Condition is our Righteoufnefs in the fenfe explained, and admits not of degrees as a Condition, as is laft Caid. Though

U4 €>f tfjettbofolD

Though if you go yet further from the form,and confider our Gofpel.Righteoufnefs neither in ejfe non Ream pocnt, nor in effe relative ConformitatU ad Legem conditiottem infiituentetn, nor in ejfe reali Con-ditioms-prtfliUy but in ejje Officii, as related to, or meafured by the Precept, and that only quoad mate-riam Prtceptam h fo I confefs that our Faith and Holinefs admit of degrees. And I think this Anfwer is plain, and the diflindtion neceflary, and not vain* ly nice.

2. And where you ftill fay, that Holinefs and Righteoufnefs is all one*, I have told you (I think fufficientlyj) a wide difference. If you take Holinefs forpaflive Dedication to God, or the Relation of a thing confecrated or feparated to God » fo I told you it is indeed a Relation, but riot the fame with Righteous ; If you take it for the Quality of our new-fpiritual life \ or the Habits of Grace, fo it is materially the fame thing with part of our Evangelical Righteoufnefs in queftion , but not formally \ nay, nor materially, as it is confidered in . any high degree, but merely as Sincere. If you confider it as thofe aSions which are commanded, it is materially another part of our Righteoufnefs : For it is the fame ad which the Law makes a Condition, which it alfo makes to be Officium \ and it is firfi Officium in order of nature, and then Conditio. Butthereis more made Officium, than is made the Condition properly and per fe. But you after feem to take \Holinejf] formaliter in a fenfe yet differing from all thefe, thar is, as it is the Conformity perfeft or imperfedt) of Habits or Anions to the Rule : The fame with bonum Morale, as oppofite to fin. And fo it feims to me, you make all the good aftions

' " of

of the Heathens holy-Sox you think,that an exati Conformity is not the only true Conformity. But in this fenfe (if it be good) Holinefs and Righteoufnefs much differ; It is indeed the fame with that Righ-teoufoefs which is oppofed to Keatus cnlp<e\ (if any man were found that had any fuch Righteoufnefs according to the Law of Works, when indeed the bcft are but lefs unrighteous.) But it is not the fame with [performance of the Condition] formally > much lefs the fame formally with our non-Reatw pcen<e. Holinefs in your fenfe as bonum-> is denominated from its congruency to the Trecept as a Trecept : But I hope you will acknowledg a wide difference between thofe two A&s of the New-Law, inftituere Officium-i and inftituere Conditionem » between * [Do f/&,3 Amply taken * and, [Vo thvs^ and live.]

3, Youf Charge(of my placing Righteoufnefs only in A8s> and Holinefs in Habits) is utterly Sgainft my oft exprefs words. I fay of Righteoufnefs,/*. 132. that [it U the relative confederation of thefe §htali-tiesy &c.^ p« I34» that [it may be materially confi-deredin Holinefl,~] and divers the like. Yet let me tell you, that (though the Precept do require Ha* bits* whatfoever L. V. in Crellio Refutato fay to the contrary, yet) he that (hould maintain againft you, that it is not habitual Faith, but attuaU which is properly & in fe\ the Condition of the Covenant, would put you hard to it s and perhaps not crofs your own, or the common Principles \ though I am not now of that opinion which excludes the Habit. 1

Aphor,

Aphorifm. lbid.f m \Vr Tbivines nfualty fay> that our Jujtifi-V*J cation is per/eft^ though our Salification he Ptet> and then I am fnre our Rigbteoufnef{ muft be perfeSt.

Animadverf. True: Our Righteoufnefs whereby we are jollified niuftbe perfect. But our Divines you know hold, that the Righteouf-nefs whereby we are juftified, is not our perfonal Righteouf-neft, but the Righteoufnefs of Chrift tnrough faith imputed to us -, neither do I as yet fee any caufe to defert this D6-Arine.

Reply. I muft fay, that I like not the faying that our Juftification is perfect, for many Reafbns i But you grant as much as I defire for the niajor Pro-pofition, [that the Righteoufnefs whereby roe arept-ftified ikuftbe perfeSl f| And I think I have proved the minor already, \JRut the performing the Condition of the New-Covenant, UaRigkteoufneftby which we muft be juftified >] viz; in fubordination to Chrift's Righteoufnefs* that is , againft the Accusation of being ret pom* nov£ Legu y for ww-performanee of its Conditions. And methinks it fhould need no proof: But yet I am willing that this phrafc be be caft afide, left it be mifunderftood*

Aphorifm. P a S e *33* Qincerity is ufually faid to be ourGojpet-v3 perfection ; not as it is accepted in-Jlead of perfedion^ but as it is truly fb. Forfincere Faith is our Conformity to the Rule of Perfeftion , viz. the New-Covenant as it is a Covenant.

Anim*

aatSDteottfnete* uy

Animadverf* Sincerity is fuch perfection as doth confift with imperfefti* on: For one is more or left fincere, as more or lefs free from admixtures of Hypocrifie, and fo more or lefs perfeft. Neither can you (I think) evade by your diftindion which you add immediately after ^ >#<,. That fincere Faith as fuch, is only materially our Righteoufnefs and Perfeftion; but formally, as it's relatively our Conformity to the faid Rule. For (fo far as I can yet difcern) Conformity to a Rule doth not confift in fuch an indivifible point, but that there may be degrees of it: So that one may be more or lefs (perfonally) righteous, as well as more or lefs holy. And fo much may be underftood by that, 2tev.t2»i I. Lit him that is righteous y be righteous (till j And let htm that it holy, 6e holy ftill ; i.e. Let him toot only continue righteous and holy, but alfo labour to be more righ-, tepus and holy: And doth not the Apoftle require of thofe that are righteous and holy, that they be renewed tn the (pirit ef their mind^ and put on the new-man* whtch after Cod is created tn Righteoufnefs and true Holinefs f Ephei.4.13,24.

Reply.

i.I doubt not but fincerity of Righteoufnefs con-fifteth with imperfetthn ofHt-linefsy or of the matter of that All this is but a ftrifc Righteoufnefs. Sincerity is about the w ord [retaken by Divines: i. For a /"*•] ^f \ re P ei } c

TLA I rr _ ^a t Ml tIiat * u ^ ™ word.

Moral Verttu (or if you will, becaufe moft may ££ a fpiritual Grace.) 2. For fiake it, and it may do the Metaphyseal Verity of that harm. Grace which we have* And thus they doubly ufe the word [Hypoerifie :] 1. For that Vice, which makes a man defire and endeavour to feem better than he is. 2. For a feeming or appearing better than we are, or to do what we do not, though without affectation or diflimulation: For the falfity of that feeming-fincerity as a Vertue, is op-pofed to the firft kind of Hypocrifie^is.as a particular Vice > and thus you feem to take it: And fo no

doubt

n3 4Df tfte ttfeofolfc

doubt but Sincerity may be more or lefs, as it hath lefs or more Hypocrifie mixt with it. If you take it in the fecond fenfe, fo Sincerity is no particular Ver-tue (nor the oppofite Hypocrifie any particular Vice) but (he ^Metaphyfical truth of our Vertues^ which is nothing really diftind from their.. But thus it is not very proper to fpeak of the admixture of Hypo-crifie^ q.d. a mixture of Verity and Falfky, Entity and #wEntity. But let that pafs.

This lafi Sincerity is, I. Either the Sincerity^ or Truth of the Habit or Aft in its Phyfical Confidera-tion : (And fo the A&sor Habits may be encreafed, but the Metaphyfical Truth of each particular or degree is ftill a Concomitant modm of the Being, not capable of Intention or Remiflion in it felf immediately, but- as the Entity is intended or remitted.) 2. Or it is the truth of their Vertuouf-nefs or Goodnefs-Moral, which is their Denomination, as they areiuited with the Precept, [Vo this i] And fo neither the Sincerity, nor the Good-nefs or Conformity have formaliter any Degrees i but materialiter vet fubjettivh (they may, and com* monlybe, fo fpokeof, becaufe velplures^ velpau* ciores materia partes funt conformes reguU:) But in our cafe, as to the Divine Rule, I have told you before, how inconform we are, and all our actions. But yet this is not the Sincerity that I fpeak of. 3. Sincericy therefore is taken here by me, for the Metaphyfical Truth of our performance of the Condition of the Covenant. And therefore I faid, [It is our Conformity to the Rule i viz. the Covenant as a Covenant^] to diilinguilh it from Conformity to the preceptive part as fixh. This is the Sincerity of our Graces or Duties, not Pbyfically, as Habits or A&s

(that

(that is prefuppofed) not morally^ quoad prtcepum only, as vertuous or good : 4. But favingly^ quoad conditionem: As I have more fuHy opened to you in Chap. 1 1. of my treat, of Refi r Edit. 2 9 & 3. whither I muft refer you for a fuller Explication of my fenfe of this. Now in this fenfe Sincerity admits of no degrees \ for there is no medium between ens and non-ens : And this Sincerity is but the Metaphyseal Verity of that Faith (whether in kind or degree differing from other Faith, is nothing to this ControverfieJ which the Covenant hath made its Condition. Every man is either a fincere, that is, true performer of that Condition, or he is not* and no man is more truly a performer of it than other.

2. I have therefore over and over (hewed you, that Conformiryto the Rule of the Condition^doth confift infuchan indivifible pun&um y that though one may pr£Jiare conditionem fortius & alacrius than another, yet none doth more truly perform it, or is more a performer of it, and confequentty not more righteous in that fenfe. As our Divines ufc to fay, A weak hand may as truly receive a Pearl, as a ftrongi and a weak Faith as truly receive Chrift. If a Pearl be given to ten men, on condition they take it h he that takes it feebly, hath as good right to it, as he that grafps it hard : And if their ri^ht be called in Queftion, it will prove that the jHJ^? lus or Conditio was not ftrong apprehending, but apprehending *, and therefore the cafe will not be, [Whether he ftrongly^ but whether he truly took it?]] And there will be no more, but a Gn\Uy y or Not-guilty in that point of Verity , to turn all. [f he truly tool^ it, his caufeis righteous, and therein fore

130 ®f t\)t ttt)OfOit>

fore he is in that righteous, and therefore (hall be juftified.

3. I fee not what the two Texts cited make againft this :. Rev.22. 11. either fpeaks not of en-creafe of Righteoufnefs, but perseverance ( and yet it may of Holinefs * for you know it is uftial to vary the fenfe of the fame Adjund or Precept, according to the variety of fubje&s:) Or, 2. If it fpeak of Righteoufnefs in ejfe materiali & nonfotr mdi, that is nothing agaiurt what I fay. Iamfure it proves, that there is a true perfonal Righteoufnefs in the Saints, and that cannot be in fenjn Legis operum.

Epbef 4. 23,24. 1. The Apoftle fcems not to prefs on them a duty de novo> but to fuppofe that already done which he mentioneth: \Jf fo be that ye have beard of birn, and have been taught by bim y as the truth is in Jefus , that ye put off the old man^ 6£c.

2. If it be notfo, yet [^putting off the old man> and putting on the new,^ is ufually fpoke to thofe that yet have not put on the new. And Paul wrote to more than fincere Chriftians, though to none but ^rofeffors.

3. If you were fure he fpoke to none but the Saints^ yet the words imply not any encreafe of their Righteoufnefs, but of that new-man which is created in Righteoufnefs and Holinefs ; that is, whofe nature and excellency confifteth in being righteous and holy: One of which may yet encreafe, and not the other.

4. It yet this were otherwife, all that you can think to prove is, that the word [Righteoufnefs'] is ufed for the matter^ and not the form of Righteou£ nefs. 5. Rigb-

3at0t)t;eottfttefe. 131

5. Righteoufnefs is oft taken In all this, Perfeai-in Scripture for that Vertuc ^^^ffl^ which confifteth in tribuendo t ^ firife is vairT. " fuum cuiq\. And fo efpecially, as it refpedteth God \ giving to God the things th^t are Gods, and to men, that which is mens* and confequently obeying him. But this is'not the Righteoufnefs now in queftion. $

Aphorifm. . Ibid. /^\Vr Righteoufnefs isperfeB-, as in its Be-K^S ing, fo alfo in order to its end. The -end is to be the Condition of our Juftification^ &c.

An'ttnadyrtrf The end of our, Faith is to be the Condition of our Justification •> but not confidered as it is our Righteoufnefs, y&& a part of our Inherent Righteoufnefs, but as it receives Ch the Lord our Righteoufnefs, Jer. 22. 6. y f * wheieby are juftihed.

Reply. .This is very true, as to the firft JuftificatiotT, from the Accufaticm of Reatus poena prim* Legi* propter peccatum: Forfo Faith juftifies only as the Condition of our participation in Chrift and his' Righteoufnefs (which I am $lad you grant :) : But as to the fecond Jufttfkation, from the Accufation $f Reatus poena nova LegU ob non-profit am conditionem, Faith is materially that our Righteoupuff. The confounding thefe two juftifications,and the confound* ing the Rule of Duty (^Precept) and the Rule of the Condition^ or the Law as initituting the Condition, and fo the prajiatio Officii^ and prafiaM Con-ditionisy is the thing that bringeth all this darknefs into your difcourfe (as it appears to meO

K 2 Aphor*

Aphorifoi. lighteoufnefi in relation to the Netv^Covenant, is perfe& 7

Jbid.QO that our Righteoufnefs formally confidered.

or none.

An/mad^erf,

I. Inherent Righteoufnefs maybe true, and yet imperfeft, and that formally confideted in relation to the New-Covenant. For the New-Covenant as it accepts of fincere Righteoufnefs ; fo it requires an encreafe of it, which needed not, nor could be» \i it were perfect.

%. You freak of that Righteoufnefs whereby \ye are juftified, and fuppofe it to be Faith 3 whereas Faith is a hand to receive that Righteoufnefs, that we may be juftified by it.

Reply. I will not irioleft you with repeating any more the former Reply: only confider 5 how Reatus>velnon-Reatus pxn£ can be formaliter encreafed. And left you think rhe lingular in making Righteoufnefs (of this fort) to conlift in that, hear our Learned Ga-talker (fpecially well ftudied in thefe points) cont. hucium Vind* part, i.fett. %• n. 34. In rejudiciari* infons omnis projufto habetur. Sons &infons funt ex oppofxt\s &v s^ev d\oi fjuzcrov. So he interpreted Veut. 25. 1.' (ibid. ii.-2i.pag. 32.} Si controverfia inter cliquos extiterit & adjudciium res delatafueritjujli-ficent (judices fciL) eum qui jujius (hoc eft infons) fuerity eum vero qui improbus (hoc eft fins) fuerit con* demmnt* Vid. & n. ip,20. <kc. p. 31. Et idem contra Gomarum, pag. 35^36. Non hoc dicitur, Veum apud fe judtcare ilhs pro quorum peccatis univerfts Cbrittus fatisfcU nihil malt unquam commffiffs, aut boni debiti omififft : Sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis Re at um & jus ad vitam Aternam, ac ft nihil vel mali admififfettt) vcl boni debiti omiftffent.

ftigftfeotttnef& 135

Let me add the words of tlac*us> Thef. Salmu-rienf. Vol. 1. p. 27. Jujius fumi potefi vel tnorali vel forenfi fignificatione. Morali, ut opponitur t& oc$/-ka>, eumq\ fignificet qui prtditus eji virtute ea qui }u(titia dicitur, &c. Forenfi ut opponitur xxso^koo mx-> ra£/fc£>, eumq\ fignificet in quern Lege agere non licet > juijurfi condentnari nonpoteji ajudice, nedum puniri: fc Has-, See.

t have heard fonrie objed merely from the fiame, that this is to make Righteoufbefs to be only a Negation of guilt: But let them change the name, and call the guilty, Non-juftusy or Non-abfoli>endus> and then they are pleafed.

And let me note one thing more here, letf you [hould think this to be Rigbteoufnefc nimis improve fie diBa\ viz. that as Righteoufncfs is moft Urittly in fenfu forenfi oppofed to guilt, fo guitt of punifhmeut is fo properly called guilt, as well as Rea» tus culpa is i that the Reaitts culpa alone is feldomer mentioned by Divine or Humane Writers, but they commonly define guilt (as if they took notice of ho other fort) thus, Reatus eji obligatio adpeenam.

Aphorifm. Page 134.T^y* confidered materially > at it is Ho* -L> linefs, 8cc.

Antmddvtrf. I Here you grant, that Righteoufncfs (/>. perfonal inherent Righteoufncfs) is the fame with Holinefs, andfo imperfect For your diftin&ion of Materiality and Forniality of Righte-oufnefs, Ihavefaid fomehine to it before. Neither do I fe£ but Holinefs alfo may admit the fame diitinc"tion. For though Holinefs materially confidered be a quality (as you fay it 1st P*£*i3*-) andrtbalfois habitual Righteoufnefs, which is a* jrou acknowledge materially confidered, nothing but Holinefs ; yet Holinefs as well as Righteoufnefs formally confidered, is at K 3 Conformity

13*4- ^* yuwuiaiwu*.

Confoirait to the RuJe > v#<,. the law of God. Foi Holinefs is oppofitt to fin, and (in is a deviation from the Rule, therefore Holinefs is a Conformity to it.

Reply.

I anfwered this particularly before- Holinefs (in your fenfe, as you take it for Goodneft) is a Conformity (imperfeft quoad partes vel rejpeftus materia wtiformU) to the Law, as it doth confiituere Vebi-tum officii: Righteoufnefs is, i. Non-Reatut pan*. 2. A Conformity to the Rule, as it conftituteth, Condtiimem pr£mii obtinendi^ & point vitandx > or, as Divines ufe to fay, as it is a Covenant , or refpedt* eththe Sandtion.

Aphorifm. Ibid.TTkf it if an improper Jpeecb of fome T)wines y X that Cbrijl firft ju{lifieth our perfons , and then our duties and aftions. And except ty£Jufti-fying^] they mean W/efteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Golpel-Conditions, andfojuft, itisunfound and dangerous ■> as well as improper*

u 4vrt?afoerf. I think thofa Divines mean thus; That in and through Chriit, firft cur pcrfons are acatted of God, and then'oar f-rf'rmancts: And hi this I e^ nothing improper,- much lefs unfound and '.'angercus. Goa hath madt ys stcetpted m the Beloved, Ephef. i. 6. and as is, foalfc oLrTerviccs : Our f]?t-rstual Sacrifice ts acceptable to God through Chrtft, I Pet. i.f. And the acceptation of our perfons, is before the acceptation oi our performances: The Lord had refrzft to Abel, and to-hps offering, Gen. 4. 4. Hrftto^M, and then to bis Offering. Non Abel ex muneribnt^ fed ex Abel munera flacueruntj faith Gregory,

Reply. i> I never doubted of the acceptance of our duties';

-

ties *, but I am far from thinking yet, that Acceptance is properly juftifying.

2. I (hall in reply to your next Se&ion, recant part of this ■> but not to your mind.

3J Sm not now of your opinion(if generally ur-deritood of**// works or duties)that God firft accepted our perfons, and then our workj. i. If you mean by [Accepting our perfons^] eleUion of them to Ac* ceptance and Life,\ confefs it is Antecedent, but not caufal of the Acceptance of our duties. 2. The like I yield of his Philanthropy, if that be called [Accepting our perfons.~j 3. But if you mean (as doubtlefs you do)the acceptingour perfons as Mem* bers of Chrift, and reconciled to him, and fo the lawful Objedts of his fpecial Love, I deny your Af-fertion > and I affirm, That the Aft and Habit of Faith are accepted of God, in order of Nature, before our perfons are fo accepted: 1. For Faith is the Condition of that Acceptance of our perfons > and I know, I need not prove to you, that the Condition and its Acceptance, go before the benefit given on that Condition. The Acceptance of our perfons, is the fame as Reconciliation, J unification, Adoption in effed; For it is God's accepting us, as reconciled, jultified, adopted ones. And is not the Acceptance of Faith, yea, and Knowledg, Repentance, before thefe ? The Queftion is in effed the fame with that which we commonly debate with the Amino-mians, Whether we are reconciled, juftified, adopted, before we repent and believe > 2, Thecontrary opinion makes God an Accepter of perfons, in the fenfe that is fo oft difclaimed by him in Scripture.

if any ask, How can he accept the faith of a per-(oft mt accepted^ and unreconciled?

I anfwer, For hisChrift, his Covenant and Pro-mife fake * and alfo, that Faith is the work of his Spirit, bringing the perfon into an acceptable ftate : And this leads me to a third Conceflion.

4.I yield that there isfuch a preparation to our acceptance made in the Satisfa&ion of Chrift,as paid to God andaccepted, that (the great impediments being removed)all men may be faid, to be conditionally accepted before they believe: God is fo far reconciled to Mankind in general, that he treats with them on new-terms, and offers them a&ual Peace-and Acceptance on very reafonable Conditions, confident with'the freenefs of his gift.

5. And I grant you alfo, that our perfons mud be jufiified and reconciled,before our external obedience can be accepted,fuch as AbeV% Sacrifice was \ but not before our Faitl^Kepentance^nd Love can be accepted. Yhe general efte& of ChrifVs Death, extend-eth fo far, as to procure Acceptance of our Faith, (in order of nature, but not of time) before the Acceptance of our pcrfins, by fpecial Reconciliation. I like not therefore Gregories phrafe, though his fenfe be good : I (hould fay, Nee Abel ex mnneribus, nee ex Abel munera, fed ex Cbrifto& fotdere GratU, & Abel & munera flacuerunt*

But by the way (from your inftance) take notice, that it was net as they were an imperfed Conformity to the Law of Works, that Abels Works were accepted; for the Text exprefly faith, It was by Faith that hbt\ offered a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain S by which he obtained mtvefi that be was tigbteouT) God tejiifying of his gifts> Heb. 1.1.4.

Aphor.

Qt 3Jttttificatiotn 137

Aphorifm. Page 13 5. If U improper in the beflfenfe i becaufe it * v* contrary to the Scripture-ufe of the word Quftif ying^ which is the acquitting of us ffbm the Charge of breaking the Law^ and not from the Charge of violating the New-Covenant.

Ammatherf Jvftifjingi as the Scripture doth ufe the Word, is the acquitting of us from all fin. For he is jufttfied^ to whom the Lord doth not impute fn, Rom. £. 8. Who/hall lay any thing to the charge of God's Llett * (v/*,. when they are juftified >) Hit God that )ttftifieth^ Rom. 8. 33. Now* all Jin ts a breathing of the Law* 1 John $.4. Your felvcs fay,/>• 147. [There's no fin prohibited in the Gofpel, which is not a breach of fome one Precept in the Decalogue,"] But what all this which you here fay, is to your purpofe • W*,. To prove that the fore-mentioned faying of Divines is improper, I confefs I cannot well fee. For though (as you fay) Juftifyingin Scripture is the acquitting of us from trie Charges of breaking the Law, and not from the Charge of violating the New-Covenant, may it not yet properly be (aid, that Chrift firft juftifieth cur perfons, and then ouv duties and a&ions > You hold, that the New-Covenant is not violated but by final Vr/Miefi and I fuppofe it to be true, if it be rightly underftood. But for any thing I can fee, though none be acquitted from fuch Violation cf the New-Covenant, yet firft our perfons, and then our duties and actions may properly be faid to be juftified $ that is, accepted as juft, and acquitted from all Accusation brought 3gainft them, though in themfelves they be not fuch, but that fin doth cleave unto them.

Reply. i.I muft firft fell you,that I do recant thefe words, and the following Reafons of them, as all weak. I think it not improper to fay, God in judgment will jujiifie our Faith from the Accufation of unfoundneft, and our obedience too. And I think James and other places ufe the word Jufiifying co fuch a fenfe * vi&

againlt

i$8 <£)i Jumficatiom

againft the Accufation that we are Unbelievers or Hypocrites, andforto performers of the Condition of the New-Covenant. And I think molt Chrifti* ans are more folicitous, how to anfwer that Accufation in Judgment (and good reafon) than the Accufation of their being finners-, and deferving God's wrath for that in general. And the ejleerniug a rigbte* ous aUionto btrighteotts^ may imply Accufability \ and the fentencing it Righteous? implieth Accufation. And the per/in cannot be accufed, but by accufing his attions. So much againft my felf.

2. Yet I maintain (till the dangeroufnefs of this fpeech, that cur Attions are juftified (through Chrift's merits) by the Law of Works, or from the Accufation of linfulnefs j and I ftand to the Reafons thereof.

Now to your words: i. And firft I like not your equivocal definition of Juftitication, [the acquitting of ns from all fin:~] For it feems to imply, that God efteemeth us not finners, but freeth wsaReatu cttlpz Ifkk tali* : which is impofllble. But 1 confefs he acquitteth us from all fin, as it iuduceth an Obligation to punifhment (as Gatakjr in the fore-cited words diftinguiiheth.) 2. But remember once more, that God hath made two diftinft Covenants or Laws, and that each Law hath his proper Obligation > or elfe it is ho Law : And that to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old-Law, is one Jufti-fication, confifting in Remiflion of fin \ and the acquitting us from the Obligation of the New-Law, is not by dilTolving it, and pardoning it, which is never done, but by juftifying us againft the Accufar tion of being io obliged : And this is another Jufti-rieatiou. Pardon my lb oft repeating the fame thing.

3. When

m 3futtHica«ori; 159

3. When you fay, [Jxftifying is the acquitting from all fa.] If by [Acquitting,] you mean [Pardoning,] then you muft extend it duly to all fin againft the Law of Works, except* that excepted by the Law of Grace > or all fin which Believers were guilty of, but not all fpecies of fin. Not the fin againft the Holy Ghoft, not the final ww-perfor-mance of the Conditions of the New-Covenant, which leave no remedy.

4- I am glad of your Conceffion, that the Covenant is not violated, but by final unbelief.

5, But I am heartily forry that you think our atti-om a$ well as our perfons are accepted as juft, and acquitted from all Accufation brought againft them (and that as to the Law of Works) though in them-felves they be not fuch, but that fin doth cleave unto them (as you fay.) Againft this Dodrirfc I intended that Thefis v and I confefs my heart dctefteth it. I will bring an Accufation againft my own actions and yours (our Prayers, Alm^ &c.) viz. they are fwful, they are breaches of God's Law. How will you be juftified from this Accufation ? You will not plead, Not-guilty I hope, and fay, Tou do not fin I Sec all that I would You will fay, God doth ac- f * y > ^ , Ml y in cept your actions as juft* But §. 20 ,& 2I . how ? Doth he take them really to.be notfinful? and call evikgood? and fay, fin is no fin ? God forbid we fhould think it. Doth he make the fa&uni to be infefium , or the word fpoken to be unfaid again } Abfit. Nam ficut quic-quid efty necejfarid eft, dum eft ; ita quicquidfuit^ vel prtteritum eft , necejfario fuit. The Language of Divines is, it cannot be undone ne per divinam potent iarn.

140 fl>f 3\x&ifimm;

tentiam: But is it morally undone? How? As I faid, God doth not eftcem it [not to have been dotie^ much left [not to have been ill done :]] And as quod fait* neceffario fait (necejjitate exiflentUyUt atunt:) ita quod male fait, necejfario male fait : The Re a-tus culp£ therefore cannot polfibly be removed or remitted > that is, the man cannot be, or jufHy efteemed to be, a man that [finned not.] But only the Reatus fcen* is taken away : God fo forgiveth all our fin, that as they induce the Vebuum /><*>**, he deftroyeth them > and by diflblving the Obligation, freeth *us as much from the effe&s (Eternal Wrath) as if they had never been committed. Is not this enough ? But how you will be free from all Ac-cufation of being a (inner, 1 know not.

2. Do you not fully hereby fet up Jujiifieation by the Worls of the Law ? For if all your works can be juftified from the Accufation of being finfal, or breaches of the Law,then why may not the Law ju-ftifie you (were it^not only for Original fin (or per* haps you will except your fins before Converfion.)

3 • Is not this the way that the Papifts go ? though they will not plead for Merits without Chrift, yet they think that Chrift hath merited the Meritoriouf-nefs of their Wbrks. So you think that Chrift hath merited, that your works (hall be juftified from the Accufation of finfulnefs.

4. And I will bring this Accufation againft your works, from the Law of Works : They are not (b far meritorious of Everlafting Life,as that Law requires they (hould be; How will you acquit them from that Accufation ? Do you think Chrift hath made them fo meritorious.

4Df 3Jufttficatiom 141

5-Yea further,! will bring this Accufation againft your works. They are fuch as deferve Eternal Damnation > yea , and for them you are obliged thereto, immediately upon the doing of them. How will you anfwer this Accufation ? I hope not by denying it. For if you are not firft obligatus ad fee-Ham, you are not capable of Rerniffion. For Rerniffion is nothing elfe but the diffolving of that Obligation. And indeed, I know nothing elfe that I nave to fay again It that Accufation, but (confeffing the defers and that I wasfb obliged) to plead, that For ChrijFs SatisfaUion the Obligation is difiblved* by the Grant of the New-Covenant, ut per Legem re-mediantem.

Aphorifm. Ibid.IVftification doth imply Accufation \ but the >" ejleeming a righteous aQion to be as i) is, djtb not imply Accufation*

Animadyer r . You might alfo as we|l fay, The efleeming of a righteous perfon to be as he is : But neither our perfons nor our a&ions are fo righteous, but that we may be accufed of, and condemned for fin in them, and fo without the mercy of God in Chrift muftbe. There*s not a juft man upon e.arth-> that doth good arid fmneth not* Ecclef. 7. 20. If we fay that we haneno fin^ we deceive our felves, and the truth is not in w. If we con-fefs our fius , God is faithful and juft to forghe us, &c. I John 1. 8,9. IfGodjballcontendwithuS) we cannot anfwer htm one of a thoufand^ Job 9. 3. Aaron was to hear the int-yuttj of the holy things, which the children of Ifrad did hallow in all their holy gtfts , Exod. 28.3 S. So that e v enin our holy things there is iniquity, which Chrilt the true High-Prieit, doth bear, that (o it may not be imputed to us. i

Reply. This fpeech I have already rcverfeds and therefore will fay no more about it.

Aphor.

142 £>f 3Juftificatt0tt*

Aphorifm. Ibid.jF it he mderftood in the worft fenfe> it will -* overthrow the Righteoufnefi of Chriji itn-futed, See.

Antmd&verf. But not if it be under flood, as I iuppofeit mould be, That through Chrift the imperfection and iniquity of our anions (though otherwrfe holy) is covered, and not imputed to us. This iloth not overthrow, but eltablifh CfaiifVs Righteouk *iefs.

Reply. Becaufe this is but toaflert the Remiilion of fin, and Remiilion is nothing but the remitting the Ol>-ligation to punifhment: But if you think that the fin is remitted, or not imputed ahfolute ut peccatum* as well as refpettive. quoad pxnam , and that your a&ions may be juftitied againil all Accufations, then I knovV not how the hard confequences forementi-oned will be avoided.

Aphorifm. Page 136.TF God do jultifie our worlds from any he--* gal Accufatiou (as he doth our per Jens J then it n>M follow that our worlds arejufi^ andconfe-quently that we are jufiified hy them*

Antmadrerf. This I gram would, follow, if God did Juftifie our works for their own like, as being fully and perfectly righteous ; but not if he do it (as he doth) for ChriiVs fake, : pardoning and pafling by the imperfection that is in them. That which hence doth follow, is not that our works are juit;" (>/*> fully and perfectly as they muft be, that we may be justified by them) but that they through Chriftf are accepted as fuch y not that we are juftified by our works, but that we are juitiflei, notwithifond-ing the iniquity that is in them. And it feems itrange unto me, how you ihouid infer from that faying of fome Divines, that

s©f 3Juftificatiom 143

. we are jufUfled by our works, when-as the very faying it felf is this-, That firft our perfons arc jufiiiaed, and then our works: So that it fhould rather follow. That our works are juftified by us, than that we are ju.ftified by our works-, though indeed neither doth follow, but that both we and our works are juftificd by Chriit, though firft we, and then our works 5 ail which (as I have fhevvecl) is agreea61e to the Scriptures.

Reply.

1. It will follow indeed, that our perfons were firft juftified by Chrift, but that afterward they may be juftified by our works, when once our works themfelves are all juftified. You may find full Answers to this in Chamhr, Partta, Amef and the reft, againitthe.iorefaid Doftrjneof ^Merkoriouf-nefs of Works merited by Chrift.J

2. And you fhould have tojd us. Whether it be all our works that are thus juftified, or but fdrne. If all, then our fins are juftified (as VavidH MuL tc>y,&c) which I think yoa will not fay. If fome (as our Duties) then the jufffying is nothing hut the pardoning of their finfuhiefs: Which pardon fuppofeth them fimfu!, and it is to the ferfoH that the pardon is given, and not to the *>or\'-> and the pardon only deftroyeth the obligation to Punifhment (commonly called Guilt) and not the evil of the work.

Aphorifm. Page 138. IF there be any fins agatnfl the New 1 Covenant , which are not alfo againji the Old\ or if any fins be confidered in any of their refits, as againfitbe Gofiel only, &;.

Anlnu

*44 £>f £>in as agamit

Animaeherf I fee not bow final Unbelief, or any fin whatfoever, can be againft the Gofpel only, andnotalfo againft the Law, fin, as fin, being a tranfgreffion of the Law, i John 3.4. And there being no fin prohibited in the Gofpel, which is not a breach of fome Precept in the Decalogue, as your felf confeffes,^. 147^

Reply.

1. You do not put a right name on my AiTertion, to call it [my Confeffij/t] unlefs you had accufed me with contradidling it ( which mechinks you fhould not.)

2. Though you be of my judgment in this, yet others are not.

3. I know fin is a tranfgreffion of the Law » but our Queftion is, Of what Law? Old or Nqw? and how far ?

4. It is not fo eafie a matter to conceive fudden--ly how unbelief and negled of Sacraments, &c. are fins againft the Law of Works, or the Precepts of the Decalogue, as belonging to that Law. 1. As to the Decalogue »d preceptive part of the Law of Works, as it is merely in nature, and was delivered at the firft, I conceive it doth command obedience in general^ and fpecifie all natural duties, and fo forbid the contrary fin : But it doth not Jpecifie each particular duties that after were added. I conceive that the Law of Nature, or Works, doth leave room after the firft Inftitution, for the adding of new'pofuivesi without mskingr anew-/<?rm of the Law as to the Santtion. E!fe every pofitive that Mofes added, (hould have made a New-Law : So of Sacrificing before Mofes, &c. the fence of the Law was, [Obey God in all that he now doth, or hereafter flull command >•] and Nature fpeaks fo plainly. And when-ever the Pofitive-Command is

added

added in any age, it is a frefli difcovery of God's will, which Nature obligeth us to obey: The Obligation is as much from the general Precept in Nature, as from the particular (uperadded : And though the general Precept, [Obey all God's Will,'} could not oblige to the particular till it was in being 5 yet when it is in being it doth oblige even to that particular, ntediante .Revelatione^which enableth us to affume, [but this is God's Will/] The fame I fay of the Santiion of the Law of Nature : It threatneth Death to all fin, even againft a Command that was not at the tirft Inftitution in being. It (aith 5 [Whofoever finneth (hall die.] So that it is evident that the Law of Nature in its general Precept, ex-tendeth to all particulars that hereafter (hall be revealed to be God's Will. But becaufe I faid in my Aphorif. [That as Faith is to fuch an end requited, Jo it ii not fteciatiy commanded by the Law of Work/*'] I mud partly explain, and partly recant that. For now I think that all duties, with all their ends, are required by the Law of Nature, or that Law obligeth to them » and fo to Faith, as it is a means of Remiffion, though this feemed ftrangc to me heretofore. But here youmuft diftinguifh ftill, 1. Between the Precept, as it is a Precept, and maketH duty •, and the Inftitution of that duty to be the Condition of Life. 2. Between thefe two Notions, [The Law of Nature,'] and [The Law of Works f} tor it is called, [The Law of Works,'] in reference to the SanSion, as Works are made the Condition of Life or Death: But it is not called, The Law of Works,when you confider the Precept alone, though it command perfe&ton. 3. You muft diftinguilh between the Law of Natures obliging Man in ln-

nocency, and the fame Law as continued, obliging man fain > and alfo obliging man redeemed, and in hopes of Pardon and Life reftored. The change of mans ftate may caufe the fame Law to oblige him to new-duties. 4. You muft diftrnguifti between £The preparing and giving Chrift, Grace, Hope, &c and revealing them to Mankind in the Gofpel-T) and, £The obliging hereupon tothedutyof Believing and Receiving them-] And fo I conclude thus for the Solution.

i.Thatfas is faid)the Law of Nature binding us to Do all that God /ball make known to be bis Will, doth oblige us to each particular, when it is made k*iown> as it doth generally oblige to obedience before. And fo it obligeth even to Faith, Repentance, &c

2. The Law of Nature doth not reveal Chrift, or Grw and Pardon, and Life by him i nor did it make the preparation, by giving Chrift to fatisfie for fin. This is proper to the Law of Grace, to publifti Grace and Chrift.

3. The Law of Nature doth not make man any promifeof Pardon, Justification and Salvation, if he repent and b-licve.

4. The Law of Nature did not oblige man in Innocency to repent, or return to God, or believe in Chrift- For there was not the matter of, or capacity in us, for fuch an Obligation.

5. But as foon as ever Man was fain, (even before Chrift was prornifed) the Law of Nature obliged fain Man to repent and return to God. But it gave him no hope of pardon on his Repentance: So that it would have been but a defpairing Repentance. Yet hereby it is apparent, that the Law of Nature maketh us neve-duties, as our cafe changeth \

and

and fomc duties proper to fain Man-, which to the Inn&cent it made not.

d. Though the Law of Nature neither give nor reveal Chrift, Hope, Pardon* and reftored Life, yet when God by Grace hath redeemed us, and given us up to Chrift, and revealed Him, and Hope, and Life by him, then the Law of Nature comrnandeth us to believe God's Revelation, and accept God's gracious offer, and repent and return, and love him that bought us, and be thankful, &c< Who feeleth not in himfelf, that Nature and common Reafon obligeth to, or requircth this ori the forefaid fup-pofitions? So much of the Precept of Natures Law.

7. The Law of Nature continueth to pronounce Death due to every fin, and the grcateft puni(hment due to the greateft fins. And therefore by tha{ Law, Death is due to Unbelief* yea, a far forer punifh-ment than was due to ordinary fins, in that it hath fuch aggravations. And though it condemned Man for the firft fin, and provided him no remedy, yet a remedy being aliunde provided, it further condemned him if he rejedfc it.

8. Though the form of the Law of Works was not altered by God > yet the Obligation (as it were) of the promifory or premiant part is ceafed, upon Man's firft fin, through the utter incapacity of Man to receive it. For it promifed Life only to the perfect ox innocent i and the firft fin made us all nocent^ and unmeet fubjedts. And fo Divines ufe to fay, That the Law as a Covenant is diffolved > not that the tsboU Santtion is diffolved, but pet* cejfatiouem^ the promiffory part is void, or the Promiier difob* Jiged by us.

L 2 p. That

9. That therefore which is proper to the New-Law is, that it, 1. Be built on anew foundation, -z/a. Redemption , and fo the Legiilator is Deus-Redemptor, and not only Deus-Naturt, vel Deus-Creator as fuch. 2. That it reveal Chrift, and his Sacrifice, and Hope, Pardon and Life, &c. 5. That it promife and give all thefe. 4. That it inftitute the Condition on which they (hall be given, or be ours. All thefe the Law of Nature meddleth not in* though when the Condition is inftituted, it obliged* us not only in general to obey , but in fpecial Co obey, and ufe it to thefe ends appointed.

10* Yet no man muft think, that all the Jb-Law confifteth in thefe only, and that the Precept and J^breatning are no true parts of the New-Law, becaufe they are common with the Old : For even thefe £re ftifl true parts of it. Even as the earth that man's body was made of, ceafed not to be truly earth when it was made man, nor ceafeth to be a proper or effentiai part of man, becaufe it is earth. Or as a cup of water taken out of the River, and made Beer, ceafeth not to be water, nor yet can be denied to be Beer. Only it ceafeth to be mere or common water, as our bodies do to be mere common earth. So here the preceptive part of the Law of Nature, is comprehenfive of the Law of Grace, and ail Laws that ever will be (fuppofing thofe alterations in return Natura which lay the grounds :) But yet, as the Specification of the Covenants or Laws, is (as Camero oft, and others) from the Condition and Santtion, and fo the New-Law is fpecifi-cd from thence : So it hence afTumeth into its nature, even that which is part of the Law of Na-£ur * Only as matt s body is now no common earth,

fo

fo the Precepts of Faith y Repent ance^ &c as rcodl ing to recovery , are not common Legal Precepts ? But may be confidcred as belonging to the Law of Grace, andalfo to the Law of Nature. So that as man's Soul is fpecifically diftindi from earth, and his Body in it.felf not (b y but as pars 4Mo> but yet is made an effential part of mm: So the preceptive part of the Law of Grace, is diftin& from the Law of Nature, but as pars atoto> and yet is made an effential part of that Law, whofe Promije and Institution of a Condition qua tafy, is$ecifically difiindt from the Law of Nature > and from the whole is denominated as fpecifically diilindt*

And hence it is tliat the Law of Cbrift iscfmer called, a Teftainent^ Covenant y Gofpel y Sec* fchan a Law : Which hath occafioned the Lutheran Divines (fome of them) againft Scripture, and all Antiquity, to deny it to be properly a Law, and confine its whole nature to the forefaid ptoper farts^ which in fpecie differ from the Old* \t n\uft be known* that as the Righteoufnefs of Faith (in it felf,, as the Con-dition of the New-Law) is but fvbfcrvient toCbrijFt Rigbteottfnefiy and required for it > fo the New-Law is a fubfervient Law to the Law of Nature^ being but Lex remedians, to deftroy the Obligation of the Old (ad pxnam) and conduce to the attaining of its ends.

And fo much for explication of my thoughts o*> this point h which I write to fatisfie my felf as I go on in reviewing my Writings. I think the right Hating , and clear apprehenfion of this point (of the difference between the Law and GofpeU and how far the Law of Works is abrogated) to be of greater moment and difficulty by fafc than your L 3 A aim-

Animadversions take notice of \ or than any thing fas to difficulty.) that you deal with, asiar as I remember.

The fum of all is, That the promijfory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige, but is deftroyed > not by an Abrogation, but deflation, cejfante materia vel capacitate fubjedi: But the Precept ceafeth not (except fome Poiitiycs, which may be added or tiken away without alteration in the nature of the Law 0 nor the c ihreatn'mg (becaufe nee abrogatur, nee cejfat materia : ) That the Precept of the Law of Grace is now under the general Precept of the Law of Nature. Yet is it not fit to call Faith and Repentance, and Sacraments, &c. [^Precepts of the Law of Nature, ] without Explication h becaufe they have now a fuper-added new-form, by conjunction with the Dodfrine and Promife of Grace (as the water hath a new-form by commixtion, when it is made B:er *, and the Body of man, when of earth it was made mar, and yet retaineth the form of water,and]earth ftilLBut the denomination muft follow the new fnper-iddcd form.) And fo the Denomination of Faith and Repentance muft be from ttje fuper-zdded form,and they muft be called, [Parts cf the Nw- Law.'] Yet the whole bulk of the Precepts of the Law of Nature, remain in conjunction with the Threatnings of that Law : But the Promife of the New-Lau* is a remedy at hand todif; folve it. And the Threat of the New-Law hath ' in it fomewhat common to it with the Old j (viz. The Inttitution ot the duenefs ofPunifhment to. Jmpenitency and Unbelief, proportioned to their \ nature)and fomething proper to the New-Lawjt/rfc. \x\ the Negative, not to inftitutethe penalty due toj * cadi

tl)t <t>ofpei* 1^1

each particular fin i Pofitively, to make its Obligation to Punifhment for final Unbelief and Impe-nitency, to be remedilefs, and irreverfible, and per* emptory, determining not only de Vebito (as the firlt Law doth , #nd all Laws doO but alfo by Prediction de Eventu which is a thing fuper-added to the Jiritt nature of a Law as fuch. Beiides,that it incorporateth the common part of the Threat alfo into its own body, and maketh it effential to itfelfi viz. the Vebitumnon-liberationism & major ris pQM£*

Aphorifm. • lbid.T?Orto all that Unbelief and other fins of the -*■ godly which are forgiven? the Goftel doth m where threaten death.

Animadnperf. >

Not fo indeed threaten death, as not withal to offer life up-on Condition or repenting and believing : Which alfo the Go-fpel doth even to the ungodly, Afts 3. 19. & 13. 38,39. But the Gofpel eftablithing, and not repealing the Moral Law (as you confefs*/><*£. 154.) doth threaten death to ali Unbelief, and to all fin, that fo the Grace and Mercy offered to menia the Gofpel, may be accepted of them.

Reply. The [Moral Law^ is ufually taken for the mere Preceptive part of the Law of Nature, as abfolutely confidered without the Sanction : And fo the fame thing which is the Law of Nature, may be alfo the directive or preceptive pajt of the Law of Grace ; ( Though I am unfatisfied, whether it be fit to fay, The Law of Chrift doth conftitute that duty a-new, and take in the Moral Law as part of it fdf v pr only fuppofe it, and make ufe of it.) But you

L 4 here

ip £>t %>in as agamtt

here take the [Moral Law^ for the Precept, as con* jun& with the Threatning (el(e you would not fay, it threateneth death :) But fo I take it to be 110 true part of the New Law, though not diflblved or abrogated by it. Elfe I think we (hall make the firft Law of Nature, and Chrilt's Law of Grace all one.

Aphorifro» Page i^.TVZ/J *b e Covenant-Conditions are not 13 broken, wben-ever the Precept of the Gojpel is tranfgrejfed, or the Covenant negle&ed > except it be final. 1

Animddyfei'f* This feems more ac me than folid. For may not the Conditions of the Covenant be broken, though they be not finally broken } I he Conditions of the New-Covenant are, tore^ pent and believe. Now if they to whom rhe New-Covenant is tendered, be impenitent and unbelieving ; fo long as they are (b, they break the Conditions of the New-Covenant, whether it be only for a time, or to the end. Indeed if the Covenant-Conditions be at length performed, they are not abfolutely broken ; but yet broken they aie 3 whiift they are not performed,and yet ought to be per formed. The New-Covenant you grant, may be negleclcd; but it is not neglec~ted 3 if the Conditions of it be performed : And to diftinguifh between not-performing the; Conditions of the Covenant, when it is tendered, and breaking the Conditions of it; I think is not found.

Reply.

1. You feem ( by your filence ) to grant the main thing I here intend > viz. Thef. 33. That Cbriji died not to fatisfie for the Violation of the Covenant of Grace, but of Worlds only.

2. I did explain what I meant by [Violating the Conditions,~] in the la ft words of the Thefts, \_Sa m that the offender fliould fall under the Threat^ : But fnoie fully in the Appendix.

3. By [the Tbreatning^ I mean not [every discovery of an imminent danger {\ but that proper a& of the Law, which is obligare ad pcenam.

4.I ftill cdnfefs, that for Vnbeliefznd Impenitency y men remain obligati adpxnam per Legem natur£>ti\l they believe, andfo that Obligation be diffolved.

5. But ftill I deny it, as to the proper Obligation of the New-Law : For I conceive that is per-jemptory, remedilefs and undiflblvable. And there* fore I think it both found and neceflary to diftin-£ui(h between the proper Violation of the Covenant, and the temporary non-performance of the Conditions. Yet I refolve not to contend about the Word or Name: If you think the one is as properly to be called a Violation as the other,and I think nor, this is a matter of no great moment. But as to the thing intended by that word, I fay, that Vnbelief not final, is no fucb Violation of the New-L'aw, as to make us obligati ad pxnambujm LegU propriam % or that this Law (hould oblige us to punifhment. For elfe we muft fay, that Chrift came to fatisfie his own Law, and be a Mediator between himfelf, as Mediator,and finncrs>which I am loth to fay. Indeed the Gofpel-Covenant doth non-liberare, while men continue their unbelief. But I conceive it doth not obligare ad pcenam propria viz* ad non4iberationem & ad pcenam majorem^but for final ^^-performance.For if it do,it is either abfolntely^x conditionallyiNot abfg-luteiy (which you heie confefsj) for then there were no remedy : For the abfolute 'Threat of the New-Law is irrevocable and remedileft. And if but con-ditionally, then it is no Obligation : For it were no Condition, if it fufpend not the A# of the Law. If a £ing fay to a company of imprifoned Mur-

therers,

i?4 ®£ £>fo as w&nft

iherers, He that will promife a new-life fhall be pardoned > and he that will not, (hall not be pardoned, but at the Aflizes fuflfer a double torment* Here the Condition of prefent Liberation indeed is prefent, promifing amendment \ and for want of prefent promifing, he fhall want prefent Liberation. But the Condition of Liberation or Condemnation at the Aflizes, \s promifing any time between this and then. And fo hci^: The Go-fpel doth not remediate, dijfihe the Laws^Qbligati-on, as long as we continue impenitent. But it ob-ligeth us not to Condemnation at Judgment, but upon final Unbelief. If yet any fay, that this prefent non-Liberation is -poena nov& Legit-, and fo far it may be faid obligare : Though Ifhould rather fay, it doth non dijfolvere obligationem, yet I fhall confefs, that this non-Liberation may in fome fort be called poena, and I will not flick at this. Only remember that this is nothing to the Obligation , xofentential Condemnation defutnro, which We fpeak of. 2. And that Chrift need not die for this ; For this non-libe-ratio dum non credo, is a penalty that I bear my felf (non enim liberor \) and therefore Chrift need not bear it for me.

But I come fo lately from a fuller handling this point with another, that I muft fay no more of it now.

Aphorifm. Condition i*, Shall befaved, not limiting it to a

Page i6^r m T m \He Condition tf, Wbofoevet believetb

•particular feafon*

Antmady>trf, It's true : He only ihall be damned as a TranfgrefTor of the Kew-Covenant, who is a final Unbeliever • yet all the time that any rerufe to believe, they are liable to Damnation, as tranfgrefling all that time the New-Covenant, and breaking the Condition of it.

Reply. If by [Lyable^] you mean \jUually obliged to Damnation-,'] I deny it. If you mean, they are in danger of it, becaufe God may cut them off when he will s or that fuppofing their Unbelief to be final, they would be obliged \ or that there wants nothing but the finality to oblige them j or that they are obliged even for that fin , to death per Legem nature, and are non liberati per Legem gratU , I grant all this.

Aphorifm. >

Page 165. T^ Ecaufe the pnnijhment which natural^ J3 ly &nd itnplicitely U due to them^ ii not fo much as threatnedin thU gentle Covenant , &c.

Adnrmadwrf. Perhaps this place is mif-printed: Otherwife I do not fee how thefe words make for the proof of that which went before ^ •w*> [The fins of Believers againft the Gofpel-Precepts have need of pardon, and are properly faid to be pardoned? in reference to their deferved punilhment.] Is Puniihment there-foredeVerved, becaufe it is not threatened i Or do you mean (as perhaps you do) by thofe words, [which is naturally and implicitcly due to themj that'Puniihment'is deferved, but not threatned > But if Puniihment be not threatned, there fc:ms no need of pardon. Becaufe whar need is thereto fear that which is not threatned ? As what ground is there to hope for that which is not promifed } Somewhere before your felf fays, What God doth not threaten, we need not fear.

Reply*

Reply. Themif-printing is, that there (hould have been a Parenthefis to enclofe fix lines, from [i. Botb.~] till \becaufe :] And fo the word ^Property] I intended only to joyn with the fecond Section > and intended the firft as improperly, called Pardon, arguing, not as vou fuppofe, [It is not threatned, therefore not deferred {] but thus, [It was threatened by the Old-Law, and is not fo much as threatned by the Nen> > therefore it may improperly be [aid to be remitted* 3

Aphorifm. have 'not t\. junft to its SubjeSi, but of an Ejfeft

Page 173. A Cts have*not the rejpeft of an Ad-

to its Caufe.

Atttmadverf

Every 4 'Ad is an accident, and therefore muft have a fubjed ; for it cannot fubfift by it felf. And whereas tranfient Ads are iubjeded in the Patient, immanent Ads are fubjeded in the Agent, becaufe here the Agent is alfo the Patient. Reply.

Becaufe I will not vainly enter into a Logical Difpute with you, I will only anfweryou in the words of Schibler, Metaphyf 1. 2. c. 10. Art. 4. 'fom. 3. punft. 1,2. §. 51. 54, 55. Accidens eft in alio Uquendo per jtaTaxpHoiv. Omne fcil. accidens eft in alio fenfu negativo quatenw non habet ejfidvQo-ni^ocJov, five per fe fubfiftens* Alias autem loquendo de generalia effmtia accident**, non eft ea inh&rendo, ft rigor ofe loquamur *, fed in eo, quod id quod accidens eft, afficitfubftantiam extra-ejfentialiter, five extra ef-fentiam, aut rationem ejus exiftendo, &c. vid. ultra* Etn. 54. Quod ad aUionem immanent em attinet,di-citur immanens ah immanendo quia in agente maneat.

Exiftimo

Exiflimo tamen earn non ejfe inteVigendam pofttive fed negative. Nempe attio immanms qua talis eft in agente hoc fenfu, quia non tranfit ad patient* In ipfi autem agente non eft per modnm adjuntth fed fimpliciter ad ipfum comparator ut ad caufam* Vnde h<ec proposition homo intelligit vel dtftutat^ non eft ut adjuntti defub-jetto, fed ut ejfetti de cauja : Et patet. Nam attio tranfiens nullum babet fubjettum , ne quidem ipfum fattens^ ut vifum eft: ergo etiam attio Immanens a fortiori non poftulat fubjettum* Confquentia firms eft : quia attio tranftens magis eft ex fubjetto, & magis poftulat fubjettum , quam attio immanens* Sed attio tranftens in ejfe attionis nullum babet fubjettum ut vifum eft) ergo idem a fortiore eft in attione imma-nente. Et confirmatory quod attio utfic, non dicit nifi egrejfum a virtute attiva alicujus agentif. Egrejfus autem opponitur to ejfe in. Et bine relinquitftr^ *ge-tteratim loquendo de attione utfic> earn nonpo(lulare fubjettum^ &c. I think it fitter to fay, Attio eft agentis, than Attio eft in agente. Yet Iconfefsmy felf in doubt about Scotus Dodhine, that [Imma* nent Atts in their perfcttion, are not in the predicament of Attion-t but of Quality C] And if that be fo, you may well fay they are in Agente utfubjetto.

Aphorifm.

Page lj^T^Vt grant that all God's immanent JD Atts are eternal (which I thinly is quite beyond our underftanding to tytow>) &c

Anim*

£>f delation;

Ammaibperf. Immanent ads (as that very word it felf doth mew), abiding in the agent (for therefore they are called immanent.) Either God's immanent Afts mult be eternal or there m'uftbe fomething in God which is bur temporal: Whereas qutcqutd €(t tn Deo eft Deus: other wife he lhould not be a moil purs and fimple EiTence, as he is.

Reply.

I ufe to fpeak as you do \ and thus oppofe thole that think otherwife ; But let me profefs, it is but my Opinion, and not my Faith* I have no fuch clear knowledg of the Divine EfTence, as peremptorily to conclude thefe things as certain. I know God is eternal, and that he is perfedt : But whether his perfection lye, in having no A&s but his* EfTence h or whether God do agere at all', or whethefc his Adts have extrinfick objects h or whether thofe Adts which have fuch extrinfick ob* jedts, are properly immanent, as thofe are whofe objed is God himfelf, &c. I dare not conclude as certain, though I think as you. Oh how little know I of God's EfTence !

Aphorifm.

Page *75»|3 Elation* are but mere entia Ratio* S\ nis.

AnimAcbcerf. Why then is Relation put among the Predicaments ? Is there not zreal Relation betwixt the Father and the Son > a Relation which hath its being in Nature^ and not in mans in-fcsikft ouly ?

2)f delation.

159

Reply.

I am fo far from believing all the Predicaments to be real Beings, that I doubt whether any two of them wholly are fo, as much as Carpenter did. Yet I take them to be as Burgerfdicm fpeaks, aliquid inter nihil .& ens reale : And I think that Scotus his formalitates or modi, zndensrationti, contain much that now commonly goes under another Name. I think the fytyeUutn & fundameutum Relations , is fometimes quid reale (ufually , but quid mo-dale is the fundamentum.) I think that the comparing or collating ad: of underftanding is not a mere fi&ion, or falfe, when it makes Relation. But whether when the Foundation is laid, the Fabrication of the Eflence of the Relation ut fie, be not by the Intellect, is my queftion. If Peccatum be but ens ration** (which is accounted a real Relation of Difconformity to the Rule) as is ordinarily faid : And if Veritas be but ens rations (as Vurandus faith) why may I not fay fo of others ? Relation-terms are as properly afcribed to God, as any terms of Humane Language, I think. But was God from £• ternityz Creator ? If yea, then there was a Creature, or a Relation without a correlate. If no b then it begun in time. If fo, then if it were any real Being (remember your laft arguing) it muft be Gcd

him-

Herebr- faith, Quart inepte dicitur C? f*lfi* Relationes more accident turn cAterorum tn-eff'e fujeclis , cum fub-jeffo tantum mo do at-trtbuantur. Voces quip-pe Related ncn fignt-jicant aliud> juod fub-jecl-o proprie ac per fe in-eft, fed tantum detla r rant quomodo fubje-ftum fe habeat ad ter-minum, &c. And he faith, That Relation is Medium tnter ens reale £? nihil, nonparttctpa-tionis fed negotiants : Of which there are alfo other {otts y DifpJ'hil.f. page ij8 7 \24.

i6o £>f delation.

himfelf, and fo eternal, or God not eternal. But I am refolved not to difpute this with you: Only that Relation is not vere ens (of which I am more confident, than what it is) fave me the labour of tranfcribing, and read Burgerfdicius, 1. i.e.5. & c. 6. and Hereboord, Vijp. Phil. 5. per tot. (I will not! refer you to Carpenter) vid. & quid de Relax. Ra-tionvs dicit Tn>ijfa Vind. Grat. I. 2. fart. 1. §• 13^ fag. (minor, voluw.) 208. frxcipue ex Vafquio.

Aphorifm. Page ip4.rT-*H<J* faying of our Divines, that Qu* X ftification is perfected at firft, and admits of no degrees,] muft be underjiood thus h "That each of tbofe Atts which we call Justification, are in their own kjndperfett at once \\andthat our Righteoufnefs is \ f erf eft*, and admits of no degrees : But yet, a§ the former A8s called [Juftification] do not fully and in all rejpeds procure our freedom, fo they may be faid to be imperfeU , and but degrees toward our full and perfect Jujiification at the laji Judgment.

Antmactverf* Properly none can be more or lefs juftilied, becaufe he that is juftificdis freed from all Condemnation, Rom. 8.1. & ;}. Juftification therefore at the hft Judgment, is not a more fulf Juftificition, but only a Jirtificat ion more fully made mani-feft. Neither do I fee hew you ihould deny, that our Juftification here is perfect, fo as to procure full and. perfed freedom, W^,. from Condemnation, ir (as yau grant) our Righteouf-nefs whereby we arc juftilied be perfect: And fo indeed it is, though that Righteoufnefs be net "(as you fuppofe) a Righte-ouwefs of our own within us, but only the Righteoufnefs of Chriit through faith imputed to us.

Reply,

Reply, ■ i. Negatuf fequela. One man may be mqreper-Fe&ly freed from Ml Condemnation than another, though both be freed from all It is not only the Terminm a quo that is to be confidered, but the degree of the Liberation therefrom. One man may fre freed from Condemnation only quoad Uonatio-nem&Conjlitutiouem Legit, arid another alfd quoad fententiam judicis.

2. Juftitication alfo freeth againft Accufation, as the means, as well as from Condemnation, the end ;. And we are not yet freed againft all Accufation*

3. And for the Antecedent, we muft diftinguifli of the word [freed from: ~] either you mean, that our Liberation is compleated (which I deny 0 ox that it is fo effe&ually begun, that it (hall certainly be perfected (which ferves not your turn,)* The Apoftle only faith, [There U no condemnation to them that are in Cbrijl:"] But as this Text doth not fay, [There (hall be none,~] nor promife that they (hall never be out of Chrift again (though I think others do \% fo it faith not that their deliverance from fa? ture Condemnation (or which would elfe be future) is perfected. They are not now under Condemnation, nor ever (hall be J (Is not that all you can hence gather ?) and yet they would be to morrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. I wiH be bold to tell you* how far (hort you are yet from Perfection, even in this matter of Juftitication*

1. There is a great deal of guilt which will lye on you, from which you a>re not yet juftified neqtii-dem conftitutive. You mil fin. every day, hour and moment * Will you need no "[unification from the guilt of thefe fins? They.wUJ condemn you ? it

M yet*

you have none. Perhaps a man may have the guilt of ten times more fins to be freed from after his firft Juftification, than before. If Juftification be the fame with Remtftim of fin (as very many fay, and I know no real difference, as tp conftitutive Juftification >) then fure you have need of a particular Juftification upon the renewal of (in, as well as of a -particular Remiffion, befides the univerfal Juftification and Remijfion foregoing : Yea , though they be not the fame, yet being fo near akin , this will follow. I fuppofe you will not fay, fin is remitted before committed ', or guilt removed before it is guilt! If you fly to Amefts, [_Virtualiter & in fubjefio,"] Medul. 1. 1. c. 27. §24. that is furc lefs than Attn-aliter & in fe (and indeed is not Remiffion >) and therefore nt>t perfedt.

2. *Sour Juftification either'is yet only conftitutive^ and not per fmtentiam judicU , or elfe only quoad fententiam aliquam minus pnblicam > & non ab omnibus (fciL futum) peccati*: Whereas your Juftification will be per fententiam judicis , at that great day, and that from all fin. How could the Apoftle fay, [Thatyour fins may be blotted out, when the time of refreffing comes, &c. Ads 3. 19. ~] if no more be done then to it than now ?

3. Our prefent Juftification freeth us not from God*s "Paternal Sentence , and caftigatory punishment i but our future Juftification will.

4. The continuance of Juftification while we are here, is but conditional, and defuturo neither ab-flute nor actual. And a conditional Juftification is not fo much as an abfolute. That it is but conditional, is evident from the full tenor of the Covenant : It faith not, [He that fclieveth once, flail be

for

for everJHJlified '■> but, [He tb#t believeth, is orJhaU be JHJiified'j J that is, as long as he believeth. If you fay, [It is certain they Jb all believe**] I anfwer, That altereth not the tenor of the Pro-mife : Predeftination giveth not Legal Right. Ic was certain, velfmurum ab <tterno, that you fhould believe and perfeverei and yet you were not therefore juftified. And God Only juftifieth us proprgfentij and not pro futuro. And then it is evident, that conditional Juftification is not a&ual,rior true Juftification : for conditionale nihil ponit, dowc prtejletur conditio. Where there is much means to be ufed,and conditions yet to be performed, for the Continuation and Confummation of our Juftification, there it is not yet continued or confummate} nor that perfon fo perfedt as to Juftification, as he that is part all conditions and means, and fo hath has Juftification confummate, and is in his immutable ftate. That much means is yet to be ufed to this end, that our Juftification may be continued and confummate, and fentential Juftification and Judgment added, if I thought I needed, I could eafily and fully prove. Both Prayer, Obedience,^, are means to that end : (of which more toward the end.) And that Conditions are yet to be performed to that end, I will argue on the common Principles (left you deny Repentance or Obedience to be fuch Conditions.) If it be not only the firft a& of Faith by which men are juftified, then their juftification is not fo confummate at the firft, but that they are ftill to be juftified every day. But it is not only the firft adfc of Faith by which men are juftified *, therefore, &c.

For the Antecedent; As it were a wild fancy to exclude all the Faith of a man's life, except the firft

M 2 ifih

i^4 Qf 3Jttftificatiott

ad > fo Abrahams example, as mentioned by th^ Apoftle,contradideth it exprefly. And for the Con-fequence, If following ads of Faith juftifie, either by concurring to our firft J unification, or by the continuing our univerfal Juftification* and procuring the daily addition of particular Juftification and Remiffion : But it cannot be by concurring to bur firft Juftification \ for it is againft Scripture and Reafon, that I was juftified twenty years ago, by believing today. It is therefore by continuing our univerfal-Juftification, and procuring the addition of daily pirticular Juftification : And all this by way of Condition* Now though Perfeverance add nothing^ ret naturamjjtt it is a moral Addition, which muft have its Caufe* and therefore fuch Promifes are made to Waiting, Vatience, Perfeve-rance^&cz. And that man that muft have all thefe Conditions yet to perform, that he may be con-tinuedly and confummately juftified,is not in (b per* fed and full a fenfe juftified, as he that hath done all- I ftill profefs, that every fort or ad of Juftification is perfed in its kind, and as to its proper end h but not of the perfetteft kind, nor abfolutely perfrd. He that is in the beginning of the fight, unwounded and fafe, is as perfedly fafe quoad natu-ram rei, as he that hath gone through all the reft of the dangers, and fuffered twenty more particular charges, and overcome all: But he is not fafe in fo perfed a fenfe (though you fuppofe him by a fpiritof Prophecy to be fure to fcape ») becaufe he hath yet much hazard and labour to go through for the attaining of his fafety : And yet we may fay as Pan!. x lf thefe abide not in thejhip, ye cannot befaved* The end is not perfedly enjoyed, while (b many

means

means are yet to be ufed for it. I refer you t° Mr. Burgefl of Juftification , Lett. 2p. which is wholly to prove the point I infill on.

5. There is yet the folemnizingoi all wanting : And a Marriage not-folemnized is not all fo perfects that which is.

But the main thing that I ftand on is, that both Chriit's Apologetical Juftification of us qua Advc-caw vel PatronuS) and his fentential publicl^Jufti-fication at Judgment, do not only differ from ours now j but fb much differ, that I think we (hould fcarce be called juftified norp> but in Rel ation to the Juftification then.

But you think otherwife, that [it U not a .more full Juftification^ but a Juftification more fully made manifeft*~) Many men, many minds; I have fore conteft with Mr. L. and all will.not convince him, that any but fentential is properly Juftification : And that which I call Conftitutive, & in fmfu Legvs^ \sbut Right to Juftification* I eafily yield to you, that the Law or Grant of Grace doth its own work perfectly, in confiitutive Juftification. But yet I make no doubt to affirm, that though Juftification conftitutive be proper Juftification i yet the word is more commonly ufed by Lawyers and Proteftant Divines, for Juftification by fentence : And fo the Law juftifieth but virtually, and not properly and attuallyztzU (as to this fentential Juftification.) To abfolve from a Crime and Penalty, and adjudicare premium* contra attorn accufationem y is the moft full, perfect Juftification of all. And it's exceeding ftrange/that you fhould think it nothing but a Juftification made manifeft, when it is another fort of Juftification toto carlo , different from conftitutive:

M 3 Or

166 fl)f ^notification

Or if you mean, it is but a fuller Manifeftation of fomcfentential Juftification, which we have now by Faith* you fhould have faid fo,and fhould (hew what that Sentence is, & in quo foro ? per quern judicem ? & quinam fint aUus judiciales ? & cujus generis fit decifio abfolutoria ? when I had brought that fo far into queftion. But I conceive there is more in the Sentence of the Judg, than Manifeftation* Senten-tia Judicti efi pars decifimU litit, qu<e eft caufie con-trsverfa per judicem de terminatio : Without it there is ordinarily no full jus in re & pojfejfio of the Pri-viledge or Reward in queftion : It is more fully ours • after the Judgment than before. Nor is there a perfeft Liberation from the Crime and Penalty which we are charged to be guilty of: H*c enim pertinent ad fententia exhutionem-> qu£ fententiamip-fatn pr£\upponit. Decretum eft pars feenndajudkiu Vecernere eft poji caufe cognitionem ftatuere. Sta-tuere eft quid majus quam manifeftare. Manife(iant teftes , evidentig, ipfe reuf-> &c. Sed nonftatuuntj decernunt^necperfententiam abfolvunt. That Adjudication of eveilafting Reward or Puni(hment at the Judgment-day, will be more than mere Manifeftation : It will be the moft full, proper, perfedt Juftifi-cation which then we (hall receive i> which I think Scripture more refpe&eth in this point, than fome obferve \ and I think it is in order to that great Justification that our prefent Juftification obtains the name.

Again, I would argue thus: If Juftification be oppofed tp Condemnation, and the Condemnation by publick Sentence be quite different in kind from Condemnation now in Law (or any fentential Condemnation that I know of) then Juftification by

publick'

fimpetfecti uj

publick Sentence, is as different from Juftification in Law : But the former is true \ therefore fo is the latter. I fay therefore as Camero, Prseledr. de Verbo Dei, pag. 462. (operum fol.) [Authority judicl* ■propria jus facit > lta(\\)udi<M fententia effitliva po-tius ejl qtum declarative."}

But fuppofe the Sentence did only declare: It may- yet be as true and proper a kind of Juftificati-on as con\\itutive \ if we confider, that it is not the Declaration of a private perfon, but of the Supreu e Judg : And a Declaration in oppoiition to Accufati-on (ne fuccedat) and Condemnation (ne fit \) and which mull determine the cafe finally, Whether we (hall be in Heaven or Hell.

But you fay, I Tou fee not bow lean deny our Ju-flification to be perfeft> when I jay our Rigbteottfnefi U perfect,']

I anfwer you by two neceffary diftin&ion's :

1. I deny not but our conftitutive Justification is -perfeS '•> and that's all that can be ^gathered from the perfection of ou; Righteoufnefs.But I deny that our co.'litutive Juftificatio)i is the mofi perfecting) corn-pl^t Jvrt of Jujiification » or yet that our fntentiai Justification is novo perfeft.

2. You muft di(tih£ui(h of PerfiMion^ as it re-fpe&eth the prefent fubjett^ and as the fame thing materially is compared to another fubjed^ or to the future (late of thatfubjedfc : And fo I fay, that we are perftftly justified cwfiitutive the tirft day we believe, confided ng ic as the prefent Righteoufnejs of us in that prefent (late : And yet that is not materially fo perfedt a Juftification, as that which we have^of the fame kind at our d^ath ; For we are then juftifi^d from millions of (ins more than be-

M 4 tie

168 £)f Juttificattott

fore, and all the Conditions are performed. If there-tore we had but the fame Juftification materially at death, which we had at our firft believing, that is, were juftified from no more fins, it would be no perfedfc Juftification to us, but a partial and particular one# A Childs fhooe is meet for his foot, and a nians is no more : But the fame {hooe which was imct for him when he was a Child, will not be meet when he is a man : Yea 5 if it be the skin on his foot, it mud grow as he grows, or it will not be meet «> and yet Meetnefi formally is one and the fame thing. This is it that I told you before, that the matter of our Righteoufnefs j viz. Our gracious inclinations and a&ions (commonly called Ho-linefs) hath degrees* though Righteoufnefs as fuch, bath nonet

Aphorifm. Page 211. T F we are not one real perfon with Chrift^ JL then one what ?

jinimadrcerf.

TheApoftle faith, Hethat is )ojnedto the Lord, is one(f,i~ rit, i Cor. 6. 17. i. e. he is fpiritually one with Chrilt, as being partaker of Chrift's Spirit, and thereby united to him, and made one with him. And this I think you mean, wheq you fay^ that we are iiis Body Myftical, but not Natural. Reply.

Vnioh+c eft jpiritv- This is mere Ambiguity , & '^ * e / a 'i° ***) and no refolution of the Que-f*m****%9idd omnes ft ion. The Queftion is, Whe-yUas Unedtdknes qua ther he that is fpiritually one

tnipfoprdfat/ptur, Jo. w j c h hj m> or one Spirit with

or one perjonauy> injenju fby-fico 5 pr only one perfon in fenfu morali vel politico*

'■ as

as a Corporation and their Bailiffs a City and their Mayor, a Republic]^ and their Sovereign , are one Body ? or, Whether Union be largely taken for Conjunction ? But I am willing to let this Myftery pafs with a reverend admiration and acknowledge ment of my ignorance, rather than ralhly to determine in the dark : Only I refolve to keep off from their errour, that tell us we are deified^or made one eflenceor perfon with Chrift properly. I am afraid of foaring too high in proud afpiring ftrains, in my thoughts of our Union with Chrift, and our participation of the Divine Nature** and left while I feek to be more than man, I become le(s ** knowing that afpiring to be as God, is the way to be a Devil. Camero in Yr&lctt. hath faid more of this point of Union, than any I know s but he extendeth the fenfe of \Vnion\ fomewhat far.

Aphorifm. Page 22i.T> Vt though Faith be not the Inflrument X3 of Juftification, may it not be called* the Inflrument of receiving Chrifl ?

Antmdcbeerfi I think they mean fo 5 and no more, who call Faith the Tn-flrumeht of out Juftification, becaufe by Faith we receive thrift, by whom we are juftitied. Reply. I commend your charitable Interpretation : But the vehement afterting and arguing for Faiths proper, diredt Inftrumentality in juftifying , which from multitudes I have heard, and which in multitudes I have read, forbiddeth me fo to judg. And if it were fo, cheir fpeech is improper.

Aphor.

i7° £>f jfatti#

Aphorifm. Page Z2z.HPH<r *# of Faith (which U it thatjufti-■*■ fieth) U our atiual receiving of Cbrijl, and therefore cannot be the Inftrument of receiving.

Animadvert*

I. The aft of Faith doth juflifie, not in refpeft of it felf as it is our aft, though fo it be requifite 5 but in refpect of its Objec? , W-t,. Chrift \ whom Faith acting, doth receive, even as it is the gift that doth enrich, though net except it be received.

z. The acl: of the hand is the actual receiving a gift • Is not the hand therefore the Inftrument whereby the gift is received > and confequently whereby one is eriched >

Tet I ftjall not be unwilling to yield unto ")0U^ that to fftea^ exacTfa^ Faith may better be called a Condition^ than an Inftrument of our Justification. But becaufe it is as a hand to receive Chrift (for to receive him, and tobelieve in him are the fame, 5;*£;zi.i2.) and the hand is S^yov hpytvuv, a prime Inftrument: therefore (I conceive it is) that Faith isufually called an Inftrument. Befides, your felf obferves, page ur. that fome fo extend the ufe of the word [Inftrument, ,] as that anything aJmoftmay be called an Inftrument, >/*> which is requifite, but yet is lefs principal in the a&ion. Reply. f. We are not juftified by the ad of Faith abfo-lutely, or as the meritorious Caufe, or the matter of our principal Legal Righteoufnefs * if that be it that you mean by, [in rejpeft of it felf :] Nor are -we juftified by Chrijt as a Performer of the Go-jpel-tonditions for us> or a Satitfier for final non performance. Chrift hath his own wor\, and Faith hath its own office in our Juftification. We are juftified by Faith it felf as the Condition, and not (b by Chrift.

Here I give you notice, that though the aU of Faith be molt diredtly the Condition, yet I think

the

gjttftmmetttaittp* if i

the habit is fo intimately included in the true, fe-rious, intenfe ad, and is fo little different in nature from it, that even the habit may be alfo called the Condition, and we be faid to be juftified by it. And indeed I think that the Scripture, when it fpeaks of being juftified by Faith, doth in the word [Faith] include both aS and habit. And I am conceited, that they Jefs differ in their nature {an att and an habit of the Soul) than many Philofophers think ; efpeciall? this would be evident, \i Scot us were in the right, that intelleciio & volitio compleated > which we call immanent Afc, are not in the predicament of Atlion.but of Quality, in the fame fleeter' as Habits : Or if fome others opinion be true, that Habits are but in the intellect the Species or Images deeply imprinted, and in the Will cither none (be-fides the intelle&ual) or only a continued #&ion, though fometimes fo imperfedt and obfeure, that it is not perceived or felt, as being lefs vigorous and exprefs than other a&ions which then are felt. Sure I am, if other men be no wifer than I, their appre-henfions of the true nature of Habits, with their difference from Towers and Atis, is not (b clear as may embolden a man with confidence, to rejeft Habits from being the Condition, and fo having a hand with the aft in our Justification. And whether it can truly be faid, that the Habit is required only for the ad, and not for it felf, I cannot tell: I rather think otherwife. This I write, partly in Explication, and partly in Recantation of fome things before delivered on this point, *fhej. 57. which I think my felf bound to do on more through Confideration,

2. In your fecond note: i. You quite forget what you were to prove : It was not that the Ha* bit of Faith is the Inftrument, but the Att: For that is the common Dodfrine, and that which I Was there oppofmg. The aft of the Hand y and and not the Hand-, is it that you (hould prove the Inftrument. You will not get all to confefs, that the aft of Faith is not the Inftrument of receiving Chrift, nor yet of Justification. 2. And if the Har bit were granted to be the Inftrument of receiving Chrift, yet could it with no fitnefs be faid, in the fenfe of our Divines, that Faith juftifieth as an /«-firumenty becaufe they fay, It is net the habit of Faith that juftifieth, but the*#; And you fay, It is not the AM that is the Inftrument, but the Habit i therefore it plainly follows, that (according to this Do&rine) Faith cannot juftifie as an Inftrument. 3.1 do not think that the Habit is properly the Souls Inftrument. It is nothing but the Perftftion of the Faculty * and its PerfeBion is too near to it felf, to be properly its Inftrument. Though in fbme fort we may fay, that the inferiour Powers are the Wills Inftruments in imperate Atts \ yet I do not think that the elicite Atts (fuch as are the adfc of Faith) are performed by Injlruments> except we may call the Body, the Spirits animal or vital, the Souls Inftfuments : (For though the Soul be inorganical) and depend ,not on the Body fubjettive & efficienter* yet I think it doth objective & occafwnaliter , as Heereboord explains it (Difint. Philof.4.3. §.6*p*6i 5.) If wemuft not allow the Soul exterior organs-, as efficients of its elicite Acis> I think we (hould have better grounds before we aflert thefe intrinfic]^ organs. We iwft make no unneceftary Competition

3totttmmetttaittp; 175

fofition in the Soul. Your (imilitude therefore o* \jhe Hand enriching] is not to the purpofe: For the hand is an integral part of the man, but no eflential, and therefore may be called hi6 Inftrument : But Faith in the Habit, is the Perfettion of his moft ejfential part: And we think it not proper to fay, that the foundnefs or perfection of the Brain or Heart are their Inftruments. Or if it might be fo faid of the Body, yet muft wc be more cautelous in afcribing Divifions, Compofitionsand Inftrumentality to the Soul. If any thing therefore (according to your fimilitude of a Hand) muft be called the Inftrument of receiving Chrift, it mult be that part of the Soul which receiveth him : But the Soul receiveth him not by parts, &ut intirely : The receiving Faculties are the Underftanding (in-trodu&orily) and the Will (perfe&ively :) >And to fay that thefe are our Inftruments of receiving, is to fay, that the Soul is the Soul's Inftrumcnt, or Man's Inftrument. If the meaning be, that the Soul is God's Inftrument, I confefs fo fome Philo-fophersand Divines ufually fay of allfecond Caufes, thafrthey are the Inftruments of God the firft Caufe ; But I know this is not your meaning, and therefore it might feem injurious or unneccflary to load it with the abfurdities which follow it in our cafe.

3. Befides, it muft be confidered, that Faith is not a proper natural receiving* but a moral imputative receiving only. It is indeed aphyftcal Aft>> but not aphyftcal Reception* For, 1. Credere eft agere^ fed recipere eft pati: erge credere non eft recipere^fen-fu phyfico &proprio. 2. The Object is not nalura-liter receptible by our Faith : For, 1. If you fay it is Cbriffs SatisfaSion that is the Objett. Ianfwer,

i» That

i. That it was given to God, and not to us > it being God, and not we that was to be fatisfied : It is only given to us in its fruits or benefits procured thereby, and not in it felf. 2. If it were, yet it is not phyfically receptible. 2. If you fay, It is [Righteoufnefs'] as ours, procured by Chrift's Satisfaction : I fay, Righteoufnefs is a Relation, and not phyfically receptible agendo vel apprehendendo. 3.If you fay that Chrift himfelf is the Objedt \ who knows not that our Faith doth not phyfically receive Chrift himfelf > So that it's undeniable, that Faith is aftio phyftca^ fed receptio tantum moralis vel imputativa: And therefore (if all were granted, that before is gainfaid) the Habit of Faith could be no other Inftrument of receiving, fcut moral or imputative.

4. Liftly, Let it be confidered alfo, that the proper jufttfying Faith is not the dirett receiving of Rigbteoufnefl, but the receiving of Chrijihimfelf\ as he is offered to us in the Gofpel \ that fo Righteoufnefs and other benefits may follow thereupon. So fhat it is but remotely, that juftifying Faith re-ceiveth Righteoufnefs: So that as it is unmeet to fay, that a Womans Habit of confenting, is the Inftrument of enriching her, becaufe (he marrieth a man that is rich > fo much more is it here. Indeed it is a phrafe that containeth a whole heap of Metaphors and Metonymies in it.

But what need I conteft any further with you, who are of the fame judgment as I, and yield fo willingly to all that I defire s that *£, \jfhattojpeal^ eXdHly^ Faith may better be called a Condition-, than an Injirmnent of our Juftification :~] Why then do you except againft my Exceptions againft the improper

proper plirafe ? If it fatisfie you that I bear with thephrafe, acknowledging itfelf improper (which I think is all you defire) then you may be fatisfied in the words of mine youlaft cite : For I love not word-quarrels. But if you think , that I fliould have overlooked that impropriety, and not have gain-faid it: I anfwer, indeed (b I willingly would, but for thefe Reafons which forbid me : 1. Our Divines ordinarily ufe thephrafe, as if it were exadfc and proper in their ftridteft Difputes. 2.Thcy make the. Instrumentality of Faith to Juftification, the common refuge againft many Objections, and the iplct of other miftakes. 3.They are impatient with any that deny it. 4. But that which chiefly moved me was, that they make this a main Fundamental difference between us and the Papifts, as if for this one thing (if you joyn alfo their denial oi the Imputation of Chrift's perfonal a&ive Righteoufnefs, as our formaliter, & non tantam meritoru) which you and I deny as well as the Papifts, and fo doth every Divine fave one, that hath yet afforded me their Animadverfions* and what that one doth, I know not:) I fey> as if for denying this, they were certainly damned. I confefs it deeply troubleth me to read fo ordinarily in our moft famous Writers, fo much of the Reformed Caufe to be laid on a plain Errour. 5. And when Papifts read this in our Writings, it fo lurdeneth them in their Religion, that they think prefently, that all the reft of our Dodhine is like this, and they cart away all in prejudice, and infultover us, and cleave the farter to all the reit of their Errours, to their fouls hazard. Judg impartially , Whether thefe Reafons were not fufficient to conrtrain me to find fault

with

with this phrafe of Inftrumentality ? i: Specially if you do but add, that it is no phrafe of the Holy Ghoft, but of man's devifing j and therefore I know not why I fhould in fuch a cafe be fo tender of it.

Aphorifmo * Page 2 26. IT Ft thofe therefore takg heed, who makf JL* Faith to jujiifie, merely becaufe it ap-prehendeth Cbrift, which vs its natural, ejfential pro-petty*

Antmad>otrf. I think few or none make Faith to juftifie, merely becaufe it apprehendeth Chriit \ but becaufe it apprehendeth ChrHl as he is held out and offered in the Gofpel for Righteoufnefs to every on£ that believeth 3 and in this, as yet 3 I fee no danger.

c Reply.

1. I would they meant as well as you charitably interpret, or underftood their own meaning as well as you would have them.

2. Your meaning can be no other than this, according to the proper importance of your words, that [Faith jujiifieth quoad rationem formalem, becaufe the Gojpel giveth Chrift to Believers, that is, on Condition of believing > and quoad rationem ma-terialem vel aptitudinalem, becaufe Faith ti the acceptance of Chriji :] If this be not your meaning, I neither underftand it, nor perceive how your words are explicatory.

Aphorifm.

Ibid, t I ^Hat it is Faith in a proper fenfe, and not

X ChrijVs Righteoufnefs only, may appear

thus : I. From a necejfity of a twofold Righteoufnejs,

which I have before proved from the twofold Covenant.

AnitHi

3Jntttttmentairtin 177

^nimddyerf I think I have before difproved that which you fay concerning this twofold Rightebufnefs £ neither can,I as yet fee any ne~ Ceffity* nor indeed congruity of it. One Rightcoufnefs, Vffc. that of Chrift imputed to us, is fufficient to juftitie us ; and therefore to make Faith, which is only requifite to that end, that ChrifVs Righteoufnefs may be imputed to us, a diftinft Righteoufuefs whereby we are juftified, tome feemsvery incongruous.

Reply. Enough of this already* I think*

Aphorifm. Page 227. Tl7W been as. eafie for the Holy Gboft to X have faid) *tbat Cbrijl only U imputed* or Chrijl only juftifietb> if he badfo meant.

j4ntmaa\erf.

1. In like manner do Papifts fta.nd upon hoc efl Corpus me* urn, anddifpute againftour Expofition of thofe words.

3. The meaning of the Holy Ghoft is to be gathered, by comparing one place of Scripture with another. Now as it is faid, that we are juftifiedly Faith, Rom. 3.18. Sc f. i.fo is itfaid, By htm (/ e. by Chrift) all that believe are j*/?{/?e<t\ Ads 1 $. 39.

3. Therefore we are juftified indeed by Chrift,by his Righ-teoufnefs imputed to us : Only Faith is required of us, that this benefit by Chrift may be obtained ^ as the Medicine indeed doth heal, but yet it muft be applied that it may do it. Reply. i. Ihbia faft the literal fenfe of Scripture, not as oppofed to figurative ( as the Papifts in that point do h) but as it fignifieth the plain meaning of the words, oppofed to far-fetch'd forcfed interpretation. For the figurative is oft the plain exprefs fenfe, which is to be received according to the common ufe of thofe words, Agaih, if the Papifts had divers exprefs Texts of Scripture for

N their

their opinion, and we had none againft them, I would be of their mind. It is a defperate thing to forfake the plain fenfe of God's Word, becaufe Pa-pifts adhere to the literal fenfe of one Text, againft the plain more obvious figurative fenfe, when alfo other Scriptures contradict them. If exprefs Scripture be no proof, when-ever men can put a forced fenfe on it, or cannot reconcile it with other, what is a proof?

2. I agree to your Rule of Interpretation. But as to the Application, i. You confefs we are faid to be juftified by Faith ;> and I confefs we are juftified by Chrift. But doth it follow, that therefore we are not juftified by Faith, becaufe we are juftified by Chrift ? we are not fed by our hands or teeth, becaufe we are fed by our meat ?. 2. But the Que-ftion'rvas about [imputingfor Right eoufnefs.~] The Scripture faith, [Faith if imputed for Right e oufneft \~\ but it no-whereTaith, Cbriji or bis Righteoufnefs is imputed to us for Right eoujneft. Now the Queftion is, Whether by [Faith^ the Scripture mean (not Faiths but) [Cbriji or his Right eoufuefs~] and that only > He that will affirm this, mult prove it. And do you indeed think, that when Scripture faith, \_Abraham believed God y and it was imputed to him for Rightemfaefs^ James 2. 23. Rom. 4.22,23,24. that by [if] is meant [Chri(i^\ or [Chri(Vs Rigbteoufnefs t] Mr. JVotthn>Mr.Gataker, and Jo.Goodwin, have faid enough of. this. Do you by [_FaitfS] mean [Cbrijl,~] when you fay, We. are jujiified by Faith ? Do not you confefs that we are truly juftified by Faith itfelf as the Ccndition^ as well as by Chrift as the meritorious Caufe ? Why then, do you qpppfe the fame in me ? It may you will fay, Becaufe

mfyat te tmputeD* 179

caiife I fay, Faith juftifieth as our Righteoufnefs. Ianfwer, u That is not the Queftion now under hand > but, Whether it be Chriji only-, and not Faith. 2. In regard of that Justification which I believe you mean, viz* from the Accufation of the Law of Works as fuch : I fay, Faith U but a Condition^ and no otherwife juftifieth. But becaufe it is made that Condition by a New-Law-^ per legem remediantem y and we muft be judged by that Laws therefore when the cafe is, Whether we have performed the Conditions of that New-Law or not ? 'then Faith is materially that Righteoufnefs by which we muft be juftified, againft all Accufations of non-performance. 3. I have ftill acknowledged the Imputation of Chrift's Righteoufacfefanofenfk h (that is, i.Per Do-natidnem ejus frudus : And, 2. Per Adjudicationem juflitU, nobis inde promerit£ >) but yet I fee no fuch evidence in your Confequence, that fhould force me to leave the plain fenfe of any Text. The Antecedent I embrace, [_All that believe in Chriji are juftified >~] But I fee not how it follows, [therefore they are juftified only by Chios' Righteoufnefs imputed, and not by Faith imputed >] (for that's it you muft fay, or you fay nothing to the point.) Indeed you muft interpret Imputation very fairly, before you can hence prove Imputation it felf, much lefs the fole Imputation.

Aphorifm. Ibid. C Specially methinkj , they that would hsve C Faith to be the Inftrumcnt of Juftiftcation, fhould not deny that we are properly juftified by Faith, 4§ by anlnftrnmenn

i8o mi)M is impute**

Animadyerf

t. They that make Faith the Inftrument of Juftification^ underftand it fo, as that Faith is a Condition requifite to JulH-fication. B. Dormant de Juft. habit, c. ii.p.$iz. faith* Lu-thir doth always acknowledg Faith inftrumemalem caufam Jufl'ificationU; yet dejufh Aft.c. 30.^.387. he faith, that to believe, rcqutritur ut conditio pratta.

2. They that make Faith the Inftrument of Juftirkation, fo deny that we are properly juftiried by Faith^as they deny Faith to be that Righteoufnefs whereby we are juftifiecU and hold, that we are faid to be juftified by Faith, becaufe by it we are made partakers of Chrift-'s Righteoufnefs, which is the formal caufeof our Justification. ThusB. Davenant, de Juft. habit. c. 2i. p. 312. At tnquit Bellarminus, Lutheri fententta e(l formalem caufam Jufiifjcattoms effefidem. Reff?. tnftrumen-talem femper agnofcit^ non autem formalem , ntfl quatenus fub nomine fidei includit objeffum Jjde comprehenfum 5 q. d. Chrtfli obedienttam jide apprehenfam effe caufam formalem Juffijicat/ows noffrx non latuit hoc tpfos Papiflas : Nam Vafquez frribit, Quando apud Lutherum fides afferttur effe yiflttta no fir a for malt s^ tdeo fides appell^ttur juffttia, quia per earn apprehendimus Chrtfti )uflitia?n> qua Jufftficamur. Secundum fententiam illorum commemorat qut Chrtffs obedient t am & jus?it 1 am nobis imputatam flatuunt effe formalem caufam Juitificattonis. At h&c communis esJ nos7rorunt omnium fententia: Neq; quod ad ipfam rem attmet, qutf-quam e no Arts aliter aut fenfit aut fcrtpfit. I do the rather ci:e the words of this Rev erend and Learned Author, becaufe I find him highly prized by you,and that not without good caufe, as Ifuppofe.

Reply.

1. Your fir ft note is little to the matter.

2. Your fecond is too favourable an Interpretation^ to thofe men that by their exprefs voluminous contradidlioris do confute you : Do they not maintain, that the Scripture by \Faith imputedf\ means [ChrijVs Righteoufnefs U imputed?'] and do they not Thereby exclude [Faith] wholly, as to the fenfe of that Text ? My Queftion was not, Whether it were Faith in this or another fenfe ? but. Whether I

icujac is imputeo* m

it were Faith at allm any fenfe? or , Whether i* were Chrift's Righteoufnefs only which Faith ap-prehendeth, and not at all Faith it felf. Now « they do therefore exclude Faith, becaufe they think the words, [impute for Righteoufneji,'] would elfc make it our Right eoufnefii then they do exclude i^ wholly as to that Text ? For if by[F aith,~] be meant [CbrijFs Righteoufnefs ,] then what word doth tig-nifie [Faith?'} What ground focver they go on> it is evidently an unfound and forced Interpretation.

3. The words of Vavenant which you cite, and divers others of his (hew, that he was not of your mind or mine about the Righteoufnefs imputed. It feems he diicerned not the miilake of them that affirm the adtive Righteoufnefs formally as fuch, to be our Righteoufnefs.

4.1 do highly reverence Vavenant and fliaflanon give you enough of his for the main point in que-ftion (about Works:) But far am I from owning this Dodhine which he makes to be communis nojhorum fen- Chrj&i lu&itta t* tentia > viz. That Chrirt's Jujhfcanom fijj^ Righteoufnefs is formate caufa ^%Zo}S"oZZ Jujtificationi*. I hold it to Deo re put *?»*?<> AitfdJ be caufa efficient merit oria^qude Medul. Li.-c$t-§-i*-efi quaft material*'•> but not So ^7^piil^ic>' formal*. For if you fpeak of tft )Hftlt J mft r* m conftitutive J unification aUive^ ft n (u camfalt mn tnftn-that is formally attioVeijujH- fa form *U. So &t*it. ficantis, viz. Donatio jujiitU, Diib.de fide. called by Divines, Imputation* If you (peak of confthutive paffive Juflifkation, it is nothing but the Relation of [Jitjiifted^ ] or H3 lVgf*r

iSi OTijat5FMtt)juftinettn

[Right eoufnefs^] or £ non obligate adpxnam^\ and [non condemnandits ;J And Chrift's own Relation of [non condemnandut.] or- [juft*] is not formally made ours j though materially it is. Accidents peril!), if removed from their fubjed. If you fpeak of Jujiificationfententially , furely none can imagine that the Righteoufnefs of Chtift is the form of that. But yet perhaps Vavenant fpeaking lefs cau-teloufly, might mean by \_Form,~] the fame thing that I do by [matter , or merit.~\

Aphorifm.

Page i^ty.rrsHe bare aU of believing , U not the X only Condition of the New-Covenant^ but feveral other duties are alfo parts of that Condi-tion-i &c.

Antmathperf Iknpw no reafon to deny this: But the New-Covenant eontaineth more in it than Juftihcaticn 3 and therefore it follows not, that all other things which make up the Condition of the New-Covenant, mutt go before Juftification* as the Condition requifite for the obtaining of it. Good-works and obedience follow after Juftification, as the fruits of that Faith by which we are juitihed. They which have believed (and fo are juftified) muft be careful to maintain good-works, Tit. 3.8. e ljtcunq\ i bona opera , qu& funt mandata tn Lege requtrantur necejjarto a Jufttficatis^ ut friittzt* Sanctificati-vnps C ofjjcia gratttudin^j tamen flquis ea extgat ut caufa* t Jufhfcat$on^\ > Qhriff-nm acjidem wacuat. Davcn. de Juftit. ac~h cap." 30. p.394. And befides, that we muft firft believe, aied fo be juitified, before that we can do Good-works, our Good-works at thebeftare imperfect, and therefore we cannot be jufiihed by theaa, Pfitl. 130. 3,4. & 143. 2.

Reply.

1. There is none of this again!} anything that

I fay, except the laft fentence. Bat it follows not,

that becaufe Obedience followetb Juftificatioivbegun,

* ■ ■ that

that therefore it is no Condition of its continuance > or that therefore it is no Condition oifentential Ju-ftification at Judgment.

2. I eafily grant* that Faith or Works are no caufes of our Juftification (which Davenantmeatit) from the Accufation of the Law of Works ', but eo nomine^ becaufe it is the Condition conftituted by a New-Law, it mufi be the fubjeSurn primum of our Judication, when the cafe is, Whether that Condition be performed ? Will you tell me how you look to bejuftified, if the Devil accufe you to be an Infidel, a finally impenitent perfon, a Ctknet againjithe Holy Ghojl, &c. even as if you were accufed of being a "traytor to the State, by pleading your own Innocency, Righteoufnefs, or Not-guiltinefs.

3. The Imperfection of our Faith and Obedience, will prove that it cannot be our ttniverfat or legal Rigbteoufnefs •> but not that it is not <Xu performance of the Gofpel-Condition, and foour jujiitia pr£jtit£ Conditions.

Aphorifm. Page 235. *~|"iH^ Love, and {metre Obedience, and X worlds of Love, are alfo parts of the Condition, appeareth in thefe Scriptures, Luke 7.47. C though I kpow Mr. Pink's Interpretation of tbti) &c.

ftnimadverf. Mr. P/xgs Interpretation (as I remember, for I have not

his>Bookbymenow, though 1 have read it long ago) is this, tfiat when it is faid 3 Lu! L e 7.47. Her fins which are many *re forgiven, for fie Imed much : The particle for imports as much as therefore. His meaning is, that her lovjtiff much Was not the caufe why nun/ fins w&fc forgiven her • but this, that many fins yvere forgiven her, was the c^afe that flie loved

N4 much.

much. And that this is the true and genuine meaning of the Words (though there be no neceflity ©f expounding for by therefore} appears by thofe which follow immediately after; But to whom little ts forgiven, the fame lo\eth little^ viz. in companion of him to whom much is forgiven.' So alfo the Parable propounded by our" Saviour, \>. 41. C$V. doth clearly Slhew the import of thofe words obje&ed. Mr. Ptn£$ Interpretation therefore for the fubftance of it, is right and good, and Jn effect the fame with Cabins, Caterum hie dileftto non dtci-tur ejfe venucaufa^ fid fofterius fignum^ ut fritts admonui, faith he upon the place. And at v. 41. Mirum eft fie rofq\ inter pretes tarn craffe halluc'matos effe\ quafihtc mutter veniam lachrtmps^ un^ticne, C? ofculispedumpro merit a fit. Nam argumenturn quo uttiurChrtffu4 y non a caufa,fedab effettufum-ftum eft: quia & prtu* or dine eft benefctum accipere, quam habere gratiam ; £? cau(a mutut amorts hie notaturgratutt* iremfjjio. Vid. etiam Bez^am ad locum. Et Amefi in BeUarm* £nerv.§. j. c. 4. ad 4.

Reply. I mentioned that Text among many more, not relyirfg on that only or chiefly 9 and therefore added thofe words,not meaning thereby to deny Mr.Pi^s Interpretation : But q.d. yet I know Mr. Pink, hath otherwife interpreted this, and much may be faid for each fenfe. It is hard to be certain of the mind of the Holy Ghoft, where the words will bear both fenfes. I remembred his Arguments, as well as his words 9 and I remember much that may be faid againft them. For my part, I determine it not: Let every one abound in his own fenfe, I fee no re?ifon to ftand to difpute it* % * ■

Aphorifm.

Page 240, 24i.HPffo preferring of Chriji above all

•* in Judgment^ Will and Aftetii-

on^ is in my judgment the very ejfential property of

true Faitb^ differencing it from allfalfe Faith, an,d

fo

M|)at5Fatti)jttttifietin 18?

fo an ejfential fart of it: I byow this is like to feem Jlrange, Sec. "

Antmadrerj*

I. I know not why this fhould feemftrange, if it be rightly underftood. You fay a little after, [Affiance^ and [metre Obedmice^ and worlds of Love, are the necejfarj, immediate^ tnftparable froducts of Va'tth ; ] So the Apoitle faith 5 That faith worl^eth through love, Gal. 5. 6.

z. Indeed I do not fee how fincei e Obedience, and works of Love, are the immediate products of Faith, as Affiance is. But, to let that pafs h thatihey are the produces of Faith, who will deny?

3. Yet are we not therefore juftified by them, as well as by Faith, as it apprehendeth Chiiit and his Righteoufnefs, as you feem to intend.

Reply.

1. If you knew how fharply I am dealt with for that paflage, you would think my prognoftick failed not, though you know not why any f (hould think it ftrange.

2. As Affiance dire&ly follows the Acceptance of Chrift, as one to be truited ifii fo internal Obedi* ence dire&ly followeth accepting of Chrift, as King to rule us.

3. I there meddle not with your induced Confe-quence of Juftification. But this follow^: If it be a fufficient reafon to exclude internal Obedience or Love to Chrift, from being any of the Condition of Juftificarion (as continued and fentential) becaufe they are but fruits of the principal juftifying Faith, then it would be a good reafon to exclude Affiance. But it is confefled to be no good reafon to exclude Affiance '•> therefore , &c. Again, if Affiance be but a fruit of the principal a£t of juftifying Faith, and yet juftifie it felf, then it is not any one aft on-Jy thy juftifieth : But, &c. therefore,^.

Aphor.

■ w

i36 mutmmumm*

AphoriYm. Page 243. \\THen we are faid to be juftified by W Faith only, &o all thofe foremen* iioncd duties are implied or included.

Animad\>er(. They are.'all implied or included as accompanying Faith^ or proceeding from Faith, but not as concurring with Faith to Ju-itification. Betiarmin ccnferTeth that CaWm hath thefe words : Sola fides eft qu& Jufttficatfedfides tantum qua Juft'/ficat non-eft fola: ficut calor folts fohts eft qui calefitcit , tffe tamen non eft fto'iits^ fed cum fyendore. And the lame alfo he faith is taught by Melancion^ Brent tus , Chzmmtius<> ©V. Bell, de jttft.lt i.e. 14.

Reply. 1.They are implied as Conditional to the Continuation and Consummation of that Jullification, which is begun upon fole believing. As M r arriage-fidelity is implied as conditional of the Continuance of that Womans intereft in her Husband, and his riches and honours, which (he firfi received upon mere accept-ing him ox Marriage* For Marriage contains the fromife of that after-fidelity : And fure the promife implieth the performance as neceffary to follow. So is our Faith and accepting of Chrift for Saviour and Lord, which containeth our Covenant to truft and obey him*

2. And fome of them are implied as part of the firfi: Condition^ as Repentance, knowledg of Chrift, love to Chrift, defire after Chrift, highly efteeming him, &c* My Reafons for this, and how far Faith is, or is not alone in juftifying, follow after.

Aphor.

Aphorifm. Page 247. rnpTbii being well confidered, will di-X re & you where to find the very formal Being and Nature of Faith^ &c.

Animadverf. The Nature of Faith, I think is fully fct forth, Heh, if. f*J in thc.fe Words, Theft all died in faith, having not received the Promtfes ( /. e. the things promifed) but faw them afar off, and were perfwaded of them, and embraced them. Thefe words* fhew 3 tbat three things concur to make up Faith : 1. Knowledge They faw the Promifes, though afar off. 2. Af-fent■ They were perfwaded of them. 3. Application 5 They embraced them.

Reply. This is the fame that I conftantly affirm : Only by [Application,*] I doubt not you mean the ad of the Will, Confent, Acceptance, Election, tlje fame that Embracement in the Text is, and not that which fome old great Divines call Application, viz. A believing that our own fins are pardoned. I am glad you fje the inconvenience of making one fingle ad only to juftifie, or the ad of one faculty only.

Aphorifm. Page 2 5°-\ 4 Vcb lefs are any Promifes or Benefits IVl of Cbriji the proper Objea of Jujii-fying faith, as many Divines do miftahingly con' ceive.

Ammadverf. I confefslknow not well what to make of this. Are no Promifes the proper Oi^ect of juilifying Faith? What hath Faith to lay hold on without a Promife > We cannot believe in Chrift, but as he is promifed and held out in the Gofpel. Firft they faw the Promifes, and then were perfwaded of them, and embraced them, Heb. 11.15, By the Promifes (as I faid)

are

are meant the things promifed y but neither a Promife without a thing promt fed, nor a thing promifcd without a Promife, is imaginable. Perhaps you will fay, The Promifes are the ground of Faith, not the object of it. Indeed* if we diftin-guiili betwixt a Promife, and a thing promifcd, yet the Promife it felt muft be believed : And indeed, neither can we believe a Promife, but we mult believe the thing promifcd ^ nor can we believe a thing promifed, but we muft believe the Prottfife.

Reply.

I fpake as other men, that make one objedj, even Chrift himfelf to be the diredt or proper objedt : But I repent of the narrow ufe of the word [Proper ObjeS <>~] for indeed , God, Heaven, the Pro-mife, the Benefits, may be called Obje&s of it too. Yet,

I. It is plainly expreffed, and I doubt not but you have many a time read the like before in the Learnedil Divines *, viz. That the objed of that Faith which juftifies, is not axioma aliquod, but an incompUx term, viz. Cbriji himfelf, Amef. Medull. L i.c.3. §. p. In Scripturis vel promifjionjbus, enun-ciatiQnes continent & exhibent objeftum fidei, vocan-turqs objeftum fidei per metonymiam adjunfii. Bo-num quod proponitur ajfequendum qua tale, eft finis & effettum fidei, non proprie objettum ipfum : Mud vero cujus vi nitimur, m ajfecuiione boni illitu eft pro* prium ofyeVxumfidei, 1 Cor. 1.23. Pr<edicamus Chri? ftum, &i.i. nonftatuiquicquamfici inter vos nifi Jefum Cbrijhtm, 2 Cor. 5, 19. Veits inCbriftd. So alfo cap. 27. §. 15,17. Fides igitur ilia proprie did-Utr Jujiificans qua incumbimiis in Chriftum ad re-miffionem peccatorum & falutem. Cbriftus enim eft ad£quatum objefium fidei, quatenus fides Juftificat. fides enim non alia ration? Juftificat nifi quatenus ap-

prebendit

prebendit illam juftitiam propter quam Juftificarhur: Ilia antem juftitia non eft in veritate alicujus axhrria-tU^ cui affenfum prjebemus, fed in Chriftofoh, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Hinc toties ifa in N* 7*. repetm condones qua Juftificationem in perfona fola Cbmifti qu<erendam oftendunt, ]oh. 1. 12. 8C3. 15,16. & 6. 40, 47. & 14.1,54. Rom.4.5. & 3.26- Ads ic. 43.8c 25.18. Gal. 3.26. So alfo in Dijput* de Fid.divmyeriu And I have (hewed you, append, p. 111,112, &c. that Dr. Prefton and others moft frequently have the fame.

2. I fully enough (I thought) opened my meaning to you to this effed. Juftifying Faith is the motion of the whole Soul to Chrift. It containeth therefore the adion ofbotb Faculties. In the intellect Aflent is its ad, and the Word or Promife is its neareft object, though not its chief (as I opened my meaning, p* 260.) For as Amef MeduU 1. 2.c. 5. §. 23,24. Hoc otyeBum eft immediatefemper aliqu&d axiom a vel enunciatio fub ratione* veri, fed iliud in quo principaliter terminatur fides ', dequo & propter quod affenfm pr&betur iUi axiomati per fidem, eft ens incomplexumfub ratione boni, Rom. 4.21. Heb. 11.13. A&us (enim) credentU non terminatur ad axioma^fed ad rem, fatentibus fcbolafticorum clariflimti. Ratio eft: quia non formamus axiomata, nifi ut per ea de rebm cognitionem habeamus. Principalis igitur ter-minus in quern tendit aftus credentU^ eft res ipfa, qua in axiomate pr&cipue jpettatur. But as the ad of the Vnderftanding is but preparatory^ introdudory and fubfervient to that of the Will, whereby the Soul cleaveth to God as good, being but the means to it, or the imperfed Rudiments of it : So Ajfent to the truth of the Promife^ is but fuch an initial or introdudory

ipo OTtjatjfaiti) juftifietfi*

dudtory a&, as to Cmfent, or the Wills Acceptance of the good offered. Thefeadisof the intellect (in affe&ionate or practical matters) are but imperfedt adbof the Soul, and fo but imperfefte bumanivel morales : And therefore we commonly diftinguifh intellectual Adte and Vertues from moral. Not that I think they are not truly humani & morales, but it is in a more imperfett kjind h as the digeftion in the ftomach, before Sanguification : Nor do I agree to Amefius, whoplaceth juftifying Faith only in the Will (no more than to Camera, who placeth it only in the IntelleB :) But till ic come to the Will, it is not perfect, nor fo fully to be afcribed to the whole man. And therefore faith Gibieuf de Libert. Finis intehBus eji vert notitia, fed finis hominis intelligent^ eji amor Dei. As the fenfe is for the Intellect, fo the lutelleftis for the Will here. Aud therefore it is the adt of the Will that is the compleat and principal att of juftifying Faith, and theobjedof that a&isthe proper principal oBjed of juftifying Faith.

Now this com-I mean not by all this, that only pleat principal aft this which I call the principal aft, is of Fakh . / -^ yhe the Condition or our Juitincation; T »r-ip A but that it is the moft facial aft im- Wlli f Acceptance % plying the re(t,as the generical. Yea, Eleftion Or Confent, and the final objed is the principal ve Ue bonum obtain excellency ■ as the end is better j hafh h than the means as fuch 5 though ihe , ', n * r mediate object be the fpecial proper Word or ^omije tor objeel. And as when believing and

confenting to my Phyfician 3 importeth thit health and- life is my end, and is fo included or connoted in his Office or Relation : So Heaven, that is, God to be perfectly loved 3 and enjoyed, and obeyed, is the end of Chiift's.Me-diatormip? and the final and moil excellent objeel: of our faith.

W« 5Fatt& ftt&ffietB. 191

its proper material objed: > but Chrift himfelf, as in his Office, and to the ends and ufes of that Office 9 an # d Co the benefits are final or remoter objedts indeed, and ftill implied. The accepting of the Word-, or the accepting;of Justification* are neither of them this compleat Jpecial a£i of jufiifying Faith h but the accepting of Chrift. As the ad wherein the eflencc of Marriage doth principally confift, is net believing each others words (which is pre-requifitej nor yet accepting the riches or honours of each other : But accepting each other in the Conjugal Relations \ or the Wills confent (and its expreflion, if wefpeak of it quoad forum exterius.) And the Condition of a womans enjoying her Husband's honour and eftate, is not principally her believing him , nor yet her accepting bti honour and eftate * but her accepting himfelf in Marriage. So I think it is here. »Yet the truth of God or his Word, is the objedfc of that introductory initial adt of jufiifying Faith, called Affenu Methinks this is fo plain, that you may well know what to make of it. Neqh nobis abfur-dum videtur, fed valde confentaneum , aUum ilium quo tota anima Furificatur & Juftificatur ad totam animam pertinere : ita ut in nudo intelleUu habeat initium , in voluntate complementum. Davenant. Deter. Q. 37. p. 166*

Aphorifin. Page 2 55. rT"*0 the 66* that Chrift as a Saviour X onlyj or in rejpett of his Priejily Office only, U not the objeU ofjuftifying Faith, but that Faith doth 'as really and immediately receive him 04 King-, and info doing juftifie: r fhU I prove tbus> &c.

Anim*

in mtfrt act of 5Fait&

Animadverfp

I. The Arguments which you ufe, prove only thus much, that Chiift mull be received as well in r efpeft of his Kingly, as in refpecl of his Prieltly Office; But not that we are juitified by the one, as well as by the other. Still we muft diftinguifh tnxtr fidem qua Jufttficat, C fidem qua Jufttficar. obftr-tpandum eft (faith Amefiu*) nos non r efiringere fidem mam yu& Jufttficai, fed tantum qua. Jufttficat, ad fermijjionem mtfertcordidt. Amef. in Bellar. Ener. /. j.a.i.

z. If drift's Satxfafiton be our Righteoufnefs whereby we are juitified, and Chrift as Prieft fatisfied for us ^ then by recetVtvg htm as /VK#, we are juitified: Though it's true, none can indeed receive him as Prieft, except they receive •him as Kingalfo.

Reply. i. I think the Arguments ufed, if rightly taken, prove more than you fay. Bat becaufe I come newly from manifefting their forms and vigour, to two or or {jhjree other Learned Animadverters, I (hall hot attempt it again on this (hort invitation.

2. You confefs I have proved the receiving Chrift as King, to be the fides qua Jujlificat: And then it belongs to you to prove the exclufton of it in this Confideration : Scripture faith, We are jttftified by faith: You confefs, it is by this faith or ibis ati : If therefore you fay moreover, It U by thti^ but not

1 asfucb, you mud prove the exclnfion of that refpedt > for ubi Lex nee diftinguit nee limitat, non eft difiin-guendum vel limitandum. He therefore that affirms the Diftin&ion or Limitation, muft prove it. Which I defpair of feeing well done here.

3. I reverence thofe Learned Divines, that ufe to difiinguifii of the fides qua^ and the fides qua : But indeed, I am part doubt, that it is here a ufelefs di-ftin&ion, and only built on a begging of the Que-flion. The tfrord \j{na\ rcfpe&eth either [Jufiifi-

cat,~]

cai^\ or, [fides*'] Fides qua Juflificat , tantuni Jujiificat : Ita enim loquimm non quid fit, fed quid producit. If you refer [qua] to [fides y ]Co as to mean* Fi<^/ ^ thrifti facerdotU apprebenfio Jujiificat, & tanturn qua talis : Then, 1. This is inconveniently exprefled, to fay [qua Jujiificat,'] inftead of [qua Cbriflum apprehendiu] 2. And it is a begging of the Qaeftion. Itfuppofeth, thzt [btc fides, vel hie fidei attus qua talk, & non qua conditio formaliter jujiificat,"] which I deny : Yea* and it fuppbfeth thzt filus hie aCtus Juflificat, which is alfo denied.

4* I would you would (hew me, in what fenfe or refpedt it is, that the receiving of Chrift as King doth jujiifie. You fay, it is the fides qua Jujiificat : And then it is certainly a juftifying aU : Now if it do juftifie, and yet not qua talis, as fuch as it is,-then as what ? It is not the fame a£t moft fay, as the receiving Chrift as Prieft : Will you fay, £2^* receiving Chrift as King] doth juftifie, as it is the receiving him as Prieft ? that were to fay, [by doing that which it doth not,) according to the common judgment* Of this read what I But if you mean, that it is the ^fWT 2 ge fame Habit, which performeth a g out the objeft of ju^ both Ads, and only one of the ftifying Faiih, Ads juftific : I fay, you (hould then call the Habit only, and that one A3, the fides qut \ and not that a8 which is not the fides qux (in your efteem.)

5. The [qua] fhould figqifie the formal Reafon of its intereft in the work of Juftifying. But that (I think I have proved, and (hall do) is not its nature / as it is th'n Att or that (that is hut its Aptitude to this Office) but its being the Condition of jufti-Q fixation,

i94 ^aftat act of 5Fatt|)

fication, which God hath infiituted, and man per* formed. If therefore it juftifienot qua fides, vel qua hie aBus, but qnh conditio praftita, then every AB mud juftifie, which is fuch a Condition : For a quatenus ad omne valet argumentum.

6. Your own Argument I grant wholly [IfCbrift as Prieft fatiified, &c^J But all you conclude is, that {^therefore by receiving him as Prieji we are juftijied.~] But who denieth it ? You left out ip [only i] Which had you put in, I had denied the Confer quence with that addition. It is fuch another Argument as this : If a man only as rich, do enrich hi§ wife \ and only as honour able, do honour her > and only as merciful and potent, doth deliver her from dan' ger : then the Aft on her part which enrichethher, is only the receiving him as a rich man > ami not as an honourable man, nor as a husband only : And the Aft which dignifieth her, is only the receiving him as honourable. No fuch matter ! But the receiving him as a Husband (though (he never look to his riches or honour) is that Aft on her part, which giveth right tQ his riches, honour and all; And then thefe benefits are but confequential thereto.

7. Let me therefore here once for all (that you may underftand my meaning) tell you, That when we fay [f aith jujlifies in this rejpetf, and not in tbat,~} dijiinguendum eji : Either we (peak ex parte object only, in what refpeft the Objett received doth jufti-fie *, or elfe ex parte alius nojiri, in what refpeft our Att of Faith jultifieth : And fo I affirm ex parte ob~ jetti (I fpeak not de objetto formditer, fed material^ ter in fe) that Chriji received, doth not juftifie (fa-tUfaSorily and meritorioufly) as King, but as Prieji : (Though yet fententialitir & ut efficient principalis*

he

jttftmetll. $9?

he jufiificsasKi^J Btit if the Queftion be, Ex parte aSus neftri ? I fay, it is not our receiving Chrift as Priejtonly, nor as King-, but as the Media-ior-God-maH, to beour jHivfc/, Husband, Lord and Saviour that juftitieth, as being the Condition on which Juftification is given us : And fo receiving him as King* hath as near a hand in it, as receiving him as Trieji s (for this is that fart of the Condition tvhich the Wotld ttioft flicks at.) As in the foremen-tioned fimilitude ex parte objetti,thc husbands dignity doth not enrich the wife, nor his riches ennoble her : But ex parte aBus, as to the Condition on her part, it is undivided as to the effential Matrimonial re-fpedte * viz. £ That (he take the man to be her husband, to be loved, obeyed, and faithfully cleave to him only \] But the refpedJ: to his riches and honour in marrying him? is not that which gives her title to them i (that is, but collaterally requifite, if at all 0 but her firft having right in him, whofe they are;

Aphorifm. Page 2 59. JF Mr. Cotton fay, as the Lord Brook 1 reprefents him, "that Faith can be nothing tlfe btit a laying hold of that Proniift which God hath made, it is a foul err our, &c.

I prefumeMr. Cottokby [Ptomtft ,J%ieant the [Promtf> at containing Chrift tn />>] and that he fpake of Faith as jafhfj-tng. Quamyi* multa Jint exercitia £? objetfaJidei> non ta-***n JujHJjcans efi, nip front refpicit sntfericerdiam Dei in Chrifho. Amef. Bell.Enerv. /. yc.i.ad*. Reply. I like your fiir Expofition *, whereby you leave the Errour, as being in his language, and not in his

ienfe. For as Cbrifi is , faith ^we/. Objettum ad£quaT turn fidei Jujlificanw, fo [nothing elfe but) is too palpable an cxclufion in all appearance: And no exa& man in defining, (hould either exclude, or Jw* *m/>/y the adequate objed: of that Ad which he de-fineth. But I truly love charitable Interpretation, and only endeavour to keep the ill fenfe out of credit, and not fo Reverend a man.

Aphorifm. Page 266* T fake Love to be fome degree of jujiifying JL Faith, and not properly a fruit of it.

jinimadyerf. I think it is properly a fruit of juftifying Faith. We lote him] becaufe he lovedHifirk'>> i John 4.19. His love apprehended by us 5 which is by Faith, doth work in us love towards him again. For otherwife, though God love us never fo much, yet it we do not apprehend it, we fhall not therefore love him. B. Da\>e-ndnt dejuft.att. c. 30. p. 387. reckons amare Deum, inter effetta a fide Juftifcante neceffdrto manantta* Reply. To your Argument I anfvver :

1. The Text may argue, not a ratione ob)eUivk\ but i ratione efficiente h q* d. Becaufe he firft loved us, therefore hath he prevented us by his Grace, and given us hearts to love him again.

2. If you were fure it argued a ratione objeSiva, yet you endeavour jo prove no more, but that the ajfenting a8 of F&b goes before love *, which I affirm as much as you, while I fay, it goes before Con-fen r, Acceptance, Election.

3. Your Argument, as you urge it, tends to prove that Love, even in time follows Faith: Yet you never yet denied that Acceptance and Ele£iion is a juftifying a&; And can you think, that'20c-

» ceptattQ

ceptatiovel EleUio boni, hath no love in it, but is wholly antecedent ? or that the Apoftles dazrot-croi/ufyuoi, embracing, licb. 11. 13* which you cited, containeth no love in it ? Your Friend and mine Mr. Leigh thought it did. See what he citeth, Crit. Sacr. out of VaDenant, and Beza, and Parens-, Eft amanter ampleSi, & falutare & ofcularu

4. The fir ft orderly love to God in the Soul arifeth not from our belief or affurance, that he loves us in particular more than others of the World, but from the apprehenfion of his natural excellency, good-nefs, and common love to mankind in giving Chrift fir them, and in him offering to be freely reconciled to them, and tendring Chrift, and Pardon, and Salvation to them •, upon the belief of which , they lovingly accept Chrift offered, which is the compleat adt of juftifying Faith, being the Marriage between Chrift and the Soul. And fo, as you may fay, the compleat att of Faith, is a fruit of the incompleat aft 1 So you may fay, that this love is a fruit of this belief.

5. And I need not again tell you, that I neither fpeak of any other love here, but love to the accepted Redeemer, or Head and Husband Chriji (whom we do not accept or marry firft, and only after loveh\m y but do lovingly accept) nor of the following ads of love in our lives, which may be called the fruits of our firfl loving acceptance. Chamier.Panftratde Fide, J. 12. c;. 4. (mihij p. 375. Omnti amor eft alius voluntatis: At fides eft amor: ergo, &c. minor prob at ur. Vera fides eft ea qua credit in Veum : At credere in Veum eft am are Veum, &c»

6. Aquinas, and others ordinarily fay, That Lw&> as it is in the rational part, is nothing but Velle, I, ?• 3. 22* ^3.3. & It q* 20. a. 1. fo Zanchins very

O 3 oft..

oft. So Tola, de Anima. in 1. 3. 0 9. q. 27,28* Circs bonum prima paffto eft amor. Amor eft omnium pi-ma & ipfarum parens* &c. Amor eft, 1. Concu-pifcentit* 2. BenevolentUvtl amiciti*. llle eft veils bonum ad fe ordinando^ &c* Alter eft velle bonurn propter jeipfum, &c. Vid. ultra. So Gerfon part. 4. fol. 27. de Pajfijnibus anim£, Amef. contr. Grevin-chov. pag.16. Abundance mere I could cite, fpeci-ally Philofophers, to the fame purpofe, but that I will not fo trouble you and my felf in vain. Now certainly Acceptance is velle bonnm ; and certainly before velle there is noadt of the Will to good.

7. I deny not amare Veuty to be an effe<9:, in the fenfe oft explained already.

Aphorifm. Ibid. r-riiHe JVilFs appreheufion of a thing good, JL which vpo call an earneft teilling of it, and accepting it 9 tf (in my judgment) the fame thing a$ Love^ &c.

Antmadrvtrfi You fpeakof a thing pre r ent and enjoyed y and fo diftin-uiih juftifying Faith from Defirc and Hope : [Dejtre and Hope Jfay you, [.267-) as fuck <> do properly conftdtr their objeft as abfent, whtch thps jufitfytng fatth doth not.] Now Chrift muft be received by Faith, that fo he may be prefent and *n)oj-0^ and confequently, that he may be loved as fuch. And therefore Love in this fenfe is rather a fruit of Faith, than a part of it, as you endeavour to prove,

Keply. j. As Defire and Hope confider their Objedfc as Abfent, (b they are only, quoad accidentalem hunc ttftettum^ different from love, and not from any keai dfential obje&ive difference,

2, Faith

I

i'tttttfiet^ m

i. Faith and Love here do confider their Objed as alike prefent. There is no need of Faith to make it prefent before it can be accepted and loved » it is God's offer that makes it prefent: And he ok fers it me to be at once lovingly accepted^ and not to befirft accepted, and then loved only.

3. We look notatChrift as [enjoyed] when we firft love him > but as bonum conveniens offered to be enjoyed. •

4. If by [receiving by faith,'] you mean, [Affent to the truth of the Word,] then it is true, that this muft go before Love: But it is as true, that it muft go before Acceptance*

Aphorifm. Page 267. IF Love be anatt of the fzmeWi% and * have the fame Objett with Confenu Ele-Uion, Acceptance, &c. Why Jhould it not then be the fame Aft?

Animadyerf. Love, as you take it, confidereth its Object as prefent and enjoyed; therefore it differs from Confent, Election and Acceptance, which go before Enjoyment: So much your felf con-feffes immediately, faying, [Acceptance ccnfidereth its Ol>je& as offered^ Election confider eth it a* propounded with fom* other Competitor * y Confent confident h ft as we are^perfivadsd and invtted to /a;]

Reply. Neither fo, norfo. 1. I never thought that all Love confidereth its Object as prefent, much left as enjoyed ; but only amor complacentU. I only faid, that Love confidereth it not as abfent (as Vefire and Hope do;) that is, It is not neceffary to the denomination of Love 5 that we confider the Objed as abfent: I fpoke negate 4 tively,

too mut act of jfatti)

tively, not that I ever thought it necefTary, that therefore it muft confider it as prefent and enjoyed • Love confidereth it more fimply than other Paffions do, that is, as bonum conveniens : It is accidental to It, to confider it as abfent, or as prefent. Therefore Defire and Hope are Love with fuch an accidental variation.

2. Asthefaid accidental differences of theObjett in mere extrinfick refpedb, do not make the Objedt to be divers: (It is not one good that U offered, and another that is deliberated on, and another that wc are f§re-invited to >) fo they make not Acceptance, Eledion, Confent, tobc feveral aUs, much lefs one to follow another as their fruit: No more doth it make Love to differ from them. All is but velle bo-num, viz. Cbrijlum oblatum. Cannot mine eye fee at on^e this wall as it is white , as it is quantum, as it is unum, as it is thus or thus fcituate, (landing EaftorWeft, facing that other Wall, near to this Wall, and like to it, &c Muft all thefe be feveral ads in the fubftance, and one the fruit of another ?

Aphorifm. . Ibid.'O'cVJ all thefe are extrinfick^ Confederations : XJ "they confider their Objett as good, and fo

doth Love.

Antmadwrf. But that is not enough to make them and Low all one. For fo Defire and Hope confider their Object as good, yet are not therefore the fame with Confent, Election, Acceptance, nor yet with Love, as theObject: of it, is Good-enjoyed : For the Object of Defire and Hope, is Good-abfcnt. - ,

Reply. It is not enoiTgh to give Live the name of Acceptance or Confenty Sec, But it is enough to prove

Acceptance

juftifietin toi

'Acceptance and Conftnt to be Love* Love is thefub-fiance of the A& } the other are the fame A&, as refpedting the fame Objed, but not (imply as g<W, but with the addition of fome refpedts extrinfecal. The Genus is truly in the Species, though the Species is not the Genus, nor the Genus to be called by the name of the Species* Amare & velle bonum, is all one, Acceptance,Ele&ion, Content are all velle *, but not velle bonum fimpliciter, fed cum hoc vel. illo re-Jpeftu fuperaddito: And therefore omne velle non efi accept are, fed omne accept are efi velle* Et it a dicendum de Amove*

Aphorifm. Page 2(58.TTi* not [aid, that Love jujliftetb, but 1 Faith that vpor\eih (even in its ejfential

vpor\ of accepting) by Love* *

Animad\£rf. So Love muft needs be taken for Defire, not for that Love which is carried out towards a thing enjoyed, which is Amor complacentU. But I do not conceive that to be the Apoftle's meaning, Gal. f. 6. Quantum ad pr&fintem locum attinet y Paulus ntcjuaquam^tljiutat 3 an chdnta* dd ]ufltjic&ndum co-operatur fidei, ffmtantum tnd'icat qua nunc fnt v?ra ji~ dtltum exercttia, (Sc^trgo cum \>erfaris m cdufa Ju ft tfcat tent* cave uUam charitatis y>el ope/um menttcnem admittas, fid mordicus mine parttculam exclufram. Calv. ad loc.

Reply.

1. Amor defiderii, vel concupifcentU, is as common aphrafeas Amor complacentu*

2. It is as proper to fay, Defire is Love, ot Complacency is Love > as to fay, Amor concupifcentU, & Amor complacent™. Both phrafes exprefs that theye U Love, with an additional refpe&.

3. I love to interpret Scripture in the mod com-prehenfive fenle : To fay the Apoftle excluded this

operation,

tot mm act of 5faitD

operation, may be fo oner done, than to prove it • But of that, judg as you fee meet.

4. James took not Calvin s counfel in his phrafc of Speech.

Aphorifm. PagC2tfp./^ffri/J doth propound it (viz. Love) V> in the Gojpel, as of the fame necef-fity, &c.

Antmad\>erf. Love, 2nd all obedience, are propounded as neceffary, but not as neceflaryto Juftification. They flow from juftifying Faith, but are not properly parts of it.

Reply.

(i.) John 16* 27. & 14.21. Makes Love the an* tecedent Condition of God's Love and ChrijVs Love to the p^fon. And that goeth with RemiJJioni and is a Love of Reconciliation: And Reconciliation comprehended! Remiflion. At leaft, you will never (hew out of Scripture, that the procuring God's Love^ and the procuring Remiflion and Reconciliation, have not the fame Conditions* ^

(2.) Love is confeffed a Condijft of our Glorification, Jam. 1.12. & 2. 5. John 14.21, &c* And it is to me paft doubt, that Glorification, and fentential Jujiification at judgment, have the fame Conditions*

3* I eafily acknowledge, that Obedience is a fruit of Faith, and not a part of it, properly taken : And fo is ether Love*

Aphorifm. Page 270, iji.rir+Hat both (viz. Faith an^Love) X we neceffary to Jufiification, it doubthfs, and that they are concurrent in apprehend*

ing Cbrifl*

Aninti

jfttfttfietjj* zos

jdnimdeherf. This which you fay is doubtlefi, Is generally not doubted, but denied by our Divines. Love, as diftinguifhed from De-fire, prefuppofeth Chrift already apprenticed, andfb Juftifi-cation already obtained • and therefore it doth not concur with Faith in apprehending Chrift, nor is itneceflary to Juftifr. cation.

Reply. I. Either you or I miltake the common judg« mcnt of Divines. How many have anfwered me ( befides jgJJJ s ™™£ ^ all that I have read) <hat Love ^^^^^ is necefTary quoad pr<efentiaty y fentor enjoyed^ autonym non quoad Inftrumentalita- ] Y #»* in e P "£*'*<>, « «., m Ca.fali.a^. Nay £$££%*£ how many have told me of w ;u 0 f t h e perfon who Work* tbetnfelves (much more thinkethofit.Andthere of Love) that they are indeed « Complacency in all toMmf our jMcation, gS^^S but not InJtrurnents:(ioMr.BaU joying the good, of the Covenant i) and chiefly blame me, that I bring them Co near together, by not giving more to Faith, than merely to be a Cm-dition r which (fa^y they) Works are as well as Faith* Nay, how commonly do ours on James 2. and againft the Papifts fay, that Fides folum juftificatj fed non fola : Faith without Works in Caufality> but not in Concomitancy. And if it be not fola without TVor^s , fure not without Love. Though for my part I affirm, that as to Works of external Obediencei it is folum & fola in our firft Juftifica-tion.

2. You intimate a Conceffion, that Amor conctt-pfcentide is pre-requifite. And I fpeak not of Amor complacent^, asrefpe(2:ingtheObjed^;^rf; But

indeed of Amor acceptation]* vel eleCtionis, as pro-* perly fo called, as either of the other.

3. Acceptance prefuppofeth the Promife to be believed as ttiky and Chrift to be known to be good j and yet Juftifrcation is not attained before that Acceptance or Love. But all Love doth not prefup-pofe Acceptance, Confent, Ele&ion or Affiance, no more than velle prefuppofeth them. The names plainly evince this.

Aphorifm. Page 285. A S the accepting of Chrift fr Lord ** (which U the hearts Subjection) it as ejfential apart of jaftifying Faith y as the accepting him for Saviour: So confequent-* Yet no doubt but ly, fincere Obedience (which is trust in «is an ef- fa e p a 0 f fa f ormer ) hath tntiat'aft of Faith: JJ , / , . '• fl .r<

And I fpake.not here " s much to do m juftifytng us diflinftlr enough of At- he fore God, as ( fome) Affiance, fiance ; but meant only * which is the fruit of the lat-a quieting rruft: But ^ r# all true belief is a truft-

ing to his Word or Veracity, that is, to his Wifdom, Gcod-nefs and Power whom we believe.

Antmad^erf (1.) This accepting of Chrift for Lord, isasefllntial apart of juitifying Faith, as the accepting him for Saviour • but not of Faith as juftifying. Chrift is our Saviour in fatisfying for us, and in that refpeS doth Faith apprehend Chrift, as it ju-itifieth.

(2.) For Fairh juftifieth, as it appichendeth Chrift 5 s Satis-faetion, which is that Righteoufnefs whereby we are juftified

Reply. , (1.) I have already anfwered this of fides qu& & qua. I take your ConcefTion for the qu* y and ffay till you either prove the qua as comradiftindt,

or

or this diftin&ion to have tolerable fenfe, when well fcand.

(2.) I mainly differ with you in the laft point, which is your ground-work in other differences. Faith juftifieth not diredly , as it apprehendeth Chrift^s Satisfa&ion (you {hould fay, Righteonfnefi which was merited by it: For the Satisfadion it felf was never offered to us, but given to God for us h unlefs by apprehending, you mean only affenting to the truth ot it :) But Faith juftifieth djrc&ly or formally-, as the Condition of the Gift h and materially or aptitudinally, as the receiving of Chriji him-felf: And then his Righteoufnefs is to follow our Union or Marriage to him* Doth not Union go before Juftification ? Remember I diftinguiftied before ex parte attu$& ex parte otyeUi.

■i m Aphorifm. Page 288. rr+Hti Accepting, which is a Moral re-X. ceiving, doth not, nor poffibly can make Chrift ours immediately and properly, as it U a receiving; But mediately and improperly only; the formal caufe of our interejl, being God's Donation by the Gofpel-Covenanu

Animadverf

Accepting is properly the receiving of a thing offered : And foour Accepting, prefuppofeth God's offer •, our receiving, fuppofeth his Donation : And I ihould rather think that it is not God's offer and-Donationjbut our accepting and receiving, which doth immediately make Chrift ours. Tne Gofpel-Co-venant is held" our to many, who yet have no interelt in Chrift, becairfe they have not faith ro accept and receive him, John \. EijU. A&s i$> 38 5 j^O;4r^

Reply.

zo6 £>f 3>oMtion

Reply. This is a point of greater moment than to all appears : But as to your Objection, it is of mod facile folution. There are two adte of God's Donation to be diftinguiftied, which you confound: i. One is his making the conditional Covenant or Gift : This was a natural aft paft long ago, and our Acceptance fuppofeth it paft* 2. The fecond is the moral aft of this Covenant, Deed of Gift, or Law once made. This moral aft ion is confiderable, 1. As before our performance of the Condition v and that is imperfect, and properly no a&ion, as to giving : For it is eflential to a Condition, to fufpend the a& of the Law, Grant, or other inftrumental Donation. 2. But when the Condition is performed, then the Law or Covenant doth truly agere or fignificare, and ghe Cbriji and Kighteoufnefi. For though the Inftrument were in being before, yet it did not agere vel efficere, till the Condition was performed. And this is common in moral Adfcion or Efficiency, to delay fo long, and begin on fuch terms : And the reafbn is, becaufe all its force for A&ion is from the Will of the Law-giver or Donor: For it work-eth but as fignum voluntatis ejus. Now it is his Will that a conditional Grant (hall not adfr, or be effectual till the Condition be performed, and therefore it cannot before. If a man make a Teftament, giving (b much to fuch a Son when he marrieth, and fo much to another on fuch a Condition (as if it were but thankful Acceptance) this feftament will not give them any attual right, till the Condition be performed. So I anfwer you y Our Acceptance fuppofeth God y s Grant, as made in the Inftrument, aiii fuppofeth 11 conditionally to be ours*, but as truly fuppofeth,

ana deception; 207

pofeth, that aUually it is not ours till Acceptance \ the Law till then fufpending its a<fh Indeed if ic had been an abfolute Grants it had been otherwife : For then the receiving would have been neceffary only in natural, and not moral refpedt i and only ad pojfeflionem & non ad jus. And yet fbme Grants ufe to be made in phrafe of abfolute ones, which yet imply Confent or Receiving to be conditional, becaufe it is feldom convenient to make over any gift upon other terms : (Yet fometimes it is.) Can you think indeed (as you feem to intend) that 'all God's Agency is pall before we believe, and that he doth nothing after? Why then he juftifieth men before Faith ex parte fui, as fully as after > and the Reprobate as fully as the Eledt: But both thefe are falfe, Ih-deed God doth no natural adfcion after (it is ex vi LegiflationU, that the Law doth ftill afterwaid a§) 'but the moral a£l of his Law, which is debitum con-ftituere, jus conferre, is after our Faith immediately : and this is the ad that we are chiefly to look at. You (ay, the Gofpel-Covenant is held out to Unbelievers, and what of that ? Doth it therefore give right in Chrifi to Unbelievers f Or doth Faith it felf give that right ? Or did God before give it abfolute* ly y and they only lofe the pofleflion for want of a Reception merely natural ? No> none of all thi&

Aphorifm. Ibid.TF the Covenant make Chrifi as King, the Ob* * je3 of that Faith which is its Condition , * as well as Chrifi as a Deliverer or Prieftjben may it be as fit * rifc. Of Juftifica* a medium for our Jujiification tion -1 as the other*

Anm*

208 £)f 2>ouatiOtt

Atrimadyerf It doth riot follow, becaufe the Covenant extends to' more than Juftification ; and Juftification it felt requires that Chrift be received as King, yet not that Juftification maybe obtained, but becauie it is obtained.

Reply.

i. You might eafily difcern from what went before, that I {poke of the Condition of Juftification.

2. I perceive now that you think the receiving Chrift as Trieft, and as King^ are two diftinft ads i and that the former alone juftifieth us', not only without the other, as a Condition-, but even without its prefence, which is but to follow becaufe we are juftifieeL Contrary, He that receives not Chrift as Chrift, (that is, in all the effentials of his Mediatory Office) doth not receive him, fo as to be juftified by him, Jiuthethat receives him only as Prieft, and not as King, doth not receive him as Chrift *, therefore,^. The Scripture calleth him Chrift) the Anointed^ more fully and frequently, inrefpedfc to the Kingly part of his Office than any. A falfe Faith doth not juftifie : Eut to receive Chrift only as a Prieft, and not as King, is a falfe Faith *, therefore, &c. Again, He that knows not Chrift to be the King of the Church by Office, and dejure the Ruler of his Soul,knows him not with a true know-ledg (no more than he that knows not that a man hath a head, but only a heart, hath a true know-ledgof man i) therefore fo to receive him is no true receiving. And if he know him to be King, and yet receive him not as fuch, then it is worit of all* Laftly, To receive Chrift fo as he was never offered, is no true receiving: But to receive him as Prieft only, is fo to receive him as he* was never offered >

there-

attti Becepeiom 209

therefore, &c. And therefore this receiving which you fpeak of doth not juftifie.

Aphorifm. Page 28?. T take it for granted, that Dr. Downam'j -* Arguments in the place forecited, have proved Affiance to be but a fruit of the principal ju-ftifying aft of Faith.

Animadrverf I cannot examine thofe Arguments, not having the Book wherein they are contained. But Affiance being taken for a Recumbency on Chrift, it feems to be a principal part of juftifying Faith, as being that which the phrafe of Believing in Chrifi-^ fo frequent in Scripture doth import, and which is meant by embracing^ Heb. 11.13. Reply. I am of your mind in all this: But withal, as Acceptance is the mojl principal a&, and yet is a fruit of Affent : So Affiance may be a principal aft, ani yet be but a fruit of Acceptance or El eft ion. And though [believing in ChrijQ imply Affiance, yet firft it implieth Affent (of which Dovpnam is large : ) And * I mould have faid,

though \imbracini\ may in- that chere [ s fi £ ft ^ ffi " ^l.,j^ Am t £ a J ance on thc Speakers

elude Affiance, yet firft, and Veracity in the Affent

principally Acceptance, as is of Faith; and then a * evident. quieting Affiance in the

Confent, when it is flrong •> and a pra&icd Affiance, in venturing on the dangers and difficulties, and hoping for the reward.

Aphorifm. Page 291. T Have earnejily fought the Lord's diretti-* on mykpees, before I adventured on iu

P Amm*

2io £>f 2r>otmttcm, &c.

Animadterf.

That may argue the fincerity of your defire 3 bur not the fuc-cefs of your endeavours.

Reply. Concedo totum. You need not deny a Conclufion that was never inferred. Whether I have any better Argument for my fuccefs, I leave you to conclude upon perufal.

Aphorifm. Ibid. TF Faith jujiifie, as it is the fulfilling of the * Condition of the New-Covenant, and (Xhedi-ence be alfo part of that Condition '•> then Obedience I mull jujiifie in the fame way as Faith.

Animadverf.

But I think it neither hath been, nor can be proved, that cither J^ith doth juftifie, as it is the fulfilling of the Condition bf the whole New-Covenant, which doth comprehend more in it than Juftification , or that Obedience is part of the Condition of the New-Covenant, fo far as it concerns Juftification, Lmean for the obtaining of it. Obedience is required indeed in the New-Covenant 5 but not that thereby we may be i juftified, but as a fruit of that Faith whereby we are juftihed. Reply.

The firft is yielded. You might eafily know, that I fpoke of the Condition of Juftification : For the fecond, it is alfo granted of Juftification begun : But as for Juftification continued, and consummate by Sentence at Judgment, let it reft on the proofs themfelves.

. Aphorifm.

Page 292. T^H* plain expreffion of St. James

A fhould terrifie us from an Interpretation contradictory to the text; And except apparent

violence

violence beufedwithhis Chap. 2. 21, 24,25. ifcatf-»0# fe doubted^ but that a man is juftifiedby Works, and not by Faith only*

AnimaJherf It cannot indeed be doubted, but that St. James doth fay fo : But the Queftion is not of his words, but of his meaning. And it may feem ftrange, that you (hould fo cenfure that Interpretation, which is generally received by Proteftants, as to make it contradictory to the Text. The Papifts fay as much about thdfe words, \Thu U my Body ^] and they have as much reafon for what they fay as you have, tor any thing I can fee. For the meaning of St. James^ whom you think to be fo clear and full for you, it's needlef. to (hew what our Divines do fay, even Cajetan himfelf upon the place faith , Jacob™ docet quod non fide ftertli, fed fide fcecunda operibus Jufttficamur, And this indeed feems to be S. Jame's meaning by his whole Difcourfe, from ver. 14. to the end of the Chapter, where he bends himfelf againftfuch as prefume of Faith, though it be** without Works, which Faith Prctellants generally deny to be which juftifieth. More efpecially confider , that St. James faith, Thdt Abraham tf/ts juflifiedbyworkj, whenhehMof-% • feredup his [on upon the altar : And that the Scripture was fulfilled^ xohich faith, Abraham believed God, and it was tm~ puted to htm for Righteoufnefi, v. 21, & 23. This clearly {hiws (methinks)that Abraham was only fo juftificd by Work.^ and not by Faith only, as that he was juftihei, not by a barren and idle, but by a fruitful and working Faith, his Works mew-cd his Faith to be true juftifying Faith indeed. For that [A bra-ham believed God> and it was imputed unto htm for Rights oufriefi^] was faid of him long before that he offered up ifaac^ as the ftory in Genejls doth (hew •, and by thofe very words dtiiti S. Paul prove that Juflification is by Faith, and not by Works, Rom. 4. 3. Therefore when S. James faith, that by Abraham 1 offering up of ifaac, that Scripture was fulfilled, I know not how it can be otherwife underftood, than that thereby it did appear, that it was truly faid of Abraham, That he believed God&c. His willingnefs to obey God in fo great a wcrk, mewed that he believed indeed, and that his Faith was fuch, as whereby he was juftified. So when St. James faith, That by Works Abrahams Faith was made perfect; the meaning is, that his Works mewed his Faith to be perfect , that is, a true juftifying Faith % even as God's ftrength is faid to be made

perfect in our weaknefs, 2 Coy. 11. 9. /.e the greatnefs of his power is feen in our weaknefs: For it is certain, that our weaknefs can add nothing to God's power, though it may be an occafion to draw it out, and to make it manifeft.

Reply.

1. I believe when the Holy Ghoft fpeaks plainly, he means as he fpeaks.

2. I would you had told me what Interpretation is fo generally received. Surely I have read" of divers Interpretations by Proteftants, one contradicting what others maintain j and therefore they do not fo generally hold to one. Some fay, It fpeaks of Juftification coram T>eo\ fome fay, only cor am hoytinibus * fome, that it fpeaks of the Juftification of thtperfim others, only of the Juftification of his Faith, 8cc.

3r To your Hoc eft Corpus meum , I anfwered before. It were an odd thing, if when we bring theexprefs words of Scripture for any proof, it fhould be put off by Hoc eft Corpus meum '•> or, Ego (urn Vim.

4. The words you cite, verf. 21,23. w ^ not prove what you intend. For if it be meant of [_Jn-ftijication immediately on our firft believing,'] or our Juftification as begun (which you Hill infift on) then how can James prove by Works many years after, that the Faith was fruitful, when he was firft jufti-fied by it.

5. Indeed the words you cite, undeniably prove that James and you fpeak not of one and the fame Juftification, or of Juftification in the fame fenfe. For you fpeak of it as begun, and James fpeaks of it only as continued (Legal Juftification I mean) upon the performance of that Obedience which is the

fecondary

fecondary part of the Conditions and fo he includeth alfo the Evangelical Juftification, which I before de-fcribed, as being the neceflary medium for confirmation and continuation of the Legal. It is beyond doubt that Abraham was juftified long before he offered up his Son. And this Work could be no Condition of that Juftification which was paft S and therefore James (peaks not of that. And indeed how elfe could James's Dodhine be reconciled with «ZWx, or the truth, if it fpoke of the -firfij otbe~ gun Juftification ? For that is before and without the very prefence of all external Works: (you think, before love to Chrift > and fay, All our Vivinesfo hold: and yet here you fay, that Proteftants generally deny that Faith which is without Worlds to juflifie :** But fo do not I \ therefore I givelefs to Works than you think Proteftants do/; Except you will fa>(a%. Grotius doth, and I think in this truly) that James by Works means, a dijpofition and' resolution to obey, as ftillnecejfary (implied in the taking Chrift for King,) and actual obedience when we are called to it. For Abraham did not offer his fon in Sacrifice, but by attempting it, and chearfully addrcfling himfelf to it, (hewed his refolution to obey.

6. As for Verf 23. which you urge, there is no neceffky of your fenfe, nor is it much againft what I fay, if it be yielded. Either you think James by [ Fulfilled'] means, quoad fenfum verborum ut primo funt enunciata : (But that cannot be, becaufe they were Hiltorical, and therefore fulfilled as foon as fpoken * and not Prophetical, to be fulfilled afterward :) Or elfe he ufeth the word Fulfilled lefs ftri&ly, as referring to the Do&rine which that Hiftorical Enunciation did contain, viz. [T'bat it

P 3 was

214 4Df£>t Jame's fettle Of

was by believing God that Abraham was Justified f] which (as Grotiut truly notes) is ordinarily in the New-Teftamentthe meaning of that word, [That the Scripture may be fulfilled.^ And this muft be the meaning here (for the Reafon forementioned.) And then the fenfe may be, I. Either by way of Inter* pretation > q.d. [In this fenfe U this Script ure-T)o8rine fulfilled, Abraham believed God> that tf, He believed and obeyed alfo :] Or it may be by way ofConcejfion > q.d.[Yet the Scripture r»as fulfilledjvhich^ faith >, Abraham believed-, &c For faith did juftifie him, but not only Faith.']

7. For your Interpretation of Verf 22. it is only your Affirmation, and is as eafily denied. Sure I am, * 'that my Interpretation is true quoad Doftrinam, viz. That Faith is not only manifeftcd perfect by Obe-v dies.ce, but that it is really perfected, 1. As the Tree is by bearing fruit. 2. As a Covenant or Eromife is by performance (a's a mans Bargain is perfected, when he hath done that which he thereby bound himfelf to do.) 3. As it hath naturam medii, viz. Conditions, to the Continuation and Confummation of Justification. 4. As it is part b£ that neceflary matter (not neceflary at the fir(t moment of believing, but neceflary afterward, when he is called to it)whereby he is to be juftified againft the Charge of ^^-performance of the New-Covenants Condition *, even 3gainft the Accufation of being an Unbeliever or Hypocrite, It cannot be denied, but thus far following-Obedience perfetteth faith : And if this be true doUrinally , I fie yet no reafon, why I (hould exclude all thefe from the meaning of the Apoftle in that Text, or any of them \ when the old Rule is, to expound Scripture

gjttfttficatfott by mml&. %\$

ture in the moft comprehenfive fenfeit will bear,and not to limit or reftrainit without neceffity.

8. Your own Interpretation and Mr. Pembles? granteth as much as I plead for, I think, if you conttadi& not your felf again : If by [Works,] you understand [a working-Faith,"] it fhall fuffice me, if you apply it as fames doth i that is, not to a mere necejjitas prtfenti* of Works, but to that Con-ductitility to the effect, which James gives to both : Or (to fpeak as others) not only to Faith in it felf but to Faith as working. If [a working Faith] be made by God the Condition of J unification, then the modus or adjunct, [Working^] is a true, neceflary, fecondary part of the Condition, as the Faith it felf is the fubftance or principal part. As when GodL^ makes [fincere Faith ] the Condition, Sincerity is thereby made the modus, and fo far a true part of* the Condition* If you bargain to give me [a founds * faift) travelling Horfe] on fuch a price : You receive your money for him as really quatenus found? fwift, &c. as quatenus a Horfe. If a Woman in Marriage covenant to be [a, faithful Wife,] (and not adulterous) (he receives her intereft in the Man and his Ettate primarily quatenus a Wife, but alfc quatenus faithful', for want of which (he may be divorced after. In this fenfe therefore I will not contend againfl: you, if you yield, that Faith is the Condition of continued and confurnmate Juftificati-on 5 not only confidered in fe as Faith, but alfo as working. But ftill I fay, I had rather (tick to the Scripture-words, when I fee no neceffity to change them.

But now if Mr. Pemhle, or you, or any, will fay, [Works jajiifie not the Perjon, but the Faith } ] you

P 4 ^y

fay and unfay. It is a contradiction : For if it be true in all particular caufes, that Juftificatio caufe efteiiam Juftificatio perjott* (as Bradjban> tells you more fully, dejuftif. Edit. Lat. c. 3. §.9,10^.30.) much more in fuch a Juftification as this, which Everlafting Life dependeth on. If you be accufed to bda final «o«.perfornaer of the Conditions of the New-Covenant, he that }uCiifieth your performance, juftifieth you againft that Accufation-, and hath no other way to juftifie you. This Accufation is, x. Either that you are an open Infidel: Againft this you mult be juftified, by producing your Faith it felf. 2. Or that you are a Hypocrite > that is, a clofe Vribeliever : And fo you muft be juftified coram i Deo, by pleading the fmcerity of your Faith, and coram hominibus conjecturaliter, by producing Wor\i as the fruits. 3. Or that you are but a half-Be-TzVztfr, or half-Performer oi the Conditions'* viz. One that took Chrift for your own ends to fave you, but not to rule yo^ (Luke ip. 27.) or that believed (in Jameses fenfe) but did not obey : Againft this you muft be juftified by producing your confmt to Cbrift's Rule, and yout Obedience. (And to this y^wf/hadrefpedt.) Or, 4. You are accufed to be an Apoftate: And againft this you muft be juftified, by producing your Perfeverance. So that whatever part of the Condition you are accufed to have violated, you muft be juftified, by proving the performance of that part. And this is Juftificatio perfine & non tantum caufa. Nay, when you fay, \_Wor\s juftifie our Faitb,~] you plainly grant alfo, that they juftifie our Perfon-> when the cafe is, [Whether we arc true Believers or not f\ There is no way in this cafe (which will be the great cafe at the day of

Judgment)

SJttfttftcatton bp »&£♦ 217

judgment) to juftifie the Perfon y but by juftifying his faith. And therefore I faid, that I difliked not Mr. Pemblesfenk as to what he affirmed, [That rve are jufiified by a working Faith ;] But as to the denial or recalling of the fame again, in faying, \We are not jufiified by Works \\ or, [They juftifie not the Terfon, but his faith f] For it Faith juftifie not, only confidered as Faith-, but alfo as workings that is plainly as much as to fay, Secondarily we are j unified by Works^ or Working, as -primarily by Relieving > And that Works juftifie us, by the juftifying of our Faith. For the Apoftle faying, \We are jufiified by Wor^s, and not by faith only^\ doth as plainly as can be fpoken, give Works more than a comprefentia-lity, even a co-intereft in the effedt : For it canncA^^ befaid, \We are jufiified by Wor]q^\ becaufe they are prefent only. a

#

s #

Aphorifm. Page 2^3. HPff* Apoftle doth profeffedly exclude the -I Works of the Law only from Juftifica-'tion> but nevtr at alltheJVorkj of the Go/pel^ as they are the Conditions of the New-Covenant.

Animad\->erf i. All Works, if .they be Good-works, are Works of the Law, t /. e. Works which the Law requireth ; the Law (I mean the Moral Law) being as to Works the eternal Rule of Righ-teoufnefs, there being no fin, but that which is forbidden by the Law, and which is a tranfgreffion of it, i John 3.4. And "therefore that in the Ephef $ % if. See that je wall^circum-(petti)) or exactly, **£*£<»; I Bez><i doth well expound, quam froxtme adLegts Dei pr&cepta.

2. The Apoftle doth limply and absolutely • exclude Works from Juftification : For, 1. He fhewcththat Abraham was ju-itified by Faith, and not by Works : Now Abraham did the Works of the Gofpel^ as well as or the Law, yen was he not

juftified

juftified by Works, but by Faith only. 2. He ftieweth, that jj if a man be juftified by Works, of what kind foever, his Juftification is not of Grace, but of Debt. 3. To prove that a man is juftified by Faith, and not by Works, he alledgeth the words of David, Blejfedis the man who ft iniquities are forgiven*, ani whofe fms are cohered. BUffedis the man to whom the Lord wtHnot impute Jin. Now that muftbe underftood of Works fimply confidered: For who doth any Works fo, but that he hath need to have his iniquities forgiven , his fins covered, and not imputed to him > Pr&clare Calvinus, (faith B. Da*, de Juft. Ad. c. 30. p. 394) feitgat ex tot&fuk fcn-Hus Dei ftry>us , quod tn e]tts curju maximh exirniumfepu-tabit edtdtfle , deprehendtt altcubt quod carnis putredjnem faptat.

Reply.

1. All Works are Works of a LaT»> but not [the - Law] which the Apoftle fpeaks of. The Moral

Law diftindt from the Sanation really, that is, as part,pf neither the Old-Covenant or New, is a *'hon ens, a Chymara-

2. To your Reafons, that the Apoftle excludes all Wor\s fimply and abfolutely : I anfwer particularly, 1. He fpeaks only of Juftification coram Deo Legiflatere veteris Legis h and not of Juftification againft the Accusation of final Unbelief. 2. He fpeaks of Juftification againft a true Charge^ which is the fame with KemiJJion of fin > and not of Juftification againft a falfe Accufation. 3. He fpeaks of Works , as Competitors with Cbrifi > and not as fubordinate to him* {James contrarily.) For the Queftion that Paul debates is, Whether we are juftified by the Works of the Law, or by the Righte-oufnefs of Chrift received by Faith ? Where he principally in his Queftion oppofeth Workj and Chrift as in point of Merit \ and Faith is but collaterally put in the oppoiition. 4. He fpeaks againft

Wor^

JPorks juftifying meritoriovfly* and not as Conditions of the continuance of a free-given Righteoufnefs. This I could bring multitudes of our Divines that affirm, that the Apoftle fpeaking againft Jujlificati-on by Worhj, means in point of Merit ; and that this is the Controverfie between us and the Papifts. 5.HC doth fo ufually add, [the Worhj of the Law*'] as if he had forefeen this Controverfie, and of purpofe let them know, that it is not Obedience to the Re~ deemer that he excludes from juftifying as a Condition in fubordination to Chrift » but Works done in Oppofition, Competition or Co-ordination with Chrift. 6. He exprefly fpeaketh only of thofe Works which make the Reward to be of Debt* and not of Grace* and of no other. So much in gen&^>^ ral to be premifed. V^; f ^

Now particularly to your firft Argument, *— c ^h_}_ -1. Abraham's Gojpel-workj cannot be fet in competition with Chrift 9 s Righteottfnefs* that is againft their nature ; and therefore could not fo juftifie : Which is all Paul fays. But yet they might juftifie as Con-ditions under Chrift. 2. Your ConcluGon unlimited , is exprefly againft the words of Scripture, James 2. 24.

Toyourfecond I anfwer, 1. There is no fuch words as yours, [of what kjndfoever,} either ex-prefled or incimated by Paul. To him that worketh, in the fenfe Paul fpeaks of (that is, ut operarim* to have the wages for the worth of the work) the Reward is not of.Grace* but of Debt. 2. Elfe you fully do feign it, to contradid the whole fcope of the Scripture, that promifeth the Reward to the Obedient. For the Apoftle there fpeaketh of [Workjng*') and not only trufting in them > and he fpeaketh 0 f

the

the [Reward] and not only of J unification only. Aud do you think, that every man that obeyeth

Cbrift, yea that obeyeth pr&mii gratia, doth tt rnake the Reward to be not of Grace ? Then

fair fall Antinomians and Rebels. 3. Faith is as truly a J^rJ^, as Love ox Hope, &c. Yet it is not by Paul excluded > therefore not all Works.

I have followed this fo far with another Reverend Brother, that I will fay the lefs of it now. The two too common Anfwers are, 1. Tharthis is BeUarmine's Anfwer *, which I think not worthy a Reply. 2. That Faith juftihes not as a Work, but as an Inftrument. And fo I fay (more truly) Love, Hope, fincere Obedience, juftifie not as Works, hut as the Conditions on which God hath given the Confirmation, Continuation and Confummation of Tuftification. There is a third Anfwer df a Learn-cG man, that credere is not agere^ but Pati : But I think I have confuted that fufliciently.

3. To your third I fay, r. That plainly (hews that ?##/fpeaks only of the Juftification I firft mentioned. 2. We have need of pardon for the imperfection of Faith, Love, and every Work > therefore we have need to be juftified coram Deo Legiflatore Le-gn operam, by Remiffion of fins through the Sacrifice of Cbriji: This is. all your words will conclude, or Tavd intends \ and this is eafily granted, and I hope ihouldbe faithfully maintained againil any Adver-fary, if there were orcafion* But, 4. We need not pardon for perfom ing the Conditions of the Ncvv-Covenant *, not for being Believers, loving Chriih obeying, &c. but only for doing ir no better. 5. If this be your Argument, \jVbatfoever Wor\isimper-fefi, and needetb pardon, cannot jujiife , &c] I

anfwer,

OT)atrao#seraut>eth zh

anfwer, By way of Merit it cannot: But as a Con* dition of free-given Pardon, an imperfett work may juftifie 5 or cl(e Faith could not. To Calvin's words and Vavenants, I willingly fubfcribe.

Aphorifm.

Pag.2p7.T70 Mr* Pemble'/ Vh.w.Thonnu An-\

MT Interpretation,^ {w % to s f eed > k faith ™

ty [Works,] * meant la mrf^ we are ju#ifiij' as >-

i#g Faith.] I anfaer ; J ^<flT ners y and by JFw^j- as

not teach the Holy Gboft tofpeal^ Believers : ] .Though

nor force the Scripture, nor raife < h ™ tei * f ec * uire more

-V . r r r * or lts Explication.

tf# Interpretation Jo far from

the plain importance of the > words , &c.

Animacbperf

1. All this is no more than the Papifts object againft the Expofition of thofe words, This is my Body.

2. That all this 3 or any part of it, doth follow on I mitring of Mr. PtmbWs Expofition (which as i have Ihewed, is no other than that <which Caftan doth imbrace ) is only fuppofed, but not proved. We do not teach the Holy Ghoit to fpeak, nor force Scripture, nor raife an Expofition far from the importance of the words 3 when we interpret Scripture by Scripture, and fhew the meaning of one place by another, yea the meaning of a place by the very circumftances of it.

Reply. It is not Mr. Fernble's inclusion, but exclusion y that, as I (hewed you, I fpeak of. And it is an ill way to interpret Scripture, by denying it : When you prove your Interpretation (in the point op-pofed) indeed by any other Scripture, or the circumftances of this, you will do more, 1 think, than I have yet feen done. But it is very eafie to feign or fuppofean Analyfis according to our own conceit, and thence to force a fenfe on each particular Verfe.

Aphor,

Aphorifm; Ibid. T2 ^J when it is the very /cope of a Chapter in *-* plain and frequent Expreffions , no whit diffonant from any other Scripture^ I thinly he that may fo wreji it, as to makg it unfay what it faiths may as Well mai^e him a Creed of his own, let the Scripture fay what it mil to the contrary.

Antmachcrf Still you fuppofe much, but prove nothing. I hive fhewed before, that the fcope of the Chapter is not againft Mr. ¥em-hle*s Interpretation, but for it : And that to interpret as you do,is repugnant both to fome paffages in that Chapter,and alfo to other places of Scripture.

Reply. ,.- i. Let your proofs prevail according to their length : I leave it to the trial. 2. For my proofs, I know not well what to offer as fuch : For if I "Tiring plain Scripture, it is eafieto fay, It means not as it fpeaks, and to feign an Analytical Reafon of it. But I prove, thatby[^rj^3 James means [Work/] indeed.

1. The unprofitablenefs of bare Faith, ("that is, Affent) without Works (Works in a proper fenfe) is made the fubje&'of his Difcourfe, Verf. 14. It is not Faith and Faith that are oppofed, but Faith alone, and Faith and Works: Infomuch that he concludes., Faith cannot fave him that hath not Works : Which plainly intimates a necelfity of more in Works than their bare prefence.

2. His firft Argument ah inefficacia fmM* , is, Good wordfyWitUoixt good deeds cannot feed or clothe men : So belief without a good life-, cannot pleafe God, and fave the perfon, but as to this ufe is dead, being alone* Here again, the oppofition is not

merely

merely between Faith and Faith, but between fingle faith of AJfent, and faith and Wor\s together. And ftill the fame kind of force (I am loth to call it efficacy) is afcribed to Works, in their place, as to Faith.

3. His fecond Argument is, That to have Faith without Works is a hardning of thofe that are Unbelievers, and caufeth them to think ill of the Chri-ftian Faith, and infult over it, verf 18. q. d. A man (that is, an Unbeliever) may fay, 'thou haji Faith, (u e. You fay none are of the true Religion but you h your Faith only is right, and we are all wrong h but Jhew me thy Faith by thy Wor\s \ (i.e.

If your belief be fo good, why have you no better /

lives ? it appears by your Works, what your Belief KJ ~ is:) And I will Jhew thee my Faith hymn Worlds $ ^V t. e* Let our Works (hew which of us hach th^ahfifi^V^/ Belief

4. His third Argument is, that the Devils have a true Belief without Works; therefore that will not (ave, verf 19. q.d* Thou haft no more than Devils have, if this be all.

5. His fourth Argument is verf 2 1. and the Cori-clufion premifed, verf 20. viz. Faith without Worlds U dead) viz. As to the effedt of juftifying andfaving (mortuum & inutile in Lege aquiparantur :) Still here the oppofite part on one fide, is [Faith and Workj i] and on the other [Faith without Worty.] The Argument, verf 21. is Abraham himfelf (that isfaidtobejuftified by Faith) was yet jujiified by Workf (not only by that Faith which did work, but by Workj) and the Work is expreffed [when he offered his fan m the Altar. ]

In Verf. 22. he urgeth the Application, Seejl thou not how Faith wrought with his Works j i. e. He both believed and obeyed, his Faith and Obedience did co-work > or (if you will, that his Faith produced Works)and£ty Works was Faith tnadeper-fe£i n (z. e. by thofe Works which it produced, or he added, Faith was made perfedl for the accom-plifhingof its ends, to which elfeit was dead, as is oft laid before : Perfect and Dead are oppofed i Dead is inefficient to the ends.)

6. In verf 23. he for preventing an Objection, [Was not Abraham juftifiedby Faith?'] interpreteth that faying, \jthe Scripture was fulfilled which faith^ &c. (q*d. He was indeed juftified by Faith, the

.—Scripture is fulfilled in that: But when he was cal-5'Ied to Wojks, it was not then by Faith alene^ but "byjgaitlwlnd Works added (for though Faith be ^tne Condition of Initiation, yet Faith and Obedience^

of the Confirmation-, Continuation and Confummation

of Righteoufnefs.)

7. In Verf 2^. He very folemnly calls them to ob-ferve the Queftion concluded from this Argument, [Tou fee then how that by Works a man is juftified, and not by Faith only {] Not by that Faith only which did wor\ \ but by Works (as he had oft faid before) not Worlds neceffary as figns, or as idle Concomitants, but [by Works he was juftified ;] And left we fliould doubt whether he only require their prefence, and not their conditional intereft, he (hews their intereft to be of the fame nature, though not of the fame order and degree as Faith's intereft is, by applying the wordQBy] to the feveral members[B>> Work£-*and not only by Faith ;] And puts jlaavov folum, left if he had put it adjeUively^ it might occafion the contrary

m\)&tmow$ tmwtt). us

trary Interpretation. And he faith not, [Faith it juftified,'] but \j. man is juftified.] So that they that fay he fpeaks of the Juftification of Faith , muft make it run thus, [Tou fee that by Works a mans Faith is juftified) and not by Faith only.']

8. His fifth Argument he urgeth from the example of Rahab. Rahab was juftified by Work/ (ftill retaining and inculcating the fame words of being juftified by Works, and not only by the Faith which produceth them j left if he fpeak it but once, we might think it were not his proper meaning : And fo exprefleth the particular Worthy which the Scripture commendeth Rahab, as being one of thofe Works that juftifie her.

9. And fo he concludeth again, Verf 26. That-a?-the Body without the Spirit , Jo Faith (i. e. A found -Orthodox Belief : For fo our Divines againft the_Pa-\ pifts and Commentators ufually interpret it) mw^ out worlds (to fecond it, and joyn with it, as part of the Condition of continued Juftification and Salvation) is dead alfo (u e. is unprofitable*)

I have laid by all Authors, and the remembrance of their judgments, as much as I could, and looked only on the words of the Text, and charged my Confcieuce to fpeak what feemed the true unforced Analylis: And this is it that feems to me to be the naked fenfe. But when I had done, and reviewed the fenfe of Expofitors, I fee no reafon to change it.

Now if (as I have faid) Fifcator , Pemble, Sec. by [working Faiths] mean not only [Faith it felf as Faith,] but [Faith as working-,] u e. fir(l as Faith* and fecondarily as Working, they fay as much as I (but yet I \yill not accufe or refufe this oft repeated

Q_ Scripture-

Scripture-phrafe : But if they mean by [working Faith,] only [that Faith which hath Wor\s as only quoad prsefentiam necejfary find riot at all ad effettttmi Juftificationit)'] I think they utterly forfake plain Scripture-words and fenfe.

Aphorifm.

Page 2?p. *~r*Hey thinly that Faith U an inftrutnen* X tal efficient Caufe of our Juftification (which that properly it is not I have proved before) when if they wtderjhod that it jujiifieth but as a caufal fine qua non, or Condition^ they would eafily yield that JVorhj do fo too.

Ammadverf

I ■ I. Do you think that neither Mr. Pemhle> nor QalVm-, nor

any of all thofe eminent Divines whom you oppofe, did un-i ftand the nature and ufe of Faith in the point of Jufl^ca-t tion s

2. Let Faith be either an Inftrument, as many term it (andl I have before noted the re a Ion, as I conceive it:) or a Condition, asjouw/Ubave/t {and I am not again ft it} yet Faith doth juftifie as it apprchendeth Chrift's Satisfaction \ by which indeed fo apprehended, we are juftified. Works do not concur with Faith in this aft of apprehending Chrift's Satisfaction ; and therefore neither are they concurrent unto Juftification. Reply. i.I confefs you have me now at a difadvantage. I (hall not eafily rid my hands of this Platonick Argument, though the Logick of it may be well enough dealt with. If I fay that Calvin, Sec knew not fo much as I, it will feem Arrogancy : If I fay they did know more in this, I feem to confefs myi felf to err. But what if I fpeak freely what I think without diflembling, let it feem what it will ? I, think for the fervice Calvin and fuch others did the ] Church, and for the progrefs that Truth made by

their

their endeavours, it was fuch, that I deferve not to be named the fame day with them : I think alfb that Calvin brought in more New-Dodhines (new to thofe times) than I have done incomparably : I think alfo that he writes fo moderately oft of this very point, that I think his judgment was in fenfe, in the main, the fame with mine. Yet I think his apprehenfions of the Dodhines now in difpute, and his expreffions of them, were not fo clear, difiindt and orderly, but that fome that come after may fee further, and redrefs thofe overfights, which have occafioned quarrels fince (when, as Dr. Stonghton faith, We differ but in words about Jujiification by Faiths not undemanding each others meaning* Form ef xvholefom words*) And I will not be fo ungrateful to God, for fear of teeming arrogant, as not to fpeafc plainly, that I hope God hath (hewed me fomewhat further in this point, and fome others, than Calvin hath taught or difcovered. (And yet [ think few of his nearer followers faw fo much as he > but moft depraved his Dodhine by out-going lim, while they thought they did but imitate or vindicate him.) I hope when the Mafter-workman hath built the Houfe, his Boy may fay, without the imputation of Arrogancy, I have driven two or three pins which my Matter overfaw.

But if this free Anfwer will not ferve, I will anfwer as I have learned : I alfo will ask of you a Queftion or two. And when you have anfwered Tie, I will anfwer you.

1. Do you think that neither Clem. Roman. Igna~ fHih Juftin Martyr,lren£US,Clem.Alexand. "iattanus^ Athenagoras, ^ertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lattanti-fs, Cyril, &c nor any one Divine for a thoufand Q^2 years

223 MDat : ^ojftsmtttt>ei>;

years after Partly did underftand his Dodtrine, 01 know how Faith juftified, or how far Works die concur ? And you cannot but know (that are a man of reading) that they give generally as much, anc moftly more to Works than ever I did, and that L they teach our Juftification by Faith to be as by c Condition, and not as by an Inftrument (whatevei l forced fcraps tome may gather out of a line, againft the full fcope of the whole page or Book*)

2. Do you think that Calvin* Martyr* Chamier. ' &c with the ftream of great renowned Forreigr | Divines (fpecially the firft Reformers) did noneo! them know what jnftifying Faith was } that which a we think our Children fhould know by their Cate-T chifm ? which we think is fo near the foundation l 1 And yet did thefe men take juftifying Faith ,to be either AJfurance or Perfaafion of the pardon of mans own fins in -particular > and fay, He that hac not this Certainty or Perfaafion, had no Faith > anc even lay a mighty part of Do&rinal Reformation; and difference between us and the Papifts in this! And yet almoft all our Engliflb Divines (except An tinomians) and moft others, do now generally dif-claim that Dodtrine as erroneous, and place juftifying Faith in Affiance, Recumbency, AfTent or Ac ceptance, &c. confeffing that Ajfurance* yea, anc that perfwafion* to be a feparable fruit. Was it the former or the prefent Divines that knew not what juftifying Faith is ? Indeed if this way of argu ing weregocd, you might fave all your other Arguments through your w r hole Animadveifions,' and carry all with this one Queftion : [Do you think I underftand not the nature and ufe ot Faith in Juftification ? ] For I reverence youi

under-

underftanding as much as fome of theirs a*-lead.

2. But your next words indeed concern the heart of our Controverfie v and if I miftake not, do discover the main part of your miftake, and withal do contradidl themfelves.

You grant that Faith is a ConditioningdCwhere) that it juftifieth as a Condition i> yet you fay, it Juftifieth, as it apprehendeth ChrijVs Sawfatlion , by which indeed fo apprehended, we are juftified. But,

I. If by[_Apprehcnding,~]you mean [Acceptance,^ and not mere AJJent to the truth of the Gofpel revealing Chrift's Satisfaction, I then fay, that this is a very great miftake : For it is Cbriji bimfelf, and not his Satisfaction, that is the adequate Objett ot the compleat aft of jujiifying Faith, that is, the Wills a& : It is Cbriji bimfelf that is offered to its to bt v^* Head, Husband , Lord, Saviour, and by accepting him, the Covenant is made, and we are united to him : And this Vnion is the firft effedt of this Faitb y and then Jujiification in order of nature follows as a benefit : As the Honours and Dowry go with the perfon in Marriage. Not that there needs another ad of Faith to jujiifie us-, afcer that the firft hath united us to Chrift. No: It is one adt of Faith which is uniting, jujiifying , adopting, &c. they are feveraJ relative ejfecls refuiting from the Covenant-grant, upon our firft believing (which is the Condition*) It is to God that Chrilfs Sat'ufaftion is given, and to us Cbriji bimfelf, and the fruits of it: It is too grofs a conceit, that only the apprebenfion of Satisfaction it felt, or Kigbteoufnefi either, {hould be t\t jujiifying Atf : As if you (hould fay, A Wo-\tranj atfrtbtnfienQf her Husbands Riches, is ic that

Q 3/ makes

- \i

makes her rich, when it is her Confent to have the man. And a dangerous Do&rine this is to be preached to our fenfual people, who are contented to have ChrijVs Satiifattion (as you fpeak) or Righteoufnefs > but not himfelf in the ftate he is offered : This turns mens thoughts from Chrift himfelf, with whom they mud firft clofe in Marriage-Covenant, before they {hall have any Righteoufnefs by hisSatisfaition.

2. You feem to conceive that Faith juftifieth mo-do PbyficO) & non Politico vel Motali : That as a man that takes money in his hand, doth thereby pbyfi-catty receive it, fo he that takes Chrift's Satisfa&ion or Righteoufnefs, doth phyfically receive it. Which istoogrofs. For,* I. The Queftion is of our ob- c raining Right , and not Pojpflion : And no fbyfi* cal Apprehenfion as fuch, gives Right. 2. Recipe-j v e\t pati , fed credere eft agere h ergo credere e\\ l tantum receptio imputativa. 3. Chrift's Sattifafii- il on or Righteoufnefs is not an Obje& capable of our phyfical Reception. 4. Yet a pbyfiealRecep- \ tion of Righteoufnefs there is, imperfe&ly called fo : even as all Relations are received \ and which is no- ' thing but Juftificarh Paflive Juftification : But this [ follows Faith. Credere & Jujtificari nonfunt idem, ] Credimus enim ad Juftificationem*

3» The Controverlie between us muft lie here 1 Whether \\\zforinalti velproxima ratio of Faith's in. tereftin our Juftification, be its Apprebenfive Na-\ iure\ Or its Office of Conditionally ? The Nature of Faith it felf ? or that it is the Condition to which the Free Donor hath annexed Juftification ? For Ap prehendere Chrijium I confefs to be the Nature O! Faith. ' Now I fay (and fay mor^ confidently thai ever, having tried the ftrength of many againft it

thai

that Apprehendere vel Acceptare Chriftum being ipf a fidei ejfentia, is but the matter that hath intereft, and not the ratio formal^ ' of FaitFs intereft in our J#-ftification. It is but the aptitudo ad officium,. and the Conditionally (if I may fo call it) is the 0/?fce it felf. 'that Faith which doth *ca^* Chrift, doth juttifie, and materialiter thereby : But not <# if <zc-ceptetb Chrift. The word Q^ /, quatenuf] (hould ftridly fpeak only the formal Reafon: And fo Faith juftifiethonlyas* Condition, appointed thereto by God. But if any (hould extend it improperly to the ratio aptitudinalU, then I would yield to them, that Faith juftifies as it accepteth Chrift. For no other way of Participation was fo fitted to the nature of the Recipient and Receptum.

1. The Nature of Faith it felf (which is accept an Cbriftum) goes in order of Nature before its C J: ~ iionality: It is therefore apparent, that the a& is but the materia apta^znd the Cmditlmality is the fu-peradded formalU ratio.

2. If Faith as Faith, juftifie, that is, as accept a* tio £hrifti, then omnU accept alio, & fola, & femper ; then the Confequence would proceed directly and neceffarily ex fe \I have accepted Chrijl, therefore 'I am jnftified:] But that it will not do. For, 1. He is ours, as given dire&ly 5 that is, the efficient caufe of our right to him. Had we taken him, or per-

i formed that fame a£l which we call Apprehenfion

without Gift, it had conveyed no right. 2. And (if

you fay, that, at leaft, omm apprehenfio Chrifti dati

doth juftifie qua apprehenfio h) I muft add, That if

; Chrift had been given by an abfolute Promife or

I Gift, our apprehenfion of him would not have ju-

j ilifiedj but we (hould have been juftified before it,

Qj, or

232 $otb fatti) juftffietfn

ox without it. As if a man by Tefhment give hi Lands to his Son that is a thoufand miles diftant and knows nothing of it, the right is his before hij knowledgor confent,though he may afterward dif poffefs himfelf of it when he will. If a King wil confer any Honour on a man abfent, or an Infant: he may do it, and they partake of the Honour, with out their own knowledg or confent. And whe they do tytotv and conjent^ that gives not the Honou or Title which they had before. If God had pleafed to fay, [I will give my Son and his Righteoufnefs to fuch Infants^ Ideots^ Indians^hough they never hear of him «, or abfolutely to fay, \J mil pardon all their fms,~] they had been juftified and pardoned thereby "'ithout Faith: If the Promife were not conditi pnal (exprefly or implicitely) no mans Faith could j iuftifie him. As it belongeth to the Legiflator per pr£ceptum conflituere Vebitum ojficii y and without Precept (natural or fuperadded) duty, would be no duty : So it belongs to the Legiflator or Donor ^ 4S Vominm pr&mii (and in our cafe Vominmpra-miati) to inftitute the Conditions on which it (hall be obtained » and therefore it is not from the ejfential nature of the ati of Faith it felf. The. benefit to te received was wholly God's before the giving*, there fore it cannot be conveyed any way, but by the mere fignification of God's will: What way is then to alienate a Propriety freely, or to confer right to a benefit on another, but by fignifying the Donors will ? that is, by giving, felling, &c. Now therefore no ad of ours can confer to us the right to anothers benefits j that were to give them to our felves before we have them. All that our ad caji do 3 is to be the Condition of the Gift*, that is, an

aft which it pleafeth the Donor Co to require of us, if we will have his Gift, that he will fufpend his Donation thereon > fo that when we perform it, we (hall have it,' and not without it. Seeing therefore that the Will of the Donor as Donor, doth all in Alienation of his own, or in conveying right to his benefits *, therefore no aft of the Receivers as an aft, or fiich an aft direftly, can do it : For from his "Will mud the Receivers aft have its moft immediate formal intereft : Now the Natura fidei apprehenfiva, is not from God as Legijlator of the New-Law or Teftament-, and as "Donor of Chrift and Juftification i but from God as Creator or Producer of that A3 in the Soul-, or by it. But the conftituting the Condition is God's aft as Donor of that very Benefit, or as Legijlator. That which I mainly therefore infift on is this : Call Faith an Inftrument, or an Appr Ko -fion, or what you will; as long as you mean but the nature of the Att, or Habit-, it doth not juftifie proprie & proximo qua talis, that is, but the materia apta » but the formalu ratio of its juftifying intereft, is qua^onditio foiderti : And therefore what-foever is fuch a Condition of Juftification doth juftifie.

One while the Condition was not the fame as now it is, and yet it then jullified. The World before Chrift was not bound to believe that this Jefus was die Chrift, that he was born of a Virgin, crucified, dead, buried, rifen, &c» but only that Chrift who fhould come, (hould do thus (and it may feem that the Difciples before Chrift's Refurreftion, believed not that neither :") Eut if we believe not that this Jefus is he, we (hall die in our fins. Faith can-

Inot therefore )ui\iiicproximc & formaliter ex natura

234 $otti jfaiti) jnftiQttfr

attus, when it hath been fo changed^ and yet what-foever was the Condition, ftill juftified.

Befides, you contradid this your felf, by acknowledging that Faith juftifieth^* Condition of Jufti-fication. For then certainly it cannot juftifiepwc/-me, as it is apprelxenfw , that is , qua fides. For, i. The Conditionality cannot be the matter and the nature of the Ad, the fuper-added form, but contrary. For the Conditionality fuppofeth the nature of the Ad, and not, the nature of the Ad fuppofes it to be the Condition. 2. It is not poffible that both fhould be proximo velformalis rationes: It rfiuft be but one. 3. It is impoflible, if Faith be a Con-d'uion^ but that it fhould juftifie qua conditio >> and it is impoflible, if it juftifie as a Condition, but that fhould be its neareft Reafon.To fay,[the Sun is caufa tjjiciens of Lighted yet that it produceth not Light qua caufa efficient or yet that there is fome nearer Reafon > were not fo abfurd as to fay, Faith U a Condition, and yet either juftifieth not qua conditio, or yet hath fome more formal Reafon. But I have by fo many Arguments lately to another Brother, confuted this Opinion, [that Faith juftifies ex na-tura afittsy viz. ut apprehenfio Cbrifii, vel ut fides^ &*ut conditio naturalise & non ut conditio moralls'] that I muft now thus difmifs it.

If you fay, that you do not mean, that Faith as Faith, or ex natura actus juftifieth, but ex natura ohjeBi. Ianfwer, 1. OurQueftion is not, Whe-; ther Chrift juftifie ? if that be it, we are agreed : I do not think when you fay, Faith is an Apprehen-fion ot Cbriji, or a Condition, that you mean [Chrift juftiftes as an Apprehenfion of Cbrifi, or a Condition :^ The Queuion is therefore cf Faith's intereft, and

not

not of Chri(i"s. 2. The Objedi gives not a justifying force to the aft. 3. The root ftill of all the mi" flakes lieth, in having thoughts of this moral Conveyance of Right, as if it were a phyfical Communication of fome Subftance or Quality. The receiving of fire burns my hand ex natura objeBi, and my ad: of Approximation > or taking it into my hand, is conditio natural^ (improprie dida conditio: ) But in conveying Rights (as in Marriage, Teftaments, and all Contrajdts, &cA the Right muft be firft conveyed by moral means, before the Objetf can put forth its power. Ghrift is not yours, be-caule he is Chiift, nor yours becaufe you apprehend him (fpeaking of the neartft Reafcn j) b'}* yours, becaufe God hath given him \ and yours uf on believing, rather than on any ether terms, becaufe God hath given him to you, if yo* believe* rather than on other terms. If God had faid s fome other adt fhould be the Condition, it fhould have juftified* as truly Faith now doth*

And therefore for your Argument, [Wbrkj concur not with Faith in apprebinding\ therefore neither injufiifying.~] I deny your Confcquence, having tiift denied your ground : For, fides non qua fides ]u(iificat, fed qua conditio prtjlita* And I argue contrarily, Repentance and Obedience to the Lord that bought us, do concur with Faith in being Conditions of continued and confummate ]uftihcation > therefore they concur in juftifying. (Yet I had rather fay, \We are juftified by Faith,'] as fignifying Only a Conditionally, and being a Scripture-phafe \ than that [Faith juftifieth,} as importing more a Caufality, and being no Scripwre-phrafe.)

Aphor.

Aphorifm. Page 3 oo.T T THen it U faid, that we are jujlified V V by Works, the word [By^ implieth more than an idle Concomitancy : If they only flood by while Faith doth all, it could not be faid-> that we are jujlified by Works*

Animad^cerf.

1. All this proves not, thr : t by Worlds in "|St. James> is not meant \_a working faith . ] Or that when he faith, that a man is juftlfied by Works, and not by Faith only, his meaning is not, that a man is j aftiheA by fach a Faith, as doth (hew forth it fe!f by Works, and not by a barren Faith, which hath no Works flowing from it.

2. [Faith alone ( faith Dr. Prefton) juftifieth, but it is effectual and working Faith, and Works follow Faith necelTa-

ily. And there is a double Justification : One of the perfon, vhich is by Faith only, whereof St. Paul difputes, Rom. 4. <tV r^r 0 f the Faith, which by Works muft be (hewed to be lively and erfe&ual, as St-James difputes, chap. 2. Works juftihed Abraham that he was no Hypocrite (/. e. they mewed his Faith to be unfeigned, as the Apoftle fheweth Faith muft be, i.T/m.x.^.) and Faith, that he was not a firmer, becaufe by Faith Rjghteoufnefs waslmputed ro him.] So he. Reply.

1. No wonder : for it is brought to another end, than to prove that by Works, is meant Works.

2. What will you take for proof? If I fhould find the moft exprefs words for it, I think they may have another fenfe put on them as fairly as thefe.

3.I think the proof lieth on your part(which I fee not performed :) For if I fhew you where the Scripture faith, [We are jujlified by Wor\s, and not by Faith only:'] If you fay, by Works is not meant Works, you muft prove it. Becaufe the plain fenfe is not to be forfaken without caufes and therefore he that doth it, muft (hew good caufe for it.

4< But

4. But yet I will tell you what goes with me for proof (that by Works is meant Worlds, and not only the Faith which dothworhj till I hear better proof of the contrary.

1. James calls them by the name of [Work/] twelve times in thirteen Verfes, and never by the name of [working Faith,"] or, {that Faith which rvot\eth:~\ A repetition not ufual in Scripture, fpecially on fuch a fubjeft : As if he had purpofe-ly done it to make men believe, that he means as he fpeaks h and therefore I think by [Worlds] he means [Works.~\ For obfcure figurative fpeeches are ufually but feldom, in comparifon of the plain ones, and fufficiently evinced to be fuch by the more plain.

2. I am yet the more perfwaded, that b] j. [Work/] is meant [Workj,] brcaufe it is ftill op-pofed to [Faith without Works,] or, [Faith alone,^ and not to [thii or that fort of Faith,- viz* that Faith which is not of a quality to Work , ] though I doubt not but that is part of the Apoftle's fenfe, in this term [Faith,] yet it is but part : For it is not only [the Faith aloue, without a working dijpofition,] but [Faith alone without Worlds themfelves,] when there is opportunity: The word [Alone] excluding Works themfelves, as well as the working dif-pofition. So that if I will wreft the word [Work/] twelve times together to a ftrange fenfe, I mult needs ufe the fame violence with the word [Faith alone] alfo. Should I again run over each Verfe, it is eafie to manifeft, that the oppofition is not only between [a Faith difiofed to Wor\, and a Faith not diftofed Qbut between [Faith alone,} and [Faith and Works themfelves together :] Though yet the conatm

is the nw/^ where no more is required, as in Abrar hams cafe.

3. Particularly the Argument^ firnilh'mv. 15,16. proves it : For the Argument is, As merciful words do not pr fit the naked and hungry without clothes and food, fo a good Belief will not jufiifie and fave you, without Works. Now it is not a dijpofition to feed and clothe that profiteth the hungry and naked : So neither is it a mere dijpofition to work, that is meant by Works.

4. The fame is manifeft in Verf. 13. where the occafionof all this difcourfe is begym, in the necef-fity of mercy, fuch mercy as men partake of from us.

5. I am the more confirmed, when I confider, <hat the death of Faith without Works here, t/.20, 14, 2^24. is not merely the hypocrifie or feeming-Aicia of it : (He likeneth it to the real Faith of the Devils,) but the inutility ot it as to juftilie and fave \ (for juftifying and faving Faith are all one with James, verf. 14,21,24.)

(5* And Verf\%. by [Work/] muft needs be meant [Works <i~] elfe it would run thus, [Thou haji Faith undifp fed to Work, , and 1 have a working Faith: Shew me thy non-working Faith without thy working Faith* and I willjhew thee my working Faith by my working Faith.~] I had rather underhand James plainly, than take him to fpeak fuch non-fenfe; And if you will take Faith and Works in the plain proper fenfe in this Verfe, why not in the reft ?

7. And in Verf 20. Works muft needs mean V/srks \ elfe it muft run thus,[_f aith without a workc ing Faith it dead*~\

8. And

8. And fo muft it be Verf 22. elfe it muft run thus, [Faith wrought with his wording Faith, and by a working Faith was Faith made perfett,'] nay, \_a non-working Faith was made p erf eft.]

$. So Verf. 24. elfe it muft be thus i [By a working Faith a man U juftified, and not by a uon-working Faith only :] As if a non-working Faith did partly juftifie. (For I hope you will not turn folum to folam.)

10.S0 Ver*i6* according to your way it muft run, [So a non-working Faith, without a working Faith is deddalfo.] Let him that can, receive this Expotiti-on, for I cannot.

ir. But my chief Argument lieth in the great neceflity of Works which the Apoftle afferteth, both to Juftification and Salvation. Now if I meet with thofe that confefs by Works is meant Works, I would defireto know the reafon, Why Works with taunt are fo neceflary ? If they do but by an idle Conco-mitancy ftand by, what means James to fay, Can Faith fave him ? we are juftified by Works : What profit, &c. So I would demand of you, concerning the working of Faith. If ytiu understand [ work^ ing Faiths) fo as to make Faith it felf the primary part of the Condition, and working the fecondary, then you yield all I defire : If you underftand it fo, as to confine it to [the Faith which worketh,] and exclude [the Working] from juftifying and faving (for James joyns both together) then will you open this myftery to me, and tell me, whence or what is this neceffity that Faith (hould be working ? If you fay , Working is necejfary to fignifie Faith to be fincere. I reply,i.But the Apoftle makes it necelfary to juftifie and fave % and not only to fignifie. The

Soul

Soul doth not only fignifie the Body to be alive. 2. God needs no figns, and it is he that judgeth. You will fay, It is not fincere without working. Reply, i. It is a real Faith fuch as the Devils have, nay it may be more, they may really confent, that Chrift (hall juftifie and fave them from Hell.

2, How comes its Sincerity to lie in its working Difpofition ? The fmcerity of Faith as a good Work, lieth in its conformity to the Precept: But that's not the Sincerity in queftion. The fincerity of Faith, as juftifying and faying, lieth in its being really that ! Faith, to which as a Condition, Juftification and Salvation ark promifed. Now if the New-Tefta-ment make not mere Faith, but Faith working, to be the Condition of Juftification or Salvation, then !* "^Faith as working fecondarily, muft juftifie and fave. / "'For if in any Covenant there be an Aft with its --^Salification required, as the Condition, then the Qualification is part of that Condition as well as the Aft : For it hath the fame ejfence herein. And to fay, that working is part of the Condition of Juftification and Salvation, and yet doth not juftifie and fave qua conditio, is a contradi&ion dire&ly : As much as to fay, It is a Condition, and not a Condition h for the form of the Condition, isinitscon-nexive refped tc theeffedfc. As if you (hould fay, [Such a thing is a caufe efficient, but doth not qua caufa produce the ejfeft.]

If not only fides qua fides, but qua operant, be necejfary to Juftification and Salvation, then it muft be neceffary either as a caufe (but that we all deny) or as a mere fign '•> (but that it cannot be, when it is coram J)eo:zr\d more is expreffed fully in the Text) oreKe as a Condition (which is the truth, it is pall

my

40oje of M> James feufe* 241

tiny reach to find any other refped wherein its ne-ceffity fhould lie. Let them (hew it that aflert it.

As for them that fay, It is but the Declaration of our Juftification fo/wrm^that is here fpokenof, and not before Gody 1. I havefaid enough to them in that Aphorifm. 2. I need not meddle with that to you, who own it not. 3. The fame.inftances of Abraham and Rahab are produced, by which other Scriptures prove Juftification by Faith before God. 4. The Juftification here meant, is an Imputation of Righteoufnefs, verf 23. and that is by God, and coram Deo* 5. Abraham's facrificing his Son, would rather have condemned him before men. 6* It is fueh as the Scripture about Imputation was fulfilled m. 7. It is the fame Juftification as that by Faith is : For the Apoftle faith, [It U by Works y and not by Faith only^\ importing, it is by F*J J \ but not only[by. Faith. Now coram bominibut it is not by Faith it felf at all (indeed by che profejjion of Faith it may be.) 8. The Apoftle makes Faith without Works unprofitable iofave* verf. 14. And is it before men, or by men only, that they are faved? p. Men know not when we vpor j^from fincere Faitb> and when not. 10. Men be none of our Judge s> nor doth the Apoftle difcourfe of fo fmall a matter as our being judged by man: And yet this is the commoneft Expofition. Thus I have told you, why I think by Works is meant Wor]q : and why they juftifie, and that coram Deo.

2. Now to Dr. Prefions faying, which I marvel that you could produce againft your felf fo fully, and take no notice of it. Though I believe Dr. Prefions Notions were not fb digefted as they fhould be in the point of Juftification, yet they were fo clear K aboic

24* fl9 W °f &t- J ames I ett ^^

the nature of juftifying Faith (above any man that I know of) that it hath maintained much found-nefs in his Do&rine in the point of Juftitication in mod things (only the notion of an Inflrument was not then queftioned :) anc * therefore if you go once to. Dr. TrefioHj I know where your caufe is. It feems you could not pick one faying out of him feeming for you, but what faith almoft as much againft you as I do. i. I (ay as he, that Faith alone juftifietb, fpeakingof our firjl, or begun Juftifica-tion, which makes a man juftum ex injujto (that Workj never do) 2. I fay Works follow Faith ne-cefTarily. 3. This twofold Juftification I maintain againft you, which Dr. Trefton here maintaineth.

;4« In the common fenfe it may be faid, that one is more fully Juftificatio perfin* than the orhenBut then

^zssKmber, 1. That both are yet moft truly and properly Juflificationes perfont, as Bradfhaw fhews in the place before-cited. 2. And that Dr. Trefton confefTeth it: For when he hath faid, that one is [of the Faith,'] he yet adds, [Works juftijied Abraham that he was no Hypocrite.'] Sin is it that is enquired after at the Bar ot the Law: Only one kind of fin is enquired after ^zs to Condemnation) at the Bar of the New- Law i that is , Unbelief,- or rejecting the Redeemer, and recovering Grace. This Vnbelief is cither open (againft the Accufation of this, men are juftified by Fdith and Profdfion h or fecret (which is the Hypocrifie here mentioned) and againft this Accufation both Faith and Works juftifie; fOf which I fpoke fullier before.) When Abraham is accufed of being but a feeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obediences and fo, either of not-performing^ or but half-performing the Condition of the

New-

4@0je Of £>t James Utltt. t^%

New-Covenant: Here there is no way in the World to juiifiehim, but by his own Faith and Worlds. I (hall fpeak more of this yet anon.

Aphorifm. PzgezOo.VXTHen the Apoftle faiths {"by Works, VV and not by Faith only, J be plainly wakes them Concomitant in Procurement, or in that kfndof Cattfality which they have: Specially feeing he faith, not as he is commonly interpreted, [not by Faith which is alone,] but, [not by Faith only^\

Animad^erf. The Apoftle cannot make Faith and Works concomitant in Procurement of Juftirication, feeing that Abraham was jufti-fied by Faith, as the Scripture cited by the Apoflle doth fhew long before, that his Faith did operate and fliew forth it felf by that Work which the Apoftle mentioneth: Therefore by Works, and not by Faith only, muft needs be as much, as ^mt lyFatth whtch u alone withoutWorlds :] Which isalfo clear enough by the whole Series of the latter part of the Chapter, and namely by that, Verf. 17. Even fo faith, if it hath not Worlds it dead, being alone.

Reply. I will notforfake the plain fenfe of the Text, till other kind of Arguments than thefe conftraiu me. 1. Do not you eafily fee, that your neceffary Confequence is againft your felf and the truth, more than me, and hath indeed no neceffity or verity. You fpeak of Abraham's firft Juftification,and yet you fay, it muft needs be by Faith, which is not alone without Works* But Abraham's firftjuftification wot by Faith alone without Works. 2. Do not you fee that you argue to no purpofe, that [the Apoftle cannot maks Faith and Works concomitant in procurement of Ju-ftirtcation, as continued and consummate, and fen-tential at Judgment, becaufe Abraham was juftiHed R 2 before?

244 "©Oje Of &t James fettfe

before >~] But was his continued and fentemial]i\&\R-cation before?The Law doth ftill moraliter agere^zud fo ftill Juttificare, and fo doth God by his Law or Grant* So that it being attus Legis^ the Law doth as properly juftifie you to day, as it did the firfi day* And yet it requires more Conditions at your hand to day, than the firft moment. I wait therefore for fbme proof of your Confequence, That Abraham's Justification twenty years after his ConverGon, cannot be by Works as part of the Condition of Continuance, becaufe his Juftification was begun without Works. 3. For your clear proof from the Series and Perf 17.1 fee not the leaft (hew of proof, much kfs clear, but againft you.

Aphorifm. J^t-JE therefore faith , [Taith is dead, being * -1 alone,] becaufe it U dead as to the nfe and

furpofe of jujYtfying And fo Worlds makg Faith

alive, as to the Attainment of its ends of Juftification.

Antrnadverf

1. Faith if it be alone without Works(for eft renuens operarij as Cajetan doth well exprefs it,) cannot juftifie, and fo is dead as to the ufe and purpofe of jtiftirying. Yet do not Works therefore concur with Vaith to Justification, nor are they fart of the CW///0»iequiredof us, that we may be juftified.

2. Works do not properly ma^e Faith alive, but only demon ftrate it to be alive. Works are the effe& of juftifying Faith, and thecfFeft cannot give life to the caufe, but may ev idence the life of it.

Reply. 1. You yield to my Expofition of [Deadi] viz. mn ut fides, fed ut medium, that Works are pait of the Condition*, I doubt not to fay, the Scriptures cited in the Aphorifm fully prove,

$)OjeO£ &t James Unit. 14.$

2. You muft know that thofe words were mif-written, or mifprinted: They (hould be thus, \jAni without Works, Faith ii not alive Q yet the words are true as they are. For by [farb*\ I mean not, [fidem qua fides^] Works do not make Faith alive in it felfj but, Q fidem qua medium: j And by \jMa\qng alive^\ I mean not efficienter, but confti* tutive. And fo when a man hath a Condition to perform which hath two parts, when the firft is performed , the performance of the fecond part makes it to be fufficient to the end > it makes it to be the totum, the Condition fully performed, and Co alive or fufficient ut medium: When without it, it would be but pars, and inefficient*

3. To your Argument I grant all, and what the better-are you ? Works are the efFed of Faith, and fothey neither give life tp Faith as Faith, noi^e Faith as the caufe of Works, nor yet to Faith as the Condition of our begun-Juftification ( becaufe fo Faith is the whole Condition, as to external Works, though not as to the exclufion of Repentance, Knowledg or Love \) but as it is the medium or Condition of our confirmed , continued, confum-matejujlification. Your Fine is the full Condition of firft poflefling a leafed Tenement, but your Rent muft be added to continue your Intereft and PoiTeflion (yet in our Cafe there is no ratio fret ii.)

Aphorifm. Page30i*TT THen the 4p$l* fath 'that Faith V V did work, in and with his Work/* it clearly aimeth at fuch a vQor](%ng in and with us, at maketh them conjunct in the Wor\of jnftifying.

t*6 $)ojeof £>t. James Unit:

Animafotrft

i. Why you render <wvt$y*fv to work in and with I know pot, it fignitieth only to work with.

2. The meaning of thofe words cannot be* that Faith and Works work together unto Juftification, or are conjunct (as you fay ) in' the work of juftifying j feeing the work there fpecified, (viz. Abrahams offering of his Son) was Jong after j unification, which Faith alone had procured. * I fee no Reason therefore to diflike Cafoins Expofition, Fides dicitur co-cperarafutjfe oftr'ibus , quia, non futt otto fa.

Reply. i. I ufed thofe words not as a mere Tranflation, but as theTranflation^working with]& the Expofi-tiom as fuppofing that Faith was faid to work with Works, when it produced them, and fo work'd in them; and fo confequently I thought they concurred tojuftifie, according to the next words, [By Workf Faith U made per/eft.] But feeing this Expofition pieafeth not (though it makes as much for you as your own) I let it go, and will not infiftonit.

2. I have fhewed the invalidity of your Conference before, that [Faith and Works cannot concur to continued and confummate Juftification, becaufe we were at firft juftified by Faith alone.] When will you (hew a word of Reafon for that Confequence ?

3. For Calvin's Expofition : As you feem not to own it in the main, viz. [T^hat it is not Juftification coram Deo, but coram Hominibus that U here meant : ] So I flick not much at this, though I think it very imperfect to fay, that Faith is faid to co-operate, becaufe it is not idle. It might indeed be well faid to operate, becaufe it is not idle, or rather not to be idle, becaufe it worketh.

Aphor.

Aphorifm. Ibid. A Nd when he faith, [that Faith was made ** perfe& by Wor\s^[ it U not {as they and others interpret it) only a manifefiing to beperfeft : But as the Habit tiperfefted in its aUs, becaufe they are the end to which ittendetbs and as Marriage is perfected per congreflbm & procreationem, or any Covenant when the Conditions are performed*

Antmadytrf

Pifcatcr tt\\PembUi and others fay, ////; You fay,//// not: But their \_Tea,~\ may ftand againfc your [i^/yj] for any thing I yet fee. Their Exposition is for phrafe agreeable toScripur.: elfewhere, W<,. zCor. 12, y. and formatter to the Context

3. The habit of Faith hath no ether immediate and elicit acts (that I know) belides believing ; and by believing we are jufHried, though not as it is our act, but in refpeft of its Qb-jeft, Chrift, whom Faith apprehendeth, and by whom fo apprehended we arejuftified. Other Works proceed from Faith as the fruits of it, but they perfect Faith no otherwise , than by manifeiling the perfection of it; even as the fruit of a tree doth maiiifeft, but not make the tree perfect faith (faith Dr. Preftcn) i*made ferfitt byWorlds • namely, as an Artifi is didared skilful by his artificial Wcr^ or a tree by the fruit it bears ; the fap is the caufe of the Ooodnefs^ the fruit thefgn.

3, Marriage is a ftate, which is confummated^rr^^r^/1 fum, though there never be fro creatio : But what this makes tor the illuflrating of Filth's being made perfect by Works, i do not fee,

4. Faith is not the Covenant, but a Condition of the Co-veuant 5 and therefore your laft fiinilitude feems not quadrare.

Reply. I. I magnifie their authority and worth : But whofe Reafons have more weight, I leave to others to judge as they fee caufe.

R 4 z.Ycur

2. Your felf yield before, that it is quoad ufum & finem, and not quoad naturam, that Faith is faid to be dead'Tthzt is, a* medium, non ut fides (ftill re-membring that we fpeak of Ajfent:) And why fhould it not be fo in this point of the ferfetting of Faith } viz. JVorkj prfett it y ut medium, non ut fides (as before.)

3. To whom was Abraham's Faith manifefled to be perfedfc ? Not to men, that faw not his a&, or at leaft, faw not his Faith by it, or would rather condemn him : Not to God y to whom all things are tnaitifeft, though by an Anthropopathy he fay, Now J hrtovp thai thou fear eft God, &c.

4. To your fecond I fay, 1. That Faith hath more acts than one : Your felf before faid, "three at leaft. 2. It's cloudy to fay, [Believing juftifietb, but not<M our att, but in rejped of its Object, Chrift, &<:•] For it is neither': But qua conditio pr£jiita.Why doth rot the Objett juftifie without the AU ? Is it becaufe God could not fo order it, or becaufe he would not ? Doubtlefs the lattefr: And therefore the Donor's Will only createth the formal intereft of Faith in juftifying: As the Holy Ghoft giveth the matter. We know Chrift is the meritorious Caufe : But the Queftion is, What intereft or place Faith hath ? Either it is caufa vel conditio: For no doubt it is medium Morale, & non tantum naturale (as your Words would infinuate:) And I know not what moral Medium it can be elfe, but either caufa vel conditio: I think it is no -proper Caufe, therefore a Condition. To (ay, [It juftifietb in reftett to its Object^] is to fpeak darknefs. Will any re#e8 give it that intereft ? Hath not Love, Joy, &c. refpedt to Chrift > Have not all Gofpel Ordinances refpecft

to

to him ? What rejpett then is it > Either of a C*«/f, or a Condition, or fomewhat. 3. I have (hewed in how many refpetls Works do perfedt Faith, befides manifefting it. Is mere manifefting a /at/fog means .? Jameshiihy [Can Faith fave him?'] Yes, without Manifefiation, if that were all: If the very manifefting be not part of the Condition of Salvation. Works perfedt Faith ut medium & ut conditid,thoug\\ not ut fides, vel ut can fa operum. Doth fruit no other wife perfed* the tree, than by Manifefiation $ I am not of your mind in that, I think the tree is perfected, as the totum integrate by the accretion of a noble part, and alfo as a medium in attaining a chief end*

5. To your third I fay, Procreation perfe&etfy Marriage ut medium perficitur per finem, though not in the ejfence of Marriage : And fo doth Workj perfeft Faith, though Worlds be but the neareft end^ and not the ultimate* This is the Illuftration which you could not fee.

<5* But my fulleft Explication is in the next, where I doubt not is your greateft overlight. Faith is not Gods Covenant, but the Condition of it: But Faith is our Covenant it felf. Faith and Covenanting is the fame thing (as Dr. Prejlon oft makes it the Marriage-Covenant :) To Confent (after Af-fent, that is ftitl implied) that Chrift as offered in his Offices , and to thefe ufes, (hall be mine, and that] I will accordingly be hvs, is jujiify'wg Faith, and is the Covenant on our part (as to the heart-Covenant ;) And the profeffion of this Faith (if fully) is nothing but open covenanting* And therefore my fimilitude doth quadrare : And juft as the Marriage-Covenant is perfected by after- Marriage, Faith-

fitlnefsy

2?o £0Qje Of £>t James fenfe*

fulnejs, Love, Subjection ', fo is Faith perfeUed by Workj \ that is, not in effe conjugii , Jfc&i, unions init&\ but as the medium, that is, the Condition ofc continuing the interejt which Faith alone hath obtained. But then as to the title, to the great Absolution at Judgment, and to Salvation, Works in oui cafe go beyond Marriage-fidelity in the fimi-litude.

Aphorifirw Ibid. T^Aith alone U not the entire perfett Condition * 0 f the New-Covenant, but Faith with Repentance, and fincere Obedience U.

Animtitfoerf. In all points (I grant) Faith alone is not the entire Condition of the New-Covenant y but yec it is for fo much as concerns Juftification, becaufe Faith alone doth apprehend Chrift, by whofe Righteoufnefs we are juftified. It is true, fome Repentance muit go before Juftihcatiombut no Repentance without Faith , will avail to Juftification : And for the Reafon pre-ailedged, Juftification is afcribed,not to Repentance • but to Faith only* As for fincere Obedience, it proceeds from Faith, and fo follows Juftification, and therefore is not a Condition pre-required for the obtaining of it. Reply. i. Yourfirft Affertion and its Reafon is already denied i and you attempt not the proof of it.

2. What if Repentance will not avail without Faith? may it not therefore avail with it?

3. Remiflion of finis ordinarily afcribed to Repentance as the Condition ', and therefore your Reafon pre-alledged, is no Scripture-Reafon, nor

found, r n-r

4. Sincere Obedience goes before that Juftification which it is the Condition of, though it follow the beginning of Juftification*

Aphor.

jggo^e of 5>tJames fenfe* z*i

Aphorifm. Page 302.O 0 I acfytowledg, that the very firftpoint 0/ Jujiification U by faith alone, without either the Concomitancy, or Co-operation of Worlds > for they cannot be performed in an inftant. But the continuance and accomplijhment of Jujiification , if not without the joynt~procurement of Obedience.

1 Antmadyerf.

1. Here (methinks) you yield the whole Caufc. For if we be firft juftified by Faith alone, then Works do not concur with Faith to procure our Juftification, feeing it is procured already by Faith alone without Works.

2. And as our Juftification is begun, fo his continued. It is begun by the beginning of Faith, and continued by the continuance of Faith: Though true juftifying Faith can neither continue nor begin without a fi tnefs to produce Works, and fo an actual production of them in due time.

Reply. If this Concetfion will make us one, I think I (hall never recall it. But it is a ftrange yielding of the Caufe.

1. Works do not concur to procure that firft change, which makes us juftos ex injufiis : Doth it follow that therefore they concur not as Conditions of that continued Moral ad of God by his Covenant^ by which he doth truly juftifie us every day.

2. If that be a good Reafon, then no aU of Faith through our lives doth juftifie us, but the firft a£i: for every after-aB findeth us juftified. But that this is falfe, I prove 1. Ad hominem: You con-fcfs it in the next lines, that our Juftification is continued by the Continuance of Faith > and that Continuance is as truly jujiifying as the firft. Which is fully proved* 2. In that the a£t ot Faith, which

the

z$z <©oje of At James fenfe;

the Scripture faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteoufnefs , was not his firft ad. Nor that of ^M, Enoch, Noah, Mofes ; &c. mentioned in Heb. ii. I take this for plain proof. 3, The fum of all your miftake is your Aflertion, that_[^/ our Juftification U begun, fo it it continued,] which meaning of the Condition is far from truth. It is continued by the fame God, Chrift, Merit, Covenant; But not by the fame condition only. 1. Your next words contradict this: For the firft adfr of Faith (which you fay begins it) and the continuance (that is, the renewed adts* 5 for the fame aft continueth not) is not all "- But if you mean ftecificaJly, though not numerically the fame * that's not fo neither. 2. I havf proved out of many Scriptures, that [forgiving others,] Repentance of after-fins, praying for Pardon, fincere Obedience, &c* are by God made conditions of Continuance. 3. And (that it may not feem ftrange) it is ufually fo in almoft all conveyance of Right by Contra&s. There is more put in the Contradfc as the Condition of continuing Right, than of firft pojfefling it. Marriage, Confent or Contract on the Womaus part, is all the Condition of her firft right to her Husband, and his Honours and Eftate: But Fidelity, Love, Subjection (fpecially of the Church to Chrift, who is alfo abfolute Lord) is alfo part of the Condition of Continuance. Your Servant (hall have firft right to the priviledges of a Servant in your Family upon the bare Contract * but it {hall not be continued but on his faithful ferving you/ A Tenant hath firft Right and Pojpjjion on his Leafe and Fine h but the Continuance is on Condition that he alfo pay his Rcnu The Subje<a hath the priviledge? of a Sub-

$$W Of .Afc James fetltt £$j ;

je& on his engaging to the Sovereign Poweri but the Continuance is on his fidelity and a&ua obedience to the Laws. And the Reafon is, becaufe in all thefe Covenants, there is befides the prefent Covenanting (which is all that's firft required) fome-What prbmifed and covenanted to be done for the future, that the benefits may be enjoyed. We covenant to do fomething which muft be done. In what fenfe foever James faith, Abraham was \ufii-fied by Works (fuppofing it coram VeoX * think his Justification was begun without them. This therefore I conceive to be the root of moft of your miftakes in this point.

Aphorifm. Page ^o^.TjIrfiyfay they> Abraham'/ faith was per--*- fetted long before. Anfw. Not as it is a fulfilling of that Condition which alfo requiretb its aftingby obedience.

Animadyerf. But Abraham* s Faith was perfed long before* as it is the fulfilling of that Condition which is required unto Juflifica-tion: For by it long before he was juilified, Otn.\^6.

Reply.

J lift as a woman hath fulfilled the Marriage-Conditions by her a&ual Marriage (which is fulfilling enough to give her an Jntereft , but not to continue it:) And as you fulfil the Sovereigns Conditions of enjoying the priviledges of a Subjedr, by engaging to him as Sovereign: Which is enough for firft Poflcflion, but not for Continuance*

Aphor,

2*4 flMtftfftt James fettfK

Aphorifm. Ibid. A Braham ( fay they) nw juflified long be* -** /on? Ifaac vpm offered, therefore that could be hut a manifesting of it. Anfw. Justification u a continued aH : God it (till juftifyingi and the Goftel (till juftifying. Abraham'/ Justification wennot ended before*

Animadverf Though Juftification be a continued aft , yet neverthefs Abraham was juflified long before he offered* ifaac, as the feriesof theHiftory doth clearly fliew. Abrahams Juftification (I grant} was not ended before, nor yet after: itihall never end. For Chrift's Righteoufnefs whereby we are juflified, is an everlafting Righteoufnefs. Dan. 9.24. and therefore our 'Juftification is an everlafting Juftification. But if you mean, that Abrahams Juftification was not perf ed before he was but half juflified, or but in part: If this be ycurmeaing, it agrees neither with Scripture nor Reafon that I can fee. The Scripture faith, that he was juflified, his Faith was imputed unto him for Righteoufnefs:It no where intimateth that his Juftification was incomplete, and part of it then, and another part 3 long time after.He was fo juitified,that Righteoufnefs was imputed untohim^he was reputed of God juft and righteous: And what is more required } Indeed if he had not fhewed his Faith by his Works, he had fhewed that his Faith was not fuch whereby he could be juflified • and fo the Scripture had not been fulfulled, which faith, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteoufnefi. Therefore all that St, James requires is, that we fhew our Faith by our Works.

Reply. i.I have fully told you what was wanting. His Juftification in Application to Abraham as the fabled in prdfenti jiatu was perfed : But that Juftification would not have been perfed to him a year after, when he was to be juftified from the guilt of many more fins.

2. And his Juftification was to be continued^hich could not be done by the fame means alone that be* gun it. The relation will ceafe cejfante fundamento ; And if Wotk$ had not been added to Faith, the Fundamentum, (the Gofpel-Grant and Virtual-Sentence) would have ceafed for want of that performance of the Condition.

§• Sentential Juftification (which is the moft proper, full, noble Juftification) is either not at all till Judgment, or certainly not perfedfc till then. You are not yet freed from all Satan's Accufations till at that Bar and Day.

4. You argue not foundly, [CbrijFs Righteouf nefl is everlafting, therefore our Juftification tifo ;] I believe the truth of the Conclufion, but not that it follows your premifes, except you add much more to it.

Aphorifin. Page 308.TN Rom. 3.28. & 4.2,3,14,15,16. Gal. * 2.16- &. 3. 21, 22. Ephef. 2. 8, p. Phil. 3 • 8, p. the Apofile's dilute is upon this Que-fiion, What is the Righteoufnefs which we muft plead againft the Accufation of the Law, or by which we are juflified at the proper Righteoufnefs of t that Law ? And this he well concludetb is neither Work* nor Faith, but the Rigbteoufwfs which is by Faith, that is, Cbrift's Righteoufnefs*

An'trnachperf I. If we be fully freed from the accufation ef the Law, we are fully juflified : For what can accufe or condemn us, if not the Law ? therefore if the Righteoufnefs of Chrift be that which we muft plead againft the Accufation of the Law, then the Righre* oufnefs of Chrift is that whereby we are fully juftified. What need then of a twofold Righteoufnefs, as that by which we

nwrt

muft be juftifiecLas ydu have faid before ? Faith indeed is requi* red 5 that,the Righteoufnefs of Chrift may be apprehended by us 3 and imputed to us 5 that we may be juftified by it: But here Faith is no diftin& Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified, bur only the Condition required of us, that the Righteonfnefs of Chrift may be ours to Juftification. And in this refpect only are we faid to be juftified by Faith, becaufe it apprehended ChrifVs Righteoufnefs whereby we are juftified.'

Reply. 1. That you may be fully freed from the Condemnation of the Law, and fo be fully juftified, you muft firft perform the Condition of the New-Teftamcnt, or New-Law, and fo be juft quoad

If any had rather fey, that the general Obligation ro Obedience is more properly faid to be our very fufyectton,

and a refult of God's prtftationem conditionis.

Relation to us, than the effect of any Law, and fo that it is neither the Old-Covenant nor the New that caufeth this general Obligation, and fo that Faith in Chrift is a duty of the New-Covenant only, becaufe it is there only commanded in fpec/e , I think he will fpeak more properly than either Mr. C. or I have here done.

2. This Condition being impofed by a New-Law , backed with its Sanction, is therefore it felf a Righteoufnefs in the fenfe of that Law ; For the fulfilling of the Conditions of a Law, is a real Righteoufnefs in the fenfe of that Law, when the Qijefti-on is, de 'fitulo ad fr&mium? vel de reatu pm&.

As Bradjkatv well faith,

3 Chrift fatisfied not for all that

we fhould perform to the Law, but all that we fhould perform, and did not *, (that is, for our fins) except this Condition of the New-Covenant. This Condition therefore (as before is (hewed) is part of the Duty of the Old-Law (in the fenfe before opened) taken out and made a New-Law by conjunction

40oje Of £>t James fenffc 257

junction with a New-San&ion (as Adam's Body from the Earth) and fo impofed as of indifpenfible necefiity, and the final negled: of it excepted from pardon. And fo when-ever you call it [fh$ Con-ditionf] and deny the'performance to be a Rlghtef oufnefsin fenfe of that Law, you contradict your felf. Yet as the New-Law is but Lex Remedims % and fo a jubordinate Law \ fo is this Righteoufmfs but a fuberdinate Right eoufn^fs y having the nature of a medium to the Righteoufnefs of the Old Law : Neither of them alone, but both together; are Jufli* iia univerfaiU: But the Righteoufnef of the Old-Law, had ic been performed by out felves, would have been Jujiitia univerfalU : And ChrijVs Rights oufnefs imputed is neareit to it \ for there is except-ed out of it, only our own performance of tfie Condition of the New-Teflament. As therefore the medium goes hefor: the end, fo we mult have this per fond Righteoufnefs prtjUtt conditions Novice-Jiamenti , before we can have that which freeth ttsfrom the Law.

4. To your Queftion, I fay, The Accufer of the Brethren can accufe you befides the Law : And the New-Law will accufe Unbelievers and Rebel* again!* Chrift, betides the Old- Law : ("the Words that I jpeal{ jhall )udg you , Uc.) And you nrtuft lave a Righteoufnefs ILv angelical of your own per-formance to plead a^ainlt Satan's Accufatidn, that; you are an Unbeliever, Hypocrite, Rebel * or elio rcerer be fententially jufti'fiedi

S Aphor*

253 $)0tf Of &t James fctrfe,

Aphoriftn.

Ibid.T>^* now St. James'/ quefiion is, What is XJ the Condition of mr Juftifiiation by thu Righteoufnefs of Cbrifi^ Whether Faith only^ or Wo*k$ alfo?

jtnimadyerf. St. James (that I fee) doth not propound either exprefly j or implicitely any fuch Queftion, but only doth confute thofe that rely on fuch a Faith as is without Works. See; James a. 14,1^16,17 >i8> The different ftateof the Quefti-on> as handled by St. Paul in his Epiftles to the Romans and GaTattanst and as handled by St. James in Qhaf. 2. is well exprefTed by Be^t in Jac. 2. 14. iVk de caufa queftto eft : hie two de ejfe&x : lUtc ataufa.ad effefta defcenditur, hie aL efftttis afcenditur ad caufam. I foe quanta? quomodo Ju~ ftificemur ) htc quomodo jufttficatt fuiff'e tntelltgamur: fine excluduntur of era tanquam Ju&ifcationU caufa : hu ftahiltuntur tanquam Jufltficattonii cauj&i hie ftabtliutu tur tanquarn JuFltficattoms tfftcla. Jlltc negantur opera fitcedtrt Jusltficandos : htc dtcuntur Jufltficatos confequs.

Reply.

His whole Difpute is againft thofe that rely on Faith alone without Works. But bm did they rely on Faith ? As their Legal Righteoufnefs, in- ft ftead of Cbriji's SamfMion ? I trow not, nor wilty, you fay fo. It was therefore as the Condition of the New-Covenant that they relied on it v or elfe I pray tell me how, and under what notion ? And therefore James's fcope muft needs be,to prove that Faith | alone is not the Condition : [Can Faith fave him i *. A man H juftified by IVorkt, and not by Faith on~ «i /v, &c] I am loth to ftand to open the miftakes in Bezas words. To his fir ft difference. 1. Paulus non loquitur de fide ut decaufa Jujiificationis (ton tmm eji caufa) nee ut de cattfa oPerum: {hoc enim

nihil

P

flPOtf Of &t James tttlti. Z$9

nihil ejfet ad remfuam)\ix;ob\\squ£rit defidei ejfefiii, fed not *tyta effeUa. Ad differentiam fecundam idem dicendum eft. Ad tertiam y Jacobus non qujtrit tan-turn quemodo Juftificati fuiffe intelligamur : Sedqko-modo) vel quibus mediit Jnftificamur quoad confirma-tioneni^ continuationem & quoad fententiam y nee non quomdo falvemur. Ad quartam> Vt P^ulus excln-dit opera ut Jufiifieationk caufa, it a &e§o i Stab Hi nntur autem a Jacobo mn tantum ut fuftificationis effetta fed etiam nt condhiones & media ; Efe8i (enim) ut effefti nulla eft necejjitas moralis adfinem : Sed operahicftabiliuntur ut necejfaria adjuftificati-onem, Verf. 22, 23^ 24, 2<5. & falutenty VerC 14. Ad quintam y Et ego opera JuftificationU initium pr*~ cedere pernego : Sed Jacobus non tantum dicit opera Juftificationemconfequi y fedad Juftificationem ulte-riorem? & falutem effe necejfaria*

Aphorifm. Page 30?. T) Aul doth either in exprejt rtords, or in JL the fence and Jcfipe of biifieecb, only exclude the Works of the Lutv\ that is > the fulfilling the Conditions of the Law our felves : But never the fulfilling of the Gofpel-Conditionr^ that tt>e may have >art in Chriji.

Aximadverf

Paul doth absolutely exclude Workj from Juf&ri cat ion, as!

•roved before. Though fometimes he mentions the Works of

1 he Law, yet not fo as if by iome other Workj we might and

] hould be iultified. For inaeeJ, all Works ^ if good y are Works

t the Law, t. e. Wei ks which the Law doth require : And to

e juftitiedby Works (of what fort foever) as rV^/ 5 is to be

litirled by the Law. And therefore to the Righteoufnefs which

■ of the Law, TJfcl oppofeth the Righteoufnefs which is ot

aith, Rem, io. $,6. even as he oppofeth Working to Be-

eving, Rom. 4. ]/, So that to be juitified by the Law, and

bejuftifiedby Works (any Works, whatsoever they be) is

one and the "fame thing, and contradiftinct to^bein^juftigjjl by lakh or'. Believing. Though therefore fcetieving bd ^rk ing, yet weaaenpt juilified_% baj^eving, a> it is working foasto reft m that Work, a?a Work for Juftihcation : Bu we are juftifjed by believing, in that thereby Ve are made par takers of the^igkeouilieG of Chrii\ Avhich is the 1 only Righ teoufnefV whereby we are juftihetl

may harer Righteoufnefs, and by Rjghreoufncfe'jflay be justified ; wftch by any RIghteoufnef cf em own, out of Chriitvwe cannot be* JPaui foexdude Works!, that he Jets up Faith. — and he fo fets up Faith, that h fets np Chrift^ ashiniby whofe Righteoufnefs, through Faith imputedtouSj we are jiifHfleS! By him all that beKeve are/ju-ititied, Actt 1*3*39. And fa much you acknowledg prefently after, fayir^,, [Paul dot^b^he^ordlzsth'] e(peaMljdinh jour thoughts.to. Chrtsl believed )n* lor to be /justified by Chrift^ stndtk be fufftjied 9j-receding IhrtfL U with htm *% one. 1

1. All Works arc not the fulfilling the Old-Laws Condition, nor perfor^e^ with fuch a conceit.

2. '^be JH|^€ci.t>y- 4^lae. iSf^fP- -L^«^ |ag?dnil the

Accufati'oH of Vnbelitfct Rebellion ag£inft Chrift that bcugKt; us, b,y-our ^aitlvand Obedience, isnot to be jCiftified by the Law of- Works againft the Ac-cufation'of Jt^ing Sinners.

3. You are Fain your fell to diftinguifh between quod opus, and qna opm, left Faith be (hut out: and I need no mor^ tc kctp in obedience to Ghrift. Fcr when you fliould have told us what the [qua], is in which Faith is included, you" fay, [In that thereby tre are made partakfrs of thrifts, &c] But either you mean (by this dark equivocal) qua apprehenfio, that is, qua fides, vel qua conditio naturalis (which I have at large confuted in another Brother's Notes ,) or you mean qua conditio as you mull, or none: )

And

mm Of &>6 James Mtt. Z*i

And fo fay I of Obedience : It doth continue our 1 title to Chrift as a Condition which Faith begun* /*££ 2. The retH aflent to.; > '

Aphorifm. K^*- -~".

Ibid. A JJiJ whenbe doth mention Faith at the On-jt\ dition , fo d/w><z)/ implieth Obedience t& Chrift v therefore [Believing*] and {obeying the Go-Jpel~] are put for the two Summaries of the whole Condition.

AnimaXwrf. When he mentioneth Faith as the Condition of our justification, he doth not imply Obedtence as that which muft concur with Faith to Juftitkation, though he imply ic as a fruit of that Faith whereby_ we are juiHrled. They that have believed muft be careful to maintain good-Works, r$t. 3.8.

Reply. He implieth Obedience, hot as concurrent with Faith in our firft Juftiiication, but in the Continuance and Confummation. He implieth Obedience in requiring Faith as truly, as he that fubjtdleth \ himfelf to a Prince, doth imply future Obedience J in his engagement to obey. '

Aphorifm. Page 310. ry^Hat we arejujiified by fifteen- Obedu X we to Chrift, as the fec'ondary part if the Condition of our Juftification, is evident alfo r rom thefe following Scriptures, Matth. 12. 37. & 11. 25,26. Luke 6- 37. Matth. d. 12^14,15, j Joh. r.9. A6ts8.22. 8C3. 1$. & 22. id. 1 Pet. 4. 18. lorn. 6i id. 1 Pet. 12. 22.

S3 Anim*

Animdcfoerf.

y ^ i Some of thefe places prove, that jqftifying Faith muftftew * * it felf Sy the fruit of fincere Obedience, as Mat. 12. 37. Mar.

^ ^ 11.25,26. Luke6.tf. Mat. 6. 12,14,17. Rom.6>\6. Some of them (hew, that Repentance and turning to God is required as Antecedent to J uftirkation, as 1 John 1. ip. Afts $. 19. But this, turning to God is by Faith ^ an,d without Faith all Repentance is vain and unprofitable, as that of Judas was. Torhe fame purpofe is that, A&s$. 22. where together with Repentance, is joyned Prayer ^ but it muft be the prayer of Faith, James 5.1 J. So that {till it is Faith that doth ail in 1 point of Juflification. That Aiis 22. 16, Arife and be baf-tizjdi and wafh am ay thy fas^ caUtng on the name of the Lordy imports only (I think) thus much, that by being baptized, Paul was to have the waihing away of his fins confirmed to him 5 for he was already a Believer, and fo his fins through faith in ChtiiVs blood were waihed away : His Baptifm therefore was only to confirm this to him, and to affiire him more fully of it. What 1 Pet* 1. 2,22. & 4.18. are to the matter in hand, I cannot fee: Perhaps thefe places are mifprinted. Reply.

1. Your word, [_mujl Jhetv it felf , &c 3 ex-prefietb a necdlity: What is the neceffity of the addition of Obedience > Is it only ex nece/fitate Pr£-ceptty that is, Obedience is a "Duty? Then a man may be faved without it i which is not true. Is it neeeflitas medii ? What tyind of medium then is it ? It is too much to fay, a Caufe: I know no other than to fay a Condition: Antecedens qua tale nm *fk medium.

2. Let's perufe fome of the Texts, Maul* 12.37. $y thy words thou /halt be ju(iified> and by thy words thou /hah be condemned. What expreffions would you expedi to fatisfie you, if thefe be not plain enough ? Is not this as plain as, \We are jujiified by Faith?] Mark 11.25,26. Mat. 6.12.14,15, Luke <J. 37, &c Are you able to invent words, wherein the nature of* Condition is expreffed more plainly

than;

£0O?e Of At James ittlU. Z*$

than in thefe, [For if ye forgive men their trefpaffes* your heavenly Father will alfo forgive you : But if ye forgive not men their trefpafies, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trefpafles*] Prove if you can, that Faith is a Condition, by plainer words than thefe! So i John up. If we confefs ourfinr* be is faithful and juji to forgive us our fins, and to cleanfe us from all unrighteoufneji ? A&S3. J p. Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your fins may be blottedrout, when the time of refreshing Jhallcome, &c»3 Is here nothing but Antecedency ? Can you plainlier expreis neceffitatemmedii ? So ARs 8.22. [Repent and pray, &c.^ I never believed that Repentance and Prayer are but Antecedents of For-givenefs, and no means ? nor ever mean to believe it. We have got an honeft cuftom of calling Prayer a means, which will disadvantage you herein* Hatli X Prayer and Repentance no Conducement to the obtaining of the end ? This would much cool Prayer, if throughly received. And what means below a Condition, can you imagine thefe to be, for Remifii-on of fins ? yet I call them but the fecondary part of the Condition. And if I had but faid , they are Conditiones conduionis ut a Veo acceptanda, I had faid as much as this: For as Caufa caufe eft caufa caufati ", fo Conditio acceptand£ condition* eft; conditio conditional. To that Ads 22. 16* I (hall fay little, having (04 fo much in my Book of Bap-tifm. As the folemnizing of a King's Coronation, or a Mayors or Bailiffs Inftalment in his Office, by taking his Oath, is not the Confirmation of that which before was compleated, but the compleating of that which before was incompleat > fo is Faith of the heart without folemn Baftifmal Covenanting S 4 (where

264©0je0f £>t. James fenfe*

(where it may be done) but a means of Jnftificatt- ! on, not yet compleated. In i Pef. i> 22. there is .this to the matter in hand, that S anttification of the Spirit is a w^aj or captfe of Obedience, and Obedience a *wf <*wj to the Jprivfying of ChrijFs blood, and the Soul is purified by obeying the "truth', which may include Purification from the guilt of fin, as well as the power.. And 1 /to. 4.1-8. the Righte-oufnefs and diligence of the Righteous, is a means to thcix Salvation, . as it is oppoied to the ungodlie's not-fianding in Judgment* Many more Texts might be brought to this end* befides thofe in the Aphorif. Perhaps I (hall add feme when,we come to (peak of the Conditions of Salvation.

Aphorifm.

J Ibid. /~\Vr full Jujiification, and our everlajiing

V*/ Salvation, have the fame Conditions on

our part: But fincere Obedience is without all doubt

the Condition of our Salvation > therefore alfo of our

Jujiification.

Antmadrperf

Our J unification here is full, though the fulnefs of it doth

not {q tvMv appear as it (hall hereafter. For Chrift being re-

teived into our hearts by Faith, we a v e fully juiHfied, even

acquitted from all fin, and need from all Condemnation, Atts

Reply. ^

This i$a miOake that, nv-thinks, it fhould not be

ho. ;/ince.you of. You are at tirft believing

ill (in that you are then guilty of\

ndem/aticn which the Law virtually hath

u'i you (AUiualiter enim condtmnare

I lis:) But you are not acquit of

.w fms of your whole life, afterward.

<2&0tf Of £>t James fenfe* 265

2. And you M^that fame Juftification, but on the performance of a further Condition than the firft which begun it.

3. And fentential Justification is the mod proper -Jutiification arid full > and that is not full (if at all) till Judgment. I laid great weight on this Thefis (feeing Scripture is fo plain, that Obedience is a Condition of Salvation^ that our Divines ordinaiily acknowledge it) (as oui^ AfTembly fully in the Catech.) I expected therefore that you (hould either deny the major or minora but you deny neither, if I understand you, but only take hold of the word [FuH."\ But I will not fo leave you, but defire you to tell ine : 1. Whether fentential Juftificstion at Judgment y be properly Juftification or not ? 2. J fit be, (as doubtlefs it is) then, Whether that Juftification and our Salvation have not the fame Conditions ? If you fay, No : I expeft fome Reafon of your Negation: And I undertake to prove the contrary from Scripture. 3. Whether Obedience joyned to Faith and <Perfeverance in both, be not the proper Condition of our Salvation? It is beyond doubt as much as the truth of Scripture I think.

Aphorifm. Page 311. T 7* would be as derogatory to ChrijFs 1 Righteoufneff) if we be faved by JVorhj^ as if we be juftifiedby them.

u4ntma,dverf. True, if we be faved by the merit of Good-works: Yet they are tua Regnty though not caufa Regnandi: therefore they mull go before Salvation, I mean the tuli accompliihment of it: Bur not fo before J unification. Firft, we mail be ju-ftified, and then do good Works, Tit. 3. 8. But we muftfiirt do goodWolks 3 and then be faved, Rom. 2.6,7.

Reply.

z6s 40oje of &t James fenfe*

Reply. Your Anfwer would much confirm me in my judgment, if I doubted: i. I reafoned from the common Argument that is brought againft me, as being invalid (which is, That it is an encroaching on the honour of Chrift and his Righteoufhefs, and free Grace, for a man to be juftified by fincere Obedience to Chrilt, as the fecondary part of the Condition of continued and fentential Juftificati-on) thus: If it be not derogatory to Chrift's Righ-teoufnefs that we be faved by fuch Work?, then it is not derogatory to it that we be juftified by them : But, &c. therefore, &c. To the minor only you anfwer, \l!rue if we he faved by the merit of them.] A true and found Anfwer 1 But why fay you not fo of Justification alfo, nor yet give a Reafon of the difference > If we were juftified by the merit of Obedience , then it would be derogatory to Chrift's Righteoufnefs: But we are not juftified by the merit of it ^ therefore, &c. 2.1 would I knew what you mean by via Regni. Sure via is more than an Antecedent. And if a means* you fhould tell us, what it islefsthan a Condition. 3* Muft not Obedience go as much before Juftification at Judgment, as before Salvation ? Or muft you indeed be firft juftified at judgment before you obey ? If you (hould infift on it, that Juftification at Judgment per fententiam judicit is no proper Juftification* but a Declaration of it, you will have all the World of Lawyers and Divines againft you, and I need not fay more. Indeed it is not fuch a conftitu-tive Juftification as that per Legem, but it is more* a proper and full Juftification of another kind, to which this is but a means.

Aphor.

flPOjeof £>t James (mtt. X6J

Aphorifm. Ibid. rnriHat which a man U juftffitd by > he U X faved by.

Animadvtrf He is thereby put into a ftate of Salvation. Tor whom he jufttfied, them he 'alfo glortfed, Rom.8.30. Yet are we not fully pofTefled of Salvation, not glorified without good Works, as we are fully juftified without them. They follow Juftifi-cation as fruits of that Faith whereby we are juftified: But they go before Glorification, as making way for the enjoyment of it.

Reply.

1. They go as much before Juftification by Sentence^ and as continued^ as before Glorification*

2. Our debate is about conveyance of Right. In juftifying, it is the fame thing to give Right to it, and to give the thing it felf. In Glorification, and all real Mutations it is not fo. You yield the thing that I aflert.

Aphorifm. Ibid. \7Et here I fay ftill) [our full Juftification Q X becaufe as I have Jhewed, our firji pojfefi* (ton of it U upon our mere Faith and ContraS with Chriji.

Animadterf. Our firft pofleffion of Juftification is fo full, as that there is no Condemnation belonging to us : And what can be more full, but only a more full manifeftation of it.

Reply. I have troubled you too oft already with repeating the fame things. Though there be now no Condemnation to you, yet to morrow there will be, if you fhould not fincerely obey : For you would ceafe to be in Chrift.

Aphor.

Z6% <©OJC Of &t James fettfc

Aphorifrh. Ibid. & 3 12.?¥ Thinly our Glorification will be ac-JL kvtoxvledged to have the J ante. Conditions with our firjl purification at the Bar of Chrift^ and why not to our continued Jujiification on earth?

Animaa\erf. Our Jufuftcation in rhe laft Judgment is not properly a compleattngoi our Juftification, as kit were only bez^n here 5 and feft imperfeci till hereafter : But it is only a publick ma-nifeftationof k . Thus your felf eKnrerTes it, Append, p.if 8. [Indeed there is a Jufrtjicattcn by public^ Declaration at the great Judgment , &c. ] But -Glorification being the com-pleatment of Salvation, whatever is recjuiiite as Antecedane-ous to compleat Salvation, is required as a Condition of our Glorification/

Reply. Ad eadem funt eadem dicenda. Juftification at Judgment is not a mere conflicting us Righteous, but a declaring us Righteout." But it is a declaring of a Righteoufnefi in Queftion, and that by a Supreme Judg againft a public}^ Accufer> which js re-quifite ad plenam pojfeffionem Pr<emii per Legem ju-jiis debiti: And fo it is not only Veclarare^fed ft a-tuere &jus Vindicare : And is more properly called juftifying, than [makjng juff] is : (You here confefs a Condition of Glorification.)

Aphorifm. Page 312. A Nd hath that no hand in their Jujli-jt\ fication that give\h them right to the tree of Life, &c.

Am ma dyer f.

They that keep God's Commandments, are faid [to have

right to the Tree of Life,~] Rev. 22.14. becaufefuch have true

Faith in Chrift.' And that it is indeed that giveth them that

fa, Gal. 3. z6. Andtf Children, then hairs, heirs of God, joynt-he'trs with thrift, Rom. 8.17. We may alfo dijftin^uifti between;/** ad rem, aitd Jus in re. FaithjnChiift alone giv^esthe former right to the Tree or Lire ; £u Works help to the attainment of the latter.

Reply.

1. The Text faith, [7bat they may have right, and may enter in> &c.^ Doth Obedience get Faith ? (furelyno : not as k is*herem£ant.) Dotfrit only manifeji it } How tbeVi doth Obedience procure right? Will you again fay .here, that/by {keeping the Commandments,'] is not meant [keeping the Commandments-^] but [a working Faith.] It is not only James, but multitudes of other.plain Texts that rauft be forced, if your Opinion muft ftahd. If this Text do not plainly make Obedience to be a means of our rightxo theTree of Life, I know not how to underftand fenfe by words.

2. Faitfi ipay give them right , and fo may Obe-dience top. You argued thus even now [Repentance mil mtferve xvitbmt Faith ', therefore Faith doth all:] nego fequelam.

3 i If you mean properly by [ Jus in re~] right • to mediate PoJpffioH^ and not the Pnfftflivnitfelf (which is no right) you grant as much as I need.

4. -But the Text'dotfv ffibft plainly afcribe both forts of right to Obedience. Ad rem [right to the T'reeof Life ;] Jure, [may..enter in by the*gate.]

5. Do you indeed believe, that a man can have jw adgloriam by Faith, wichout Obedience, if he live to age.

<5. Or will you debafe Faith fo much as to fay, that it is fufticient to give cn!y jut ad rem, and not jus in re: Indeed it is the fame right that comes by both ; Even jus ad rem& in re.

Aphor.

270 fl9<W Of &t James fettfe*

Aphorifm.

Pag e 3 1 3 # O EfiA** *U ttoft T exts un ^ et ThcC 22. l3 w^cfc prove a perfonal Rigktevnfnefl> fo called from the Conformity to the Goftel.

AnimadMtrf. A perfonal Gofpel-Righteoufnefs is acknowledged to be requifite, but not as chat whereby we are jufHfied. Reply. Enough of this already.

Aphorifm. Ibid.CEE Rom. 8.4,13.

In Rom.2.4. the Righteoufnefs of the Law is fald to be fulfilled in us, who walk not after theflefli, but after the Spirit. But I fee not what this makes for you, who fpeakof an Evan-oelical Righteoufnefs, which is contradiftinft to Legal Righteoufnefs. And for the words themfelves, it they {peak of a perfect and exa& fulfilling of the Righteoufnefs of the Law, then it is by Imputation. And fo Cafoin expounds it, Hoe ad \emam referre necejfe eft, &c And fo one more ancient than Calvin or Luther expounds that in the Canticles 5 Thou art All fair my Low, and there is no (pot tn thee : Sine macula deputatur, quia culpa non imputatur. Otherwife it muft be underltoodor an inchoate and imperfeft fulfilling, which is not fufficient unto J unification. See Fpl. 18. 21, 22, 23. & I.19 6. B. Davenmt in an Aver to Bellarmme objecting this place, makes ufe of both Espofitions. De Jvjhatf.c. jfc p, 5^2. That in Rom. 8. 13. JP#r if ye live after the flefh, je /hall dye . But if ye through the Spirit, mortifie the deeds of rhtflefk.yefhall live: That, 1 lay proves, that a continued courlc in fin is damnable 5 and that Holinefs and'Obedience is neceffary unto Salvation; Which by the begirtiiin* of ■ the Paragraph may feem to be all that you aimed at, and it were pity any nWd deny you this: But it proves not (as ye in words immediately foregoing, audio alfo thofe before- deed, you feem to intend) that a perfonal Righteoufnefs is neceffary unto Salvation. Xffa

Heply.

1. An inchoate and impetfeU Righleoufnefs (as you call it > and truly quoad materiam remotam) is fufficient to juftifie us againft the Aceufation of Not fulfilling of the Gofpel-Condifiow*

2. Inftead of difcufling the fenfeof this Text, I will refer you to Lndov. de Vieu in he. where alfo you (hall find the fame Doctrine that I deliver. Ron*. 8. 13. proves fully, not only that Obedience is neceflary to Salvation, neceffitate prtcepti, but that it is a proper Condition of it, and neceflary fteceffitate mediu I would you would have told me how it is neceflary ?

And here by the way, let me mind you of one thing, which I have not fully done yet : You make a great difference between the Condition of JuftU fication, and the Condition of Salvation. Indeed both have the fame Condition^ if you fpeak of right to Salvation^ and of juftifying that Right againft all Accufers. (And as Reatus foen* is the moft full proper Guilt , fo this contrary Juftification is the molt full proper Juftification.) When a man is ac-cufed to be Reus moriu, the Child of Death > he that proves him to be non-reum , doth thereby juftifie him againft that Aceufation. Now that is proved, by proving him to have performed the Condition of Life, or not doile that which Death is denounced againft. This Text in hand fairh, \lf ye live after the fiejh yejhall die : But if ye by the Spirit do mot-tifie the deeds of the body^ ye Jhall live.^ Here is a a great part of the New-Law. Now if a man be accufed as guilty of this Deaths he that proveth that he lived not after the flefh, but mortified it, doth moft properly juftifie him. And yet here is

no

%ji Q$m Of At James fenfe*

no talk of Judication or pardon of fin in the Text: What of that > The fame Covenant promifeth or givqth Jujlification and right to Salvation on the fame Conditions > but more frequently mentioneth Salvation-, as containing all other benefits : But certainly he that againli att Accuftr proves a man's intereft in a promife ef Salvation , doth eo nomine juftifie that man ,:though that Promife mention not Jujlification* Our hrlt accepting Cbrifi for Lord and Saviour (fuppofing our takjhgGod for our only God, and chief Good) doth give us an immediate right to Jujlification and Salvation \ and if thetVwe died, we fliould be faved. But our obeying Cbrifi^ and confiding in him as a Lord and Saviour fac-cording to our Covenant) doth continue (as a Condition) our right to both Juliification and Salvation. It feems to me an ungrounded fancy (fuch as Divines have fpun many of, tope.rpkx poor Son Is and themfdves/ going the Schoolmens way of add-* ing their devifed conceks, even- vthile they blame rhem) to make one thing (the finglc aft of Faith only) to be the Condition of Jujlification > and Obe~ dience to be the Condition of Glorification' And yet (to deal freely with you) I meet'with none more guilty of this thaj) you. For you difcern, that the ordinary Dodtrine of Faith's jurtifying as an Injlru-ment, is not exad-qr proper,- and therefore you.affirm it to be the fole Condition of Jollification^ Whereas other Divines tell me, that Faith and Obe-dieme are both Conditions of Jujlification (and in that are like) but Faith only isjhe Inftrument pf Jujlification : (And in that they diifer.)

Aphor.

^O^edf £>L Jamesfenie* Z75

Aphorifm. Ibid. T TE that makftb Faith and Obedience to JlI Chrili to be only thefnlfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant* and fo to be only Conditions of Juftification, doth give them no part of the tvor]^ of hif Rigbteoufhefs*, feeing he came not to fulfil the Q or ftel^ but the Law.

j4nim/trherf.

I. The fulfilling of the Law is that whereby we are jufliScd, as by the tranfgreffion of the Law we are condemned. Now Chriit hath fulfilled the Law for us, having made fttisfiftion for oui breach of it, Gal. 3. 10,1$. therefore by Chriifs Satisfaction we are j -ftified. This the Gofpel doth hold unto us, requiring of us Faith to receive (Thrift, and to apoly his Satisfaction, that we may take the benefit of it, andbsjuilifi-ed by it, Afts 13. 38,3,9.

But, 2. The Gofpel doth not joyn Obedience with Faith, as the Condition of our Juittfication, though it require Obedience as that which doth follow upon juiWying Faith, an<J flow from it. Tif. 3.8.

Reply. 1. The fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Law, is that whereby we are juftified againft the Accufarion, 1. Of w^-fulfilling it; 2. And fo of having no part in Chrift, nor pardon by him ? 3. But being guilty of the far forer punifliment: Even as for the ww-tulfilling of this Condition , all the World (that hear the Gofpel ) are condemned. Now Chriit hath not fulfilled this Condition for us; and therefore we are not in this judified by his Si-tisfa&ion.

'2. The Gofpel doth joyn Obedience with Faith as the Conditi on of Salvation \ therefore alfo of ju-ftifyingQurrJgfo to that Salvation, which is the ]\Xr ftifying of us.

3. Youfeem to yield the Tbefis it (elf, that it is not any incroachingupon the honour of Chrift, to make Eaith in him, and Obedience to Wrffc to be only the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant. And I know no other fault that cati be charged on this Dodrine.

Aphorifm. Pag.3i5«T5^ clearly Luke, who jpeakgtb oftxc* JJ Cups (which the other do not) doth apply andfubjoyn tbefe words > [I will drink no more of the fruit of, &c] to the C u p which was before the facramentaL

Anima.iyerf. By this Rejifon Bellarmine would prove that we have no more certainty from rhe Scripture, that Wine was in the facramental Cup, than that Water was in .it. Bit Janfenttt* doth well lefute thofe that apply thofe words, Matth. z6. %?. & Mari^ 14.2$. to the firft Cup which Luke mentioneth : At'tftudwn pathur or do horum Ey angel t-ft arum (faith he) cum entm nul~ Ltii* alterius Caltci* fecertt menttonern pr&terqttam facri, quarido d'tcittiY) ex hoc gemmtne , nutir&s alms cal/x tntellig't potcft'" ab its demonftratus-) quando hu)us memtnerunt. Jan-ftn. Cone. cA7. 131. fub jinem. And therefore whereas Lukj brings in thofe words, before he fpe-aks ef the Inftitution of the Sacrament, Auftin (and after hvtiijanfenius) doth well expound itbvan Anticipation, the words being brought in not in their due order, which Ma/thepzv^ Ma>\ obferved. Sup-pofe Luke had never written his Gofpel •, How could any have i:nce imagined* that the Words, [/ will dnn'^ no more, &c.] a> relaed bv Matthew 2tT&M*rl& could be referred to any other Cup than that of the Sacrament, no other Cup befides being mentioned by them. But though Matthew and Marl^ had not written, the words as they are in Lufa might betaken as related bv Anticipation 5 it being no unufual thing in Scripture, torelate things or words out of that order in which thev weie done ©r fpeken.

Reply.

*%>'

$&oitof ^>tJamesfenfe. 27?

Reply.

1. As to my purpofcit is of no great moment in which fenfe we take : For if Chriit did receive the Sacrament of his Supper, it is certain it wa£but that his example, joyned to his words, might be the Inflitution^nd not to the ends that we take it* no more than he was baptized (or incorporation into him-felf. burying with himfelf, remijjion offtns^&CC* which 3re our ends.

2. I fay, as Calvin , Facile folvltur hie nodm, quia ad rem parum intereji quo temporvs momento hoc Chriftns dixtrit. Nam hue tantum fieStant ILvange-liftt^ almonitos fuijfe difcipulos tarn de propinqua Magijiri fui morte, quam denova & ccelefiivita, &Cc. Yea, why not as Par am , Nihil vero impedit^ quin bU idem repetiverit de utroqh poculo : quia neutrum cum tfit amplius erat bibiturus. Or, zsPifcator: Sed nihil eji abfurdi-y ft ftatuarnus eadem ikrba bis did a effe, fmei quidern de poculo pafchali^ deinde iterum de poculo ccw<e nova ; vel ccrte verbji ilia alieno l-ovel a Lucz vel a Matthxo tjfe namta* Indeed I wholly comply with Yifcators modcity, in judging it uncertain , though men may caft in this or that conjecture. But yer I take it to be moji probable, that the words belong only to the Pafcal Cup-, zsGrotius and many more think : And that there is no'Anticipation in Lu^ becaufe Luj^e reporting the whole more fully than the reft, and adding that of the Pafcha!-Cup, which the other omitted, it is more likely he (hould be mod cxadt in this*/Though I know not only Auftin but more of the Ancients, thought Chriit received the Sacrament, as Pelargus in he. (hews of forae.)

3. Your Suppofuion, fif LuJ^ had never writ-

T 2 ten)

276 £>f SJuftificatton

ten) might alter the matter were it true: And if Matthew and Afar^had never written, if you would have taken the liberty to diffbcate that of Lukf under the pretence of a never-proved Anticipation, you would have been bolder than I durtt be.

Aphorifin. Pag.jlj.rr^O conclude, it is mofl clear in Scrip-X ture, and beyond all difpute^ that our tVtuaU moji proper compleat Jujiification at the great Judgment^ will be according to our Worlds, &c.

Ammacbeerf. x. This you oft repeat, and fo muft I this: That our JuflL fication at the great Judgment, is but the full manifeitation of that Judication which we have now through Faith.

2. Works {hall then be enquired of but as fruits of Faith, by which Faith, and net by Works, we are now juftifled, and fhallthen fully a; pear to be fuftified. Reply. i. It is fitcb a Manifestation of our Righteoufnefi s by the Judg^ as is the properejl Juftificatiom Apello totum mundum jurifconfultorum & c £beologorum Re-formatorum. We maintain that the word is to be: taken in fenfu forenfi againft the Papifts.

2. To be [a fruit of Fait If] fo confidered, is not i to be medium ad ullum finem. But fure Obedience is medium ad finem, and fo enquired after. Either; there is fomefffi/and re a fin why the/raits of Faith -are enquired after, or elfe it is an unreafonable a£i-; on (which who dare imagine >) Will you fay with the Antinomians, that the end is only to manifeji Faith utfigna } i. You granted more before, that they are via ad regnum : And what Divine doth not grant, that Obedience is the Condition of Salvation ? Why then (hould you nor yteld,that as Con-dithftfythcy are enquired after ? 2.Luke's phrafe.QZ^-

caufi

at 3lttfcgment» 277

caufe thou haft been faithful in a very little, 8cc*~\ mud fignifie at leaft a Conditionality, which is caufa fine qua non > and not a mere ftgn. 3. The whole Context (hews, that Obedience is enquired after, as the Ratio JententU, and not only zsfigns of fome-thing elfe, which is the foleReafon. 4. The ufes pretended for this enquiring after mcxcfigw, are frivolous. The bufinefs of Judgment is to enquire of the caufe, and to fentence the perfon accordingly > and the connexion of the Sentence to this Obedience, by the terms [^therefore] and [Becaufe,'] (hews unqueftionably, that it is ipfa caufa that is here fpokenof, and not figna deCaufa. 1 take [Cauff] in Law-feafe now, and fpeak not de Caufa Logic*.

Aphorifm. Page3ip.CEE Matth. 25. 2r, 23, &c. And ^ moft plain is that from the month of tffe Judg himfelf, &c. Matth. 25. 34, 35.

Ammachoerf What was faid immediately before, doth anfwer what h here objected.

Reply. And the former Reply fatisfies me to that Anfwer. I only add my defire, that betides all the other Texts you would try, whether thefe following fpeak only of Signs, and not Conditions, Rom. 2. 5,6,7,10. A&s 10.35. 1 Tim. 4. id* Rev. 14.13. 1 John 3.7. Matth.7. 24. & 21.22,23. John i6«27* [The Father hath loved you, becaufe ye have loved me, &c3 2 Cor. 5.10. [according to that he hath done^] plainly fignificth caufam & non evidential*, Phil. 4. 17. Luke 11,28. 1 Tim. 6* i8>ip. 1 Cor. T 3 9.24*

2o$ £)f ^unification

5. You know the Queftion that now dire&ly I was on, was only about Works procurement of SaU Vation, and Juftitication at Judgment thereupon.

6° Do they Indeed only (hew, [Hojp they muft be qualified}"] and not [a^/] or the tendency of thofe Qualifications to the end ? Review thofc cited.

7. A man woaid think that you would be fatis-fied, if theScrpture did but fay, [By thU thou art jstfUfied 2] And yet James doth fay, | We arejuftifi-edb) Works, and not by faith only'*] and yet you are never the more fatisiied. In fenfu forenfi , [according to Workj~] is equivalent to [by Work*."]

8. If Amef by [caufalem confequenw,] mean a proper caufe^ I fay fo too : But to interpret it of a

mere Conjequentia * Logica, n Bur what is the Ra- makes it next non-knte* For tio confejuenttd. Chriit doth not fpeak this by

way of Argumentations but by way of Sentence. And all Judgment is part upon the juftice or in)u\\ice of the Caufe, as the Ratio feutentia* There was never Judg expreffed Ratio-ncm JententU in plainer terms than Chrift there doth. At leaft, methinks, the phrafe in Luke 19. 17. {hould force you to confefs this: Bccaufe thou haft been faithful in a very little, have thou authority, &c.. If no plainnefs of fpeech will ferve, it is in vain to cite Scripture. Seealfo^r/^27.

9. Your feeming Argument for Merits I have already overthrown, by iubverting the grounds of at, here again recited.

at 3tot>smenk *8r

Aphorifm. Ibid. f^An anymore be faid of -Faith, than that \^j voe ate juftified and judged to life, both [for] it, and according to it ?

jintmadwrf !• I do not know how fo much may be faid of Faith ] at that we are juftified [for] it, though fo much may be faid ; (for fo much the Scripture faith) that we are juftified by it.

2. [For] notes the formal or the meritorious Caufe. [By J notes only the Inftrument or the Condition.

3. The Scripturedoth not fhew that we are juftified [by} Works, much lefs [for] them.

4. Though it lhew that we muft be judged, and receive our reward according to them.

?. It feems ftrange that you rtiouldfo confound fecundum and propter, when-as Gregory fo long ago fo clearly diftin-guimed them : Aliud $/2 fecundum opera reddere^ & aliud propter ipfa opera reddere. Greg.io 7. pcen. Pfal. five in Pfal. 143. *•

Reply. 1. I do not mean or fay, that we are juftified Conftitutive [fox"] Faith, as a Caufe : nor that Faith is Caufa Regnandi : But that God giveth this (our Faith and Obedience) as the reafm of his abfolving or juftifying Sentence. And I offer you no other proof than the very exprefs words of Scripture : [For I r#M hungry i] and, [Becauje thou baft been faithful.'] And in Abraham s cafe in the very example that James brings to prove Juftification by Woiks, it is faid, [Becaufe thou hall done this, and haft notjpared, &c.J The reafon why this is Rath judicii, is becaufe, Jjx eft norma judicif : & quic-quid Lex Conditionem pr<emii confiitttit , hoc ipfum eft Ratio prxmii adjudicandu The fame thing may be Caufa fententiz 3 which is but Conditio pr^mii

ad'ju-

%%z £)f Jfttfttficattott

sdjudicati. Juftitia caufe eft ratio JuftificationUper jhttentiam judicit : Ideo enim hominetn Juftificat quia jxjlmeft: hoc eft^ quia caufa ejus J^ntroverfe^jufta e(i* Sedtamen b£c caufa Cdnfift?re>pcteft in Mud* frondi-thwt praftatione , qu& ret adjudicate caufa propria di8a> Hon eft.

2. [FoiQ notes other caufes But indeed it is not than the formal or meritori-

tte] but [by] which 0US# Jn cafe j . h

we exj>rets a con {tit u . r . . *

tire caufation , whe- Kationem Jententt* , qud eft Aer formal or material, quafi caufa impulfiva : Ut cmm jujiitia caufe eft caufa impulfiva judici ut reum abfolvau

3. I marvel you fay that the Scripture (heweth not that we are juftified by Works '<> when you read Chrift faying [Bythy words (halfthou be juftified, and by thy words fhalt thou be condemned* and James 2. 24. A man U juftified by Workj, &c]

4. [According to them/] is all one in fenfu fi- !j renpy as [by] them.

5. I fuppofe by [propter] Gregory meant a meritorious propter^ and lb I agieewith him. I never mentioned proj.tr: The [_For] that I fpeak of is \emm^\ and not [propter-] It is Matthews [7?),] and Luke's [otT) j?. 17.

Aphorifm. Ibid. T T TOrkj are not then confidered as a men W j*g*> whereby God doth difcern mens Faith : For he feeth it immediately , and needs no

Anim.

i. By this Reafon you may as well null all the judicial proceedings defcribed.

2. Yet 1 grant that Works are then considered as a part of the Condition : But not the Condition requisite to JiaTificaL tion, though of the Condition requisite to Glorification, and complete Salvation.

Reply. i. If you had proved that all the judicial pro r ceeding is upon mere figni> and the ipja caufa jufti-tia is not meddled with, then you might have bet T ter expe&ed I (hould receive your affirmation.

2. But why do you then null them all your fel£ by yielding in the very next words, that Works *re part of the Condition of Glorification, and fo not mere figns.

3. Is it not an eafie truth, that in that they are the Conditions of Glorification) they muft needs be the reafon of juftifying that man wh6, is accufed to be RewpKH*, and to havejio right to Glorification.

Aphoriftn. Page 322. | Tfeetnetb that Chrift doth call them Righ+ 1 teous, in reference to this perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefi mentioned in their juftifying Sentence^ verf. 46. £the Righteous into Life Eternal.

Anima<ly>erf

1. I do not fee why thofe words iiiould be called the jujti-fytng Sentence: They rather (hew how the Sentence before pronounced fhould be executed.

2. Beit fo that they are called Righteous, in reference to a perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs ^ yet it doth not follow that this perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs isfuch, as that they are juftifiedbyir.

Reply.

Reply. . i. You ftrangely mifunderftand my words, contrary to the plain fence of them, which is this, \Cbrift in Verf. 46. doth call them Righteom, in reference to this perfonal Evangelical Righteoujnefi mentioned in their jujiifying Sentence in the former Verfes, viz. [I was hungry, and ye, &c] It is not Verf 46. which I call the Sentence.

2. The whole fcope of the Text {hews, that they ^re juftified by Love and Obedience, ut per condi-tionem prtftitam probatam: The reading all that Chapter fatisfies me fo fully in that, that all the Arguments in the World, I think, will never make me queftion it.

Aphorifm. Page 324.1^X0^ not the contrary VoBrine needlefly JL/ conftrain men to wreft mojl plain and frequent exprefjions of Scripture ?

Ammachoerf I fee no expreflions of Scripture that we are forced to wreft, by denying Works to juftifie as well as Faith : But on the other fide, to affert this is (fo far as I can fee) very repugnant to the Scripture.

Reply. - 1. Your expreflions may fomewhat advantage your caufe, in that the found of the words, [ Justification by Works'] is harlh to them that hear not the words explained. I do no not ufe that phrafe * but rather fay thus, that [our Jujiification is continued and confummate by Sentence at Judgment, not only by Faith, but by Love, Hope, Repentance, fncere Obedience to the Redeemer, and God in him, a§ fecondary farts of the Conditions of the New-Covenant.] James and Paul took not Works in the Tame fenfe. Paul

meant

at UttUgmene* zfy

meant by Wor\s, opera merttoria operant, or done with a conceit of Merit > fuch as makf the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt ; James meant none fuch, but onely Obedience to God-Redeemer. If you demand my proof (as fome have done)I give it you : The Works that James fpeaks of are neceflary to Justification , or (teipfo fatente) to Salvation : But the Wbrkf that Vaul fpeaks of, no Chriftian muft dare to think of performing j viz. Such as make the reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace. Now to deny Juftification by Obedience, in the fenfe explain-ed, forceth men to wreft multitudes of plain Scrip. ture-Texts; Review them and judg.

Aphorifm. Ibid. lp\0^ *' not uphold that dangerous Pillar of \J Antinomian Vo&rine, that we muft not tpork^ or perform duty for Lift-and Salvation, but only from Life and Salvation ?

Antmadwrf. It is one thing to work for Life and Sabdtiox, that is, the blifs and happinefs of the Life to come; another thincr to work for Juflificatson, or that we may be juitified: The Scriptures teach us as well to deny this , as to affert the other.

Reply. Speaking of Meritorious or Legal working, I yield that Scripture is againft the conceit of it: But of working in our fenfe, I reply, u Shew me ubiLexitadijiingmt> 2. Did not I before attempt to prove, that Salvation and Jufxification at Judgment have the fame Conditions > and I did not dif-cern that you plainly denied it, elfe I (hould there have further proved it. 3. Devife if you can, any way to jultifie a man that is accufcd to be Reuspmti,

and

1*6 s>i Jttftificaetott

and his title to the Reward denied, but by juftifying his title, and proving that he hath fulfilled the Condition, or is pardoned for wtf-fultilling. For not-fulfilling the Conditions of the firft Lap>> we muft plead Pardon or Satfrfattion made: But for not fulfilling the Conditions of the fecond Covenant there is no pardon : It is therefore the fulfilling them it felf that muft fo juftifie.

Aphorifm. Page325.'VTOn>if Good-works , or fnicere Obedit ]i\ ence to Cbriji our Lord, be no part of the Condition of our full Jujlification and Salvation^ who mil ujetbem to that end?

Ant macho erf There is not the lite Reafon of juftificarion and* Salvation : For Salvation is wrought by degrees^ it's begun here, and perfected hereafter. We are faved by Hope, Rom. 8. 24. jinft we muft worl^ out Qur own SaJvhtsqn with fear 4nd tremblinz^V\\\\.i'\i* It is not fo in refpecl: of J uftifi cation. It hath no'degrees in it felf, though it hath in the Manifestation of it. For it is a freedom from all fin, in refpeft of Imputation, and from all Condemnation for fin, A&s 13. 39. jcom. 8. i. Salvation is fo perfected hereafter, as that fame part of it is added, and that the chief part vrtiich before was wanting: But Juflirlcation is only fo perfected, as that the perfeLtien of it is made manifeft , and Satan with ail other Accufers is for ever put to filence.

Reply. 1. As one good ad may caufe another in eurfelves, fo there is not the fame Reafon between Jufiificati-on, and that part of Salvation. For that is but the Condition of one , which is the Canfe of the other. But as Salvation is the gift of Cod, fo there is the fame Rejfin of obtaining right to Jujhficati-on and to Salvation. They are two drftind: Vues,

flowing

at Juftsmeut %%y

flowing from thd Jarw'>• Covenant; upon outunim to Cbrijty upon the famtGondition on our part, An<l the immediate right of poffeffion at Judgment is the fame on the fame Conditions.

2. I have faid enough to this. [Freedom] is here ambiguous : Either you mean aftive Liberation, or paflive : If the latter, cither you mean a certainty, that we (hall not be condemned \ or you mean, non-Condemnation at prefent > or you mean right to Abfolutim per judicemh or elfe Absolution paflive it felf. The Reprobate here zrcnoH^condemnati per fententiam judicis^ though per Legem they are condemned already* The EteQ from the foundations of the World were fure (cenitudine objefti) to be ab-folved\ yet were not then freed perfectly. Right to Abfolution is perfed propr^fmtiinfe^ as is the right of a Tenant in his houfe, when he hath taken his Leafe. > Eut it is not perfect pro tempore futuro : Be-caufe, i. More Conditions are to be performed* 2. More fins to be pardoned. If you mean it of attual judicial Abfolution } you are not fo perfedtly freed in this Life.*

1. Where there is not the afiive Abfolution, there is not the paflive : But the aftive Abfolution judicial per fententiam^ either is not at all in this life, or is not perfe&j, therefore,^. Apologetical Justification hath degrees : And Sentential is the moft per-fed kind.

2. Judication is oppofite to Condemnation : But Condemnation is not per fed (if properly any at all) till the Judgment.! therefore juftirication is not perfed till then. Condemnatio Legu eji tantum virtually m rejpicit judicium.

3- Your

288 £>{ purification

3. Your Do&rine is plain Antinomian, if by [freedom from aBfin y '] you mean all future fin, as you feem to do. Sin is not pardoned, which is no fin, that is, which is not yet committed: Keatmqui nondum contrabiwr, nondiffolvitur.

4.You (uppofe Juftification per fententiam judicis, to be no Juftification, but a Manifeftation of it: When our Divines (till fay, the word is to be ufed in fenfu judiciario. And I have far much more ado with Mr. L. Can excellent Politician) to prove, that constitutive Juftification is fo to be called* He thinks only fentential Juftification is true Juftification > you think it's none : But I think both Constitutive and Sentential are truly and properly Juftification. Sententia judic^ vel Condemnximem^ vel Abfoluti-onem continet: : Et non tantum Condemnatiom-.vel Absolution* M'artifeftationem.) Zouch. Jurifprud.par.5. fed. 10, &c You'll fpoil all your Law, if you confound Jus & Judicium. A Woman may as fully mtnifeft a Felony or Murther, and the duenefc of punifhment, as the Judg\ and yet the man (hall not for that be executed. The Civil Law faith, that Judicis decretum requiritur etiam in manifefte podigp. Mynling. in Inftitut. I. 1. tit. 23. pag. 115.

Aphorifm. lb\d.\TTHetber this VoBrine doth not tend t9 VV drive Obedience out of the World : For if men once believe, that it is not fo much as a part of the Condition of their Juftification , will it not much tend to relax their diligence ?

Anim.

at Jtt&snienk 289

Animaeherf. No: If they confider as they ought to do, that though Obedience do not concur with Faith as a Joynt-condition of our Juftification, yet it is a neceflary fruit of chat Faith whereby we are juftified.

Reply. Obfcure ftill. Do you mean [NeceJJary~\ neceflitate Prtcepti only, or neceflitate Medii alfo ? If the former, we may be ftVed without it s or elfe every fin* ner muft perifti. if the latter, what means can it be lower than a Condition ? If you fhould mean it, non de neceflitate morali fed naturally that requires not our care or diligence.

Aphorifm. ] th it not mm in their Soul*cozening Faith

Page $26.TT\0th it not much confirm the World

sinimadverf. It is not the Doctrine that doth it, but the abufe of the Doctrine • fome being apt to turn the Grace of God into lafci-viovfoefi, Judc, v. 4. How do they confirm the World in their Soul-cozening Faith, who teach, That we are juftified by receiving Chtift for our Saviour: But yet teach withal, that none can have him for their Saviour, except they take him for their Lord alfo ? The beft Do&rine may be abufed : 1 he abufe is t 0 be prevented or reformed • but the Doctrine it felf is net to be deferted. See Rom. j.20. with 6.1,14,17.

Reply.

The Dodfrine it felf I think is guilty of it: For

when you have denied [Taking Chriji for LordT\ to

have the neceflity of a Condition (or Caufe) and

then fay 3 it is neceflary for all that i you either con-

Z90 jjDf 3ttftfficattott

tradidfc your felf, or you mean no fuch Moral ne-ceffity, but that a man may be faved without it. Nay, you fay, that men are firft jufiified by taking Chrift as Prieft> and after take him for King : And fo a Cbrift-dividing Faith-, which is no true Faitb> fhould juftifie, and the taking him as King fhould not be neceffary ne quoad prtfentiam. And when you have taught wicked men , that it juftifieth them to accept of Chrift as Pjieft, to juftffie and fave them, and they are willingof that unfeignedly, will you mate them believe they are nnjuftified again, becaufe the accepting Chrift as King doth not follow it ? Or will you (hew them why they are not juftified, when neither Caufe nor Condition is wanting ? What an effect is that which will not be produced, when there is all the Caufes and Conditions ?

Why is it that accepting Chrift m King muft of necejfity follow ? All neceffity hath fome Reafou. And if you would perfwade either them or me, that they do not accept of Chrift's SatUfaRion to juftifie them (which you fay is the Condition) and that they do but diflemble, neither they nor I can believe you. They feel the contrary, and I bporv it. I never koew man in my life that was unwilling to be pardoned and juftified, or willing to be damned. Indeed properly it cannot be called [Acceptance,] be-cuife that prefuppofeth an offer: And Chrift as Piieftonly, is offered to none, but a willingnefs fo ro have him it is.

Aphor.

at jtotypwttt* m

Aphorifm.

Page %2j.QVrely the eaftnefi of the former \ (viz, ^to expett Justification from Chrifi alone:) and the difficulty of the latter > (Viz* to takg Chrifi for Lord) feemeth to tell us, that it is afpiritual, ex~ cellenty necejfary part of )ufiifying Faith.

Animadwrf Perhaps for [fpmtual'] mould be [ facial ;] But however, I. It doth not appear to be fo eafie a thing to expect Juftificacion from Chrift alone : The Jews of old were averfe from it, Rom.$. 31,31. and fo are the Papifts generally at this day, and others alfo befides them. 2. I fee not how there is more difficulty in taking Chrift for our Lord, if we make it a part of juftifying Faith, thanif we make it (as I fuppofe we mould) a fruit of it.

Reply. [Spiritual] for [fpecialj was amifprinting j a thing very frequent in that Book. 1. You might perceive that I fpeak not of the difficulty of affent-tng to the truth of Chrift's Priejily Office, but of the Wills Confent or Acceptance, fuppofing the AJfenu It is as difficult for the Underfianding to believe Chrifi's Priejily Office, as his Kingly: The Jews believed neither. I never met with a Papift, but would fay, He trailed only in the Merits of Chrifi i therefore they be not generally at this day, fo bad in this as they are made. Rivet faith (and fo do many more of our Divines, citing the fame paffage, as Amef. Sec.) that the Jefuites rhemfelves admit, ReElam ejje nofiram fentmtiam, fj intelligamus nobii imputari Chrifii merita, quia nobis donata Junt^ & V 2 • foflimut

291 €)f 3lnaiftcatiott

pofimus ea Veo patri offerre pro nofkrU peccatU, quo* niam Chri{ius fufcepit per fe onus Jatisfaciendi pro nobis, nofqs Deo Patri reconciliandi. They are Bd-larmine'sv?ords, Lib.2- de Juftif. c- 7. And Rivet adds, [ &)u£ certe noftra eft ex parte fententia, quan-quam aliam ttebU affingat de jujiitia Cbriiii tanquam caufa formali. Riv. Difp. 10. de tide Juftif. §. 13. p. ipo. AndVignerius and other Papifts ordinarily fay, that Maris Wor\s are not necejfary to fupply any defeU in Cbrift's Sawfaftion (for it U f erf eft) but only for the application of it to cur felves. And how many of them deny Merits in fenfe, you know : Yet I cxcufe none of their errours.

But that which I fpeak of is the compleat a<3: of juftifying Faith in the W\ll: When men believe Chrift to be the Mediator-, and his Word to be true, (which wicked men may do, feeing the Devils do it) it is not then fo hard a matter to make them willing to take him for their Juftifier, as to take him for their Ruler. I know there is in man a natural Pride, by which he would be beholden to none. But when men are convinced that they are linntrs, and they cannot pardon themfelves, nor any fave them but Chrifti I rhink it is no hard matter to make them willing that Chrift fhould pardon and fave them. I fay again, Ni man can be wWing to be dzmned or unpardoned, that knows thefe. I know never a wicked man about me, but is willing to be pardoned and laved by Chrift.

2. 1 am fully of your mind in your fecond note : but I know not to what purpofe it was. I think it is lefs difficult to take Chrift for our Lord, when wc know it to be the Condition of Pardon (for

then

then we have a potent motive to it) then when w e fay, It U nofuch Condition (and fo lofe our motive 0 Yet Natures averfenefs is a-like to the thing it (elf * but that in one refpecft we have God's means to overcome it, and not in the other.

If taking Chrift for Lord, be but a fruit of justifying Faith j then, 1. We are juftified before it, that is, before we take Chrift as Chrift. 2. And then it would have done well if you had (hewed the Moral neceffityof that fruit ? what it is, if not a Condition ? and why a man may not be faved without it. He that is juftified, is in a ftate of Salvation (fay you, truly j) and therefore fhould be faved, if he fo died : But he that only taketh Chrift for Prieft , fay you , is juftified : (for the fruit folioweth the Caufe) therefore he (hould be faved, &c.

Aphorifm.

Page32j?.l"5 not this excluding of fiocere Obedi-X ence/mw Juftification > the great ftuw-bling-blocks of Papifts > and that which hath had a great hand in turning many Learned men from the Proteftant Religion to Popery ?

. An'tmadwf

So the preaching of Chrift crucified, and of Juftificatiofl through Faith in him, was the great flumbling-block of the Jews, 1 Cor. i. 23. Rom. 9. 31, 32. Yet the Apoftle preached and pre/Ted this Doctrine for all that; and fo muft we, though the Papifts be offended at it : Melt m enim eft utfesn-dti'um wiatur 5 quam ut yerha* rdmjudtur, Bernard. Bpift. 34.

V 3 Reply.

294 ®f JttttificatiOil

Reply.

The Queftion is, of Scandal given : The Anfwer is of Scandal taken* The Queftion is of Scandal by Errour : The Anfwer is of Scandal by the Truth. Paul's Dodrine did fet up the Lord Jefta Chrifi againft maris Works '> but not Jefus againft or without the LordCbriji^nor one fmgle aU of maris (Faith) againft other ads ; (as Love) about the fame Objedh This was the Jews offence, which is far from that Queftion : They were not offended that one adt of man was advanced above all the reft h (for Paul did not that,it was none of his defign to advance Faith above Love, &c.) but that Chrift was advanced againft their own fuppofed Legal Righteoufnefs, (which was Paul's work : Nor did Paul lay all on the Inlhumentality or natural ufe of Faith h (viz. that it is Apprehenfio Chrijii, u e. fides :) as if it ju-ftified but in a natural confideration, and not in a moral : Nor yet did he afcribe Juftification to Affiance is the fole ad, excluding abofficio Ajfentznd] Acceptance, nor to any one of thefe alone.

Aphorifm.

Page 330,331>T^\<3 thefe men 'thinks* that we are \J perfectly juftified and faved already f

Antmacfoerf.

Perfectly juftified, I think, we aie already, though notper-| fecu T y faved. If fin be not, and RigLtcoufnefs be imputed to! us, and we are freed from all Condemnation (and fo it is wiy ns if we are true Eelie', ers) then we are perfectly juftified.

Reply.

at JttDgment' ^^$

Reply.

To this I have fpoke oft enough. If you are fo perfeftly juftified, then you need no more Ju-ftification. But you need more: i. You need that the New-Law or Covenant fhould juftifie you everyday. InTeftamcnts, Laws, &c. the aft as continued, is as truly an aft as thefirft. 2. You need that Chrift fhould juftifie you per Afologiam now, 3. And at Judgment. 4. And pet fenten-tiam then.

Aphorifm.

\Hti VoUrine was offensive to Melanfthon, Bu-cer ; and other moderate Divines*

Ammddverf

What Doclrine ? that of Juftification by Faith without Works } Where do they take offence at it > Bellarmme (as I have noted before) doth cite Melantfhon among others, as teaching that Faith alone doth juftifie, though Faith, which jultitieth, be not alone, but accompanied with good Works. And if Eucer had taught otherwife, Bellarmme would have been lure to have found it out, and to have told us of it* B. Day>enant notes it as a calumny of the Papiits, that none of our Writers, except Bucer and Chemnit'ut** do acknow-ledg any inherent Righteoufnefs in thofe that are juftified. Qrnnes ( enim ) agnofcimu* (faith he) ££ dare frojitemur Deum \nfunder e hujufinodi ]ufthiam tn tpfo aitu )u(lrficdndt ; fed negamus fententtam Det Jufttficantis ad hanc re(f>'tcere tanquam ad caufam^ per quam homo Jufttjicatus conftttut-p*r. Dav. de Juft. Hab.c. 22. p. 312. If perhaps you mean that Melantfhon, Bucer y and others, took offence at the Doctrine of MjrtcuS) and fome others, who accounted it Hcre-V 4 fie

296 £>f ^unification

fie to fay, that Good-works are neceffary to Salvation, as you fay they did, page 329. I anfwer, It is one thing to fay* that Good-works are neceffary to Salvation } another thing to fay, that they are neceffary to Juftification. For Judication muft go before Good-works, fuch as are not only good in themfelves, but alfo good as done .by us : But Good-works muft go before Salvation, I mean the full and perfect accom-plifhment of it.

Reply.

I mean the Dodrine of them that deny Obedience to be a Condition of Salvation, or of final Juftification at Judgment, and fo by denying the grounds of their neceffity> bring men to wicked lives. I fuppofe in this fpeech the truth of TbefisjU. that our full Juftification, and our Glorification, have on our part the fame Conditions > and therefore for all you fay, it is a denying both, or granting both confcquentially, to deny or grant one. I doubt Jllyrieus Dotfhine was the fame in fenfe with this : For he denied not Good-wor^s to be necejfary (as at large you may fee in Scbluffelburgius contra Majori-fta5 v) but that they were neceffary to Jufiification or Salvation-, that is, he thought them ^asyou fpeakj neceffary fruits of Faith j but not necejfary means-, (i. e. Conditions) of Salvation.

For Bucer^ I fuppofe, you have read what paffed between Rivet and Grotius about him. See alfo Colloq. Ratisbon- p. 302,308,313,567. lllttdfolnm in qtidtftione de Mercede bonorum cperum controvtrfnm eft, An fit in bom operibus renatorum aliquod meri-tum condignttm Mercede, quam tti Veus retribuit ? Nam litam &umm nidi fidelibtts bene operant!-

busy

at 3futigment 297

busj etiam Coron£ & Mercedis loco, nos femper de* dimus.

For Melan&. vid. Apolog. pro Confefl. Augufl. in Art* 20. & in Operum iom. 2. loc. de Bonis Oper. Nova obedientia eft neceffaria, neceffitate ordinvs, c^u/i y & effeSus : item neceffitate debiti feu mandatu Item

neceffitate retinend* fidei— & vitandi poena* tern-'

poralef & Memos* Et in Epift. Lugd. edit. 1647. P» 453. he contends, that to fpeak exa&ly Agnitio peccatorum is not caufa fecunda RemiJJionis (that Mercy is the fole efficient neareft caufe :) But it is caufa fine qua non s and makes that to be his ufual phrafe. And that's as much as I j for thatV a Condition of Remiffion. Vid. & Epift. 19. p. 455. & p. 438. Cordatus urbem y vicinas etiam Regiones, & ipfam aulam adverfus me comitate propterea quod in explicanda controverfia Juftificationis, dixi novam obedientiam neceffariam effe ad falutem, &c. And page 446. he advifeth to preach thepraifes of Good-works rather in Sermons of Repentance, becaufehc obferved that many of ours would bear the fame VoUrine there, which they would not in the point of Jufiification. See alfo Camerar* and Melch. Adamus in his Life.

Vavenanfs words cited, have nothing that I dif-like (but only that Grace is faid to be mfufed in ipfo aBu Juftificandi, when the ads are of various natures : But I fuppofe he means, de tempore only. The reft is before oft replied to.

Aphor.

29» u>r 'jrainticatton

Aphorifin.

Page332.TTT{?rJ^x ( or a purpoje to xva\ with V V God) faith Mr. Ball on the Covenants^ 73.) dojufiifie^ M the pafiive Qualification of the fitbjett capable of JufUfication.

Antmadwrf

But you leave out the words which Mr. Ball immediately addethto explain himfelf the better 5 viz. [Or as the Qualification of that Faith that jufttfieth^ or as they tefrtfie andgrpe proof that Faith is lively ■ But Faith alone jufttfieth 5 as ft embraceth the free fromtfe of free forgivenefs in Jefus Chrtft. And. in the very fame page, Mr. Ballhzth. thefe words, which are as exprefs againft you as may be : \_So that we may conclude from this pay age of holy Wnh that Abraham was jufi/fied by Faith alone : But this his Faith though alone m the a£i of ^ufttfication^ no other Grace wording with it, was not alone in exiJtence > didnot lie dead m him> as a dormant and idle Quality.

Reply.

1. I left out all the reft of his Book too: But the Reader may fee all at pleafure.

2. Doth that you add gain-fay what I cited ? If not, take it in as favourable a fenfe to you as the words will bear.

3. I allow alfoof the explicatory terms (as you judg them to be) which you add.

4. But I never undertook to fliew, that Mr. Ball and I were juft of a judgment in this point: But only that he gives as much as I do to Works (and more 0 but more than I do to Faith. He yieldeth

both

at 3Ju&gment ^^^

both Faith and Wor^s to be the Condition of Juftification (which is the thing that you deny j) but he affirmeth Faith to be moreover the iuftrumental Cattfe of Juftification (which you will not own any more than I.) Left you think I wrong him, fee page 20. [A difpofitioto to Good-worlds is necefi fary to Juftification , being the Qualification of an active and lively Faith : Good-worlds of all forts are neceffary to our continuance in theftate of Juftification, and fo to our final Abfolution, if God give opportunity. But they are not the caufe of, but only a precedent {Qualification or Condition to final forgive-nefi, and to eternal blifi. If then, when we $ea\ of the Conditions- of the Covenant of Grace , by j~ Condition ~\ we understand whatfoever U required on our part, as precedent, concomitant, or fubfequent to Juftification ', Repentance , Faith and Obedience are all Conditions: But if by [Condition] we under* ft and what U required on our part as the caufe of the good promifed , though only inftrumental , Faith or Belief in the promifes of free-mercy, U the only Condition.

So page 21. ['fbti walking in the Light, as he is in the Light, U that Qualification whereby we become immediately capable of ChrijFs Right eoufnefs, or actual Participants of kit Propitiation, which is the file immediate caufe of our Juftification, tal^en for re-miffion of fins, or attual approbation with God.] This is more than 1 fay.

Aphorifm.

See Calvin on Luke 1. 6*

Anim.

Jnirnadverf

I can fee nothing there for you , but fomething againft you, Unfit ergo & irreprehenftbiles cenfentur quontam tota \tta teftatur eos JuftitU addttfos ejfe, &c Sedquia aperfeBtone longe dtftat ptum eorum ftudtum> non potest fine tenia pla-etre Deo. Ouare jutfitta qus. in tttis laudatur, a gratxtta Dei tndulgentta pendet \ qua fit , ut quod reltquum eft, tn tpjis injuftitU) non tmfutet. Stc exponere necejfe eft qmc-quid de homtnum \uftttta tn Scripturt* habetur-, ut remijfio-n*m pec cat or um non evert at > cut non alner innttttur>> quam fuo fundamento Adificmm. Heie Cahin , i. Denies per-fonal Righteoufnefs to be perfect, and fuch, as without pardoning mercy can pleafe God. 2. He makes this perfonal Righteoufnefs to follow J unification, and to relie upon it, as a building doth on its foundation ; Therefore according to Cafom in this place (for his judgment in this point is other- 1 wife well known) perfonal Righteoufnefs is not that whereby we are juftitied.

Reply.

I own all that which you judg againft me. And to your Obfervations, 1. So do I deny perfonal Righteoufnefs to be materially perfett, and in divers other refpe&s mentioned in the Aphorifm. All that Calvin drives at is, that it is a Righteoufnefs that ftands with fin and pardon, which who dare deny ? But did Calvin deny the Metaphyfical perfection of Being, as to the Relation of [Righteous,"] or yet the Relation of [prtftitor conditions nova Leg***] whereon it is grounded >

2. So do I fay, that this Righteoufnefl } follows Justification, and receives much of its force from it, (that the perfon be reconciled :) But yet may it not go before it quoad conthmationem & fententiam

judic'u ?

at 3Jttfegmcnt 301

judicU ? Calvin maintaineth a true perfonal Righ-teoufnefs, confifting with neceffity of pardon of fin, and fo do I. His main Caution is, that we feign not any Righteoufncfs inconfiftcnt with pardon i and that who doth not abhor ? Your Con-clufion therefore is merely your own.

Aphorifrn.

Ibid.fTpHi? common AJfertion , that [Good-works X do follow Juftification , and not go before it>] muft be thut underftood 0 or it tifalfe; viz. Attual Obedience goetb not before the firfl moment of Jufti-fication^ dec.

Animad'perf

By this which you here grant it follows, that Juftification Is by Faith alone, without Works » though they alio will follow in their time and order.

Reply.

True : If you mean it of external Works, and of the beginning of Juftification. Do you need to tell me oi a Confequence, which I fo oft profefledly maintain, as if it followed againft my mind ? But as this excludes not Repentance, Love to Chrift,^. from our firft Juftification *, fo nor outward Works from the continued and fentential Juftification at Judgment, as Conditions of both.

Aphor.

3©z £>f $\xmncmon

Aphorifm.

Ibid. Ty Vtyet it U as true, z. 7fc<i* ^ taj^tfg Cbrifi X) jfaf *# r Lorrf, and fo delivering i . * felves to hi* Government ( which is the fubjettion of the heart , and refolution for further Obedience, and in-deed an ejfential fart of Faith) doth in order of nature go before our firfi Jujiification.

Ammafoerf

i. Vt^ As the Qualification of that Faith which juftifies, as Mr. Bali in the place before cited fpeaks.

2; But Chrift as having fatisfietl for our fins, is received by us unto J unification.

3. Faith which juitifieth, doth receive Chrift in refpecT: of all his Office* : But Fairfc juftifiethas it receivetb Chrift as a PrieJL asking fath faction for us 5 by which Satisfaction laid hold : on by Faith, and fo imputed to us, we are )u[\u

fed.

Reply.

1. I yield to your firft from Mr. Ball (as to thofe ads that are not efTentiah) but have proved already, that the Qualification o{ Faith is^w* of the Condition, and fo it hath the neceffity-moral of a Condition (as current Englijh money in a Bond :) And not only a natural necejfity (as it is neceflarv an entire man have two hands, Sec.) The Condition is, not only that we Believe, but that we affectionately believe, &c

2. I yet fee no reafon to think, 'faking Chriji as King to be lefi ejfential to )u\\ifying faith, than taking

him

at Judgment 305

him as Prieft. Your fecond Proportion is true, but nothing againft me. -

3. And the fame I fay of the next, [F aitb juftifieth at it receivetb Cbrift as Tr\eft^\ except yon add [only*]

4. That which mars all your difcourfe is, 1. The confounding'two Queftions, What juftifieth ex parte obje&i ? and what ex parte actus noftri ? It is Chrift's SatUfa&ion, and not his Kingfhip that juftifieth meritorioufly * it is Chrift as Advocate that ju-flifies Apologetically > it is Chrift as Judg that jufti-fies SententiaVy : As it is Chrift (and the Father in him) that per novum fadus-, juftifieth Conftitutive-ty efficienter. But ex parte attus> Faith juftifieth quatenus conditio iftius foederis: And that Faith which is the Condition, is the receiving our Lord Jefus Chrift the Redeemer entirely.

2. You are brought to confefs, that Faith is the Condition of Juftification (and I think that it jufti-fies qua conditio prtftita) and yet you feem to retain a notion in your mind, as if it jujiified qua fides in its natural Capacity : As if the Ratio mate-rialis vel Aptitudmalis, were nearer the effedfc than the Formalism

Aphprifm.

Ibid. 2. f I u %Hat actual Obedience, as part of the X Condition, doth in order of nature go before our Juftification as continued and confirmed.

Anim.

304 £>£ 3ttfttficattott

Animadverf.

• Juftification is not continued nor confirmed, without actual Obedience • yet Juftification is continued by the continuance of Faith, though this continuance of Faith, and fo of | Juflification, be not without the co-exiftence of aflual Obe- | ience, which Obedience doth make for the confirmation of | Faith, and fo of our J unification, as being a proof and evidence of that Faith by which we are juftified.

Keply.

Here is nothing againft me: For want of the word [Only] after [Continuance of Faith ;] Which if you meant, I have given my Reafons againft it before, and am ready to do it much more fully, as being a point that I am confident in.

Aphorifm.

Page 313. 3. rTTiHrf* per]everance in faithful X Obedience, doth both in nature 1 and time go before our full, compleat and final Justification > and that as a part of the Condition of obtaining it: If we walk in the Light, &c. 1 John 1.7. Ifa. 1. i(5,17. Ezek. 33. 14, 15, i<5. & 18.

21, 22.

AnimAefoerf. Our Juflification (as I have often noted before) is full here, though ic be not fully manifefted till hereafter. The places of Scripture which you alledg, {peak of Juftification as it is here obtained ; and they (hew who are juftified, not by what they are juftified.

Keply.

at Judgment 3°*

1. I have oft enough told you, that this is your great errour: As if Juflification were only unins generis , and fentential were none.

2. If thofe Textsfpeak but de mdis fignis^ any Antinomian may as well fay the like of any Text you (hall bring for Faiths jufiifying. I know they fpeak not of Caufes> but they fpeak plainly of Conditions*

Aphorifm.

In append, page 120.TS not Faith a voorl^or aft JL of ours ?

Animadverf.

It is not the aft of Faith apprehending, but the Objeftor thing apprehended, v/^. Chrift's Righreoufnefs, which doth formally juftifie. Only Faith or Believing is faid to juftifie, becaufe Chrift's Righteoufnefs, except it be apprehended by Faith, is not available to our Juflification. Something before out of B. Day>enant I have cited to this purpofe, to which I add that which he faith de Ju(K Hab. cap. 28. pdge 371. Nthil ufixatius cfuam caufe applicanti iilud tribuere, qnod froprie ££ immediate pert met adrem applicant am. Q^iatgi-tur fides apprehmdtt & applicat nobis Chri&t jvfftt/am > ti fidci ipft trtbnitur quod reapfe Chrtfio debet w.

Reply*

1. If indeed this be your meaning, that it is not faith by which wearejuftified at alj, but Chrijl^ the Difputc is vain, Hw Faith jufiifies ? and Wbe-

X tkr

1

29o j©f gtafttftcattott

*kr F<mfc atone ? if be #0* Faith at all. What have we done all this while > But I cannot believe that when you fay, {Faith jujlifies as a Condition, or Apfirebenfion, or (as others fay) as an Inf}r*ment,~\ that by {Faith is mea«t \Ckrijl,'] as if be were the Condition^ Apprehenfim and Inftrument.

2. I am fcot of yout mind, that CbriJFs Rigfoe-oufnefs doth formally juftifie * but rather, merit*-rioufly or materially. Remember the place which I cited even now out of Rivet where he blames Bellarmine for fattening your conceit on us.

3. Is it not utter obfeurity to fay, [Believing is faid to jaftifie , mly became ChrijVs Righteoufiufs\ except apprehended, Scc.^ Oh that you had told me here what the moral (Office or fotereji of Faith is in this work! and why Cffrift's Righteoufnefs cannot juftifie without apprehenfion ? I know but two Opinions that are worth the mentioning: Some fay,* {Becaufe Faith is an Injirument >] or as others, that fee the impropriety of this, [Becaufe h is conditio namraliter neceffaria, as the hands taking & Pearl rj and• not moraliter ex conjiitutione donan-its. This Opinion I have by very many Arguments confuted in another place. 2. That it is of natural convenience, and moral nece$ty> It would have I keen inconvenient to have given Remiflion upon Chrift's Satisfaction to any without Faith h yet God could have done it, had he pleafed, and removed; forae caufes of the inconveniency. But the imme-diate Reafon of Faith's intereft, is, that the Donor hath made it the Condition. This is my Judgment, which I have fullier elfwherc explained and proved. Vavenant's woids are not again!* me.

Anim*

at JttDsmenfc 291

Antmacfoerf. Manton on James 2.23, [For thofe great Difputes about the matter of Juftification, I would not intermeddle, let it fuffice to note, That the general current of Paul's Epiftles can ieth it for the Righteoufhefs of Chrift j which being imputed to us, makethus juftand acceptable before God; and this Righteoufnefs we receive by Faith. So that Faith juftifi-eth not inthePopim fenfe, asamoft pet-fed Grace, or as a good Work done by us •, but in it's relation to Chrift, as it received ChrifVs fatisfa&ory Righteoufnefs, And fo whether you fay it juftifieth as an Inftrument, a fole working Inftrument, or as an Ordinance or Relative A&ion required on out-part, all is to the fame iffue and purpofe. To contend about mere words, and bare forms of fpeecb, is to be too precife and critical.

Reply,

To Mr. Manton I fay, 1. If it be all one whether we fay, An Inftrument, an Ordinance, or Relative Adtion required on our parts, then I much differ not from you : For I dare call it fo, [A Relative AU. required on our parts.'] But,

2. I conceive that \_A Relative Aft] is a dark Expreflion : What Relation hath it to Chrift } doth it juftifie qua related to Chrift? then why do not many other adis related to Chrift juftifie ? For my part, I think, when the nature of Faiths and of Jujiification, and of a Condition, is well underftood it will appear that we have no proper name in ufe to exprefs the Formalem Rationem of Faith's inte-reft in Juftification, but the term [Condition,'] as it

I is ufed by Lawyers h or, Caufa fine qua non> &

\ % \citm qua, exnecefjitate moralu

X 2

308 S>i 3fufttfieatioit

3* Do not thofe contend about words (and mi-ftaking ones) that contend fo much for Faith's ht-jlrumentality in juftifying? Words muft be fitted to things. It is far from a mere contention about words, in the fenfe as I ufe it: Whether it be receiving Chrift only a§ Prieji that juftifietb ? is a material Queftion > and fo are many more that follow.

Animadvert

Precept urn £5* prahibttio ad Voiuntatem pr&cipientem : ope-ratio autem 2? permiffio ad ^oluntatem decernentem pertinent. Trigland. de Volunt. Dei, p. 159. Pr&ceptHm {quo Dew Abrahamo pr&cepit, ut filium [uum tmmolaret) erat fignum 5 non Volunt at'u decernentis , quafi Deus decreviffer fujd certh fieri deberet, cu)&$ perfignum eft operatio Dismay QfexjlU ret eyentus : Std Voluntatis exigent is , C? bujus y>e~ rum erat C tndubitatum fignum : Vere enim & feno Dens ab Abrahamo extgebat , ut adeo fe mongerum et exhtberet^ &Yel untgentto fuo Jilio tpfins caufi non farceret. Trigland. ibid. p. itfl-

Volu?itas figm (as Precept, or Prohibition, or Operation,-or Permiflion is fo called) is not properly Voluntas -, but only fignum Voluntatis \ yet there is a Voluntas of which thofe are figns j viz. Voluntas pr&ctpien* , the iigns whereof are Precept and Prohibition} and Voluntas decemensy the fign* v. hereof are Operation and Pei million.

Reply.

I am glad to fee Iriglandm fpeak the fame as <Jo, and that you in your following words exadtl; agree with me in that point h afTcrting both a pro per immanent Will de Vebito, dithnd from that dt Eveutuj and a fignal Will de Debitor metonymi caliy fo called.

at SJuugmettt 309

I came but even now from heaping up forty Teftimonies of our Divines that fpeak as I, and am loth to do that work again, unlefs it were more ufeful : But I remember I promifed you fomething of Vavenanis^ becaufe you oft mention him : And it is not any Sentences on the by, but his judgment fully and purpofely delivered in Propofitions, with their proof, how far Good-works are neceflary. De Juftit* Habit & A6t. c.30. p. 384. £1. Bona opera funt necejfaria omnibus fidelibus & JuliiftcatUy qui babent u[um rationti & per <etatem operari pojfunt*] Lege fequentia* Etcap.31. P403. Concluf^. [Bona qu<edam opera funt necejfaria ad Juftificationem, ut conditiones concnrrentes vel pr&curfori&^ licet non (int necejfaria ut caufe efficientes aut meritori<e\ Lege pro-bat* Concluf. 6» p. 404. Bona opera funt necejfaria ad Jujiificationii ftatum retinendum & confervandum > Nonut caufe qu£perfe efficiant aut mere ant urbane confervationem : Sed ut media feu conditiones , fine quibus Veus non vult Jujiificationis gratiam in bomi-nibus confervare.~\ Vide probat. feq. Concluf. 7. p. 405. Bona opera Jufiiftcatomm funt ad Jalutem necejfaria necejfitate ordinis^non caufalitatis: Pel planius^ ut via ordinata ad vitam £ternam> non ut caufe merit oria vit£ &tem<e. Vid. & pag. 5703571,

J7 2 > *33-

You may fee here, if you will be of Vavenant's mind, you muft be of mine in this: He gives to Works the very fame Office as I do, neither more nor kfs. If he do give any more than I to Faiths (as he doth in calling it an Inftrument', but I

X 3 think

294 ®* jpttftfficatiOtt

think it is Metaphorically only that he means ) that is all the difference. I undertake to manifest, that our greateft Divines ordinarily give to Works as much as I: But indeed I give not to Faith (and to man) fo much as they > not daring to make man his own Juftifier and Pardoner, or his A3 to be the Inftrument of God's AS of justifying, or of producing the fame effedfc. Who can forgive fins but God only ? If he have any Inftruments, it is his Gojpel properly, and his Mi-tiijlers remotely^ and lefs properly.

Tinitnr > Jun. i8* 1652.

Pofticripr.

T

0 the two Great Points in difference, let me fpeak this word more:

i. Thofe that make Faith to juftifie as an Inpument^ or as Apprehenfio Chrifti, do fet up the tJ Credere which they cry down. For that which they call Inftru-mentality , is the Apprebenfive A%\ And Apprehendere and feedere at e here all one i and therefore if the Apprebenfion of Chrift juftifieth qua Apprehenfio > or qua Accepta-tatio^ then the ri feedere qua talis jufti-fies.

2 # And thofe that teach this Do&rine, do contradift themfelves in faying, that ^m X 4 Paul J

Paul excludes all Works > becaufe Faith (fay they) juftifieth not as a Work: For to juftifie qua Indumentum vel. qua Apprehen-fio Cbrtfti, is to juftifie as a Work* or as this Work. For they cannot fpeak <U Inftru-rnenti materia: For 5 i. Faith ( the ad ) can be no material Inftrument. 2 # The whole formal nature of inftrumental Caufe, lieth in its actual Application by the principal caufe: And before that Application it is only an Aptitudinal Inftrument^ or apt to be an Inftrument; but is not one formally and indeed. Now the Caufation of In-ftruments is per Operationem vel ABionem : And therefore if Faith juftifie as an Inftrumental Caufe > then it muft needs juftifie as Opus or AUio.

3. And fo this Do&rinc fets up Juftifi-cation by Works, again ft which the Authors feetn fo zealous: (The unhappy fate of many Errours, to fet up what they are the extream oppofersof7 ) aud that in an unlawful fenfe : For it makes the formal reafon of Faiths juftifying to be its Ap-prehHifion, that is, that it is fuch an AUion s or its lii^rumentality^ which is an Operation. Whereas I only affirm (with Scripture) that

Obedience

#ottfctipfc

Obedience to Chrift juftifies, not qua Obe-dience 7 or qua Opus, but as the Condition to which the free Lawgiver hath been pleafed to annex Juftification.

$« Againft yours (and the common) conceit , [That there is fuch a difference between faftification and right to Salvation y that Faith alone procures one, and Works concur to the other. ] Befides all that I have faid, let me defire you to obferve 5 that Paul fpeaks as fully and dire&ly of right to Salvation, as of zfuftificatim s and excludes Works as much (and more) from the one as from the other.

1. fym. 3. 2j 5 24. Juftification freely by Grace, is oppofed to {coming Jhort of the Glory of God.']

2. T^om. 4. 4. Paul exprefly fpeaks of £ the Reward given of Grace > and not of 'Debp > ] and therefore excludech thofe Works* But, 1. Savaltion is the Reward as well as purification 5 and therefore this Reafon equally excludeth Works from/i-ving as from justifying. 2. Yea, if their

Do&rine

pwucrtpr*

Do&cine were true, thac lay it is only Sal-

4V*tion , and not Pardon and Justification, that is given |w modum premii, as a Reward, then thrs Text would not concern Juftifi-cation at all, but only Salvation. ( But doubriefs it doth concern Juftiftcation al-fo> and therefore this is another good Argument, that Faith juftifieth not qua In-ftrumentum vel Apprehenfio, proxime, fed qua Conditio pr<zftita> becaufe Justification is given as a Reward; and Rewards are given on Moral Confiderations, and not merely PbyGcai.

3, l{fm. 4« 13. PmI fpeaks of the//i-beritance: If they which be of the Law be Heirs, then Faith is made void, &c.

4. l$om. 4. i<$. It is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, that the Promife might be fure to all the Seed, &c # But doubtlefs this Promife is the Promife of Salvation.

f. So l{pm. f. 17, 18. Lfy?grring in Life by Jejm Cbrifli] is oppofed to Death reigning by Adam: And led there fhouid be any room left to doubting, he exprefly cal-

$ottfcttpt

lcth it, purification of Life.] And ver. 21. Even fo might Grace reign through Ifygbte-oufnefi to eternal Life, through Jefus Cbrift our Lord.

Objedi. ButVerf. 9, 10. the Apoftle di-ftingui/hetb Reconciliation and Salvation, and maketh the latter follow*

Anfvo. 1. But he faith not fo de ftatufa-lutis, or of right to Salvation, but only <?f aUual Salvation it felf.

2. He ft ill makes them both the fruits of the free Grace of Chrift, andfo excludes Works as much from Salvation as Juftifi-cation : Nay he faith, {Much more (hall we he faved by his Life.']

6. J^om. 6. 25, The free Gift or (not only Rjghteoufhefs) but eternal Life > through if ejus Cbrift our Lord. And Life as free as Righteoufnefs.

7. J^om. 8. 1,2, 6. Freedom from the Law of Death as well as fm, is made equivalent to [no Condemnation:] And as Chrift Jefu» is the meritorious Caufe, fo that you

may

poiuctipc*

may fee that only faith h not the Condition. Verf i. it's faid, [to be fpiritually-minded is Life and Peace :] Life as well as R ighte-oufnefs. So Per/. i;> 14, 17.

8. Hebr. n. thronghout, fpeaks more exprefly of Salvation by Faith, than *pujk-fcation : And theretore the very Definition more refpe&ech Salvation, verf. 1. Faith if the fubfiance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not feen. And verfe 13. which you take to contain a Definition of it, faith, Theft all died in Fattb^ not having received the Promtfesy but y &c. Thefe Pro-rmfes, t. e. the thing promifed is certainly more in Salvation than purification ("which they then had.) I could name a multitude more plain Texts, bat I willl add but two, wherein the Apoftie of purpofe cxtollech Free-Grace, and excludeth Works, and ex-prefly doth it as to our Salvation, eq lally as to our J unification.

9. The one is, Tit. 3. 4> 5> 6, 7. But

after the kindnefs and love of God our Saviour toward man appealed, not by Works of Rtgh-teoufnefs which rve have done, but according

to

^oftfctipt

bis mercy be faved us, &c. that being jufti-fied by bis Grace , we fhould be made Heirs according to tbe hope of eternal Life.

10. AndEpbef 2.4,5,6^7,8,9. ButGod who is rich in mercy* for bis great love wherewith be loved us> even when ue were dead in trefpajjes and fins, bath quicfyed us together with Cbrift : fy Grace ye are fayed. And bath raifed us up together^ and made us fit together in heavenly places in Chrifi J ejus: that in the ages to come ', be might Jhew the exceeding riches of bis Grace in bis kindnefs towards us through Cbrifl $e/us m For by Grace ye are faved through Faiths and that not of your /elves> it is the gift of God: Not of Wor\s $ left any man Jhouldboafl.

Did ever the Apoftle more fully and and exprefly exclude Wor^s jfrott) purification* than here he doth from /living us? or make Juflificattcu of free Grace 5 more than here he doth Salvation f I {hall therefore take leave ftill confidently to conclude, That it is no more wrong to Cbrifl and Free-Grace to /ay , That Obedience jtiflifietb as a Condition; than to

fa*

#oftfctipt

fay 7 It faveth as a Condition: And that as oft as Scripture makes it a Condition ef Salvation 3 it certainly giveth us proof > that it is a Condition of final Abfolution or Justification: And that it never was the mind of Paul or the Holy Ghoft, to di-ftinguifh fo far bee ween the way to ?pu-fiificatim, and the right to Salvation, as you do s or to make one more free than the other.

FINIS.

EXCEPTIONS '

Againft a

WRITING

O F

In Anfwer to fome

ANIMADVERSIONS

Upon his

APHORISMS-

m < ■ i " ' " " ' " ''

By Mr. Ghr. Gartwright of York.

L 0 N D 0 N y

Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Rohinfouy at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675.

til

Exceptions againfl a Writing of Mr. R. Baxters, in Jnfoer to feme Jnimadverfions upon bis Jpbo-rifms.

Ow Relations ffould bfe inter Entia $$ Ni- Pdge 2J hit I cannot fee 5 For Nihit is Non ensi C 1. 2, inter ens £$* non ens non datur medium.

Ei/JWi* is indeed for inoft part fo taken, 4. as to include Love and Good-will; yet it fcems to beocherwife taken Matth. 11. 26. and Luke 10. 21. as Dr. Twifl'e obferveth. And it is y;^^ true, EwcftxJ* Q* Beneplacttum exprefs one the other: yet Lt ^ t * if we confider the propriety of the words, both of them p^rt. lt ' may well fignifie the Will and Pleafureof God concer- seft.'io* ning any thing whatfoever. It is obferved^ that the Lxx Interpreters devifed the word EyVbxea> to exprefs the Hebrew Ratfa y which is as much as Vetie ; though it be often ufed for Benevolum ejje. The Members of that di-ftin&ion, [Gratia gratum facie ns y & Gratia gratis data~\ fail one into another, as well as the Members of this, [Voluntas Beneplacitt, C Voluntas Sigm~] yet the diftinction, though not fo exact, maybeufeful.

1. What you intended, I know not 5 but youfeemto/^. fpeak alike of all the Signs mentioned, Aphor. p. $.- iy t d. *. a. I find Aquinas exprefs Tor this, that Voluntas Signi, part \ 0 is but Signum Voluntatis j fo that according to him Vo- Qudtfh. jo. luntas Benetlaciti feems indeed to fignifie the whole ji Y t.\\^ Will of God, properly fo called ; and Voluntas Signi the whole Will of God alfo, fo far forth as there is any figni-fication of it. But however, I fee not how you can hence infer, [then tmpletio Voluntatis benepUciti dp rventu^ non eft pgnum Voluntatis beneplacttt de jure~] 9 This fcems but a meer evafion 5 it fufficetb, that Imple-A 2 tie

tio is Signum Voluntatis de eventu, as Pr<cceptum is Signum Voluntatis de Officio. Ibid. i- When ypu fty, that God doth permit, and more

than permit.the Wicked ro amend ; I fuppofe you mean, he doth command them : But is not this to take the word [permit] morally > Yet fag. $. you fav, That you fpeak all the while of Permiffion Natural, not of Part I Moral Permiffion. 2. Permiffion is only made Signum Vo-Oucfr. 1 a Itntatx Dei de male Thus Aquinas ■, Permtffio ad ma-jfcj j turn refertur^operatio antem ddbenum. And MaccoVi-ThefcThe- **> Object urn Voluntatis PcrmijJiVA Dei eft peccatum. olo?.'Dtf- Ita * ^l t4t ^ em e ft» N*m bonum, qwjd Vult, Vult Volun-put. 16. tate effecttva, non permiffva. 3. That Permtffio Ma, ' //, \scertum fenxm Voluntatis Dei de malo quoadeven-t> Ant mad tUm -> * tm ^ IS not to De denied. [The Permiffive De-V 161 ' cree (f a * tn ^P Z> a ^ e n ant } concerning Sinful Atttons^ * ■ implyeth an infallibility of the Events fo permitted].*

,\ i\pd he cites Rui^ faying, Poftta fermif]ione % certiffi-\ ma eft futuritio feccait, quod permtttitur £? ommumi circumftantiarum, qHA peymittuntur in illo % So Dr. fc v v Twiffe y Pofno secret0 permittendi peccatum, nan po-k

I b tutthorno a peccato ah ft mere : hxc tamen neceffttas ex\

Part T hjpoiheji cum libertate conventt. Camera makes this the I ^ -' reafon,whv God doth foreknow evil,becaufe he doth decree U Alve f to P crrmt *ife which were no rcafon, it the Event did not I Tilen certainly follow Permiffion. Stat tgttur fententia mea y I

va& iflj Deits novtt feccatum fore, quia decrevit fermittere] ^ °' *** feccatum. And he fpeaks divers times to this purpofe. De ProVt- So MaccoVtus, Dew frxfe/t futura feccata. Ergo, de-dent, e'revu permtttere. Nara quA Deus profit fore, ea Diff. $• pr&fch fore ex eo, quia decrevit. The fame Author al-Thef.Tbe- fo gi es another rejfon ', Permiffiehdm neceffarib fequi-c/^.part j tur eventus : hoc eft, quod pemmtit Deus^ neceffcrTo Difp, z6. e\>enit,—Ratio niam hoc tffum eVtnctt. Nam fi Per-mijjio nihil aliud eft, quam gratia Dei fuhftrail'io, five priVatio^ qua pofita peccatum tmpediretur^ ut i nobis \ ante oftenfum eft, fieri nm poteft ', u% Creatura n:n la- I baturubi Dens earn n^.n fujhntat: tn Deo cntm Move- 1 Part 2. mur, vidimus, &? fumus. And again ; Non agttur I Dtfh. t±. de Permiffione Ethica, qua nihil altud eft quam Conceft- I fo, fedde Phjfca, hoc eft, de t2 n,n-impedire 0 Quid I veri fit difquirttw ; Noscum Whitakcro dictmw, q*'$d I fit frhatfa 4*filtt dtvint, quo pcftto feccMnrn impe* j

direi

dtrcwr* Necejfano ergo fequitur Permtjfionem Ldp-

fus : interim tamen Permijjio non eft caufa Lapsus ^ fi^ antecedens folum. 4. Auftms faying, which I cited, feems to hold out thus much, That as well God's Per-mittere as his Facere, is a fure fign of his Will concerning the Event* 5. I fee not, that the Opinion of the neccffity of Phyfical Efficient Predetermination doth deny God's Permiffion, feeing that Predetermination is de Bono, or de AcJione qud tali ^ but Permiffion is de Malo, or de obliquttate Actions. Dv.TwtJf'e in that very Digreffion which you mention, after a tedious Di-fpute againit that Proportion, grants as. much as (I think ) Perkins did, or any need defiie. For he grants, Mantfe^o fequt peccati exiftenttam ex permijjiom ejus Vindic. Dm in a : He adds indeed* Nequaquam fequttur ex no- Lib 1 . 2. tura Permijjionis in genet e^ quod non paucis Theoiogis £) f gr. 3. Ipifumeft^ utin fuperionbus acceptmu*^ fed ex peculiart § *, modo permijfionss diVtn&<> conftante fc. negatione gra-tiA^ quippe fine quh peccatum a nemtne atari poteft. But this is that Permiffion which Divines fpeak of, as I have /hewed. What he further adds, de peccato definite fumpto^ viz. that a bare Permiffion doth not infer the exigence of it, feems little to the purpofe. . Tohisln-ftance about Formation, I Anfwer : There is a Reftrai-ning Grace as well as a Renewing ; God vouchsafes the one to many, to whom he doth not vouchfafe the other \ fee Gen-20.6.1 grant,that betides a meer Permiffion,there irtuftne (as he fp:aks) alt qua alia return admtmftratie^ fecimdum quam a tin* altqups naturalis patretur^ qu& Jit proximo, materia talu deformttatis ; and that quo-ties juxta Permijj.onem Didnam res alt qua fort it ur effeftum^ tones Dei permijjio non eft folttana-, fed alt-am Dt\tnam Procidentia gubemationem concomttan-tem obtinet. But I fuppofe, that Perkins and others comprehend all under the name of Permiffion, that being it upon which Sin indefinitely confidered, • as Twtfje him-felf confefTeth, doth follow, though for the fpeciticatioii of the fin fomething more be required. The reafon is, becaufe malum is prtyatio, and fo. in alteno fun da habitat •, therefore there cannot be Permijjio Mali^ but there muft alfo be EjfdcrfYus Goncurfpt* ad id, in quo Malum exiftit. But for the thing it fclf. Tw'tjje is as f/W.lib.2 clear ( [think ) asanv, J$ec ( inquit ) minks ejficax §. 2. §. 1,

A 3 ejjc

C«3

ejfe dicimus decretum Dei de PermiJJione Mali, judm-d* Effeft tone Boni. $\ I. I make Voluntas Stgni y as put for Stgnum Volun~

tatisj to be but metaphorically Voluntas m > yet I holc^ that there is Voluntas proprte dttta, qu& Stgno indtcatur. a. When I fay (To far forth as the Stgnum is praceptum~\ it is only (as you might fee) to iTiew, that Voluntas Stg^ ni (not Stgnum Voluntatis^ but Voluntas cujus /ignum eft Praceptum) is the fame with that which you call ([Will of Precept]. 5. If Dr. Twtjfe do not extend it to the whole Law, but only to Precept, it may be he had not occafion to extend it further. Neither do you fpeak fo fully in your Aphortfms as in this Writing. You mention indeed Legiflative Will, but fo as to call it alfo Pr&-cepttve, and to make the Objed of it our Duty, Aphor. p*g-4- 4. That he doth take notice of the Immanent Will de debito, whereof Pr&ceptum is Signum, is clear by the words which I cited, v/*> Precepta non mdtcant quid Dew telit ejfe Noftrt Ojfictt, Sec. Yea your felf here fay, p. 4. That he makes Practpere C£ Vet are to be the Objeds of God's Will 5 and that this clearly implies, that he took in the Immanent Ads, of* which they were the Objeds. You add indeed, That he fo often contra-dideth it by fpeakine otherwife, that you dcubt it fell from him ex improvtjo : but I fee no caufc for any fuch furmife. 6« 1. Thofe words of yours \to he flow good upon a Man]

$9* I know not how I omitted 5 perhaps becaufc I thought there was no need of expreffmg them- For however they muft be underftood ; becaufe God's Word and Truth is elfe ingagcd in a Threatning as well as inaPromife. 2. You fay, Append, p. 48. That the abfolute promtfe cf a New Heart is made to wicked Men : where you feem to fpeak of a Promife properly taken, as diftind from Prophefie or Predidion : Yet Aphor. p. 9. you fay, That Abfolute Promifes are but meer Predtcltons $ fo that voa feem not well reconciled to your felf. But you beft know your own meaning, only i think it meet that you expreis it fo, as that none may have occafion to ftumble at it. Aid. I fee indeed, that you call it Legtflati\e WtH: But,

4. Atd. I. you make Legiflative and Preceptive both one, and make the Objed of it; Man s Duty, Aphor. p. 4. So that

vou

you father feem to reftrain the word [Lcgiflatlve] by th* word [Preceptive], than to enlarge the word [Preceptive] by the word [Legiflative]. 2. When you take the word [Legiflative] largely, you make Precept and Pro-roife diftind parts of it: So that fliil it is flrangc to me that you fliould fay 5 That Promtfes fall under the Will of Purpofe, not of Precept. For if the Will of Precept be taken ftri&ly and properly, it is fuperfluous to fay, That Promifes do not fall under the Will of Precept: Neither on the other fide is it true, if the Will of Precept be taken largely and improperly, v/<,. for the whole Legiflative Will, which doth contain both Precept and Pro-raife.

Thefe two Queftions (as you now make them) you ibid. comprifein one Afhortfm^ p. ij. and equally determine ibtd. if.' of both. For you fay, That the Life promifed tn the firft Covenant^ was in the judgment of moft DtVtnes (to whom you incline) only the continuance of that Eftate that Adam was tn tn Paradtfe; So that according to this Opinion, Adam was both to have continued in the fame place, andalfointhe fame Eftate. I think ftill, he fhould have been changed in refpetf: of both. In Exe ctt > *• Adamo (tnqutt Barlous) omnes tn umwrfitm homines )us ad Cwlum habebant? & fuffe /httfjat^ ipfum Cce-l»m unufquifaue habmfj'et *, adeo ut )tts ad Cesium tn Adamo habutmus prtm&^um^ a Chrtjio jus reft tutum. Adams continuance in the fame Eftate, is moft clearly exprefled by thofe whom you feem to follow ; and how then can you fay. That you did not meddle with that Queftion ? And if he were to continue in the fame Eftate, no queftion he was alfo to continue in the fame Place y For Heaven is no place for fuch an Eftate as Adam had in Paradife.

I fliall wonder if any will be fo bold as to affirm. That j t Adam was Created tn Patr/a, and not tn Vtk. How was he to be tryed by his Obedience, if he were not Viator^ but Comprehenfor I It feems alfo ftrange that any doubt fhould be made* whether Adam being Created after the Image and Likenefs of God, were capable of Heavenly Bleftednefs.

The Reafons which I allcadged, notwithstanding any ibid. thing you fay againft them, feem cogent. I. By the Second D?ath ? you might fee, J mer-nt not the fame de-

A 4 g ree >

gree* yet the fame kind of punimment. The Scripture"; feems to fpeak of feveral degrees of Hell-Torment, yeti all is called the Second Death. And this Second Death,; -w^. Hell-Torment, Adam by his fin became liable unto : therefore if he had not finned, he mould have en joyed a Life dire&ly oppofite to that Death, V/'^. Coele-flial Glory. The perpetual Death which Adam (without a Saviour) mould have fufFered ? was not a perpetual abiding in the Eft-ate of Death, V/^> a perpetual fepara-. tionot Soul and Body, or a meer privation of that Life he had before his Fall, but an enduring of eternal Torment •, and fo confequently the Life promifed upon condition of Obedience, was not a perpetuating of his earth- I ly Life, but the fruition of Heavenly Hanpinefs. 2. I giant, God was able to change Adams State, not changing his Place j but it feems rather, that both mould have been changed. And though we know not the Nature of the Life to come, yet we know it is not fuch a Life as Adam had in Paradife, to Eat, Drink, Marry, &c. 3. It is not in vain to fay, How in an ordinary way of Providence mould there have been room for Men upon Earth, if Adam and his Pofterity, ftill increasing and • multiplying tn infinitum, mould there have continued .

Ot the foj. ever > Your Friend and mine Mr. Blake*, having ur- I Coven. g e d t hj s Argument, feems to enervate it when he hath chap- 5. done, faying, [But a thoufand of ihefe God can ex ft- \ dite y when we are at a ftand~] . But yet that without a 'j Miracle it could be done, he doth not fay, and he there J profefTedly oppofeth you in this Point. Whereas you add, [Efpec tally feetng God knew there would be no place for jveh difficulties'] I know not to what purpofe it is. For ] the Opinion, which I impugn, doth fuppofe that upon I which fuch difficulties do arife. 4. How mould Paradife be a Type of Heaven, if Man mould never have come to Heaven ? If Heaven had not belonged unto him upon condition of his Obedience } Whereas you fay, That jou little l^now where or what that Paradtfe wot j I do not well know what you mean. By [that Paradife] I fuppofe you understand (as I and others do) the Garden whtrein Adam was placed : a place upon Earth forcer-tain it was, and very pleafant *, yet fuch a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life, far beneath that happinefs -a Inch he was made capable of.

Thofc

C P 3

Thofe words [ Thou [halt die ] being not only meant Ibtd. of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed, butal- 5. ibid. fo of eternal torment •, ic follows, That the Life implicitly promifed, Is to be underftood, not only of the continuance of that Life, but of Eternal Bleffednefs.

I do not fay that any now are altogether as Adam was ibtd. under the Covenant of Works ♦ bur that fome arc fo under that Covenant, that in jiatu 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 fay, [Believe in the Lord Je- Ibtd.. fa Chrift^andthou (halt be faved] to them in efteft he doth fay [Obey perfetfly and ltVe~]^ or, {If thou fin, thou /halt die eternally']. But there are many in the World to whom God doth not fay [Believe, &c] that Promife is altogether unknown unto them, they live and die without ever hearing of it, fo that to them it is as if it had never been. Confider (I pray) what the Apoftle faith to this purpofe, Ethef 1.12. Might not the Ephefi-ans have continued in that condition unto death ? Do not many continue in the fame Condition ? I yeeld,that none are fo under the Covenant of Works, but that if they repent and believe they lhali have Mercy, and that by veitue of the New Covenant: but that which I Itand upon is this, That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promifed, being not revealed unto fome, nor any way di-fpenfed unto them, they cannot be faid to be under it, nor fball be judged as tranfgrcflors of it.

Add, 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never 8. been, yet J fee not but fuch Mercies as the Indians enjoy, (fetting afidc the pofkbility of partaking of the New Covenant) might have been enjoyed. Add, 2. Though the Cov enant of Works vouchfateth no pardon'of fin upon Repentance, yet furcly it requiring perfect Obedience, confequently it alio requireth Repentance and turning unto God. Life if the Covenant of Grace had not been made, Man after his Fall, though plunging himfclf into fin continually more and more, yet had contracted no more Guilt, nor incurred any greater Condemnation, than he did by his tirft Tranfgreifion. Add, 3. Chrift as Mediator thai I judge even thofe that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him \ and confequently he will net judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation.

Chiilt

Cbriftjudgah wickei Men as Rebellious Sabje&s j but as rebelling (I conceive) only againft the Law, not againft the Gofpel, the/ being fuch as never were acquainted with it. Add, 4. There are common Mercies* (which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been) the abufe whereof is (ufficieiit to condemn ; yet the improvement of them is not fufficient to fave. If fuch Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy rend to their recovcry,How then are fuch faid to be ixmbl p* *£•»*; > Ephef.i.ii. litd. Rom.z.iz. I cited to thisputpofe, to (hew, That as

they that finned without the Law, (hall perifti without the Law 5 even fo they that finned without the Gofpel, fliall periih without the Gofpel. That 1 Thejf. 1. 7,8. fpeaks not only of them that obey not the Gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chriit, but aifo of fuch as know not God. The Apoftle there feemeth to divide all the Wicked into two forts, v/<,. fuch as know not God y fo he defcribes the Gentiles, 1 Thejf. 4. 5. and fuch as obey not the Gofpel, (-ffc. that is, fuch as having had the Gofpel preached unto them, would not receive it, either not at all, or not fincerely. Yet Chrift (he faith) will in flaming fire take vengeance on borh, as well on the former as on the latter. And here alfo I have Mr. Blaise agreeing with me, and fo, as that he citeth this very place to the fame purpofe as I Of the do. Infidels (faith he) that were never under any other Coven. Covenant than that of workjy and Covenant-breaking Chap, f. Chrtfttansy are tn the fame condemnation , there are f* 1 $ • not two HeUs^ but one and the fame for thofe that know

not God, and thofe that obey not the Goftel of Chrsfij i-Theffii-S. ] Ibid. You pafs by that which I alledged from Rom. o. ult.

viz. That death, which is the wages of fin, is oppofed to Eternal Life, which is the happinefs of the Saints in Heaven. £rgo, Death comprehends in it the mifery of tie Damned in Idell; 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 fay, [Call it the frfi cr fecond Deathj as joupleafe~] } Ibtd. The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partner (hip

with the Soul, I take to be a good proof of its Refur-rection. TertuU'tan furely thought fo, or elfe he would De Refur. not f 0 frequently have ufed this Argument. «4ge (/*-cap. J 5:. quit) fandant adytrfartt no fir $ carats amms.^ue context um

textum prius in Vtt& admtntftratione^ ut it a audeant fcindere Mud ettam in vtt& remunerattone. Negent o^e-rum foe mat em, ut merit q poffint ettam mercedem nega-re. Non fit particeps tn fententta caro^ ft non fuertt tn caufa. And again,. Secundum conforita labor um con-fort t a etiam dz cur rant necejfe eft pr&mtorum. And again alfo, Non poffunt feparart tn mercede (caro £$* Ibid. c.jB. anima} qua* opera con)ungit. And furely that of the ibid, c. %* Apoftle, 2Cor. 5. 10. [That every Man may receive the thtngs done in the Body ] doth imply, That as the things were done in the Body, fo alfo the Reward mult be received in the Body. As for the diflblu-tion of the Body which you fpeak of, it is but fuch a pu~ niihment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked, until the Refurre&ion, Therefore it is not probable, that it was the only puniihment intended to the Body in the Firft Covenant. What-ever fome new Philofophers may fay, true Philofophy (1 think ) doth tell us, That it is the Body, which by the Senfitive Soul doth feel pain; even as it is the Eye, which doth fee by the Vifive Faculty.

You obferve not (it feems ) that I did but anfwer ibid. your Queries, which you made Append, p. 10. To the fecond, \_WhenJhould he have rtfen * ~\ I thought, and ' Hill think it fufficient to anfwer, That Adam^ and fo others, mould either have rifen in the end of the World, as now they fhall, or when God mould pleafe to raife them. It is for you to prove that it could be neither the • one way nor the other.

How doth the Apoftle iGr.if. feem to extend the « Refurre&ion, which he fpeaks of, unto all, when he ex-prefly limits it to thofe that are Chrilfs ? verf 22. And when the whole difcourfe is about Refurre&ion unto w Glory } Expreffb refurreftto Chrittt eft caufa refurrect'to- V n °J' nis eorum,qut ad Vttam JLternam fufe'ttabuntur, 1 Cor. * ■ j* 1 f. 20,21, 22. To the fame purpofe alfo is that 1 Thejf. ^\r'f* 4.14, Cr. What the other 1 exts you fpeak of be, when ^ \ you mew, I may confider then. This I grant, That the Wicked fhall rife by the Power of Chriif as Mediator, John%. 28, 29. But that is not enough to prove, That had not Chrift been Mediator, there mould have been no Refurre&ion; no more than it follows, that otherwife . none mould have been condemned for fin, becaufe nov

all

all Judgment is committed unto Chrift, John ?. 22, 27.

ibid. * f ee no f ucn difference betwixt them. For flaying be-

7. 24. f° re ^ e foundation of the World, cannot be meant ot a&ual flaying, but only of fore-ordaining to be flain.

Ibid. * mean ^ nr ^ >s Sufferings, as in obedience to his Fa-

ther he fubmitted unto them. This Commandment haye I received of my father ', faid he, John 10. 18. Sufferings (imply confidered without Obedience,find no acceptance with God. No need therefore to except againft

Vide Ga- tne Phrafe commonly ufed, [ Pajfiye Obedience^ i.e.

taker cont. Obedience in Suffering. Chriil had a Commandment to

Gomarum * a ^ ^ oWn ^ s Li ^ e ' lZ Was ^ e Wi ^ °^ his Fatner t ^ at ^ e

fhould do it, and in obedience thereto he did it. Ibtd The Rule {A yuatenus ad omne, &c.) doth not here

Ibid. <6 ma ^ c * or Y ou > becaufe ** was not Chrilt's fuffering meer-' V,' ly as obedience, but as fuch obedience, v/-^ Obedience 'in fuffering, that was fatisfa&ory. So that neither Suffering without Obedience, nor Obedience without Suffering would avail. Sed qttx non projunt fingula, )un-fta juyant. Ibid. It only fuch Obedience be meant Rom^ % \ 9. as is op-

pofed to Adams difebedience,and therefore Active Obedience is meant, it will follow that only Active Obea'i- I ence is meant, which you will not admit, becaufe Adam's I Difobedience was only A6tive. But Chrift's Obedience I in Suffering, may beoppofldto Adam<> Difobedience in I A6ting ; and Chriil s Palfive Obedience (fuffer me to I fpeak fo) may (land in oppoiition to Difobedience in ge- I neral, as working a contrary effect* v/<,. Whereas Dif- I obedience doth make Sinful, ChriiVs (PafTive) Obedi- I ence doth make Righteous • and in that refpect only doth I the Apoftle oppofe Chi ill's Obedience to Adams Difobedience. I0 " 1, The Apoftlefaying, That Chr'tji was made under ]

Ibid. the Law^ it fecms to be without doubt, That it was the

^g. Will of God that he mould obferve the Law. For is it

not the Will of God that his Law fhould be obferved by fuch as are under it > Yet Chrilt might obferve the Law forfome ends peculiar to himfelf, as for thofe ends he was made under it. Chrift according to the flefh was a Jew, therefore meet it was he fhould obferve the Jewiih law* other wife he had been an offence unto them.

2." As

2. As Chrift was not made- Man for himfelf, fo (it is true) he was not bound to obferve the Law for himfelf. But thus you lhould not limit it to fome Works 5 for all his Works were fo for us, as he was nobis natus^ nobis dattts^ Ifa.p. 6. Yet being made Man, as Man he was

. bound ( I think ) to perform that Obedience which God did require of Man. You fay, That he ufedthe Legal Ceremonies to ihew his fubje&ion : So fay I > and this (I think) is againft you, it being meant of fuch fubjedion as the Law required of all thole that were under it.

3. If Chrift were fub Lege, as the Apoftle faith he was, then it was ex Lege that he obferved thofe legal rites. Yet,

: I grant, it was ex y* Jftonfiows proprU j fb all that he did, fo his very being made Man was. Whereas you fay, \Elfe the Law ivould haye obliged him to the aft and end together^ \ I Anfwer, The Law doth oblige,, according to the Will of the Law-giver, who might oblige Chrift to it otherwife than he did others. I think the Ceremonial Obfervances, beiklcs the Typical Nature of them, are to be confidered as Religious Rites, whereby God was honoured and worshipped 5 and fo Chrift as Man was obliged unro them, Man being bound to honour and worfhip God, fo as God doth require of him. That which you add of the buirhen of Penal Actions, feems impertinent -, For Penal Aclions (I think) have the nature of Sufferings, and fo they concern not the Point in Controveriie betwixt us, which is only concerning Actions as Pious, not as Penal.

YourReafons drawn from the Actions of Chrift, t &t jfc& n, ceiving their chief Dignity from his chief Nature, (5V. -" will reach further ( I think ) than you intend or defire, even to make all Chrift's Active Righteoufnefs to be fa-tisfadory for us. And fo indeed you feem to hold, Aph* p.dl- where you fay, [The Intereft of the Dtvine Nature tn all the Work* of Chriff^ ma^eth them to be infinitely meritorious and fattsfatfory^. Yet here, p. 10. you feem to reftrain it to Penal Actions, and the burthen of tedious Ceremonious Worfhip, as you call ir. For my part, I yet think, That as the Holinefs of Chrift's Nature* fo alfo the Holinefs uf his Life was requiiue to qualifie him for furfcring, and ( by funding ) fatisfying for us* Him that knew no pn> God <&ade fin for ns> iCor. $.ult. Such An Htgh-Pricft became&s y whops-

holy,

holy, harmlefi, &c. Heb, y. 16. Mr. Bla^e (whofe Judgment I do much value, though I cannot force mine own further than I am convinced) in this Point, concerning the Imputation of Chrift's Active Righteoufnefs, Of the feems to differ both from you and me j he faith, {Chrift Coven. had been innocent, though he had nevercome under the c.\i. ^78. Law to harpe jeelded that obedience']. But how Chrift could have continued innocent, without yeelding obedience to the Law y or how being Man, he could be exempt from that Law, whereby the Creature is to {hew his fur>-je&ion to the Creator, I cannot fee. He adds, [Hie Perfon had not been as ours under the Law, unlefof his own accord he had been made under the Law\ He was Vtde Ga- pot made Man (fay I) but of his own accord ; yet being takerura Man, I conceive it was neceffary that he mould be under mfirum that Law which God impofed upon Man, and fo both un-adverfus tier the Moral Law, as the eternal Rule of Righteouf-Lucium, n efs. an j a ]f 0 un der the Ceremonial Law, as the pre-Reftonf fcribed Ruieof Worfhip. He adds fuither, [Somewhat ad Vtnatc. might be fatd for the fubjeclion of the Humane Nature Part. 2. m Chri(^ the Manhood of Chrtft, which was a Creature y Se&. 7.^ but the Perfon of Chrifi, God-Man, feems to be above P a g"54,£fr fubjettion]. This I confefsfeems ftrangeto me -, for the Et centra Humane Nature of Chrift, though \ ei fonally united to Gomarum the Divine Nature, being ftill a Creature, muft needs fo 4* &* ai. be in fubje&ion to him that made it •, and therefore the Perfon of Chrift, God-Man, though not as God, but as Man, muft be under fubje&ion. He goes on faying, \We tycw the mortality of the Humane Nature, jet Chrifi had never dtedy untefs he had made himfelf obedient unto death ', neither needed to have ferved, unlef he had humbled himfelf, Phil. 2. to take upon htm the form of a Strvant~\. But Mortality is no neceffary confc-cjuent of Humane Nature, as fubje&ion unto God is • and Chrift taking upon him the Nature of Man, did eo nomine take upon him the form of a Servant • for Man muft be Servant unto God, the Creature to the Creator. He bids, £See the jifjembites Confejfion of Faith, Chap. 8. Seel. 5. and Dr. Readies Speeches upon it], Thefe Speeches I cannot now fee, but I have feen them long ago, and was not fatisfied with them. The words of the AfTembly are fuch, as that fome queftion may be made of the meaning of them, vi^ Whether by

[ChrifYs

[Chrift's perfeft Obedience and Sacrifice of himfelf ] be not meant one and the fame thing, fo that the latter words are exegctical to the former. But to return to you, who fay, [The Oueflicn (beuldbe, Whether it be only Van* Cnrifti, er Obedientia alfo, that fatisfeth and weri-tetW\ i I think it is net fimply Poena, or Obedientia , but Pana Obedtentialis, and Obedientia Panalis.

ft. The Creator is abfolute Lord over the Creature, n; and fo you grant no Work of the Creature can be meri- Ibid, rfoi torious. 2. You fecm to make even the Aclions of fin-ful men capable of being meritorious, though Jefs pro-perly. 3. Though Obedience be abfolutely perfect, yet if abfolutely due, it feems repugnant to Lu^e 17.10. that it fhould be meritorious.

The intereft of the Divine Nature doth certainly put Ibid. an infinite excellency irto all Chrift's Actions: Yet I fee Ibid. 61, not how Chrift's gcodA&ions (I fpeak of mecr Acli-©ns,which have no penality or fuffeiing mixed with them) could properly be meritorious, they being otherwife due, fuppoflng Man had not finned, and fo there had needed no fatisfa&ion to be made for him- Though I am not of their mind, who think that the Son of God fhould have been incarnate, though Man had never finned ; yet I fee no reafbn to doubt but fo it might have been : Now hoc fufpojttoy all Chrift's meer Active Righteoufnefs would tiave been due, but not his Paflive Righteoufnefs.

I have divers times cold you, That when wc fpeak of * z • Chrift's Sufferings as meritorious or fatisfaftory, we are not to confider them meerly as Penal, but as Obediential alfo j fo that your long Section hath nothing againft me.

My interpretation of thefe words, {The lather ^udg- jy $ £ eth no Man] containeth indeed no abfolute exclufion of 10# '$, the Father, neither can I admit any fuch exclufion; but an exclufion of him in feme refpect it doth contain. He that doth a thing, yet not immediately by himfelf, but by another whem he hath put in authority to do it, may be faie} in fome refpeft not to do. it. When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Biead,hebad them^o to Jofiphy &c. Gen. 41. 55. 7. d> I meddle not with thefe things, Jofefh is to do all iuch matters. Yet Pha-raoh indeed did all, though not immediately, but by Jo-feph> Your Arguments, />. 13. prefs not me, whone^ yer intended to deny that it belongs to Chrift's Mediator-

iliip, and namelv to his Kingly Office, to judge the World j only I mewed what I took to be the meaning of thofe Texts, John f. 22. & 27. Wherein I followed Jan-feniu* and Maldonate, no abfurd Expofitors, though Pa pifts. And even Cahin and Be^a aJfo feem to agree with me in the exclufion of the Father, v. 22. in Patrc CalV. in n jij f i mutatumefl^ &c. Eft enimiffe in Pilio, & m eo John 5.21. operator ', ISith Cahin. And fo Be^a, Negat Chrtftu* ikza m e- £ patre admimftrart hunc mundum^ ita, >*<,. ut Judaei vndemloc arbitrabantur 5 qui Patrem a.Jilio jeparabant^ cum Pater contra non ntfi in ferfona Tiltt mamfeftati in car~ ne mundum re gat. 14. You feem to make the prefent death of Adam a part

Ibid. 6J. of the rigorous execution of the Law, when you fay, Afhor. p. 33. [That the Sentence fhould ha^e-been immediately executed to the full^ or that any fuch thing is concluded in the words of the Threat, In the day that thou eateft, &c I do not thinly. > for that would haw ■presented both the Being, the Sin, and the Suffering of his Pofterity~]. How would this have been pre\ ented, if . Adam\ prefent Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence, /. e. in the rigorous execution of it > Therefore though you argue, That the words of the Threat were not fo meant, as that the Sentence fhould immediately be executed to the full, yet your very Argument fuppofeih, That if the Sentence Jhould have been fo executed, Adam fhould prefently have died. Now though Chi ill had not died, yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been fufpended, and fuppofing the propagation of Mankind muit have been : againfi this (fo far as I fee) you fay nothing. lh>d. I defirc to be as favourable an Animadvci ter as Truth

xi. 68. will permit: but how under the name of Animadverfion I defend what you fay, I do not fee. If you had ufed the word \Chaftifements\, it would not have freed you from mine Animad; erfion. For I fhew that Chaitifements are Punimments. And whereas you fpeak of my great over-fight, it is indeed your great miftake 5 for i did not take thofe words to exprefs your Opinion, only you feemed therein to allow the diflinclion betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punirhments • this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadverfion.

You

C i7 D

You might fee, that I make the Afflictions of God's if. Children in their Nature to be Evil, and a Curfe, though hot fo to them, they being fan&iiied and working for their good. And I prefume, thofe Divines whom you oppofe, meant as both you and I do, though you interpret them ©therwife. The difference here betwixt you and me is this s You allow their Expreffion, and diflike their meaning \ I allow their Meaning, and diflike their ExpreflionJ They diftingui/h betwixt Chaftifements and Punifhments, which diftinction in your Aphortfms you feem to allow, only difliking the Application of it. The diftindion k felt* I diflike, though I think that fome who ufed it, did ndt err in that which they intended in it. In the Contents of ifa. 27. there are thefe words, {God's Chaftifementt d'tfftr from Judgments^ which words I hold incongruous. I like not that of Mr. Kendal againft Mr. Goodwin* Chap. 4. p. 139. \_Punifhment aimeth chiefly at the Ja-tisfaclion of Jufhtce^ Correction at the amendment of the Offender'}. That is not true of all Punifhments, fee Geld* Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of thofe that ufed them, was not (I think) erroneous.

I would give you no caufe to quarrel with me. But is ibid. not this your own Argument ? Do you not thus oppofe the 12. 70. Common Judgment as you call it } [Thej areajcr'tbed to God's angery &c. ] Afhor. p. 70. Do you not there oppofe God's Anger to his Love > Whereas Love and Hatred, not Love and Anger are truly oppofite. God ; may be angry with us, and yet love us; yea therefore angry with us, becaufe he loveth us. Ret. 3. 20. There is Ira Paterna ££ Caf?igans, as Well as Ira Ho&i-lis £5* Exterminans-i Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where thofe words of yours are, which you fay I almofl repeat, I do not know. I exprefled mine own fence in mine own words • and my fcope was only to correct that Oppofition which you make betwixt Love and Anger, though I fee that^^r. p. 71. you fpeak of a mixture of Love and Anger, and fay, That there is no Hatred^ though there he Anger. My chief defign in thofe Animadvcrfions was, That in your Second Edition, which you promifed, you might have occafion, if not to confirm your Afferci-ons, yet to clear your Expreflions.

I know you oppofe their fence that fo diftinguifh, but j^ ^ &cir diftinction fimply confidered you feem to admit j

t**;3

if you fay that you do not, I am farisfied. l(»d. Your words were of -Affliction as Affliction, t^ereforf

lb. lb. of Affliction in general. You fay, Aphor. p. 70. {The yerj nature ofAmiflton U to be a losing puntfrmentfiic.] But you confers now, that you lTiould have faid \Cha-ftsfement'] : and fo I have my defire in this Particular, >/<,. your better expreflion. ibid. G^ j s not t he Father of the Unrcgenerate 5 though Elect,

lb. lb. j n refped of Actual Adoption ; But you know that Ephef. 1.5. {Haying predeftinated us to the Adoption of Sonsy Sec. ] God having loved fuch with an everlafting Love, v/<„ Beneyolentm, though not Complacent/*, no marvel if he afflict them in Lovebefore their Converfion, >/<,. in order to their Conversion. But (you know) I p fpeak of Reprobates, and that ic is written, [Jacob

A^.p.13. haye /loy>ed ^ y Ht Efau ha ^ t i k ated ^ . whether that import the Election of Jacob, and the Reprobation of Efau y I now difpute not 5 but I think it doth import God's love of the Elett y and his hatred of the Repro-Part 1. Date# Dens omnes homines diligit (tnquit Aquinas) C5* Queft.23. ctiam omnes Creaturas , in quantum omnibus yult ali-Art. $• quod bonum : non tamen quodcunque bonum tult omni-dd I. bus. In quantum tgitur non yult hoc bonum quod eft tita>

sterna, dicitur eos odto habere , & reprobate. ibid. Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in fe C fua

lb. lb. natura \ and fo I think do they, againft whom you difpute in your Aphorifms ; but though Suffering as Suffering be evil, yet as Sanctified it is not evil. // u good for me that [wot ajfltfted, Pfal. 119. 71. , 16' Afflictions were then indeed to be loved, if they were

good of their own Nature : but being only good as fanctiried, we are not fimply to defire them, but a fanctiried ufe of them, and in that refpect to rejoice in them, Jam. 1. 2, 3. Rom. 5. 3,4, 5. Whereas you advife me to take heed of arguing thus, [ That which wor\eth for our good^ &c. ] Where do I argue fo ? Rather thus • That which is fanctiried to us, doth work for our good : and fi though it be evil in it kU y yet it is good to us. But Affliction is fanctiried, &c m Ibid. I am apt to overfce : but neither I 5 nor they (I ijiink)

lb. lb, whom you fivft oppofed, deny Sin to be the meritorious caufe of ^Affliction, if that were ail you aimed at in your Queftion,

\Yhar

What I mean by Conformity unto Chrift, you might Ibid; {eebyRow.8.17. which I cited: Imayalfoadd 1 Pet. 4.17. In thefe places the Scripture fpeaks of fuffering for well-doing, which is acceptable with God, 1 Pet. 2. ip f Yet} grant, fin is the Root of all fuffering 5 fo it was e. f 'Chrift's fuffering, though nor his fin, but ours. Only! thought it meet to put you in mind, that God in folding Affliction hath other ends than to puniih fin, which the places alledged do ftiew, and fo other places.

The Object of Love is not only prefent Good. TherS Ibid. is a Love of Defiie, as well as or Delight. The Spoufe «j. 7 £ wanting Chriit, wasfick of Love, Cant. 5.8.

t did not fay, That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil, Ibid, but that it is not evil as fan&ified. Suffering, though Tan&iEed, is fuffering (till, and fo evil j but as fan&ifkd, it is good, and not evil.

Thofe Arguments prove nothing agairift me, nor (I am ijfc► perfwaded) againft thofe Divines mentioned in your !&• flf ^phortfms. It is granted, That Death in it felf is Evil, an Enemy, a Punilhment, to be feared, avoided, £$V. Yet as it is fanclified, it is good, a Friend, a Mercy, to be defired, embraced,'£$V. 2^,5.^,7,8. Ph'tl.i. 21,13. It is evil, 1. to them to whom it is not managed for /bid. • their good. 2. To them alfo to whom it is fo managed, /£. y lf but not as it is fo managed.

Lex abrogata \tm nullam habet obiigandij faith Gro- jy^ I tiu$ M Well, but we are not always fo much to mind the l4# '-g t ftrift propriety of words, as what they that ufe them do £>eSat/fc mean by them. f a # t n j 7 j

That which you fpeak of our difcharge before belie- ibid. ving, might have been omitted, the queftion being about Believers, and fo believing prefuppofed.

Why the Jul Ufication ana Condemnation of Believers g doth not depend upon the Law, this (I think) isafuf- r< o* ficient reafon, Chrift hath redeemed them from the Cutfe **

of the Lajvj &c. Gal. 3. 13. Si qutd noVtfti re fit us tfto) Candidu* imferti*

The Law fo concurs to the conilitution of Guilt, as jy;^ -1 were there no Law, there were no Tranfgrefllon. In the y£. ^y\ other, two Particulars, which follow^ we do accord alfo.

B: I Nei-

16- 8 f. ^eatningtollnbelievers 5 but only this/1 hat pardon of all fin being promifed upon condition of believing, it implies that death is only jhreatned in cafe of unbelief. And tho there be an -exprefs threatning to Unbelievers, (W*,. Mar^i$.l6.) yet not only to Unbelievers. The threat-ning of death only to Unbelievers, is (I think) only im-plyed in the promife of Life made to Believers, i. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of ar/^. 1.7*8. than what you cxprefs. 3. The new law or Gofpel requiring Faith, the Fruit whereof isO bedience •, ic will condemn the difobedient, i. e. it will kare them to the condemnation of the Law, while they remain in that eitate, though it hold out Mercy upon condition, that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance. Ibid, Mr. Law fori I know for an able Scholar ; but his r'ea-

17. i6* fons for that Pofition I do not know. If no Law, no fin 5

for ftn is a tranfgrejjion of the L*w, 1 John 3. 4. 10. Your faying, Aphor. p. 89. ' [Whofoettr will believe to

lb. 8q. the end, (hall be jufiified], may feem to imply, That though a Man believe, yet he remains unjuftified, (as well as unglorified) until he go on and hold out unto the end: otherwife (I fuppofe) all will yeeld, That a Man mud believe unto the end, that he may be juftified unto the end.

Ibid. 1. Though you deny that which I fay your Words feem

18. lb. to imply ; yet what your meaning was, or is, you do not

. clearly ihew. 2. You feemed to make the Life promifed to Adam* only a continuance of his prefent enjoyments, which were as all upon the Earth, fo many of them earthly, and none comparable to the happinefs of the Saints in Heaven. Ibid. 1. Though there be feveral degrees of Damnation,

lb. lb. yet all being the damnation of Hell, I do not think that there is fuch difference between one degree of Damnation and another, as there is betwixt the fcratch of a Pin, and the pulling off a Man's flefh with Pincers. 2. If Adam had not finned, he mould have had that happinefs which all thofe Piiv iledges that you mention tend unto ^ and by his fin he forfeited all that happinefs. Befides, when I fpake of the identity of PuniThrrient-for kind, ^hqugh not for degree^ L meant it of Pana fenfe •, and

that

C2I ]

that (I conceived y was your meaning alfq.

No queftion but the Confirmation, Radication, suid Ibid. further degree erf-Grace is comprehended m thofe Pro-/£. pr. miles, [/ mil put'toy taw ih their inward parts* &c] as a further degree of Spiritual Circurricijfionis promifed* JDeut*$o6. aM^agreatermeifure of the $bkfr*£^%li. 13. But though theQrcumftaiicesof; thole Texts do (a ^ Jinlit the Promifes contained in them,..(which yet may&e ^ueftioned conccmitigMeut.. 30. 6) yet fo do not (that I fee) the Circumftances of that in Jet. 31.53. and Heb. 8. 10. And therefore there is no reafpn to reftrain thefe in that manner. Arapltandi fay&res. Befides, ic is cer-tain, Man can perform no condition required of him* ex* cept God work itin him> 2 Cor.y 5. Phtl.z, 13•

By Relative Change you mean Juftiftcation and Adop- r r^j tion :' Nbw I think it is no bard matter to prove a real change in any, in whom this, relative change is, /. ■*; *' 9'* That they that are juflifjed and adopted, are alfo fan&i-fied. 1. They that are juftiHed and adopted, are Chrifts, CaL^.ult.^ Ergo* they that "are juiUfied and adopted, are fandified. For fo are they tha^ai'evCh|ifts,^^.8.p. Take the Syllogifm, if you pleafe,, thus y They that axe" * Chrifts, areiancYified : But they that aiejuftjhed and * ri^. By adopted, arcChrinV Therefore, they that are juftified adual re-and adopted, are fan&ified. 2. They that are in a ftate htion un-of Salvation, are fandified, %TheJf.2*i$. Jch&i. 3, y. to him. But they that are juftified and adopted ^ate in a itate of Salvation, Tit. 3.7. Rom. 8.17. >£rg6*. Hear one, with whom you are acquainted?, .and whom I fliaU have oCcaifi* on to cite afterward,, v/^. Wotton, Vt r/gni (inqutf) De]Recon~ rceleftis keredttaxemadtpifcamw, $$ ventk peccatorum % r//.Part 2. £? fan&tmonta opus tft^ — Qua enim i* at tone heres eff$ Lib. 2. V/Ae &ttrn& intetttgatur., qut tmmundu* eft f\ And left Cap. 22. you mould put this off, and fay, That San&ification indeed is requifite before any can enter into the pofleiTion of Eternal Life, but not.hefbre they can have a right unto it 5 he adds, Remiffiont igitur Jhe condonattone opus eft ad h&redttatis jus ohinendum : Sed nequa^uam in ilia funt omnia. Etenim(ut paulo ante fignificayi) Atcmatettamoportet regeneration per quam janftimonik imbuamur. Quare Cbriflui fattsi* eft nobis ££ )uftiti* y ££ fan&ificatio, I Cor. 1. 30. For the Arguments which you mention in Mx*Sedford 9 $ Book, if you had propoun-B 1 dtd

C * 3

ded any of them, I fliould haveconfiAer.ed bow to anfw«r them. Now as you only refer me to that Book for Arguments againft my Opinion, fo fhali I refer you to anc* ther Book for anfwer to thofe Argument?, */<,. Mr. Ga-taty's lately publifhed, 20' Nay indeed, if Bapcifmbe a Seal of remiflion of fins,

then remiflion of fins (I think) is not the end of Bajv tifm. For the thing mult be, before it be fealed, t. e. Confirmed. Though Baptifm therefore be ordained to this end, tofeai remiflion of fins, yet none can make this ufb of it, until they believe, and fo have their fins remitted. Neither doth this make for Anabaptift$ x for Circtimcifion was of the fame nature, Rom* 4. 11. Of Perfe- Yet were Infants cifcumcifed^ [Net a4 that *re6apttY vcr.chiu ^ed (faith Bp. Dow&am) are truly juftsfiedj. And a g a * n 3 U r '** not neceffary, that every cine baptitaia\ fbouldprefently be regenerated, er jufitfied : but Bapttjm Ha Seal to h',m of the Right eoufneft of ?atth, either to Reapplied by the Hofo Gho&to the ZLeft dying tn infancy, erto b$ apprehended alfi by fa'tth in them, who U*jn* to years of difcretion'i haye grace to believe']. Again Mo, [TheVxpiilsthemfefoes teach* That the Sacraments do not confer Grace ponenti obicem mortalis peccati • but all that come to Baptifm, are guilty I (if not justified before) of mortal fin* mt only adult i, who to thiir ori^ ginoi fin haye added their own perfonal tranfgrejjlon* tut Infants alfi, who befldes the'tr original corruption, in tifre&whireij they are mortally dead in fin, ftand gu'rt-ty of KAixtismoff heinous tranfgrejfion]. 2. Baptifm is as well a Seal of Sanclification, as of Remiflion of Sins 5 for it fealsthe- whole Covenant, and all the Pr©v mifes contained in it. And as Circumcifion fignified and fealed the taking away of the Foreskin (or fuperflui-ty of naughtinefs, as St. James fpeaketh, Chap. 1. n.) of the Heart, fo doth Baptifm fignifie & feal the wafhing awavofthe£lthinefs 5 aswellasottheguiltinefs of it. Indeed Mr.Mede in one of his Dtatriba, would have the thing Signified in Baptifm, to be only the fanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghoft -, wherein I cannot fubferibe unto him. Whereas you fpeak of an External Covenant, as fome call it; fome may exprefs themfelves one way, fbme another, yet all mean the fame thing. For my pait, I do not ufe to fpeak of an External Covenant, but oi an

Exter-

External Being in the Covenant, which is all that ordinarily .we can be allured of in refoe<ft of others, and which is enough for admittance to the Sign and Seal of the Covenant. The People of the Jews, until by pro-feffed unbelief they fell away, were generally in the Covenant, Rom. q. 4. even in that .Covenant, which they that were Aliens from, had no hope, Epbef. $.12, Yet many of them were but externally in the Covenant, Rom. 9. 6,27, *9- You labour in vain, when you feek to evade that Text, ic$/p.g. g. How ihould anybe actually Chrifts, except they be united to him > And how united, but by the Spirit ? 1 G?r. 6. 17. And if you meant (as yotffay) 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 profeflion' fach a real change, as I fuppofed you did mean, Vtzj. a change of the Heart, 'whereby one is made a new" Creature.

I think that properly there are not diftinft. Laws, from i?. <ivhofe diftincl: condemnations we ihuft be freed :]That tfce Ibid, 103.* Gofpel doth not condemn any, but only leave fome to Ad. 1. the Law to be condemned by it, though their Condemnation by reajfon of the Goipel, as of every Mercy ae-gk&ed, or abufed, will be the greater.

The Father (as 'I have faid before) doth }udg, thougfj ihid. by Chrift, fee A3s 17.3 u And however, I fee not how Ad. %. you can conclude any thing to the purpofe by this Argument,

If for every feveral Acoifation there muft be a feveral 24. Righteoufnefs, then there will be need of infinite Righ- Ad. 3. teoufneffes, feeing there may be infinite accufations. But one Righteoufnefs, W^. that of Chriil's Satisfaction for us, will take off all Accufations brought againft us j elfc how doth the Apoft'le fay, Whx> /hall laj any thing to the charge, &c. RomS. 33,54. Indeed the Promifeis made upon condition of believing, and therefore the not performing of the Condition, debars from benefit of the Pro^ mife. But this (I conceive 3 is not properly a new Ac-cufation, but only a making good of the former accufa-tion, we having nothing to ihew why it fhould net ftand in force againft us. Your felf did well diftmauifh p. 22. betwixt a Condition as a Condition, and a Condition as a Duty. Now Faith as a Condition, is required in the Gofpel, but as a Duty in the Law; For the Law requires B 4 us

[ *4 1

fis in all things to obey God • that is comprehended in the firil Precept, therefore it requires us to believe in Chrift, God commanding it. Elfe not to believe, were no fin j for Jin is a tranfgrejfitn of the Latpyl Joh.3.4. Now as Believing is a Duty, fo not-believing doth afford matter of Accufation, and caufe of Condemnation: But as Believing is a Condition, fo Net-believing doth only leave the Accufation otherwife made in force againft us • and for fin, whereof we are accufed and found guilty, leaves xis to condemnation. Thus (I think) arc thofe Texts to be underftood, John$.i2. and ult. Whereas you fay, That the Ac cufat ton may be three-fold^ truly in that manner it may be manifold : But indeed the Accufation is but one and the fame, viz,, that we are Non-credentes :

* Solifidi- For Pagans do not fo much as appear, and Hypocrites ,

ans are no and * Soltfidians do but appear to be Believers.

Believers,

m believing u a receiving ef Chrift > and that is the bettering by

which vn are jufiifed.

Ibid. For the feveral. Sentences from whence you argue y

A<L 4. J. You urged Joh. 5.2,1. to provjj that God Creator judg-exh none. 7,. How are any freed from the Sentence of the firft Law, but by the benefit of the New Law > therefore I lee no ground for that which you feem to infinuate, Vf<,. That we muft firfr be freed from the Sentence of one Law, and then of another. Indeed I do not fee, That cheGofpel hath any Sentence of Condemnation diflincl; from the Law 5 only it doth condemn Unbelievers, in that it doth not free them from that condemnation which' by the Law is due unto them. Ibid. That there is a forer pumlhmenr, as of a diftinct kind*

Ad. 5. than that Death threatned Gen. 3. you do not prove, neither (I prefume ) can it be proved. There are (I . grant) feveral degrees of that Death, yet all of the fame kind, W*> Thelofs of Heavenly Happinefs,, and the enduring of Hell-Torment. And if there muft be a feveral Righteoufnefs for every feveral degree of Punifhment, there muft be more Righteoufheflbs. than you either do or canaflign. Ibid. I fay as before, I do nor think this, [Thou art an V*-

Ad. 6\ believer] (I fpeak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the Gofpel-Conditien) to be a.nciy Accufation, bur only a

Plea

Pica why the former fliouldftand good, \/& tfutwfcjut 1 finno i 9 and fo to t>e condemned by the Law, becaufe tbc benefit of the Gofpcl which we lay claim to, doth not be-long unto us, we not performing the condition to that end required of us.

Whereas you fay, [We are de\>ohed to the New Law .r-, lefore our Jssflif cation is compleat]. Are we not dc- * volved to it tor the very beginning of our Juftification? So again, \ChVtsT sSattsfottton is imputed to u* for Righ-teoujnefi^ &c* Bm ike Nci* Covenant gives the per ft. nat Inxerefty Doth'not the New Covenant give Chrift alfo, in whom we have intcreft } I note thefe Paflages > becaufe your meaning in them perhaps is fuch as I do no* fufficiently understand.

1 fay fti.ll» Here is no occafion properly of a new Acj ibid* cufation, but only of a removens prohihem^ a taking away of that which would hinder the force of the former Accufation. And fo there is no new Righteoufnefs of ours required unto Juftification, but only a Condition, without which we cannot have intereft in thrift's Righteoufnefs, that thereby we may be juftified.

In your Aphortfms you fpeak only of a Two-fold Righ- r fc£ reou&efs requisite unto Juftification ; now you fpeak ot a Two-fold Juftification neceffary to be attained. But the Scripture ipeaks of Juftification by Chrift, and Juftifica-tion by Faith, as of one and the fame Juftification, Mfs 13,39. Rom. 5-i.

The Second Caufe, (as you call it) V/$> {Whether the t<: Defendant haye performed the condition of the New CowKantJis indeed this, Whether he have any thing truly to alledge, why upon the former Accufation he ihould not be condemned } And fohe muftbc juftified indeed by producing his Faith, (and fohis fincere Obedience to te-ftihe his Faith) yec not as a new Righteoufnefs of his own, but only as untitling him to ChriiVs Righteoufnefs, as 'that whereby he mult be juftified.

Whereas you fpeak of a Three-fold Guilt, V/^. [i. Re- Ibid. AttPtChlpA. z. Reatnsnon-prafttta Conditions ■. 3. Rt-Att44 pans, propter non pr&Flitam conditionem']. 1. As Omne malum tft V*Z Culpa y tel Pan& y fo bmnis reatu* feems to be fo too. z. The not-performing of a Condition, as a Condition, brings no new guilt ot Ponilhment, (if it did, furely it were C*lp*> andib the fecond Member

€ 26 I

bcr falls in with the firft) buc only the lofs of the Remedy^ or Reward promifcd upon the performing of that Condition ; though the not performing pf the Condition as a Duty, will bring a new guilt of Funifhment. 3. There* fore the KeAtus^fwnk is riot" properly ob non p'dftk^n ConSttonzm^x ob cvlpdm admijfam^yjhich Reatut doth remain in force, bccaufe the Condition rehired for the removing of iv is not performed.

t 6. We muft take beecj of ftrainin'e I,aw-terms too far in

Matters of Divinity. I fee not how the firmnefs of my title co Chrift's Righteouf nefs for Justification, mav properly be called my Rirghteoufnefs, whereby I am juitifiecl-though the firmnefs of that title may'be queftioned, and jnuitbe proved ; yet if ic prove faJle, it is not that properly which doth condemn, ( I fpeakof the Meritorious Caufeof Condemnation) but fin committed againft the taw, is that which doth put into a ftate of Condemnation, and for want of that Title, there is nothing to free from Condemnation.

Hd. The Obligation unto Puniihmeht is not dillbived/by

Satisfaction made by Chriit, as to Unbelievers, becaufc for want of Faith, the Satisfaction,^ Chrift is not imputed unto them,

lid. 1. For that far greater PunttTiklent, which, you 'ifpeak

of, I have faid enough before. 1. Is that Non-liberatiorx from former miiery a diflincl: puniuSment from that mife-ry > Though the former miftiy may te aggravated by neglcd of that which would procure a liberation front it. If God had never made a New Covenant, there had : certainly been a Non-liberation from that mifery, whiChthe breach of the firit Covenant did bring upon us ; and under that mifery they rnuft lie for ever, who neglect the Remedies provided for them ^ and a^ their neglect doth aggravate their fin, fo will it encreafe their Condeitoa-tion.

si* The Immunity doth refult from the New Covenant,

the Penality from the Old, unto which Unbelievers are left, the New Covenant affording them no Remedy by reafon of their unbelief: and the Penality of the Old Co-Tenant is accidentally increafed by the New Covenant, in that by neglect of its Remedy fin is iacreafed.

id, I am of this opinion, That the New Covenant hath no

other Penality, but that it doth leave Unbelievers to the

Penality

Penality of the Old, Covenant, and by accident iacreafc the fame.

If that Penality Jbe,but the fame Death, it hath no Ibid, more than the former ^ neither can that Ad of Grace be properly faid to appoint a new Puniihmejit, but only to leave to the formerruniiTiment, as not delivering froni it; You fpeak indeed'of Double Torments appointed by that, Ad for fuch as do rejed it ; but fo (I think) the Similitude doth not hold. For \ fee not, that "the Co* .venant of Grace doth fo, but only ( a? I .have faid ) ieave feme upon their'not performing the Condition required of them, to the Punifhment appointed by the Cow venantpf Works; which Punifhment wiUbetheforer, as Sin by negled of Grace offered is the greater.

3. Though our Mediator do not believe, repent and ibid. ©bey for, us, but we our felves muft believe, repent and obey?, yet it doth not follow that our believing, repenting and'obeying, is that Righteoufnefs by which we are justified.

r : 4. Though we be not guilty of not performing the 27. Condition of the New Covenant, yet this is not properly our Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftiEed, though without it we cannot be juftified, becaufe not partake of ChrilVs Righteoufnefs,

5. Therejeaing of Chrift may beconfidcred ; r. As the receiving of Chrift is a Duty Commanded. 2. As the receiving of Chrift is the Condition of Pardon and Salvation offered.- In the former refped, .the rejecting of Chrift is properly a fin, ana 1 fo againft the Law, though

.aggravated by the Gofpel, in that Chrift is tejeded not-,withftanding all the benefit to be obtained by him. That -the : Law doth not fpeak of Chrift, is nothing j for it fpeaks of obeying CJod in all his Commands, and fo implicitly it fpeaks of receiving Chrift, when God doth command it. In the latter refped the rejeding of Chrift (I think) doth not properly bring a new guilt, but only continue and aggravate tho former.

6. But recurrit queFtto^ viz. Whether the New Law doth require the Condition as our Righteoufnefs : it feems to me to require it only to that end, that ChrirVs Righteoufnefs may be imputed untous, and that fo by that Righteoufnefs we may be juftified.

7. Faiths as a Duty, is a Conformity 10 the Law*

though

though a partial and imperfeft Conformity unto it, and fo there's no being juilified by it. As a Condition, it is a conformity to the Gofpel, but no Righteoufnefs by which we arc juftified, though a Condition upon performing of which we are julUfied by Chrift's Righteoufnefs.

8. I deny that there is any other condemnation of the feofpal, but only a not-freeing in fbme cafe from the condemnation of the Lav/.

9. The Condition being confidered meerly as a Con-"dition, and not as a Duty, to object that we have not "performed the Condition, is not to bring a new Accufa-tion, but only to take away the Plea, why the old Accusation fhould not prevail againii \:s-

10. The performance of the Condition of the Sew Covenant, being defigned to that ufe, which you men*

*tion, ytZj* [to be the Jinntrs fdf-denjtng acknowledge znent of his Jin and mtfery^ and tnfxffictencjf to deliver hsmjelf] it doth hence rather follow, rhat properly it j$ not our Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftrficd, though it be required "of us to that end, that we may be jufti&ed by Chrift'.s Righteoufnefs.

11. That the Condition is not of fo large extent as the Duty commanded, feems not to the purpofe, the

'Qjjeftion. being of the Condition as a Condition,- not as a* Duty. Faith as a Duty (I grant) is part of our Per fonal Righteoufnefs; but that is no: it by which we arejuftified.

ii. As the Condition is a Condition, and no more, fo the perfol ming of it is no Juftstla at all: as it is a Duty, fo indeed the performing of it is Juftitia particularity CT fecundum j*sd y 2s the performing of every Duty is: but fuch a -ufttttalidxt not rely on for Juftification.Whereas you fay, That ChrtfVs Rtghuoujneft is notjimtlj 9Hr"Cnt**rfalRighttcuJnt$\ it is true, if by pimply] you mean [ abfdu: £ : <j nula snterpofta condtt'tcnt] otherwife our Univerfal Righteoufnefs it is, fo that we have no need of any other Righteoufnefs for our J unitization, though we have need of fome thing to that end, [ that we may partake of ChriiVs Righteoufnefs, and be juftihed by it.

ig. Th§ Gofpel as diitin&from the Law, doth ftcw us our Remedy; the Lav as cUitincc from the Gofpel,

dotk

tag 3

doth prefcribe unto us our Duty. Or if the Gofpd al-fodoth prefcribe unto us our Duty, yet no other Duty, though upon other terms than the Law doth prefcribe. However, though the performing of the Duty be in fome

ving confideredas a Duty,

on. As a Duty, it is our Righteoufnefs, but not that whereby we are juftified -, as a Condition, it is that whereby we are juftified, but not our Righteoufnefs $ it is only that whereby we receive Righteouinefs, v/<,. the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, that Righteoufnefs indeed by which we are juftified. Whereas you fay, [The difference ef the two Laws or Covenant /, is the main ground which /hews the necejity of a Two-fold Rtghteoufnefi]. Iheneceflity of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs is not denied, but ©n!y xhe necefllty of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs unto Juftification.

This Two-fold Juftification feems to be a new conceit. iHd. I remember not that you fpake any thing of it in your Afhortjms -, neither (I think) will it eafily be granted becaufe of your Pofitions and Suppositions, but rather they will be reje&ed, as inferring that which is not to be admitted. For truly where the Gofpel doth fpeak of more Juftifications than one, (in that fence as we treat of Juftification) I am yet to feek. g

From a Two-fold Covenant you infer a Two-fold J ufti-Iht ** fi cation. But is there a Two-fold Covenant, by which we are or may be juftified ? I conceive, we are juftified only by the New Covenant. For by the Deeds of the Law (the Old Covenant) /hall no fefh be jf^tfied^om.^20. See alfo Afts 13. 59.

1. To be accufed as an Unbeliever, and a Rejecter of I**& Chrift, OV. is to be accufed as a finner, and as one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them. For clfe Unbelief and reje&ingof Chrift were no fin ^ that Chrift is not fpoken of in the Law, is nothing, as I have fhewed before. 2. That Accufation (that a Man is an Unbeliever, and a Reje&er of ChriftJ if it be made good, doth leave a Man to the Law, and makes all its Accufations to be in force againft him, with aggravation of his Sin for contempt of Mercy,

For

C *° 3

2 9 . For the Authors which you cite, I can examine but

few of them, becaufc I have them not. Bradfham (Jp " Dtjufitf.fazsl fee) makes nothing for you. He faith, Bona C.ja. S.xi. tper* quodarnmodo jufttficare dicuntur 9 quid fidem* jf-Jamqutadeh )uR'tfcationemnoftram arguendv^'accom-frohandoy utraxnque tfta rat tone julttpcent. This is but what others fay, That Faith doth juflifie the Perfon* and Works juflifie the Faith : and that is indeed no more than what all Proteftants do fay, >/<,. That Works de-dare and manifeft Faith to be fuch as whe-eby the Peifen Is juflified : and that therefore a Man. is faid to be jufti-fied by Works, becaufe thereby he appears to have Faith, whereby he is juflified. /Bid, Agiin he faith, Obtdientta non minus quam if fa (ex

§. 13. quk oritur ) Jjdes ad faiutem &ternar& e/7 nebps necejfa-

ria^ utpote fine qua yuftittavt Chrtfti imputatam fro-deffe nobis fcjfe fits nulla ex/slat; This is but what Proteftants generally acknowledge, That Obedience is .neceffary as a Fruit of Juitirying Faith • fo that without Obedience it is in vain to think of being juflified by Chrift's Righteoufnefs : Yet is not our Obedience therefore a Righteoufnefs, by which we are juflified. ib'td. Again he faith, Cujufi/bet Christians^ yutcum aft*

§. if. Dews in gratiamreditt^ duplex effju&iua> Imputa-ta una^ Inh&rens altera. But he do'h not fay, That we arc juflified by Inherent, as well as by Imputed Righteoufnefs : He is as far from that as other Proteftants generally are ; and other Proteftants generally are as ready to affert the neceffity of that Two-fold Righteoufnefs, as he is. ibid. Again he faith, Per jaftiiiam Chrifti nobis imputa-

$. 16. tarn non pojfimus dtct abfolute five omnt modo jui?h &c. He means, We aire not freed from future Obedience, though we be freed from the guilt or Difobedience. This ( except Libertines ) none, I prefume, will deny. But all this, as to the Controverfic Betwixt us about a Twofold Righteoufnefs requifite unto J unification, is (that I fee) juir nothing. But concerning Brad/bat^ and the places which you point at in him, I obferve, that §. 21. is twice fo figured, and therefore which of the two you did intend, may be a quefticn. I before noted what is in the former ^ but in the latter there is fomething, which peradventure you intended , though I judg it as little to

your

your purpofe as the reft. He faith, Noya Noffr* Oie-dicntia fro gradu fuo, & menfur&j ell am )uftitia no-fira dicitur, qui 6* formaliter^ inherent er y hakituali-ter y five ex oferibm\ juffi {fro if put modulo} coram Deo etiam vere dicamaty utpote cuj*** rat tone fro ju&it ex farteaDeo iffo ctnfeamur 3 cujufque tntuttu etiam in foro diVmo aliqvomodo (fiidofus e£et} ju&ificari fojfimus. But, I, you fee what mincing of the matter here is ; [Fro gradu Juo ££ menfura : Pro iff us modulo : ex farpe: jiUquomodo : Jitdopus effer\ 9 This is not to the Point we have in hand, who fpeak of univerfal and entire Juflification. 2. Here he makes againft you y for he clearly makes Inherent Righteoufnefs imperfect, [ cujus r attorn fro jusJis ex farte h Deo c en femur] whereas you hold all Righteoufnefs to be perfect, ov none at all. What you mean by citing Wot ton de Re cone tL part 1. lib. x. cap. 18. I cannot imagine, for nothing do I there fee for you, but much againft you, though touching other Particulars in debate betwixt us. As in the very beginning of the Chapter • Ex efficientibus Jufftficattonis caufis reliqua eft fides ^ quam Inflrumenri locum obti-nere diximus. And the title of the Chapter is, Quomo* do Tides Caufa Instrument alts t Jus7ificauonem Nosh am eferetur. And fag. 100. he cites and approves that of Dejpnam, fides fola es7, qua nobts jus tributt ad om~ nes Dei frgmtffiones tn Evangelio confeqwnA&s^ &c. And fag. 103. that of our Church \ Nihil ex homims farte flagitatur ad ipfiws juftijicationew, frater veram &ViVamjidem. And immediately after he adds, Ne-que tamen hae fides fbzm-y dtletttonemy ttmorem^ penitent i am excludere cenfenJaefly quafi adeum^ qui )*-ftificandus eft 9 non fcrttnerent^ fed, hac omnia ab officio juftificandi (N.B.) fignijicantur fmitia excludi. Ai~ que hoc quidem juftificandi munus folt fidei convenire y his rattonibus oftendo^ &c. The reft of the Chapter is taken up with thofe Reafons. Now what there is for your purpofe, judg you. The next place which you re-ferine to, is more punctually ciied, W<,. fart 2. lib. z. caf. 3$. fag. 383. but neither there do I find any thing that makes for you. He there anfwers Beilarmine's Argument s, whereby he would prove, That fifes eft folut affenfus, non etiam fducia: But what is this ad rbom~ bum i I know not whether you may lay hold on thofe

words,

f n 3

Wfcfis, I idem Jssftificantem^ Jhe quatenus Juftsficat, noneffe nnamVtrtutem, nee ullam quidem ytrtutem y fed juftificars omnsnb, C folummodb ex cffiab &\loeo 9 qua Deux mifirieor$ ill's Jponte & libere) conctjfit^ ut dsx's parte i. lib. i. cap* i%. So it is printed, but it ihould be cap.\%. 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, efpecially he referring us to the other place before mentioned, where there is much againft you, but nothing (I think) for you. And as little for your purpofe do I meet with in part z. lib. i. cap. y, pag. 144. where he only faith, Accedax ettam oportet^ ut idones fimusi quibus aditus ad Cesium pateat y habitualis ju-ftitsa foe Sanctttaty de qua, &c. Mat.$. 8. Denique tit a etsam fanfttmoma y & bonis cpertbtcs of us eft y ut Regnum Ceelefie comparemus, Heb. 12. 14. Matth, 1$. 34,3$. But doth he fay, That this Habitual Righteoufnefs (which he maketh all one with Holinefs, therein oppofing you as I do) is requifite unro J unification ? Othcrwife that it is requifite, Who doth queftion > Whereas you next cite part. z< lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 1 27.*.3,4. I doubt whether you did well obferve what the Author there meaneth. He only anfwereth an Argument of Hemmgiui, denying that which (he faith) Hemingius fuppofech, V/^ Eandem )ufiitiam ejfe tiam ad titam aternam^ cam m Lege, turn tn Eyangelio. But of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs he there makes no mention * not (I fay ) of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs required of us at all, much lefs required of us, rhar thereby we may be juftified. He faith indeed, Quid emm ft Lex Des in dec/tlogo Jit norma slltus ju/ittsa, qus. e7'tia Vita Eter-n& * Si prater hanc in Lege prafcrspta fit alia yja in Evangel/0 cenfittuta, quid impediet^ quo minks \stfts-Jicerur qut/piam fine Legis impleiicnc f He doth not mean, That the Righteoufnefs prefcribed in the Law, is one Righteoufnefs, and the Righteoufnefs conftituted in the Gofpel another Righteoufnefs, whereby wc are ju-ftified ) but that we are juftified only by this latter, and not at all by the other. He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteoufnefs, as being both neceflary unto J-uitification '■> he only afferts Evangelical Righteoufneis as neceifary in that refpect, which Righteoufnefs he makes to confift mcerly in remiflion of

- • finsi

—

fins. See fart. I. lib. 2. cap. 2. #.12. & cap. 3. per to-turn. To the very fame purpofe (/.^. nothing at all to youisj is that Ibid.- cap. 6* p. 138* n. 2. where he tax-eth Hemmgiu* for taking it as granted, Nullum effe fa-ftitiam* y>elin)u[titiam^ nifi in Lege pr&ftita, y>el non pr&ftita : And then he faith, Nam fi alia fit )uftitia^ qu& Lege non contmeatur^ fieri potefti ut alia etiam fit via JEternA Vtt& confequentL. He doth not grant (as you feem to underftand him) that Juftitia, qu& m Lege continetur eft una jufiitia^ qu& ad Juftificationem a nobis requiritur \ for that indeed he denies, and faith, That there is another Righteoufnefs now in the Gofpel ordained for that end ; and remiffionof fins ( as I iaid ) he makes to be that Righteoufnefs, even the only Righ -\

teoufnefs by which we are formally juftified. Immedi %

ately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow \ ye-rum nee peccatum qutdem Levis in Decalogo cancellis circumfenbitur. This is not directly to the Point now in hand 5 yet becaufe it may refled upon it, and fome-whac we have about it afterward m y I therefore think meet to note it by the way, and fay, That if it be as he faith, then (itfeemeth) St. John did not give us a full definition of *fin, when he faid, Stn is a tranfgrejfton of the I J oh.$4. Law ; but of that more hereafter. Wottons Argument is of fmall force ^ Fides (jnquii) in Chriftum crucifixum non pr&cipitur tn Lege : but I have before him, fhewed that it is otherwife. He himfelf prefently after cites that, I John 3. 23. [This is his Commandment^ That we be %

liey<e, &o ] Now the Law contained in the Decalogue, requires us to do whatfoever God commandeth; for if wc do not fb, we do not make him our only Lord God, as the Law requireth. That the Apoftle doth oppofe (as he faith) 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 Gofpel. Neither doth that advantage him, which he alfo obje&eth, That the Law hath nothing todo with Chrift as Mediator, ! Gal. 5.4. For though the Gofpel only hold out Chrift as Mediator to be believed in • yet Chrift being fo held out, the Law doth require us to believe in him. For the Law idorh require a belief of every Truth that God doth rc-. veal, and a performance of every thing that God doth en-[joyn. Now for Lud. de Dieu> If the Judication which

C he

C 34 3

he (peaks of, Qaaut fanclijicat: ac regemti abfoboimur a falfts Dtabolt Sf improbarum crimmationibus , be meant of (bme. particular Ads, of which we are accufed, it is but fuch a JulHfication as the Reprobates themfclves may partake of, who may be accufed of fome things whereof they are not guilty. See Bradjkarv dejufttf. cap. 25. If it be meant of our eitate in general, ( as I fuppofe it is) then this is indeed no diftinct J unification, but only a confirming of the other. For in vain do we pretend to be jiiftified by Faith, (by which alone de Die* grants wc are juftified) to as through Chrift to be freely acquitted'from the guilt of" our fins, if yet we remain 11 nregenerate and linfan&ified. By the way I obferve, That de Dteus words are againft you, [ Jacobus nan agit de Juftijicatione^ qu& partim fide, partim open-bus peragatur~]. Thus much I had faid in reference to this Author betbre I had him upon the EpifUes 5 but now that I have him, I mall fpeak more fully to him, or to you of him, from that other place to which you remit me, >£& his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he (peaks likqwife of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs, and of a Two-fold Jultifi-cation, yet fo as but little to patronize your Caufe. Besides Jmputed Righteoufnefs, which we have in Chriit, there is alfo ("he faith, and who doth no t} ) an Inherent Righteouihefs which we have in our felves. The former Righteoufhefs ( he faith ) is that, Qua nos Dem, etjlin nobis ipfts Leg: a.:huc difformes^ plene tamen-, tp-fiits exiam Legis Yeflimcnio, juftificat^ eique pro omntno. ccnformibtts ha'bet in capite t hrtftv : de qua juftifcatio-ns Apoftoltss fupra^czv. 3. £4. & 5". multis dtfj?utay>tt* Altera eft, de qua> Rem. 6. 13. Ephef.4.24. 1 Joh.3.7. Qua n>js Deux per regency at lonem in nobis etiam tpfis Lege ex parte conformal'os, ex parte nunc juftificafo & indies y<ftifxat magts ac magis, prout mcrernenXum capft regeneration ac ytftiiicabrt plene, ubi perfeclto ad\ehfrit* deqi-.a. Ju[tificaticn? agixur^ Jac. 2. 21,24. Apcc. 22. 1 J. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc iifti-jicaxtonem Opera Legis ingrediuntur ; t*t prrmam ccn-ftituitfoU tt*ef ? i. c. )uftitia Chr/ftijjde imputata^ non opera • fc alteram ccnjxixuunx opera\ nan fides. Here, 1. he makes Inherent Righteoufnefs impeifcct, and fo alio the Jailihcation which doth a;ife horn it. Ey this Righteoufnefswear:but Legs ex pari* cenfonhatr^ &

ex

t

C 35 3

ex parte nunc jufiificati: But Imputed Righteoufnefs, and J unification by it, he acknowledged to be perfect: hereby we are piene juftificati j tanquam Leg* plent conformes in captte Chrifto. 2. He makes Faith only, /. e • ( as he explains it) the Righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed by Faith, that whereby we are fully and perfectly juitiflcd. Now you make all Righteoufnefs, as fuch> perfect : for otherwife you make it to be no Righteoufnefs if it be imperfect. And you make Faith and Works to Concur tin.o the fame Juftification, though you di-ltinguiih of the Inchoation, Continuation and Confum-maiion of it. You alfo make Faith properly taken to be he Righteoufnefs (though not the only Righteoufnefs) >y which we are juitified. So that de Dieus Opinion and yours are much different.

Again, Sola tides (inquit) ampleclens if am obe-dtenttam (fc, Chrifti^ imput&ur in juftitiam^ Ibid,

P' 10 *' ... . . r . .

And pag.-lof.-Fidei imputatio eftm )uftitiam per-

feclam^ qualit eft Obedient ia Chrifti* Operum imputatio in imperfeftam, qualta funt ipfa Opera in hac "Yittt,

An.d pag. 109. he cites Bucer in Colloq. Ratisb. as agreeing with him? and faying thus, Dixeramm nos^ fe-cuti Apoftolum^ & omnem Scnpturam^ duplicem effe SancJorum )uftittam<> qua jufti funt coram Deo & hominibm . "tjnam thrift1 , pirfeclam^ qua illis Jpes om-nit grattA Dei-> & fa tut is ytt&que fempittrna tot a niti-tur. Alteram in tpfis per Spirit Am Chrifti inchoatum y qua confidere non debent^ propter?a quod ea imperfecta fempereft-i dumhis^rtunt, & Deo mn mfiex liberal* & infinita ejux mifericordia^ & merito Chrifti probari non pot eft. Hac juftitia nemo juftific at ur coram Deo

)ufttficat tone tit*. Juftitiam hanc I/ichoatam fentt-

vrnx effe quidem y>eram £? vham Juftitiamt Dei pr&-clarum & extmium donum^ ^itamjue no^oam in Chrifto hac juftitiaconftare^ omnefqueSanttos hac ip r a quoque juftitia juftos effe, 2? coram Dec> &° coram hominibus, & propter edm Sanftos quoque a Deo juftijjcari juftifica-tione Operum, i. e. comprobari eos a Deo, laudart-> & remunerari. Attamen quamlibet h&c)uftttia fitWra aOt>iy>a y & fuoetiam modo (KT. B.J juftificans^tame/i non effe ejufmodt*, non fie veram yi\uim & folidam, ut qutfquam SanBorum jufttficari ea pojit juftificattons C 1 viu 9

C'30

W/<e, multo minus ut fit ipfa jmfiitia *el )ufttficAtfau

Thus then /£? Z>/># in the Matter it felf doth not diffei from other Proteftant-Writers, who generally hold, That the Righteoufnefs of Chrilt imputed to us, is that by which we are fully and perfectly juftified ^ and yet we muft alio have Inherent Righteoufnefs, which will juftifie us in fbme fort, but not tally and perfectly, becaufe it felf is imperfect.

For I'laceus I have him nor ; but becaufe you alledge his words, I will fay fomething to him. He fpeaks indeed of a Two-fold Accufation, and of a Two-fold Justification. But, 1. he feems to differ from me and others only modo loqutndt. For he faith, Ab accufatione priort (" qua fc. ob)tatur nos ejje peccatorts ) fola fide jvftifi-camur ; qua Chrtjtt graftam C£ )ufttttam ampltitimur ; hpoftertore, {qua ob)icitur no* ejfeinjideles) jufttficamur ttiam opertbus, quatenus its Ftdes ( JST. B.) ofienditur* This feems ro be in effect the fame with that of Macco* De fide Vttts, ConctliattonemlrAc {inter Paulum £? Jacobum ) Ju r ttf. hanc ponunt Theologh & quidem ex Scriptura^ fola i 7 /-Diip. 12. des nos jufttficat apprehenfiye, opera declarative. 2. To fpeak properly, they are not ( I think ) two diftinct Ac-cufarions. For to omit this, That to be Infideles^ is to be Peccatores • and fo the ore Accufation doth include the ether : To omit this (1 fay J the latter Accufation is but are-inforcing of the former. Thou art a Sinner, faith the Accufer, and therefore to be condemned. Not fo, faith the Party accufed, for I am a Believer, and therefore juftified/ Hereupon the Accufer replies, Nay, it is not fo as thou pretended, thou art indeed no Believer, therefore the guilt of thy fins is upon thee, and thou art under condemnation. All this is but one Accufation, prcfecuted and confirmed againlt a Plea made againft it. If thev were diftirid Accufations, then we might be freed from the one, and yet be condemned by the other : but it is here quire otherwise. For the force of the former Accufation doth depend upon the latter ; neither are we freed from the former, except we be freed from the latter ; whereas you feem to carry itfo, as if we werefirft juftified from (the former Accufation, and then were again to be juftified from the latter : this feems to be the refult of vour Opinion.

C 37 3

I. Becaufe I grant Faith to be required of us, thatfo 30. Chrift's Righteoufnefs may become ours, do I therefore make Faith it felf to be our Righteoufnefs, v/^. that whereby we are fully juftified. A part of Inherent Righteoufnefs (I grant ) Faith is, by which we may be jufti-fied in fome naeafure ; bur that is nor the junification here enquir-ecl of. 2. You fliould not put me to prove> That your Affertion is without Scripture 5 it is fufficient for me to fay it, until you alledge Scripture for it.

3. ChrifVs Satisfaction is folely and wholly our Righteoufnefs, whereby we are juftified from all Condemnation, though except we believe in him, we cannot enjoy

that benefit by him > See 2 Cor. ?. ult. and Aits X S' 3 Qt ( p ^ }

4. The New Covenant doth hold out unto us Chrift's ^ * * * ' ' Righteoufnefs to be made ours by Faith, that fo we may

be treed from the Condemnation of the Old Covenant, to which Condemnation we are left, if we believe not ; and our Condemnation will be to much the forer, by how much the fin in negle&ing fo great Salvation is the greater. J. I confeft indeed that there is move than Faith in the Condition of the New Covenant, but not as to J unification. For that which you add, [ James fa'tth, We are juftrfied by Works, and Chrtff by our Words ] ^ the queftion is not, Whether we be faid to be jufiified by our Works or Words -, but how aid in what fenfe we are faid to be Co juftified. There is a Particular Juftification,and a Declarative J ufti Beat ion-, thus we are juftified by our Works and Words: but a full and formal J unification is pnly by ChrilFs Righteoufnefs through Faith imputed unto us. 6. To fay, That we are healed partly by the Medicine, and partly by the Application, I ftill think to be improper j neither do you bring any thing, whereby to fhew the propriety of it. The Application of the Medicine is indeed requiiite, yet it is the Medicine properly that doth heal, though not except there be an Application of it. Common Speech is not always Proper Speech y neither can any that are acquainted with Scrip-ture,and know how to diftinguifti between Proper and Improper Speeches, think it itrange that there arc improper Speeches found in Scripture. What will you fay of thofe, [This tsmjBodj] [The Rqc^ wa* Chrtft 7 ] and a hundred fuch-like > For Rules of Logick, if you had made pfe of anv, I might have considered of them. 7. May C r not

[3*3

not a Similitude illuftrate, though there be fuch a diffe rence as you fpeak of, betwixt that from which it is fetched, and that to which it is applied ? But why do you joyn Repentance and Obedience with Faith in point of Jufti-fication j I fpeaking only of Faith, and you as yet having faid nothing for the joint intereft of the other ? 8. In your Aphorifms you plainly alTert two diflinft Righte-oufneffes, as requisite unto Juftification ; that there yoti make them fubordinate, is more than I obferve. But though Faith be fubordinate unto Chrift's Satisfaction in the matter of Juftification, yet that we are juftified by Faith as a diftind Righteoufnefs, I cannot yeeld, no more than that the Application of a Medicine is a diftincl: Medicine by which one is healed. I am glad that you plainly difclaim a Coordination of Chrift's Righteoufnefs and Faith in the Work of Juftification: But if they be but fubordinate, then ( me-thinks ) they mould not be two diftinct Righteoufneffcs, by which we are juftified. I fee not how we can be juftified (I fpeak of an Univerfal Ju^ ftification, oppofite to all condemnation, that which Bu-

jipud. ctr calls JufttficattonernVtiA^) both by the Righteouf.

Lud.de nefsof Chrift imputed to us, and alfo by our own perfo-

Dieu> in nal Righteoufnefs. You fay, [ A Man having a Me-

RomS^* dtcine^ and not applying ft, may properly be faid to die, for want of Application ] •, but to fpeak properly, I think. It is not the want of Application of the Medicine, but the Difeafe that doth kill the Man : So though a Man wanting Faith lhall be condemned, yet take Faith meerly as a Condition, not as a Duty, it is not properly the want of Faith, but Sin that is the caufe of his Condemnation •, though his want of Faith may as aggravate his Sin, fo increafe his Condemnation.

Ibtd. «f nat i fp ea k your words, is more than I do know.

20. 108. jjcnv Chrift's Righteoufnefs may be called our Legal Righteoufnefs, I ihewed by Rom. 10.4. viz- as ferving us inftead of that Righteoufnefs which the Law recjuireci of us, and for wanr of which the Law otherwife would

( /• 3^* ) have condemned us. Neither did I blame you meerly for calling Chrift's Satisfaction our Legal Righteoufnefs, but for making another Righteoufnefs of our own, which you call our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, neceffary unto Juftification. Now alfo you overlook that, which Ialledged about Chrift's Satisfaction, as being our Evangelical Righteoufnefs. 1. Doth

1. Doth the Old Covenant prefcribe QirifVs Satisfa- ibid. ft ion as our Righteoufnefs ? Ypu faid a little before, [//^,no. do notthin^ that Chn/Fs Right eovfnefiof Satisfactionts that which the Law required"]^ as if I faid, That the

. J-avy did require it j whereas I meant only thjs, That the Law required Satisfaction, and Chriit made it for us, fo that ChriiVs Satisfaction ferveth us.inftead of that Righteoufnefs which the Law required of \is, and fo may be called our Legal Righteoufnefs. Bin the New Covenant _

doth ; hold out Chrift's Righteoufnefs to be apprehended by us^ and made ours by Faith, that fo thereby we may be juftified. Where the Scripture ipeafcs of a Two-fold Righteoufnefs fo as you do, or how this makes for the unfolding of the main Doctrine, or tends to heal our •Breaches, I do not fee : You affirm the*e things, but do

.not prove them. 2. What plain ground you laid down in.your y4phortfms for that Two-fold Righteoufnj?fs, I do not know : What I cot,Id obferve any way Argumentative, I was willing to examine, and fo am ft.ii).

i. If it imply Blafphcmy, to fay, That Chrift repeij- 31. ted, and believed for us j Doth it follow that Faith or %\, IXI . Repentance is our Righteoufnefs, by which we are julti-fied > Can nothing be requited of us, and performed by us, but it multoherefore be our Righteoufnefs, and by it as our Righteoufnefs we mull be juftified }. 2. The Scriptures which I alledged, (viz. Rom. 9. 2,9 & jo. 6. Gal.<$. 5. and Rom.^. 22. ) do fuificiently diflinguifh Faith from that Righteoufnefs, whereby we are juilified,

- and fhew it to be only a means, whereby we partake of ChriiFs Righteoufnefs, and fo by that Righteoufnefs of Chrift are juiHficd. The Argument ( I think ) is good, notwithJVanding any thing you fay unto it. Faith is only a means whereby ChriiFs Righteoufnefs is imputed unto us unto Juftiflcation : Therefore it is not that Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified, Rivet fpeaking of the De Tide Remonftrants faith, Volunt igitur I idem cum operibm Jvftif Venire m partem juftitiA debits £? Ftdem )uftificare^ §.i£.&i£ ncn Relative^ ut organum apprehendens obyefiu-m^ fed Inherenter-y &c. Hoc miqmtati* mj&erium^ &c.

1. You might eafily. know what I rneant by [Simply ibid,

and Abfoluteiy jufHfitd in the fight of God], if you did

well confider the other Members of the diftin&ion, v/^.

to be wholly freed from all Condemnation > the fame

C 4 that

that Mr. Bradfhaw meant by Univerfal Juftification: iYou know fufficiently the diftinftion betwixt simfliciter or Abfoluth, C fecundum quid. Bradfhaw having faid. Hoc modo ( fc. judificatione particulars ) non Eleili foli, fed £5* Reprobi ipftcoram Deo Jufttficdri pojfunt: Adds immediate]/, Neutri Wro eorum abfolute hoc

modo juftificari pojfunt. Hoc modo juftfficari non eft

penttiis h peccati reatu, fed ab hujn* W tllius peccati imputattone mjufta liber art. z. Comparative Righteoufnefs I (hewed to be but a lefs degree of Unrighteouf-nefs;: but Ironical Righteoufiefs is down-right Unrigh-teoufnefs, whereas a lefs Unrighteoufnefs in companion of a greater, is a kind of Righteoufnefs. Mint** malum rejpeftu majoris habet raitonem bom. 3. I do not deny tne Righteoufnefs of Faith, though I deny Faith to be that Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified. Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith, and fincere Obedience, yet are we not therefore juftified by Obedience, but Declarative, as it is the fruit of Juftifying Faith 3 nor by Faith, but Apprehenfiy>e y as by it we apprehend and receive ChrifFs Righteoufnefs. ibid. i. I never doubted,much lefs denied Faith to be a part of

& 32. Inherent Righteoufnefs. 2. It is indeed a flrange Righte-

oufnefs, that will not juftifie fo far forth as it will reach : but it is not ftrange to Proteftant-Divines, that Inherent Righteoufnefs cannot reach fo far as to juftifie in that fenfc Dejufiif. as we fp ea k of J unification. Illud cone e dim us, {inqutt Habit. Daven.) eff'e in omnibus juftifie at is juftiXtam quandam Cap. 21% inherentem^quam fi formalem caufam ftatuant Juftifa-elionis, {lice at cnim "Yocabttlum procudere) non repugn a-bimus : fedprediela Juftifie at ton**, qua rejpondet ftrifto examint C ale ft: is Judtas, nee formality nee meritoria efje ullo modo poteft. And he lays down thefe two Pofitions y ihido 1. Chrifti Mediator is jn nobis habitantis^atque per Spin-

turn Jefe nobis untentis , perfecltjjlma Obedientta, eft for-malis eaufa juftifie at ionis Noftr&^utpote qua ex donattone Dei£$ applicatione fidei fit noftra. l.Juftitta per Spirt-turn Chrifti nobis imprefj'a GT inhertns^ non eft formalis caufa-iper quamftamus ^ufttficatijooc eft,per quam libera-ti judicamur a damnatione , C$* accept at i ad^ixam ater-namjanquam eadem digniper hanc qualitatem nobis in-Ibid. herentem. That you may not catch at the word \digni\ he

cap. Z60 afterward expreffeth it thus; At que h\$ ne inanem de vo-

cabulis

C 4i 3

cahulis yelitationem itiftituamus^ Mud prtmittendum nos per formaUm caufarn Juftific* axioms mhti altud in-telltgere, quam tUud^ per quod ftamns m confpeftu Dei a damnattone liberate mnocentes^grattfcati^ $*> ad v/-tam dbternam accept att. And the whole Chapter is to prove that Inherens Juftitta non e& formaits cauft Ju-fttficationis Noftrs. coram Deo. But it is a needlefs labour to cite Authors to this purpofe. For what more common with our Divines (I fpeak of fuch as are of chief note ) than to acknowledg Inherent Righteoufnefs<, and yet to deny that we are juitified by it ? What you mean, when you yeeld that we are not univerfally juitified by Faith, I do not well underftand. For if you mean ( as you feem to do ) that we arc not freed by it from the Puniihment of the Old Covenant, but only from the Punifhment of the New Covenant •, i. I know no Puniihment of the New Covenant, but a leaving to the Punifhment of the Old Covenant, with an aggravation of it for contempt of. Mercy offered. 2. Faith, though not asourRighreoufnefs, yet as the means whereby we partake of ChrifVs Rightcoufnefs, doth free us from the Puniftiment of the Okl Covenant, ■*?/*> Death. For the Juft fhall l$ve bj Tatth^ Rom. 1.17. And in that fenfe Faith doth univerfally juftifie us. For being )uftt-Jiedby Tatth^ we have peace wtth God, through our Lord Jefus Chrtft, Rom. 5. 1. Whereas you fpeak of juiti-fying againft the Accufation of Non-performing the Condition of the New Covenant y I mult itill tell you, That taking the Condition meerly as a Condition, the Accusation of non-performing it, is but a confirming a former Accufation of being guilty of the breach of the Old Covenant, and therefore to be condemned, as having no relief from the New Covenant, the Condition of it being not performed. 3. If I do ill oppofe the Righteout-nefs whereby we are juftified, and. the Righteoufnefs whereby we are fanc~tified, as if the fame thing might not be both ; then welfare the Papifts, who confound Juilifi-cation and San&ification. Dur^us the Jefuite,in his De- Durtut fence of Camptan^ faith, Nova h*c y Whitakere, Theolo- Adverf. gia eft y nos per gratiam infufam*, Vtt& noVttatem ac Whita^. fan ft ificat 1 one m adiptfeiy mintme tamen juftifie art. At quA /e, obfecro, Scrtptura docutt Jufttjicdtionem a Sanfttficatione difiinguere * The fame Righteoufnefs

that

[4* b

that doth fanclifie, cannot alfo ju&ihe ; becaufe that Righreoufnefs, which doth fanzine, doth it but in part • but th?c which dcth juitiric, muit do it fully, or elfe it is Vejuftif. to little purpofe. For ( as Bradfkaw obferves ) eyen cap. z$' the Reflate as well as ethers, mat have a particular Jtilxtpcatton. 4- The Texts which I cited, (Lu\.i.y^. EpheJ.$. 24. Pfal.147.i7* -<4pic-zz.li. ) Teem to me to make the terms \_R;ghteoufnej? and Holtneju Rtghtt-eusandHoly~\ equipollent: and" thatText, PfaL\tf.\ 7. fpeaks not or God's People, but of God himfelf, which ("it feems ) you did not obierve. And why mould you call it tautologtzjngi when two words are joined together as Synonima's > What is more frequent in Scripture than this? It hath moreihewof tautology, when divers fen-tences importing the fame thing, are joyned together; which yet is very ufual. And as the Scriptures, fo alfo our Divines do promifcuouily ufe the words [Righteouf-De TuG. ne ^* s ] anc ^ [Hoiinefs]. Dayer.dnty Hanc ergo quality ab'tt tatem juftttt*, fi\e Sanclitatis, quam Den* tmpnmtt 26 komtmbus renatts, negamus ejje caufam formalem ju-Bell Ener. ft^fcat tents ^ &c. So Amef % Non excluditur juftttta, TcuTt.4 1 6. ft" Sdfc* 4 * raherens, &c. $. The Matter of our Righ-' * ' 6 \ teouhVfs, is that which is conformable to the Law : Ju-ftum eft, quod eft fecundum Leg, ftotf, quod

contra Legem \ and loby your c s the mat- 1

ter of our Hoiinefs. * Zm 1. They are no vulgar Divines, that fay, Oar Inherent

"Ri^htcoufnefs is imperfect; yea, and make this one prin-Ccntra cipal Argument to prove that we are not juiHhed by I11-Camp. ad herent Righteoufaeis. Fides, Q? //^*, <5 Chantas (tx-Rat. 8. ? u ft Whitakerus) nos yaftos altquo modofaciunt, fed tn-P-I78. choate^ nen a(?[oiute. Lud. de Dieu^ and in hia\Bucer De jfufttf. were cited before. Hear now Da\-enant 5 Ipj.. Habtt. juftitta tnhereus? tn fe confiderata y cj;:^tts reperttur m cap. 26- "Ytatcribus^ imperfecta eft, at que caret tilts perfecrunis Aro-. 4. gradihus, qut ad \uftriicattonem ptrfeccam necejfario Contra requtruntur. Vtde ettam Ibid. cap. i;. ad Arg. 6. Be!tar. Thus alfo Amefius 3 Jufttt/a qua yafitjicatur homo co-Tom. 4. ramDeo , debit ejfe perfect a: Sed : ,u7tttta nobis tnhe-lib.6. ci. rtns^ non eft t<:lis. Ergo. Wo'ten fpeaks not oniv ior Ar^. 11. himfelf, but alfo for ethers, even our chiefeit Divines; Ve Re con. Luther hs, Melavcrbon, Cahtnus, o Chemntttutf ta par.i.l.i. p:tt rrramcaufi ( Ni B. ) nos tnfuja & inherente jw c.i 9 . ft'*'*

[4*1

ftitiS. jufttficari non poffe cmtendunt, efuoi ilia in nobis it a imperfecta fit, m tn Dei confpectun^ cum ad )udi-Canium accedat, prodtre nor; audeat

And again ; Nihil profeclo caufk erat^ cur Vafquts^ ibid, in i, 2. Dtff). 202. n. 26. iantopere huic arguments cap. *?• confideret, ut tllo potiffimum niter etur ; P erf eft 10 no-fir a jjuflitU ( tnquit Vafques ) torn debet probari ex quibufdam Scriptur& tefftmontis-, in quibtts commenda-fur perfefta & integra char it a*, fed pot ins ex illit, m quibus docemur nobps imffe juftitiam. Nam jufiitia non eft*, qua vera, C$* perfect a non eft.

And again ; Juftitia no fir a habixualis nobis i Deo in- ibid, ft*fat non eft perfe it a. And again • Re (pendent no fin Ifo.2. W4(J Theologi jujiitiam iliam habitualem ejf'e imperfeftant. ^c. i«. I will add one more, whom both you and I reverence,w<,. Of the \Ax\ Blaise, He having fpoken of fome (he names none, Covenant, but you know, I fuppofe, whom he meaneth) who grant ch.i6.p*l& Holinefs to be imperfect but will have Righteoufnefs (our Perfonal Righteoufnefs) by all means to be perfect ; he adds, £ This and much more to affert a perfonal perfect Inherent Righteoufnefs, as is faid ] all which, as it is here held out, to me is new, and I muft confefs my felf in ignorance all over. I never take Imperfect Righteoufnefs to imply any fuch contradiction, no more than Imperfect Holinefs. ifatah (I am fure ) faith, All our Rtghteoufhejfes are as -pithy Rags, &c. See more afterward.

2. I take Righceoufoefs to be a Conformity to the Law, which Conformity may be more- or lefs perfect, as one may more or lefs come up to the Rule fet before him. If I over-flipt any thing in your Aphorifms, you might have directed me to it 5 oiherwifeto fearch for it, may prove both a tedious and a fruitlefs labour.

Thst one thing may be more or lefs like another,ismolt Ibid. evident, fothat if all the wit in the World mould con- Alio alio fpire again it ir, yet one might as eafily demonstrate it, amtcior, as he did, who to yxovedarimotum, when one had di- S* fimili-fputed againit it, rofe up and walked. Is not the Simi- or y Alfted. litude fometime more, fometime lefs, that is betwixt Pa- Metaph. rents and Children, and betwixt Children of the fame ltb.\,c%. Parents, efpecially Twinns > and fo in other things > To deny this, what is it but to put out mens eyes, or to bid defiance unto common fenfe ? Relatarsciptuntmagts& £<?£.! J.c # 7

minus _

C44 3

nunus, faith Burgerfdtctus. Ye: he faith, Reeipere magsslSminus non cm\entt omnibus Relatis. Surely thereisgreatdifferep.ee bet/. i\tSimilitudo and JEqualt-tas, Co that neither Scheduler nor any Man elfe muft think to carry itfo,as it there were eadem utriufyui ratio j Co that becaufe E^ualita* conftftit in mdi\ifii?ili ; therefore fizniUtudc muft do fo too. Perfect Righteoufnefs indeed is qu&dam JEjualitas, not {imply all Righteoufnefs. That an Action cannot be conform to the Precept, except it be perfectly conform, you muft prove as well as affert, Of the before I can affent. I could yet fee no reafon to doubt of Coven, *tat which Mr. B.a'^e faith, [ As an Image carryngan C l6.P*l 11 imper-zct reftr/.bl.'.Kce of its Samplar, is an Image ^ fo Conformitjvnperfectlj anfrvermg to the Rjde, is Confer-rnttjitkewife^. 33 i. You do not well to confound Conformity and

Equality. And though the Law require perfect Con-fbrmiry^ which none can perform, it doth i that

impeded Conformity is none at all. I: Con-

formicv to the Law could be performed by us, then we ihould be juiri£ed by the Law, . cannot be : yet

the Regenerate conform to the Law in fomc meafure, and fo it behoves us to do j For them [ha ajhamed y

when I hate reflect to ail thy Commandments, Pill 19. 6. I let pafs your Second and Third. Ad 4. i do not fpeak- of Qjalihcation confidered a': tit in refe-

Lse. ctt. rence to the Rule. Mr. Bla'-e faith well, '{Neither do I underhand how Ha - ma-

terially, and Ri^btecufne^ p. fy in

reference to a Rule. We r,*a\

well mai-z -;rmai, and refer a to a Ru.e, and

Rsghteoufnef material, m an abfolute confederation. Without ret ire nee to anj Ru U a t a ll. A r. :: nfe-

deration I do not l>now how there can Le p-. im-

-perfection either in Hclinef or Righiec^^eJ -, /; ts Of they come up, or fall Jhort of the Rule, that they ha>e the denomination of perfedion or unft r s eclton\ H nefs and Righteouihefs are oppofite unto fin : theiefore form. . they are a Coofot mity to the Rule,

as Sin is a deviation irom it. The C -therefore

cf our Actions and DiTpofitions to the Rule is net (as you fay) the matter of our I lefs, bur (asI

conceive ) it :s the rorm 5 and ourAaions and Dtfpoi

ons themfelves are the matter of it> W*> of our Perfonal and Inherent Righteoufnefs 5 and fo of our Holinefs. The Rule of Righteoufnefs ( to which as we conform more or lefs, we are more or lefs righteous ) is the Law, the fum whereof is contained in the Decalogue: therefore it is faid, That Believers are under the Law as a Rule, though not under it as a Covenant. For Pana E\>an-gelica, of which you fpeak, I have faid enough of it before.

To your Queries and Objections, I anfwer, Ad 1./««-Chrift doth juftifie the Unrighteous, God doth juftifie & 34* the Ungodly, Rozx. 4. 5. But how ? They were unrighteous and ungodly before they were juftified; they are not fo when they are juftified, though it is not their Perfonal Righteoufnefs or Godlinefs whereby they are juftified. K^novp je not that the Vnrtghteous /hall not inherit , &c. And fuch were Jome ofyou> but jou are wafted^ &c. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, II. That of Tarno^tus^ Of the cited by Mr. Bally is ufeful here j In Seriftura Cape res Coven. dicitur cfuod paulo ante frit , ut c&ct y>tdent y furdi au- p*H9* , diunt y claudt ambulant > &c. Ad 2. The Law doth not juftifie any but fuch as are perfectly righteous ^ therefore they that are imperfectly, though Truly righteous, cannot be juftified by it. Sumus vere jufti, ( faith Da- De Jufi. tenant) non putative > fi refpiciamus jufttttam no- Hab.czj. fir am habit ualtm : fed h*c vera juftitia eft adhuc tn- ad Arg. 7. choata £? imperjetta, And again, Sanfttficationcm no- ibid, ad ft ram non put at nam & fttttiam-) fed veram^ realem Arg. 8. ftatutmus. BelJarmini autem Dialefttcam^ qut inde concludtt no s )ufttficart ]uftttia inherente^ put at it am ar-bitramur, C Jiitittam. And why fhould not Imperfect Righteoufnefs be acknowledged True Righteoufnefs, as well as Imperfect Holinefs is acknowledged True Holinefs f That of the Apoftle, Ephef^z^. [tn Righteouf-nefi and true Holmef ] ; or, as the Original hath it, [ in r'ghteoufhsfiandhebnefiof Truth ], attributes Truth as well to Righteoufnefs, ( though imperfect ) as to Holinefs. Gemtntt* Veritatis ( feith C^hin on the place ) loco Epithet/ pofltus eft> qm iam )ufttti^ quam fanftt-tati con\enit. Ad g. You feem quite to miftake the meaning of that in James 2.10. It makes nothing againft an Imperfect Righteoufnefs, but only (hews, That re-fpect mull be had to one Precept as well as to another ibe-

caute

[4*3

caufe though a Man fhould keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, v;^. fo as wholly to wave it, and to have no refpecl unto it, he were guilty of all ? his Obedience were indeed none at all. For to obey, is to do that which is commanded, becaufe it is commanded. Now he that dcth an/ one thing eo nomine becaufe it is commanded, will indeavour to do every thing that is commanded. A Ouatenus ad omne^ &c. That this is the meaning of the words, is clear by v. 11. See Co-lvm on the place. Ad 4. The Law doth pronounce an imperfect Obeyer impel dStly righteous 5 and therefore if he be left to the \ a } tu i cand or fall by it, he mall not be juitified for his Righteoufnefs, but ihall be condemned for his Imperfection. Ad 5.11 e D-mncd and Devils cannot be pronounced Rigl tetids acabrt ingto the Law 3 as the Saints may .Is time no di ; Imperfect Obe-

dience, and Perfect ( if it may be called P.ifecx ) Difo-bediencc ? The Unregene ate do fomething that, but nothing as the Law ivqi.heth : the Regenerate do fomething both that, and as, though not fo perfectly as the Law re-r> ¥u/ 2 S u * retft -' L.cet modi** agendi (mquit Da\cn-) bonus .<+ c i' fit-* quia agunt ex Jide £5* charitaxe^ tamen gradits in ' * '/ * ' hoc modo ttejicit, quia non agunt ex tanta fide £5* chari-tate quanta ah if fa Lege pracipnur. It is granted, That the belt action ot any upon earth is not good and juft: according to the rigour of the Law *, for the rigour of che Law requires it to be perfectly good and juft, which it is not. But it follows net, that therefore it is not good and Ibid. juft at all. ..Nam aliudeft ( faith the fame learned Au-

Cat>. "6. tnor ) actionem effe ve; e bonam^ aludejje pure bonam^ adte/r. y. & abemm "Vitio kber am : ftcut aliudef a mum. \>erum^ aliud aurum purum^ ab omni face depuratum. That Ki\\t xheietore^Bcnum non nip ex Integra caufa orttur^ malum ex quolihet defecru^ muil be taken cum grano falpsjpi^. fo as rhat the Defeftw mult be either in the.fub-ftance cf the Act, or in fomc material Circumfraice : And of fuch Actions Dr. Twf/fe ( whom you cite.): doth fpeak • Qui dat eleemoCyiu^vdnA g\m& ftudito, &c. There is indeed fome detect iiv the belt Actions of the beft Men, quoadgradum : But lnajl we therefore deny them to be good, becaufe :h^' arf fome way defect he, and fo not perfectly good ? And fee here I pray, to what you have now brought: tl e matter 5 even to make Imperfect:

Holinefs

C47 3

Holinefs no Holinefs, as well as Imperfect Righteoufeefs no Righteoufnefs. For is not Holinefs Goodnefs as well as Righteoufnefs > Therefore if every defect mskt Goodnefs no Goodnefs, then there is no more an Imperfect Holinefs (which yet you grant ) then there is an Imperfect Righteoufnefs. Thofe words, [ Necjue putan-dum eft, Jien poJjTe, ut per Legem fahem siltquJi ex parte jujitficemur ] taken in rigor t are not true. For then there were no fuch thing as a particular Justification ; neither do they accord with that which I cited before out of Lud. de Dick on Rom. 8. 4. to which place you did refer me. Indeed we cannot be fo jufliricd by the law, as thereby to be freed from all condemnation •, and this feems to be all that your Author here cited did mean, when he faith, 5/ non es Legem tranfgre(]u^^ Lege jufttficarit: ft tranfgrcjjm es^ condemndrts. But this doth no more prove? That Righteoufnefs muft either be perfect, or it is none at all, ( though indeed it is none as to abfoJute and univerfal Jufii'fication ) than it doth prove, that there is no Holinefs at all, except it be perfect. For doth not the Law require perfect Holinefs as well as perfect Righteoufnefs > And is not every tranfgreftion of the Law a privation of Holinefs, as well as of Righteoufnefs > How then can you admit an Imperfect Holinefs to be Holinefs, and yet deny an Imperfect Righteoufnefs to be Righteoufnefs } And if our Inherert Righteoufnefs ("for of that we fpeak) mull needs be perfect, if it be any at all, mult not the fame be faid of our Holinefs, this being a conformity to the Law as well as the other ?

i. You do not anfver my Queition, v^> Whether 34-rhofe Orthodox Writers ( a multitude of whom you fay you could heap up ) do make our Perfonal Righteoufnefs that by which we are juftifed. If they do not, their calliug it Evangelical is to no purpofe. 2. It is not pre-potterous to fay, That Righteoufnefs ( v/<,. inherent ) is icquired unto Sa notification •, it being that whereby we arc fanctified, as Imputed Righteoufnefs is that wherebv we are julHfied. You faid before, I hat I did ill oppofe that whereby we are juftified, as if the fame thing might not do both : You grant then { it ieems ) that Righteoufnefs may fanftiiie 5 1 think it muft, anci fois required unto Sanctification. How you can make Inherent Righteoufnefs it d fe habere ad fangificattonem^ ut Ji k/ibct

^Ibeda

C4n

Albedo ad Parietem, to me feems very flrange : rather (I think) ut fe habet Albedo ad Dt alb attontm. $. If you had fpoken abfoiutely without any qualification, \He that affirmeth a Man Righteous, ( viz. by Inherent Right eoufnefi ) and yet denteth htm to be jufiified, viz. by that Righteoufnefs contradifteth himfe(f*\ you had condemned all our famous Divines ( I think ) of felf-contradiftion. But your fpeech being fo qualified, as it is, [fo far as htts Righteous ] I know not at whom it ftriketh. But though none by the Law of Works can be pronounced perfectly righteous, and therefore if they be tryed by it, all will be tound unrighteous, yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no fuch thing as an Imperfect Righteoufnefs. 2btd. You feem not to diflike what I fay, neither do I what

you now fay. I grant, that the New Covenant is to the wicked an unipcakab'e mercy, in that by it they may be freed from the condemnation of the Cid Covenant: yet untiHhey embrace the New Co\ en ant, they lemain under the Old, even under the condemnation of it. ■2* r. Concerning ChriiVs Satisfaction, how it may be

called both our Legal and our E\ angelical Righteoufnefs, I have fpoken before. Legal Righteoufnefs may either fignifie the Righteoufnefs of the Law, n vb/ux, or the Righteoufnefs which is of or from the Law 5 U tv vb/u*. There is great difference between thefe two, for the former is afferted, but the latter is exploded, Rom. 8. 4. &10. 5- Phtl. 3, 9. ChriiVs Satisfaction may be called our Legal Righteoufnefs in the former fenie, not the latter. But in both refpefts it is our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, as being the Rightecufnefs of the Gofpei, to ioxyyiKix, t. e. the Righteoufnefs which the Gofpei doth hold out unto us, and the Righteoufnefs which is of or from the Gofpei, ok, to ic»A»c\i« 3 /. e. the Righteoufnefs which by the Gofpei we are made partakers of through Faith. And therefore it is called the Righteoufnefs which is of Faith, ^ *•*?*»*, and by Faith, Ji£ ni&us^ Row. 9,30. & 10. 6. PhtL 3. 9. 2. In that Faith is the Condition, orInitrumer.t (*or what any pleafc to call it) whereby ChriiVs Righteoufnefs is made ours unto Juftifi-cation, it rather follows, that Faith it felf is not proper-)y our Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified,

Some*

[ 49 3

Something out of Rivet I have cited before to this pur-pofe > hear alfo what another faith, v/^,. rignerius, whofe Difputation Rivet much commends, and thought meet to annex it to his own, Out dm in fide noftrd glori- De Sdtif abimur, ftex fide ju/iificatio eft, ut opera Ev angelic o, fa ft. Chri-& appofit a feedericonditione, contra Apoftolum^ quiex- fit inter o-clufam ejfe die it per Legem fidei gloriationem ? Rom.^O'/zRive-3. z6. — - An pojjibile eft, ut fit fidei inftrumentum ac- ti,L>ijp-l£ cipienda ]uft$tiA, & fimut fit ipfa, quam querimus, §. 61. juft/tia * Vtut fane glorietur homo, fclus tamen Chri-ftus eft noftr* wftitia, ntc aliudagtt Tides, quamquod Chnftum -pp- t,.endit, ££ noftrdm factt tllius juftitiam, ut tn qo int emamur, non noftram habentes )uftitiam,qUA ex Lege eft, fedsiiam, qua eft per fidem Chrifti, juftitiam, quA eft ex Deo per fidem, Phil. 3. 9.

1. I fee nothing in the place cited (v/<* u4phor.ip.uj. Ibid* 12.8) but a Similitude, which proves nothings and I gave fome touch of it in the Antmadverfions. Whereas, you now fay, [ In refyett of the condition of our perfonal performance to mai^e Chrift's Satisfaction ours,Faith is imputed unto us intend of our perfonal performance of Perfect Obedience"], it feems to imply as if perfonal performance of Perfect Obedience might be required as a Condition to make Chrift's Satisfaction ours, which were very ihrange. For if Perfect Obedience could be performed by us, what need were there of Chrift's Satisfaction to be imputed to us, except for fin committed or contracted before this perfonal performance of perfect Obedience > If Right eoufnefs come by the Law, Chrtft die din vain, Gal. 2. ult. But how-ever, fuch Obedience cannot be performed by any, there being not a Juftman upon Earth, that doth good, and ftnneth not^ Ecclef.7.20. That Faith is as effectual or fufficient a Condition under the New Covenant, as perfect perfonal Obedience, if performed, Would have been under the Old Covenant: if this were all that you meant, though I like not your expreflion, yet I allow the thing; only this I think meet to obferve, That perfect perfonal Obedience was fo the Condition of the Old Covenant, that it was alfo the Righteoufhefs required in it : But Faith is fo the Condition of the New Covenant* as that it is not properly the Righteoufnefs it felf, but only a means to partake of ChrifVs Satisfaction, which is the Righteoufnefs that the D New

C5°l

New Covenant dcth offer and afford to a Believer, infiead of Perfect Obedience perfonally to be performed by the Old Covenant. For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn, &c. I do not think that we can be faid truly and properly to pay any thing our felves as 3 price, whereby to purchafe the benefits of the New Covenant ■ kelfa. 55. 1. and ^4poc. zz.17. When we pi each and pre'fs Holinefs and Good Works, we ufe to diftinguiifi betwixt Vtk Regm & Caufa regnandi 5 and we make them requisite unto Glorification, but not unto Cotteg. Juitification. Dicimu* ( trtquil Rivetus) bona of era, Contrc er. necejfana ejje y t.mquam adjunftum confequem )ufttfica-^ >, Jr* S^. x'tcnem^ tanquam ejfoftum acqutfttd, fitCutis , quatenks fains accipitur pro yafiificatione , tf tanquam antecedens act[faint e/», quatenus accipitur pro glorifications • nort ant em tanquani caufam, qu& faint em efficiat,

1. The acceptance of a Gift, being a means to enjoy it, is a means whereby the Gift doth fnrich • and fa Faith is a means whereby ChrilVs Righteoufnefs doth ju-itlHe us, as being a means whereby ic is imputed unto us,' and made ours. But properly it is the Gift that doth in-rich, though not without the acceptance of it; and foit is the Righteoufnefs of Chrift that doth juftifie, though not without Faith. The Tryal of a Man's Title in Law 1 to a Gift, depends on the Tryal, and Proof of his Acceptance of it, beeaufe otherwife except he accept of rhe Gift, it is none of his : Yet for all this* it is the Gift that doth inrich, though it muft be accepted, that it may doit. And fo it is ChrihYs Righteoufnefs that we are juftified by, though Faith be required of us, that it may be made ours, and fo we may be juftified by it. *£ # ' That my words are contradictory one ro another, you

fay,but the Reafon which you add for proof of it,is of little force. I deny it to be as proper to fay, \We are juftified uy Faith as a Condition ] as to fay, [ We are juftified by thrift's Sattsfaftt'.n, as the Meritorious Caufe~\^ yea~ and as the Righceoufnefs by which we are juftified. What inconvenience doth arife from it, if Paul and the Scriptures do oftner fpeak improperly than properly in this Point > May not improper Speeches, concerning fome Point, be more frequent in Scripture, than proper ? Sacramental Speeches, wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing fignified, are improper: Yet are they

more

C 5i ]

more frequent in Scripture, than thofe which in that kind are more proper.

1. You not clearing the Queftion, either there or any fH£ where elk (that I know ) in your Afhortfms* Teemed

to leave it doubtful $ and fo I thought meet to noteit^ that you might prevent any ones {tumbling at it.

2. What you now add upon review, doth lefs pleafe • For the Holinefs tha: is in us, is from God, the imperfection of it is from our fclves j this therefore may be fin-ful, though God's Work be good.

u Relation when it is founded in Quality, may (for j^ any thing I fee ) be intended and remitted, as the Qua- y t ^ e ^ lity is wherein it is founded. I like not Scheiblers joyning a e j t j^ em Similitude and Equality together, as if there were the taphyf famereafonof both. One thing cannot be more or lefs lib. j. c . <-equal, though it may be nearer to, or further from Equality than another •, but one thing may be more or lefs like, when yet there is a true and proper likenefs in both. z. That no Man. ever performeth one aft fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works, is the fame that I fay: But why do you put in thefe terms [ fully and exaftly ] if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exaft ?

3. That our Inherent Righteoufnefs ( for I mud ftill mind you that wcare fpeaking of it ) is Non-reatus pce~. n*-> I deny y and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent, as being nothing to Inherent Righteoufnefs, about which now is all theDifpute. Pag. 37. You fecm to come up to what I fay, when you grant, that our Gofpel-Righteoufnefs coniidered in ejfe officii, as related to, or meaiured by the Precept, fo our Faith andHoli-nefs admit of degrees. Here by Faith and Holinefs, you mean the fame with that which immediately before you called Gofpel-Righteoufnefs, which mull needs be meant of Inherent Righteoufnefs. As for thofe words which you infert, [ and that only quoad mattriam pr*cep~ tam ] I kn©w net well what they mean. For how can officium, as related to, and meafured by the Precept, be coniidered but quoad materiam pr&ctptam *

1. If I take Holinefs (as you fay) as oppofite to 37. Sin, How do I make all the Afttons of the Heathens Holy > Do I make them not finful ? I have ever approved of thofe Sayings of the Ancients.

D 2. Sine

Profp. de Stnt cultuttri Dei* et'tam quod y>irtu* tidetur ej/e, Vocat. peccatum eft. And, Omni* tnfidelium Ytta^ peccatum Cent, lib.l. € fl-> & n *hil e ft bonum fine fummo bone. T)bi entm de-cap. 7. € fi fig™*** Atcrnd. £? mcommutabtl'ts yeritatis^ falfa Wr-Idem'in titseft) ttiaminoptimis moribus. And, Qutcqutd b%ni Sentent.ex fit ab homtne^ & non propter hoc Ji >, propter quod fieri Au<*. Se/z/. ^«^rf y>era fapientia pr&ctpit^ £$* /* fl^fo* ^ideatur bo. \o6. num s tpfo non re ft o fine peccatum eft. Scripture alfo

Au*. rM *.'doth carry me that way, namely thefe places, Rom. 8. */v*tulian. 8,9. and//«?£. II- 6- I wave that place Rom. 14.*//. lib. 4. c. *. becaufe it fecms to look another way • though Profper de Vita Contempt, lib. 3. r^/». 1. doth urge it to this purpofe. There is not then the fame reafon of the Actions of Heathen 1 ?, as of the Actions of Believers: thefe are imperfectly holy, the other are altogether unholy.

2. You grant that Holinefs is the fame with Righteoufnefs, which is oppofed to Rtatu* Culpa : And truly I -mould think, that Inherent Righteoufnefs is rather Nonreturn CulpAy than Non-reatu* Pcen*. For your Paren-thefis, [ If any were founds that had any fuch Rsghte^ eufnef according to the Law of Works J it is ever granted, That fuch a perfect Righteoufnefs is not found in any upon Earthy but itill it is denyed, thatbecaufe it is not perfect 1 , therefore it is none at alL

Ad Ctefi* Juft* appeliantur ( faith Hierom^ fpeaking of Zacha-phont. ry, Elizabeth, Job^ &c. ) non quod omni \itto cartant^ contra Ve- fed quod majori parte ytrtutum commendentur. You lagian. grant, that Holinefs may be denominated from its congru-ency to the Precept as a Precept. Now this you muft grant, may recipere magi* C? mint* : for (0 you grant that Holineft may. And if Con^ruency, why not Conformity ? For Congruence and Conformity, though divers words, yet import ( for any thing [ fee ) one and the fame thing. I take Faith to be in part our Inherent Righteoufnefs, as it is Ojficiumi not as it is Conditio practje ccnflderata.

3. Whether Habitual Faith, or Actual, be properly the Condition o: the Covenant, is little to our purpofe. And for the thing it felt, as I fhall grant, that we muft not content our felves with a habit of Faith, but muft alfo act Faith : So ( I think ) you will not deny, that we vneFideles 9 and fo juftihed, even when we fleep, though no ait of Faith be performed by us.

You

You fay nothing to that which I anfwered concerning Ibid* our Divines, of whom you fpake, v/^. That they hold, That the Righteoufnefs whereby we are juflified, is not our Perfonal Righteoufnefs •, and therefore though they fay, ( as you alledge ) That our Juftification is perfect, arid therefore ( as you infer ) our Righteoufnefs, v /<j% whereby we are juftified, muft be perfect alfo ; yet all this is little to your purpofe.

2,. To what you fay, I have faid enough before, W<„ That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant, as to Juftification, is not our Righteoufnefs whereby we are juftified,but only a means to partake of ChrifVs Satis-faction, the only Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified. And for being ret pcen& Nov* Legps for non-performance of its Condition > I fay ftill, I know no punimment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition, but only a leaving to the puniihment of the Old Law ; which punilhment yet (I grant ) will be fo much the more grievous, as the fin, which an Unbeliever, both as an "Unbeliever, and otherwife , is guihy of by GofpeL Aggravations, is the more hainous.

i. las little doubt but thatfincerity of Righteoufnefs 3%-doth confift with imperfection of Righteoufnefs, >/<,. Inherent Righteoufnefs, which is really the fame with Ho-linefs, how-ever in this or that refpedfwe may diftinguiih the one from the other.

2. How Hypociifie can be taken for a fceming or appearing better than we are, yet without affectation or diflimulation, I do not underftand. It without any affectation or diflimulation of ours, we feeni better than we are, U is another's errour, notour fault5 neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites. Your manifold diftinctions of Sincerity do ferve rather ro confound the Reader, than to unfold the matter,. I take fin-ccrityto be no diftinft Grace, but the Modus of other Graces: but why that Modus may not admit of degrees, I confefs I do not fee. I conceive Zeal to be of like nature, yet one may be more or lefs zealous, and fo alio more or lefs fincere. You fay here, [ There is no Medium inter Ens & non Ens ~\ of which I make no doufcvt but fag, z. you think Relations to be inter Ens C Nihil j and what difference between Nihil G? non Ens * You fay* ^hat you have over and over fl\ewed 4 ThatCcnfor-D $ mity

£ 54 3

mity to the Rule of the Condition, doth confift in tndht-fibtlt. Indeed you have divers times affirmed, That all Conformity is of rhat nature, but I could never yet fee it proved. But why do you now fpeak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition ? I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Perfonal Righteoufnefs,-and the'Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteoufnefs. And this Righteoufnefs, though it be finceie, I hold to be imperfect, becaufe the Confor-Of the m * l y to * e ^ u * e ls imperfect. [ Sincerity ( faith Ma-Coven. ^ er B ^ a kS ) * f a *d *° ^ the New Rule, or the Rule of chap. 16. *^ e New Co ^ enant * % ut this ** no R**lh but our Duty, paj'1 11 ta ki n i the Ab(traft for the Concrete 5 Sincerity fur ftn-* * * ' cere walking, and this according to the Rule of the Law, not to reach //, but in all farts to aim at it, and haye rejpeclunto it. Then fhall I not be aihamed, when I have refpeft to all thy Commandments, Pfal. 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Rtghteoufnefi, which tn reference to its Rule (N.B.) labours under many imperfections'] . And a little before he faith thus, [ / know no ether Rule but the Old Rule> the Rule of the Woral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule'the only Rule]. J

3. Itfeems very incongruous to grant, that Apoc.n. II. [Beholy fltU] doth import an encreafe of Holinefs^ and yet to deny, that [ Be righteous fiiW] doth import an increafe of Righteoufnefs. For any thing I know, fome on the contrary may as well fay. That the latter words import an increafe of Righteoufnefs, and yet the other no increafe of Holinefs. Whereas you fpeak of varying the fenfe according to the variety of Subjects, you take it for granted, Tha*- here the Subjects are various 5 whereas both by this, and divers other places before cited, it feems clear to me, that the Subjects, V/^. Righteoufnefs and Holinefs are really the fame one with the other. For the for male of Righteoufnefs, what is it but Conformity to the Law, the only Rule of Righteoufnefs > And why fuch Conformity may not be more or lefs, I am yet to learn. That place indeed, as many other, fpeaks of a true Perfonal Righteoufnefs in the Saints,but yet not of a Perfect Righteoufnefs in them; and cpnfequently not of fuch a Righteoufnefs, as whereby they are juflified^ except it be only in fome fort, and in

fome

fome meafure, which is not the Juftification about which we contend. This Imperfect Righteoufnefs is mofured by the Law of Works, as a Rule, though it be accepted only by the gtacious condefcenfion of theGofpcl.

To Ephefq. 24. you give many Anfwers, but they 39, feem but fo many Evafions.

1. I think there is no Quefiion, but the Apoftle fpeaks by way of Precept and Exhortation. ^. d. If you have indeed learned Chxift, and have been caught by him, you have learned to do fo and fo j therefore have a care tp do fo. Surely the Apoftles words import a duty required, and fo implicitly contain a Precept or Exhortation.

i. That he fpcaks as well to Believers, True Believers, as mere ProfefTors, is as little to be doubted. For he fpeaks unto them upon a fuppofition, that they had learned Chrift, and had been taught by him ^ which though it may belong to mere Profeifors, yet to true Believers much rather.

I . If the New Man, which is created in Righteoufnefs and Holinefs, may encreafe, as you grant, then furely Righteoufnefs and Holinefs, in which the New Man is created, and without which the New Man is nothing, muft increafe alfo. To fay, That the New Man may increafe in Holinefs, but not in Righteoufnefs, is for one that would fay any thing, fo that he mav but (T»W« v T-f vcro3-fcj£*. As well might it be faid, That the New Man is created in Holinefs, but not in Righteoufnefs.

4. The Form of Righteoufnefs is Conformity to the Law, tp which we muft labour to conform {till more and more, not only extenfiVe^ but alfo intenfhe.

<f. The very conjunction of the words here, as in other-places, lhewsthat they are ufed as *ffoJi/v*^avr*. Be-fides, how we ihould give unto God the things that are God's, and to Men the things that are Mens, and not conform to the Law 5 which doth prefctibe our Duty towards God, and towards Men, I cannot fee: and furely Conformity to the Law, is the Righteoufnefs now in cjueftion.

1. If we be juftified from the Accufuion of Reatus Ibid. ptsn& prima Legit ptcpter peccatum ; What need is there of any other juftification > [ Vpon the Laws ConVtftt- Of the ens ( faith Mr. Blake ) there may follow Gofyel-Jiggr'a- Coven. nations 5 hut Conytcften it the Wori^ of the Law']. If** 14, p-tf*

D 4 Con^

C 5* 3

Convi&ion ] then furely Condemnation. If the Law do not condemn, what can > And what can the Law condemn for, but for fin ? It is the Law which is the Mini-ftration of Condemnation, z Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the tyowledg of Jin, Rom. 3. 20.

2. For the accufation of Re at us pcen& Nova Legis ob non praftitam Conditionem, it is no new Accufation, but a making good of a former Accufation 5 and fo Reatus f&n& Nova Legis-y is but to be left in reatu fcena Veteris Legis y fave that aggravata ex Evangelio culpa if fa eti-am fccna aggravatur.

3. I confefs, I was not before acquainted with theft fWo J unifications which you fpeak of: I did not find them in your Aphonfms, but only two forts of Righteoufnefs as requifite to one and the fame Juftification> fo I un-

r derftood it. But truly now that you lay open your conception more than before, I can fee no folidity in it. We are justified by the Righteoufnefs of Chrift participated by Faith \ but not by Faith, as being it felf our Righteoufnefs. Faith is indeed required unto J unification, yet not as our Righteoufnefs, but as a Condition, Inftru-ment, or Means ( for I would not ftrive about words ) whereby we partake of ChrifVs Righteoufnefs. 1 fee not, that the Scripture doth fpeak of fuch a Two-fold Justification, one by Chriit and his Righteoufuefs, another by Faith as our Righteoufnefs 5 but only of one Ju-ftification of Chrift through Faith. Bj him all that belie** are )uftified, Ads 13. 39.

Ibid. Non-re at us fan a is not Inherent Righteoufnefs, of

which I exprefly fpake, I take it to be really the fame

(/• 47 • ) with Holinefs. What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaus, is nothing again ft me, I fpeaking of Righteoufnefs in one fenfe, and they in another. Befides, you feem to miftake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words: fox Sons is as much as reus culpa, and infons as much as non-reus culpa ; whereas you feem to take Sons for Reus fa?na,znd Infons for Non-reus pawa ; how-ever his words are not to our purpofe.

[kid. 1. I fee not how either here orelfewhere you infringe

that, which I faid about the Materiality and Formality, as well of Holinefs as of Righteoufnefs.

%i As Holinefs (you grant ) is a Conformity to the Law, as it doth conjtitu-ere debttam officii, fo I conceive

C 57 3

is Righteoufnefs, (Inherent I ftill mean ) and not a Conformity to the Rule, as it coniUtuteth, Conditionem r p. ^g, ) pr&mtt obtinendi, S? fcen& Vttandje^ ft mmirkm feclufa omni conftderatione officii ^ Conditio tantiim ut Conditio ccnfideretur.

i. Acceptance as taken for Accep- J bid. & 40. ting * as Righteous,or Accounting juft, * Jufiification is by the is ( I think ) as much as Juftifying. confent of all men (/meat*

2. I did not (nor I iuppole thofe Trote/tants) a remijfonof other Divines by you mentioned) fpeak our fins> and accepting of fo generally, but toprefuppofe Faith, us as Righteous , Mi.I(en~ whereby our Perfons are accepted in dai again ft Mr. Goodwin, Chrift, and then our Actions. By cap.f, p. 13S. Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrificej &c. Heb, 11. 4. At length, after many words, which touch not me, in your 6thy you grant as much as I did, or do defire, W<,. That our Perfons mufi be juftifed and reconciled-* before our external Obedience can be accepted. Whereas you there add, That it was not ai they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Worths, that AbePj Works were accepted: I anfwer, It was not indeed by the Law of VVorks ; yet as they were a fincere, though imperfect Conformity to that Law, as a Rule, fo they were accepted by the New Covenant. The Law of Works directs, the Covenant of Grace accepts, though we come ihort of what the Law requires.

[ The Law ( as Mr. Blaise faith ) ftili commands us^ Of the though the Covenant in Chriji, through the abundant Coven. Grace of it y upon the terms that it requires and accepts, ch. 1 6.^.9, ■frees its from the Sentence of it ]. And again, [ A per- 10. fection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant^ lbid.p,\\ \ God condefcendtng through rich Grace to crown weal^liz. Obedience : In this fence our Imperfection hath its per-fectntftz) otherwife I muft fay, That our Inherent R/gh-teoufhef is an Imperfect Rtghtebufneft, in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Rightejufnef, &c J He means the Law of Works, which ( as before noted ) he faitli is, a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule.

1. I mail not deny, but that our Faith and Obedience 40, & 41. may be faid to be juitified from the accufation of un-foundnefs : Yetl think. That this is but a making good of our J unification againit the Accufation oi being Sinners. For belides that the unfoundneis of Faith (and fo

C 58 3

of Obedience) is fin s be/ides this (I fay) if our Faith be not found, it is in vain, we arc yet in our fins, we lie under the Curfe and Condemnation of the Law, there being no freedom for us without Faith.

2. I know none that fay, Our A&ions are juftitied through ChrhTs Merit by the Law of Works. For my part I fliould fay, We and our A&ions are jufKfied from the Law of WWcs. % e. from the condemnation of it, God for Chrift's fake accepting us and our A&ions, not-withftanding our imperfe&ion, for which the Law, if we iliould be fentenced by it, would condemn us. But hereby the way, let me obferve this, That your retrafta-tion of what you faid in your Aphonfmsy doth feem to manifeft thus much, That when you compofed thofe Aphorifmt^ you either knew not, or liked not that Twofold J unification, which now you fo often fpeak of, and fomewhere fay, That my ignorance in this Point is it, that doth mainly darken all my Difcourfe. That common faying is not always true, btuTtgti vyiliJU t&vtpciji&tt. For my words ' y 1. I fee not why thofe, [Acquitting tt* from all fin ] (hould offend you. For you might fee by what I there faid, That I meant the not-imputing of any fin unto us. And fo the Phrafes ukd in Scripture, of God, not remembring our fins-, his cohering them^ taftmg them behind his bac^ into the bottom of the Sea, &c. they all import fuch an acquiring of us from fin, as I intended -, not as if God did account us to be without fin, which were falfe, but that God doih not charge fin upon us, Vi^. fo as to exaft, fatisfa&ion for fin from us. I meant the very fame with Mr. Gata^er in the words which you cited p. 3 9. Non hoc dicttury Dcum apud fe )udicare y illos pro quorum peccatis um-yerfis Chriftus fatisfecit^ nihil malt unquam commififje^ aux bom debits omifijfe y fed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum-s ££ jus'ad titam Aternam^ ac ft nihil W mail admijiffent^ V<?/ bont debit 1 omtfijfent. 1 hus Chrifl: fpeaJcs to the Church, Cant, 4. 7. Thou art all fairy my Lo^e, and there is no (pot in thee. What ? may fome fay, Is there no fpot in the Church ? No, none in her, fo as to be imputed to her. Sim macula deputa-Gilbtr. ad tur ^ ^ Htd CH l^ A n9n tmputatur^ as one doth no lefs truly Loc * than elegantly exprefs it. You your felf yeeld as much

as I defire> or as my words import, >/^. That God ac-

quiucth

cjuitteth us from all fin, fo as it induceth an obligation to punifhment.

2. When you fay, That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, is one Justification, and to juftifie us againft the accufation of being fo obliged, is another Justification ^ I confefs {Da^u*fam<>nQnOtdipu4) I do not well underftand what you mean, for to my apprehen-fion thefc are one and the fame. Me-thinks it muft needs be, That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, doth alfo tonomtm juftifie us againft the Accufation of being fo obliged. For how are we acquitted from the Obligation, if not juftified againft the Accufa-tion of being obliged }

3. I marvel why you fliould trouble your felf with fpeaking of the fin againft the Holy Ghoft, and of final unbelief, when as you could not but know, that I fpakc of all fin, from which we may be juftified. Why might not one as well quarrel with thofe words of the Apoffie, Ads 13. 30. Bj him all that believe art )uftified from aUtbtngs-) &c.

4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief, yet ( as I exprefly added in that very place which you take hold on) fo that this be rightly under-flood. For the right underftanding of it, Ifaidfome-thing before j and tor further explication, I refer you to Mr. BU^eoi the Covenant, .Chap* 33.

?. But in the next you do moft ftrangely,even without any caufe that I can fee, nv&l&y *?***> and. fas they fay ) flufttts in fimpulo excttare. That [ fir ft our Per-fons, and then our Duties and Actions may properly be faid to be juftified, that is, accepted as juft, and acquitted from all accufation brought againft them, though in themfelves they be not fuch, but that fm doth cleave unto them ] why lhould this feem fuch horrid Dodrine, as that your Heart fhould deteft it >

1. I fpeak of good Adions: for it is abfurd to fay, That evil Adions are accepted as juft, though we may be fo accepted notwithftanding our evil Adions.

2. I plainly fay, That fin doth cleave to our gpod Adions^ yet ( I fay ) God doth accent them as juft, notwithftanding the imperfedion of them, and the fin that doth cleave unto them. If this be oftenfive to you, as well (I thinV ) may you be offended at that Nekem.

j^. ix. Remember me^ O Lord, concerning this, and (pare me according to the greatnefi of thy Mercy. And lb at that I Pet. z. 5. Tou alfo as lively (tones are built up a Spiritual Houfe, an Holy Priefihovd, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable unto God through Jefus Chrift. Neither is there any reafon why thofe words [acquitted from all accufation brought agamft them~] mould diftafte you. For wnat though an Accufation be true, if yet in fome other refped it be of no force ? May not they be properly faid to be acquitted from all Accufation, who notwithstanding the Accufation, are freed from condemnation ? What matter is it how we are accufed, fo long as we are fune not to be condemned ? Therefore the Apoftle ufeth thefe Expreflions as equipollent, [who (hall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elec? * ] and [ Who ts he that condemneth } ] Rom. 8. 33,34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon thofe words of the Apoftle, \Whofhall lay any thing to the charge ,&c] as you do upon mine ? Might you not fay, Why > I will lay this, and that, and that, and ten thoufand things be-fides to their charge > Yea, but when you have done all you can, to what purpofe is it > For who is he that condemneth them, notwithjlandmg all the Accufations MeduU. brought agamft them i Thefe very words of the ApoiWe W.i.e.27.*doth Amefius allcdg in the former of thofe Sedions §> 20. which you cite. And if ( as you fay ) all may be there

fully feen in Amefius, that you would fay in this, then I fee not that you would fay any thing again ft me, as indeed you do fay nothing. Bur what do you mean by thofe words, [ and that as to the Law of Worlds ] which by a Parenthelis you thruft in among mine ? As if I meant, that as well our Adions as our Pcrfons are accepted as juft, and acquitted horn all condemnation by the Law of Works. Truly I think ti/n quam, as well the one as the other, that is indeed neither the one nor the other. The Law doth convince of fin, and ( as much as in it lies ) condemn for fin, both us and our Actions, even the belt. of them : But by the New Covenant, Through Faith in Chrift we are accepted as juft, though guilty of manifold fins j and our Adions are accepted alio, though full of imperfedion. When you fay, That the Re at us Culpa cannot poftibly be removed, or remitted, though I think *i is but a ftriving about words, which I do not love, yet

I cannot affent unto it. For I think it is truly and properly faid to be remitted or pardoned 5 neither doth that feem proper or pertinent, which you add by way of Explication, [that is, The Man cannot be y or juftlj efteoned to be a Man that hath not finned]* Q^td turn poftea ? Cannot therefore the guilt of fin be remitted > Yea, how fliould fin be remitted, if it were no* committed > I think it is as proper to fay, Remittere culpam>> as Remtttere panam. Surely if 1 may argue from the frequent ufe of Phrafcs, and hence infer the propriety of them, as you did, there is nothing more ufual in Scripture, ("and fo in other Writings, and in common Speech) then to fay, that Sins, Faults, Offences are remitted, Groiiu* faith, That *><gva*, which in Latin is Remittere, is as Ve Satif. much as mtfjitm face r e 5 and that the Greek Scholi- pag. 52.. alls ufually expound it by «/w*\e*v, /. e. to neglect, not to regard, to pafs over, Q as Prov. 19.11. to pa ft oter a tranfgrejjion ) and that therefore d^w^T* &ptivd,i, is peccata m'tjf'a facere , which the Scripture (he faith) following the Metaphor further, calls peccata in mare projicere, Mich. 7.19. It is true, Sin is faid to be re- Ibid* mitted in reference unto Punifhment: Remittere> or p. 53. mtjfa facere peccata^ ( as Grotttt* faith ) is as much as funtre nolle. Yet this hinders not but that fin, or the guilt of fin is properly faid to be remitted or pardoned ; yea (I think ) it doth confirm it. For if it be proper to fay, That God will not punifh fin, and this is as much as to remit or pardon fin 5 then it is proper to fay, That God doth remit or pardon fin. In a word therefore, my words, about which you make fo much adoe, are fuch as that I fee nor why any mould Humble at them. They do not import, that our Actions, even the belt of them, if ilrictly examined, are not finful; or that God doth not fee any fin in them ; but only that God doth pardon and .pafs by the finfulnefs of them, and accept them in Chriit, (who is the High-Pikft, that doth bear, and fo take away the Iniquity of our holy things, Exod.-2%> 30- ) as if they had no fin in them. Neither do I fee why you fhould detcft this juftifying of our Actions, and yet grant the juftifying of our Perfons. Your Reafons feem to make as much againft the one as againft the other. For are not our Perfons finful as well as our Actions > Surely if the Attion be finful, the Perfon whofe Action it is

mult

muft needs be fo too. And though you pafs over the next, becaufe you reverfe your former Affertion, yet in that which I there faid, you might have feen enough to vindicate me horn all that you have here faid againft me.

1. You grant what I fay. * 2 ' 2. I have ft id before, 7 hat though (in mine Opinion ) fin may properly be faid to be remitted, yet this is in reference unro punifhment.

2. You had no reafon to imagine, that I mould think, that my Actions, or the Actions of the belt upon Earth, can be justified againft all Accufations, as if they were abfclutely good and perfect ; when in that very place I fpake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our beft Aftions, arid how it is through Chri:~ covered, and not imputed unto us. Yea, andimmec^rely I cited divers places of Scripture ( v^. Ecclej, y. 20. Jamis g. 2. I John i. 8. 9. Job 9 4. Exod. XS, $8.) to prove, thac neither our Perfons, nor our Actio*-s a.e fo righteous, but that we may be ?ccifd of, sne condemned for fin in them, and fo without the mercy of God in Chrift muft be. It is it-range how you ihould pafs by all this, it being dii e^ly before your eyes, and fnould raife a fufpicion> as if I fhouid mean quite contrary-

Ibid* I • It will not fellow tha: our Perfons being once jufti-

fled by Chiiit, afterward they may be juftined by our Works, when once our Works themfelves are all juitiMed in that fenfe as I explained it, v^. That firft it is meant only of good Works ^ and then that God doth not juft i-fle thofe good Works for their own fake, as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous, but for ChrilVsfake pardoning and palling by the imperfection that is in them. De Jufl. Illud femptr rettneatur^ (tnqntt Davenantius ) hanc sfcf.c.??. accept at tonem operum pendere ex pratota accept at tone Mt/nb. 2. f^rfont tn C'hrtjro j Cum entm tpjirenaticarnern pecca* trtcem adkuc gejient^ k5 Optra tUorum omnia carnts "rt-ttum redohant^ Dens ntque tpfos, ne^ue eorum opera grata haberet , niji <3 hos<$ilia m Chrtflo magts qxam tn fi'ipfts amplexaretur. What you lay of Chamier and othets, as being againft the meritorioufnefs of Works merited by Chrift, might well have been fpared, as being nothing at all againft me, who am far from making our Works meritorious, when I make even the beft of

them

them imperfect, and to need pardon, 2. It is evident by this very Section, to which you now reply, that I fpake only of good Actions. For how abfurd and fenilefs were it to fay, that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous, as I there fay that our Works are not ? The two former Sections alfo clearly ftiew of what Works I fpake ; fb that here you do but nodum in fitrpo qu&rere.

1. AfTerting may well enough be called Confeffing, Ibid. though it be that, and fomewhat more. 43 8C44.

z. I cannot tell what Judgment fome others may be of, I fpeak for my felf.

3. I take all fin to be againft the Law, as it is diftin-guiihed from the Gofpel, though fome fins may be aggravated by the GofpeL Of that Law I fuppofe St. John fpake, /aying, Sin is atranjgrejjion of the Law^ 1 Joh. 3.4. And St, Patd^ By the Law is the i>nowledgoffin^ Rom. 3. 20. And again, / had not known fin but by the Law : for I had not tyow luft, ( or as the Margent hath it, coucvpifcence, v/^. to be fin ) except the Law had fatdy Thou (halt not covet ^ Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines, that every fin is againft fome of the Ten Commandments.

4, It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief, and neglect of the Sacraments, £$V. are fins againft the Precepts of the Decalogue. The firft precept requires us to have the Lord, and him only, for our God y andfoto believe whatfoever he doth reval unto us, and to perform whatfoever he doth require of us. The fecond Precept requires us to Worfhip God as he himfelf doth prefcribe 5 and confequently not to neslecl: any of God's Ordinances •, See Mr. Caw drey 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 fome things feem meet to be obferved.

1. This (I confefs) to me is ftrange Philofophy, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, ceafed not to be Earth ftill, when it was made Man. As well may you fay, That Adarns rib, of which Eve was formed, ceafed not to be a Rib ftill • and fo that all the Elemenrs retain their feveral Natures in all mixt Bo-(fies.

2. The Precept dndThreatnmg ( you fay ) are parts of the New Law t though they be campion with the Old.

Here

[*4 3

Here you feem to grant, That nothing is commanded, or lhreatned in the J^evv Law, which is not commanded or thrcatned in the Old. Me-thinks then you mould not make a Two-fold Righteoufnefs, and a Two-fold Juftifi-cation ' one in refpeft of the Old Law, another in re-fpeft of the New. The Precept [ believe ] belongs to the Old Law $ but as it is not only a Precept, but alfo a Condition? upon performance of which Salvation is pro-mifed, £ Believe* and thou fhalt be fayed ] fo it belongs to the New Law. So this Threatning [ If thou dofl not believe , thou /halt penfh ] belongs to the Old Law, as threatning death for every fin, and confequently for unbelief, which is a fin: and it belongs to the New Law, as leaving an Unbeliever under the condemnation of the Old Law both ior that fin of unbelief, and alfo for all other fins, from the guilt of which he cannot be freed, becaufe 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 increafed, as his Sin is, by neglefting Salvation offered upon condition of believing.

3. You fay, That the promt(fory part of the Law of Work* doth not cbltge* But your Reafon feems invalid, Qu'ta ceffat materia, yet capacita* fttbjec?/. You mean, no Man can perforin the Condition -, and fo no Man is capable of the Promife made upon that Condition. But why may it not be faid, That as the Precept, which is alfo the Condition, ceafethnot, though none be able to obey it ; fo the Prcmife doth remain, though none can enjoy the benefit of it ? It may feem unreafonable, that the Threatning mould itill be in force, and the Promife be quite taken away.

4. You fay again, That the Earth, of nfhtch Mans Body wa* made, doth ft ill retain the form of Earth • which finely doth need further Explication, or Confirmation, or both.

5. The threatning of the New Law ( you fay ) hath Comet hing proper to the New Law : Bur for any thing I fee, the New Law doth threaten nothing, which the Old Law doth not threaten ; though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of fin, fo there will be an incrcafe o£ condemnation.

# 6. T/hereas

C*5 3

6* Whereas you fay, chat the right ftating and clear apprehenfion of this part, f v/*,. of the difference between the Law and theGofpei, and how far the Law of Works is abrogated ) is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadverfions take notice of, or than anything ( as-to difficulty ) that I deal with j truly my defirewas, and fois, only to give you fome hints for the further dealing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphortfms. But if yau think, that here in this Section, which is fomewhat long, you have fufficiently explicated thofe Points, I am not of your mind.

1. All that you here fay is nothing to my Animadvtr 1 fion • only you ftrive a little about the acceptation of thofe ^4* 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 fo taken, being not diffol-ved or abrogated by the New Law, as you grant, Unbelievers, while they remain fuch, both for their unbe-lief, and for their other fins, 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 3 and the condemnation of it.

I. I do not diilike your Thefis, [That Chrtft died not /bid. to fatisfit for the Violation of the Covenant of Grace ] & 45-. as you understand it, v/*,. for final unbelief. Y et I hold, That fuch as profefs the Gofpel, and live in thofe fins, which are not confident with true and fincere Faith, do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace \ and for fuch violation of that Covenant Chrift died, or elfe all fuch are left without* Remedy. I am in this fully of Mr. Blades mind, [As a wife ( faith he ) by adultery, qc ^ fo they by fin forfa^ethe Covenant, by which they ft and Coven. betrothed*, and by consequence it muft needs follow * that c fo a p t ** Chrift died for breach of the Covenant of Grace, as weU *" as for breach of the Covenant of Works ; unlefi we will fay, That all Men by name chrtfltans, and found tn any of thefe fins, are tn a loft and unrecoverable condttion y jojnwg with thofe that have faid, That there is no Grace or Par den for thofe that fall into fin after Bap-tsfm. That he died not for their fins, that live and die %n final wfenttency and unbdief, may be eafily gran-E ted:

ted: and thatrifeste no more^ than that he died not for thofc^ that finally and unrecoverable breaks Covenant With hint],

z. Whereas you confefs, That for unbelief and impe-nitency, though it be not final, Men remain obligati ad fee nam fer Legem Nature 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 fuch ^ in this refped they are as well by the New Law obltgatt ad fcenam for the time, as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are for ever. You grant the Gofpei doth non-Uberare, while Men continue in Unbelief ^ yet you conceive, That it doth not obltgare ad fcenam frofrte, V/^,. adnon-ltberattonem^ad fcenam ma)orem. Now I conceiv e that while it doth ncn-ltberare, it may be faid, obitgare ad non-ltberatunem • though I mould rather like to fay, That it doth reltnquere in ftatv non-liberationism and fo majorts fan& ob contemftum gratis & mtfericordU oblatx. In your Similitude, The Malefactor, whiles he refufes to come in, and fubmit to the Terms upon which Pardonjs offered, remains in a ftate of Condemnation, though the fentence be not executed upon him, except he continue in hisrefufalof the offer unto the term prefixed. But you profefs your felf willing to acknowledg, That this non-libcratto may in fome fort be called Poena • and truly I think, that Pcena Nova Legts non alia eft, quam non-ltberaxto h fana Veteris Legts j hoc tamen femfer addttc, fcenam veteris Legts, ob negletbum liberattonis in Lege Nova oblat*> gravtorem reddi, 4f. I mean ^Jctually tn the fiate of Damnation ] and

you grant as much as I defire, viz,. That they are obliged even for that fin unto death, fer Legem Nature C non liber at i fer Legem Gratia* Why then mould you deny, that they are actually obliged to Damnation } Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation ? Or be-* twixt obliged, and actually obliged } He that belteveth not^ ts condemned already ', John 2 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation, and fo remains, as long as he remains in unbelief,* The Wrath ef Gad abileth on him ', John 3.36. 1 hat the Sentenceis not yet executed, but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it, is another thing.

The

C *7?3

The Parenthefis, which you fay, is wanting in your Ibid. Aphorifms^ might help to make ike words more clear; as they ftand, they feem obfcure: which is all that I would have obferved.

Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Ibid. Philofophical Difputes $ yet I am alfo unwilling to re- & 4 $; cede from received Opinions, except I fee urgent caufe for it. Now that an Accident mull have a Subject to exift iti) as it is generally held, fo I am perfwaded it is true. Burgerfdtcttts ( whofe authority I may well enough op- Logic Aib.i pofe to Scheiblers ) faith* Accidens efl Ens fubflantU cap. 7. tnh&rens. Indeed he faith, Relatione* nan tarn inherent alicut Jubjetfoy quhm adherent: but he doth not deny that they do inharere. For he faith, Relatio e)ufmodi deadens efl ; , quod non tantiim (N. B.) in aliquo e/?, ut in fubjecfo, fed refertur ettam ad aliud. It is ufually one Argument which our Divines have againft Tranfub-flantiation, that thereby Accidents are made to exift without a Subject. Schetbler grants, that an Accident hath not exiftence by it felf, that it is not dv^mh^wmt^ (fo it fhould be 3 not *v3o7nj£KTDv). Now every thing that hath Exiftence, muft (I think ) either exift by it felf, or in fome other thing.

2. AdjuncTrum $$ SubjeBuw, and EffeBum^Cdufdj are not fo contradiftinct, but that the fame thing may be Adjuntfum & Effeftum^ and fo the fame thing Sub]eibum & Caufe.

2. Whereas Schetbler faith, Aftio tranfiens nullum halet fub)eftum<i ne quidem ipfum Pattens , ut Vtfum efl • See Mr. I fay, Ego illudnondummdi^ nec^el verum, yel veri- I^endal a-fimtle mthi ttdetur. I think, Omms Aft to fub]eclatur gainft Mr* in Patiente: and this I hold to be true even of Imma- Goodwin nent A&ions, which though they have the Agent for the chap, 4, * Subject, yet it is becaufe the Agent is there alfo the Pari- />. 1 ?$. ent 5 and it is not quk Agensj but qui Pattens, that it is the fubject of the Action.

4. He argues thus, Afttaut fie nondicitnifiegrejfum a loirtute aitha altcu')H4 Agentts. Egrejfus autem op-ponttur nriejfein. Befl?. t. Actio ut fie necejfario in-\fert Pajjionem. E'tert entmnon potefl, ut aliqutd agat y n'tfi ettam aliquidpat tat ur. Ergo Aclio non tantum dtcit egrejfum a ytrtute aftiva^ veriim ettam infert re-cepttonem in Patiente. 2. Aclio C Paffio funt idem E 2 motus\

[58 3

xtetus ; fed Acrioyocatur quatent&s ab Agente procedtt, PaJJloautemquatenus m Paxiente rectpttur. Ettamfi igitur Aftio C Pajfio formatter differ ant, cum tamen rtaliter idem ftnt, ft Pajfio eft in fubjecfo, Atttonem €tiam m .ubjeclo ejfe nccejfe eft.

5. Whereas you doubt whether Scetus be not right in holding that Immanent A&s are in the Predicament of Quality, that (as divers other Paffages) doth (hew that you are much inclined to that which doth crofs the common Opinion > which furely is in it fclf very dangerous, though (I know ) you are prudent and fober-minded, fo that there is little caufe of fear this way in refped of you. Yet wanton Wits, and unftable Spirits, may extend your Notions further than you intended them ; and therefore, efpecially confidering the times into which we are fain, you have need to be wary : but dtttum faptenti fat eft. g Though we cannot know God to Perfection, yet we

See Mr. mav and * mu ^ know ^ im f°, as to remove from him all Ztjndal a- Imperfedion, a "d confequently all composition. The gainfl: Mr. more fimple any thins * s 5 uteris paribus, the more per-Goodwin ' f eftit is : Therefore God being moft Perfeft, he is moft chap. 4. y Simple.

p.i 10 121. This contains only a Logical Difpute about the Predi-ihtd. ' caments and Relations. Now for the Predicaments, though I do not fay that chey all note real Beings diitincl: one from another, fo Action and Paffion do not y yet I think they all note real Beings, /. e. Beings which are net meerly rational or imaginary. And how you mould queftion this,efpedally of Subftance,Quantity and Quality, ( which are more than two ) 1 cannot conceive. And for Relations, hear Aquinas, whofe judgment (be-fides that he giveth reafon for what he faith ) with me Part. 1. is of far more weight than of your late Authors. Qut-Queft. 12. dam pofuerunt Relationem non ejfe rem nature, fedra-Art. 7. ttonts tantum. Quod quidem apparet ejfe faifum ex *n Corp- hoc, quod ipf* res naturaUm ordtnem & habttudintm habenx adtrrt'tcem. Yet as there are Entia Rationis > Ibid. fo there are Relationes Raitonis. Yea, Aqutnoi mews,

Et Vtde. that Qu&damReiatun+s funX quantum ad utrumquz ex-ib'td. adl.tremumresnaturA, & c# Q*andeque vero m uno extre-gfadA. mo tft rts natur*, £? in alt:ro extremo eft res rations* tantum^ nempe cum duo extrema non fnnt ejufdem or-

dtmt %

C*p3

dinisj &c. And of this latter fort he notes the Relations are, which are betwixt God and the Creatures. Cum tghur ( tnqutt ) Deus fit extra totum or dine m creature, & ornn.es creature ordtnentur ad tpfum, ££ non £ con^erft, manifeftum eft, quod creature real iter refe-runtur ad Deum, fedtn Deo non eft aliqua realts relatio adcreaturaty fed fecundum rattonem tantnm, tn quantum creatur& referuntur ad ipfum. Et ftc nihil prohi-bet hujufmodt nomtna import anita relationtm ad creatu-ram, prad'tcart de Deo ex tempore , non propter mutati-cnem altquam ipfius, fed propter creature mutationem, ficut celumna Jit dextra animaii, nulla muxattone arc A ipfam exiftente, fed antmalt tranflato. And^gain, Cre~ Aquin* atio (tnqutt} acffreconftderata ftgnijicat afttonem di- Part I. Vtnam, qua eft ejus ejfentta cum relation* ad creaturam, Quaeft, 47 Sedrelatto tn Deo ad creaturam non eft realis, fed fecun- Art. 3. dum rattonem tantitm: relattoyerb creature ad Deum Ad ju eft realts, &c.

Heerebaord,^. 175. faith, Pater non ftgnifcat aliquid % quod human a nature propria 2? per fe inftt, fed quomodo tile, qui ftc dicttur<> fe habeat ad Jiltum. Refp. Pater eft Relatum, nempe Subftantta cum Relatione ad aliud: Paternttas eft Relatto, 2? ineft fub)ecto, nempe homini % qui eft Pater. Quod p. 184. dtctt Relationem ejje medium inter Ens reaie 2? Nihil, id tantum dtctt, non pro-bat.

You fay, That however you are confident, that Relation is not vere Ens •, yet you will not fay, that it is Nihil or Non Ens 5 and you faid before, ( as 1 noted, and it is moft fure ) Inter Ens 2? non Ens non datur medium* The diftinction of Medium Participations^ & Medium Negationts will not here ferve. For certainly Contra-dtttorta non admit tunt, medium Negat tents. Aut Homo 7 aut non Homo: aut Ens, aut non Ens : non datur medium. The Authors to which you refer me, I have not, fave only Dr. TwtJJe; but he is of another Edition, v/*> in Folio, fo that I cannot find the place, as you cite it.

1. He that is juftified, is fo freed from all condemna- Ibid.8c fa tion, that he is liable to no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1, 483 4?* 33, 34. And he that is fo freed, is perfectly freed, and coniequently perfectly juftified, though the freedom from condemnation, and to the juftification be not fo fully and m 1 per*

E7°3

perfe&ly^ade manifeft as it (hall bej The freedom from condemnation per fententiam Judicitj of which you fpeak, doth not add to the freedom it felf, but only to the manifeftation of it. The Sentence is indeed paft already, John$. 18. though it be not fo folemnly pronounced, as it mall be.

2. He that is freed from all Condemnation, is certainly freed from all Accufation, fo as that no Accufation can be prejudicial to him ; though he may be accufed, yet it matters not, feeing he cannot be condemned. Elfe the Apoftle had triumpned before the Victory, faying, Who fhall lay any thtng to the charge, &c. Who ts he that condemned ? Kom. 8. 33, 34r.

3. The Apo§le doth not only fay, There is no condemnation to them that are tn Chrfft Jeft*s> Rom. 8. I. but alfo, Who fhall lay any thtng to the charge of God's Elecl} v. 33. W<,. when they are in Chrifl, and fo jufti-fied. Which in effect is as much, as if it were faid, There (hall be no condemnation to fuch. But you grant, That other Texts fpeak as much, and that fuch neither now are, nor ever fhail be under condemnation. Yet you fay, That they would be to morrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. You mean ( I fup-pofe ) if they did not renew the Ad of Faith : but ( I fay, and you grant it) they who are once juflified, though they fin daily, yea, and may lie long in fin, as Z>ay>tddid, yet they fhall renew the Ad of Faith, and have the joy of God's Salvation reflored unto them, as he prayed, Pfal. 51.12. Neither is there any intercifi-on of Juftification, chough there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it.

To your Objections, I anfwer, Ad I. He that is once juflified, can contrad no guilt fo as to fall from his J unification. Befides, when I fpake of J unification being perfed, I only mean, That a Juflified Perfon is juflified, not in part only, but fully, /. e. from all fins which at prefent he is guilty of: not but that his Juftifi-cation hath need to be renewed in refpedof new fins; and fo his Juflification may be faid to increafc extenffae^ as extending to more and more fins, as they are increafed more and more. But that in this refped we fhall be more fully juflified at the laft Judgment than we are now, is

but

C 7i 3

but by accident, atnd Hot from the Nature or Effence of Juitification.

Ad 2. Juftification per Sententiam Judicts^ $$ Sententiam magis public dm, makes ( as I faid j but for ~ a ~ the more full and pcrfed manifeftatibh of it. in die ^jl )udtcti ( inquti Maccovius ) Chrifiusnon tarn juftificd- Dt 'P' 7 * turns (N. B. ) eft credent es^ quam declaraturus eft ex opertbus eorum^ eos cr'edidiffe tn hac vita, & jufiifcatos futjfe. Thus undoubtedly is that to be underwood in Acls^.i^. For without queftion no fins fhall then (at the lait Judgment) be blotted out 3 which werdnot blotted out before : but the blotting of them out ihMjl then more fully appear than before. In refurrett'tone tHWortuis, (in- De tthr. qutt Rainoldus nofter) Chrtflus, qui veniet ^udicatum vi- Apocrypha Vos C? mortuos^ quemadmodum tpfe pronunciat^ ea qua Preleft. Itgavertnt if fins mtnfiri, ligatum iri in ccells^ it a qua *7I-prius tn terra re miff a fuertnt, confirmed*it tpfe fuh* fen-tenttliy utremtjfa& deletain &temum y omnia nimirum fidelturn ££ fan&orum pec cat a. Quare quacuncjue^ £? quorumcunque peccatd rem/ffa fuerint m hoc feculo, etiamin futuro feculo remittentity, q' oniam } - autem pec-cata non fuerint remtffa tn hoc feculo^ non remittentur tn futuro^ nempe peccata hominum incredulorum & tmpiorum. Petrus, Aft. 3. hoc iocupletiffime confirma-Vtt. — tReJip'tfctte (tnquit J ut deUantur peccataveftra y pofiquam venertnt tempora refiigerationis, &c. . „ . No~ fin cum affirmant pecedta non rejnitti in futuro feculo, fed in ifio tantum y negdnt id quod aftruunt Pontificii y peccata remiffum trt in juturo feculo, qua in pr&fenti non remittebantur. Nam Chrifius conjirmabtt fenten-tiam fuam y quam prtfa tulit, cum feret fententiam tllam novtfjimam in ultimo judtcio, haque peccata nulla turn remittentur, ntft qua qu;fque tefitmonio con-fctentiA fuA hie percipit re miff a effe in prefenti feculo, ~-Verte tpfe ( BellarminUs ) agnovtt, vel agnofcere po-, t tuit e verbis * Calvini qua citat^ nos hoc judicio effi^ * Infi'tt* pr&ferttm in eo ipfo loco Calvini quern citat, ubt ait lib.$<c,X» Calvinus, Chrifium (Mat. n. 32.) hac partittcne ufum §,7. effe, qua judicium complexus eft, quod fentit in hac Vita untufcu)u°que confetentia^ & poftremum Mud, quod pal am (N. 2>. ) tn refurrefttom feret ur. For ' peceatafutura^ which you alio here fpeak of 3 1 have faid enough in anfwer to the former Objection. And you E 4 may

may fee much more to this purpofe in the Account given to the Parliament by the Minifters which they fent to O*-ford-i p. 7, 8,9.

Ad 3. Caftigatory Punifnment is no part of that Condemnation 3 from which we are freed by J unification, but a means to preferve us from tailing into Condemnation, fee 1 Cor. 11. 32.

Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional, v/^. upon condition of the continuance ok our Faith, yet the continuance of the Condition being certain, fo alfo is the continuance of our Juftifica-tion. There is not the like reafon of Predeitination, I which is amy a decreeing of what God will do for us ; but God juftifieth ( as you fay ) pro pr&fent't ; and whom he once juftifieth, he will always juftihe '$ elfe the Apoftle would not fay, Whom he )ujltfied, them he alfo glorified^ Rom. 8. 30. Though Means muft be ufed, and Conditions performed for the continuation and confum-mation of our Juftification 5 yet it being certain that the Means {hall be ufed, and the Conditions performed, it is alfo certain that our Juftification lhall be continued and confummated.

Here perhaps you may t^ke hold of what I fay, and object, It lhall be confummated 5 therefore as yet it is not confummated.

Anfw. It is no: ( I grant) in refpect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to JuftifiedPerfons: but it is already confummated ^ * fo that * Jufttficat'to nullum they have a full right to the enjoyment of Ioch relmquit condem- thofe Benefits. Therefore the Apoftle nation*. Joh. 5. 24. Et fpeaks as of a thing already done, Whom tttam Aternam certo he jt*ft*fied y them he alfo glorified; fee C immediate ad)u>di- ££0 Rom. f. I, 2.

cat. Ames.Medul.ltl?.i* Ad $. If by this, [the folemn'izjng of cap. 27, §. 23. all is wanting ] you mean, That yet there

wants the manifestation of our Juftification,* it hinders not but that our Juftification is already perfect, though it be not fo perfectly made maniteft as hereafter it {hall be. So if by [ Marriage not folem-n'*^ed~\ you mean a Marriage not publickly celebrated^ I fee not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in it felf as perfect as the other. But it feems ft range, that you mould think 3 that we fhotdd fcarcc be called Juftifi-' ed

£75 J

ed now, but in reference to Juftification at the laft Judgment ' y when-as both Scripture and Divines ufually fpeak of JuiHfication as a thing that we, are here actually partakers of. What you fay of Mr. Lawfon, as if he held, That Juftification here is but a right to JuiHfication hereafter, I much wonder at: His Reafons I know not, but if that be his Opinion, the whole current of Scripture, and the general confent of Divines ( I think ) is againft him. Whereas you call the folemn pronouncing or Sentence at the laft day, Sentential Juftification, I mould rather call it f Publick Sentential Juftification, or a pub-lick manifeftation of the Sentence of Juftification. For furely our Juftification here is * Sentential^ God doth * See the now pronounce and fentence Believers Juft and Righte- Oxford ac-ous, though not in that clear and evident manner as he count^.7. will at the Laft Judgment. Neither do I think that our and Amef, Divines commonly ufing the word [Jftftification] for MedJtb.i* Juftification ( as you fay ) by Sentence, do. underftand cap. 27. it of the Sentence at the laft Day > but of the Sentence whereby God doth now juftifie thoie that believe.

Perhaps you will fay, Where is that Sentence ?

An fa. It js in the Scripture. But ( you may fay ) The Scripture fpeaks only in general. Well, but if God in the Scripture fay, That all that believe at e 'lufttfied, as Afts 13. 39. then confequently he faith, That you and I believing, arejuftified. And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular •, though it is true, they have not that clear evidence and full aflu-rance, as they lliall have hereafter. So for Condemnation at the laft day, I think it to be but a more folemn and publick pronouncing of the Sentence, together with the immediate and full execution of it. For other wife t he-Sentence is paft already, He that belteveth not-> ts con* dernned already^ John 3. 18. I do not deny, that Declarative Juftification at the laft Judgment, is properly Juftification 5 only I think it is the fame Juftification which Believers here have, though it ihall then be more fully manifefted than now it is. That which you fpeak of Juftification being more full at death than before, only ihews that it is more full Extenfoe, as freeing from the guilt of more fins : but that is only per acetdens ♦, Juftification in it felf considered, was as perfect before : for it freed from all fin, and from all Condemnation^ and the other doth no more, v " What

C 74 1

jo. What the meaning of your Queftion was, \_Ifweh

not one real Perfon whh Chr/ft, then one what > ] I could not tell : but the words did feem to imply, That we muft either be one real Perfon with Chrift, or elfe we could not any way be one with him s whereas the Scripture is clear, that Believers are one with Chrift, though that rhey are one real Perfon with him* is not to be admitted. Therefore I thought meet to anfwer as I did, v/^. That we are one Sfirtt, as the Apoftle expreffeth it, i Cor. 6. 17. that is, fpiritually one with Chrift, as being parta* kers of one and the fame Spirit with him. No doubt but further Queries may ftill be made : and who is able to clear all Dificulties that do occur in matters of this nature > Yet I fee not why we ftiould not content our felves with thofe Similitudes and Refemblances, which the Scripture doth ufe to illuftrate this Myftery, as of the Vine and Branches, Joh.i f. and of the Head and Members, Ephef.5. Ibid. To your next Sedion I need fay no more than this,

Non ofortet litigare de yerbis* cum de re conftet. Ibid. I have (hewed my meauing all along,v/*> That Chrift's

& f i. Satisfaction, and not Faith, is properly that by which we are juftified. Whereas you fay, [ We are juftified by faith it felf, as the Condition^ and not fo by Chrtft ] I can admit it only thus, That Faith is the Condition required of us, that fo we may be juftified by Chrift. Otherwife I cannot yeeld, that the performing of the Condition required of us unto J uftiri cation, is properly that by which we are juftified ^ but of that enough before. For the Habit and Ad of Faith, I little doubt but that Habits and Ads are of a different nature. For Habits may be in us when we fleep, or otherwife do not ad and exercife thofe Habits. I think alfo, that though acquired Habits follow Ads, yet infufed Habits ( fuch as Faith is ) go before.

2. The Ad of Faith being the receiving of Chrift, I fee not how any can make the Ad of Faith, but the Habit to be the Inftrument of receiving Chrift. And if any of our Divines fay, That it is not the Habit of Faith, but the Ad that doth juftifie ^ I think they mean, that Faith doth juftifie as ading, *.<?. receiving Chrift. So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to juftifie, yea, they make it the inftrumental caufe of Juftification ; only they

make

C 75 3

make the Aft of Faith requifite unto Juftification.' The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpofe, though they differ as you fay. No Similitude is to be fet on the Rack : if it feem to illuftrate that for which it is ufed, it is fufficient. But except you fpeak of the fuper-natural perfection of the Soul, I fee not bow Faith is the perfection of it. For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith, or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove, that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Inftrument, I think you trouble your felf to no pur-pofe, though (I know } you have fome end in it. But what if it be not an Inftrument properly, if yet it may not unfitly i>e fo termed > And for any thing I fee, it may, even as generally Divines do fo term it,

fides ( faith Rivet) eft velut organum ; <$ mantis Difh. de anima? qua beneficia obUta acceptantur. And again, Fide Juft. Videndum eft quodnam fit antma organum hanc remtjjio- §. 17, i#. nem apprehtndens ——Idjidei exclujhe tribuendum? &c.

^oTrelcatimJun. Ex parte ho minis? Jufttficatioms in ft it -pajfiva caufa efficiens eft ac dicitur reduftive, tot a eft In- [ t y % 2 . de ftrumentalts? ($ Fides eft? &c. 7#ft*fl

Thus alfo Calvin^ Fides Inftrumentum eft duntaxdt perciptenda )uftiti&. Inii lib. 3. cap. n. §.7.

And Wotton? Ex efficientibtt6 Jufttficatioms caufts re- De Recon. liqua eft Fides•> quam Inftrument 1 locum obttnere dixi- p.f.J.z.c.ig mm. And again, Nee illud quidem cu)ufauam eft mo- ibid. p. z. menti? quod Inftrumentt nomine nufqudm in Scrtpturis L 2.C. 6, ( Fides ) infigniatur. Nam nee Caufa cjf'e dicitur^ cu-)hs tamen rationem obtinere? Theologt omties conjfiten-tur t

And Bdlarmine faying, that Luther makes Faith For- De Juft. malem caufam Juftificationis •, Davenant anfwers, In- Habit, ftrumentalem femper agnofctt , non autem forma- cap. 22. Lem, QV.

Vemble faith, [ Faith doth juft/fie Relatively and Inftrument ally"]. Of Juftif. §. 2 chap. 1. p. 27.

So Mr. Ball of Faith, chap. 10. pag. 13?. [ It is a caufe only Inftrumental^ &c. ]

And of the Covenant, chap. 3. p. 19. [ Faith isane-

cejfaryand lively Inftrument of Juftification? &c. lf.^ e '

it be demanded whofe Inftrument it is ? It is the Inftru- m *»& tm .

mmt of the Sml, &c ] , as . herc cl ~

J ' ted, p^y

Mr,

C7*3

Of the Mf. Blade's words (I think ) do more nearly Concern

Coven. you, [ And theft things confidered, I am truly firry,

CI 2.^.80. that f aith fhouU now be denied to have the office and

place of an Inftrument in our Jufttfication ; naj^ fcarca

be allowed to be called the Inftrument of receiving Chrift

Ibid. that juftifics us y &c. ] And having cited A&s 18. 26".

pag-Sl. Epher 3. j 7# & caL 3.14. he faith, [ Thefe Scripture*

fpea^ of Faith as the Souls Inftrument to receive Chrift

sefas, &c. ] See there much more to this purpofe.

Of Juftif. I will add to thefe one more, viz,. J. Goodwin, who

c 7.^.90. though in divers things he be crofsand contrary to our

Divines, yet in this, at leaft in words, he doth comply

with them, profeffing to hold, That Faith doth juftifie

inftrument ally.

If the propriety of Words muft always be fiddly examined, we (hall fcarce know how to fpeak: It is well if we can find words, whereby to exprefs our felves fo as that others may underftand (if they pleafe ) what we mean. All that our Divines mean, whtn they fpeak of Faith juftifying Inftrumentally, or as an Inftrument, I fuppofe, is this, and fo much alfo they ufually exprefs. That Faith doth not juftifie abfoiutely, or in refpeft of it felf, but Relatively in refpeel: of its Object, Chrift and his Righteoufnefs laid hold on and received by Faith. Neither iliould you ( me*thinks ) ftrive about the word £ Receiving ] how it (hould be the Aft of Faith. It fuf-ficeth, That the Scripture makes Believing in Chrift, and Receiving of Chrift, one and the fame, John 1. 12. That which* you fay of our moft famous Writers ordinarily laying the main ftrefs of the Reformed Caufe and Doftrine on a plain Error, did deferve to have been either further manifefted, or quite concealed 5 tomeitfeems rery injurious both to our moft famous Writers, and alfo to the Reformed Caufe and Doftrine.' $2* My meaning is, That Faith juftifieth, as it apprehen-

deth and receiveth Chrift, whom the Gofpel doth give for Righteoufnefsto fuchas receive him, /. e. believe in him. And thus our Divines frequently exprefs them-felves.

Luther, Fides )uftificat, quia apprehendit, & pojfidet ilium thefaurum, fed. Chriftum prefentem. Loc. Com. CUJf. 2. loc. 19. ex torn. 4. And agaiq, Fides non tan-<%uam opus juftificat^ fedtdei juftificat, quia apprehendit

mi-

C 77 3

mifericordiaminChriftoexhibitam. ibid, ex torn* i» in Gen.

So CalVm^ Quod objicit ( nempe Ofiander ) W*/ ;V- Infi. lib. 2. ftificandi non tnejfe fidei ex feipfa, fed quatenus Ghri- cap.u,§.j ftum recipit^ libenter admitto* —*Fides tnftrumentum eft duntaxat percipienda )uftiti&.

Thus alio Hemingtus^ Juftificamur autem fde y non De Juftif % quod fide* ea res fit, qua juftt fumusj fed quia eft In- pag. mtki ftrumentum^ quo Chriftum apprehendimus^ £? complefti- 141.. mur.

Davenanr, Hoc necejfarih intelligendum eft, quatenus j^ e <z u a fuum obyeftum apprehendit^ 8* credent i applicaty nemfe j^ a y^ J* 1 Chriftum cum falutifera ejus juftitia. And again, Qit* iS.lfrf igitur Ftdes apprehendtt, i$ applicat nobis Chriftt jufttti- ^ Ibid am ? id Jidet ipfi trtbuttur^ quod reapfe Chrifto debe-lur.

Araef. Dolor ac deteftatio peccati non pot eft effe caufa Contra jufttficans, quia non habet (N. B. ) Vim applicandi Bell. Tern, nobis )uftitiam Chrifti. And again, Apprehenfto juftifi- 4.W.J. c.4 cationit per y>eram jiduciam, non eft fimpltctter per §. j. 7920 dum objefti^Jed per modum objefti (N. B.) nobis do- Ibid. §.II« ttatt . Quodentm Deu* donavertt Jtddtbus ChriftumJS emnia cum eo^ Scriptura dtfertis 'verbis teftatur, Rom. 8.32, Hie tamen obfervandum eft, accurate loquendo^ apprehenjionem Chriftt & fuftittA e]us^ effe Jjdem juftifi* cantem, quia )uftificatto noftra exurgit ex apprehenfione Chrifti) £5* apprehenfio jufttficationts* ut pofjejjlonts no fir a prtfentisy frutins eft, & effe ft urn apprehenfionis priori*.

Pemble, \^We deny that Faith juftiftes us as it is a Of Juftif. Wor\y &c. It juftfpes us only as the Condition re qui- §.2. ch,%. red of us y and an Inftrument of embracing Chrtft's pag- 61. Kighteoufnef *, nor can the contrary be proved ].

Mr. Ball) [ When Jufttfication and Life is Jaidto be Of the by Faith* tt u mantfeftly fignified, That Faith recet- Coven. ting the Promtfe 1 doth receive Righteoufneft and Life chap. 3. freely promt fed ]. pag. 19.

Mr. Blak*-> [ Faith as an Inftrument receives Right e^ oufneft unto Jufttfication~\. Of the Coven, chap. 12. pag. Si.

If you agree with me (* as you fay J in this particular, you will agree alfo with thefe whom I hive cited 3 for I agree with rhem 7 their meaning and mine (fofaras I

can

[ 7»]

can difcern ) is the fame. See alfo Mr. Ball of Faith; Part i. chap. io. fag. 135. ibid. For the Twofold Righteoufnefs, which you make ne-

ceffary unto J unification, I think alfo I have faid enough before. But feeing that in the place, on which I made the Animad\>erfion, you mention it as a Reafon why I Faith mull juitifie in a proper fenfe, and not ChriiVs Righteoufnefs only, I cannot hut obferve how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contra-Of Juflif. ryway, >/<,. That Faith doth not juilifie, as taken pro-§.z. cap. 2. perly, becaufe then we inov.id be juilihed by a Two-fold P a S' 39* Righteoufnefs. [ We are not ju/iijfed ( faith he ) by two Rtghteoufnefjes exifting in two diyers Subje&s ; But if we be )uftifiedbj the Work^ of faith, we /hall be jufttfied t ;t 0 h t' nat Rtghteoufneft which 1* m u*, viz. of Faiths and faril) bj the Right eoufnef of Chap without ibid. 1^ j. And again, [ We cannot be properly jufttfied by

pag, 40. both, fcr our own faith, and ChrifF s obedience too. for tf we be perfectly juft in God's fight for our own faith 9 what needs the imputation of ChrifFs Obedience to make u* juft a If for ChrifFs Righteoufneft we be perfectly juftijied, How can God account u* perfectly juft for our faith ? ] Ibid. 1. If you do not oppofe the Literal fenfe of Scripture

& 53. to Figurative, I do not oppofe you, but grant that Faith

doth juftirie figuratively, W<y as apprehending Chrill by whom we are juftified. 7)tifupr4* ^ In thefe places (faith Pemble} where it Is faid, faith ts imputed for Righteoufncft, the Phrafeisto.be expounded Me tony mice, i. e. thrift? s Righteoufneft be-Helped en by faith, is imputed to the Bel/ever for Rtgh-

teoufnefj*

A figurative fenfe may be a plain fenfe, yet it is not a proper fenfe- for fu rely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other. In Gen. Diftinguendum eft (jnquit Rivet us) inter hasphrafes,

Exer. 73. quA etfiin unum fenfum consent unt, differunt nthilomt-niisineoj quod una eft fgurata, altera prop ta. ftgu-rata eft, fides imputantur ad juftittam. Propria eft, Juftitiatmputatur credentt. Tumentm juftittA nomen pomtur dtrecTre pro ea juftitia, cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus eft? & pro juftis habet. In primo autem ftdettrtbutturi quod ejus non eft proprie [umptx. Nee

emm

enim efi juftitia, nee juftit/s loco habetrn^ fed objeffum e)$ts efi )ufrttta \>era> quA per jidem nobis imputatur y ut fro nofira habeatnr, quam credendo amplest fumus. Hac ft capere noltnt *ut veteratores Romania aut No^atores Sociniani, fuffiaat nobis Apofiolos autores habere^ qui operibwnoftr#i erghfidei qua ofw , omnern )u(ttt't&lau-dem detrahunt^ eamque tn \uftttia^ quA fine opertbtts nobis imputatur^ conffttuunt. That the fenfe by me and others put on Scripture is forced, you affirm, but prove nor.

2. I acknowledg but one Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified, v/<,. the Righteoufnefs of Chrift through Faith imputed unto us ; fee Rom. 5.18. Your Similitude makes againft you. For our Hands and Teeth are but Inftruments whereby we are fed : fo our Faith is but an Inftrumenc whereby we are juftified. And mark here, how you can ufe the Comparifon your felf, which yet you diflike when others ufe it. But doth the Scripture no where fay, That Chrift or his Righteoufnefs is imputed unto us for Righteoufnefs } Doth not the Scripture call Chrift our Rtghteoufnefi •> Jer. 23, 6. Doth it not fay. That Chrift ts the end of the Law for Rsghteoufnefi to etery one that belteyeth ? Rom. io. 4. Is not this as much as if it were faid, That Chrift or his Righteoufnefs is imputed unto us for Righteoufnefs ? See alfo Rom. 5. 18,19. and 2Cor*<)*ult.

What Mr. Gataker faith concerning this Point, not having the Book which I fuppofe you mean, ( his Defence of Wet ton) I cannot tell: What Wot ton and J. Goodwin fay, 1 fee, but am not fatisfied with it. Mac-coytus dejufttf. in divers Difputations doth profeffedly oppofe Wot ton, and anfwers his Objections. If you had urged any of his, or the others Arguments, I fhouldhave taken them into confederation ^ but feeing you do not, it is enough ( I think ) to oppofe their authority, with the Authority of others no way infei iour unto them.

Davenant, Script urAy quA afferunt tpfam jidem nobis De J'uft. imputart ad 'jujittiam^ ap&rtk tndicant Chrtlii juftittam Habtt. , credent tbus tmputari. Nam fides-, qualtta* in fe confi- cap. 18. derata> non pot efi magts tmputari ad )uftitiam< i qudm <drg- 8* ait a qttalttates ab eodem Spirttu infufx,: fed hoc neceffa-rib intellig$ndum eft, quatenus fuum ob)eftum appreken* d/ty C? crcdenti app!icat 7 nempe Chriftam cum faint iftr a

ejus

Contrd, Bellar. Tom. 4. Lib. 6. cap. 1.

Loc. com. de Juflif Loc. 31.

[So]

*;#/ jufiitia- Among other Scriptures which he cites to thispurpofe, that is one, which you Hand fo much upon * [ Abraham belteyedGod, and it wa* imputed to htm for Mighteoufnef]. ExWtfce (wquit) not colltgtmus^tm^ pa art ere dent thus Chrifii jufitttam, quando id am yera fide apprehen.'unt.

And Beliarmtne objecting, If fa fides tmputatur ad )uftttiam : fide autem ncn eft tmputata Chrifii )ufiitia y fed quaittas tn nobis tnhAtens* He anfwers, Ertyola eft ObjecJto; nam nihil uftatius^ quhm cauf& applicant* Mud tribuere, quod proprte £5* immediate pertmet ad rem applicatam. Quia tgitur fides apprehendit £J ap-pltcat nobis iufittiam Chrifii ; id fidei tpfi trtbuitur, quod reapfc Chrtjto debetur.

So Amef anfwering the very fame words of Bellar-mine, f'ith, fides tmputatur ad ^ufiitiam^ Rom. 4. J. idem efi cum eo quod dtcitur^ v. 6. Deus imputat jufit-tiam abfque operibus \ (5 remit tit peccata, v # 7. Fides autem tpfa abfoluth confiderata^ neqtte eft jufiitia fine cpere-, neque remifflo pec cat or um : neceffe eft tgitur^ ut fides tmputata relative myofoat fuum objeclum, id ef? y Chriftum fide apprehenfum.

Bucan. Quomodo tgitur fides dicitur in juftttiam im-putart } Non abfolute, fed relative, &c And having cited Rom.-$. 22,25. he faith, Qutbus locts Ttdei yoce (metcnymia continent is pro re content a) Chrifiuscruci-fixus tntelligitur fed fide apprehenfus.Boc fenfu fides A-braha? tmputata efi et ad )ufiiUam, (eu pro )uftttta\ Rom. 4. q. Et fides cutlibet credenti tmputatur ad jtt-fittiam, i. e. Chrifius cruafixus apprehenfus fide cenfe-tur nafira ptftttta ; cenfetur^ mquam^ a Deo e tribunal* fuo fententtam jufiitu pronunctante. Ouemadmodum igifurmanus-) qu& rectpit thefaurum donatum % non ditat^ fedthefaurus : fie nee fide1 opus ■, yet actio nos yuflificat) fed tpfe Chrifius, quern fide apprehendtmus. Et hoc efi y • quod Theologi Orthodoxi dtcunt^ nos jufttficart fide cor-relattye*> £5 rattonc ObjecJt fidem tmputart m ^uft hi am. Qua afjertto mde manifest a eft, quod apud Paulum, Rom. 1. 27,28. eppomtur htc enuntiatto, Tide fumus yufity propofitiont hutc^ Jufttficamur ex operibus, tan-quam contradictort&. Quare ex natura contradtcltonis perfftcuum efi : no/; jufitficart quemquam ftde in quantum

C 81 J

turn e(l opus five noftrum^ five Dei in nobis ^ fed in quan2 turn Chrsfii meritum incluait.

Rivet j Fides excludit feiffam 9 qua ofu* eft. *Vnum In Genl tnim of us fton juftsjtcat, nee qutdem pot eft juftificare* Exer. 73. Redeundum ergo ad Contro verfia ftatum, quo Tides fta-tuitur juftificare, non quatenus eft of us, five fer fe^ fed relative, quatenus fignificdt applicationem juftitU Chri-fti> i.e. non no fir a, fed alien*. The fame Author alfb Qifput. faith thus, Afoftolus non difitnguit inter Of era Legis, & De fide Of era Ftdett fed in hoc negotio Fidem fen?fer quibujlsbet Juftif. qferibus opponit. Vnde ettam fequitur jidem non jufti- §. ip. Jjcare^ quatenu* eft opus juftttUy fed quatenus apfrehen-dtt )uftitiam Chrifti.

That we are julHfied by Faith, is without controverted the Scripture being exprefs for it: but when you fay, That Faith properly taken doth juftifie, which the Scripture faith not, in this I difTent from you. And alfo be-caufeyou make Faith one Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified, as indeed you muit, if properly we be jufti-fiedbyit. /

DaVendnt urgeth from Rom. 5*. 18. That there is W/ fupra unum tantum hyjLioo^, quod ad juftificationem vit&<Arg*\i, foteft valere, nempe unto* Chriftt obedientid. Whence he infers 3 c Juftijicatio igitur vita non redundat in nos abulia qualitate in nobifmet tpfis inherent e, fedab hac juftitia completa Mediator is nobis donata C tmputata m -JSJoftra juftitia inherens non hahet in fe Stt^im^, hoc eft, ferfetttonem )uftiti& completam, & abfolutam. Ergo non fottfir producere in nobis (ht&icaoiv £»»ic 5 C?f.

You miilake my Argument, and do not mind the Text which I alledged, vs^. Acts 13. 39. Bj hint all that believe are )uft'tfied, &c. Therefore not only all that believe in Chriit are jufiified, but it is by him that they are juftified, /'. e . by his Obedience, as it is expreffed Rom. 5.19. So that Chrift's Obedience is that which is properly imputed for Righteoufnefs, though it be fo imputed only to thofe that believe 5 Faith to apprehend it, is required of us 5 that it may be imputed to us 5 and in that refped Faith is faid to be imputed for Righteouf-fiefs.

1. The firft Note feems to fhew thus much, Thatfome

may make Faith an Inftrument of J unification, and yet

deny that we are properly juftified by it as by an Inftru-

F > ment:

fctM

■merit S though if this be granted, I fed not what you gain by it. For ( as I (aid in the Antmadyerjion ) "they *Konifl l ^ at ma ^ e ?aith an Inflrament of Jultification, when luflttta *teY ^V ^at we are properly joftifitdby Faiths they nee )ufti- •i c ?fc That taitn * s not the * Right eon fnefs by which ^ /^ " we^fa jollified • and that we are therefore only faid to hatetur "**? ju^ned by Faith, becaufe by Faith we receive the t$V. R/W.'Righteoufnefs of Chnit, l>y which Righteoufnefs pro-before ci- 'S^ny we are juftihed. That this is the meanineof our le( j t r Divines, appears by that which I have before allcdged.

a. Therefore who thofe be, of whom you fpeak, I do not know : However, I do not fee that your Objections are of force. For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text, though it be fo interpreted, as that by [ Faith im-* See Bu- pated ] is meant Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, viz>^ * as can before apprehended by Faith y and I preiume that they whom cited. you tax, did fo understand it. And this doth not exclude Faith, but include it. Your Queftion therefore feems captious, \_Ifby Faith be meant Chuffs Righteovfntfi, then what word doth fignifie Faith ? ] $w by Faith is not fimply meant ChriiFs Righteoufnefs, but as it is apprehended by Faith.

3. Da\enant\ words, which I cited, are clearly to the purpofe to which I cited them 5 neither do I fee any thing in them, which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of. Whereas you add, [ It feems hi dif-cermdthe mijlakjof them^ that affirm Chrtffs Acltve Righteoufnefias fuch to be our Righteoufnefs I think your Scribe did miltake, and it mould be, [ he difcerned not]. For therein indeed, in that Chapter, but not in the words which I cited, he differs both from you and me : B.ujt I was willing to let that pafs, both becaufe it is no-'thing to our prefent purpofe •, and alfo I like not to (hew my diffent from any eminent Writer, except I be forced toit.^

4. What you lay you will aUedge out of Da\>enant againft me, is 10 be considered when it is alledged. But here you profeis your felf far from approving what he faith, v/<>- That ChrifVs Righteoufnefs eft for malt* cavfa juflificattonis ex communi no fir or um fententtd • You ihould fay, Quilt's Righteoufnefs imputed to us: for fo. Dayenant hath it m the words which I cited. And you -fliould alfo conlnkr how immediately before thofe

words

mi

Words he explained himfelf about the formal* cdufa j*-ftificationis.

For BeUarmtne objefting, That though Chrifii obedi-entia fit meritoria caufa juftificathnis noftra, propter $uam Dttt* not'lu&sficat, yet Jttftitia inherent pote& efj r e formalism per quam jufrificati con&ituimur • and taxing Chemnhits* iot Hating the queftion thus, Quid fit id, propter quod Dew hominem in gratiam recipi-at) Cfr. He anfwers, Sed immemorem fe hie pr&bet &* Jftft* J'efust#> qui eodernvnodoQ* ipfe loquitur de J u&. lib, z. Habit. cap. i. [ De Caufi formal*, propter quam homo dtcitur ca p* ?*• jufftfs coram Deo>> differ endum eft ]. Mque reverb in Jufttficattone talis caufa formalis ponenda eft^ yua JL fnul ($ merit on a effe pofjk. Ntfi enim illam continent dignitatem m fe^ propter quam homo rite )ufrificatus reputet^r^ nunquam eritformalis caufa-, per quam j#-ftificatus ex iff at in confyeftu Dei.

And again, *Vt ttaque Jeponamtts Phtlofophicas Spe- /fad. cuiationes de ndtura caufie formalis , quando formalem caufam quarimtss juflsficationis noflra^ qu&nmu* propter fttod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod immediate* Deo gratu*) ££ ad *\>itam aternam accepttts flat* cu)m beneficio damnatofiam Legis fentcntiam eyadere, demque quo tnti poffit^ & debeat ad caleftis Judieis fayorem & approbationem confequendam.

And again, Quodtgi'ur die it Bellarminus, impofftbile ibid. € jfc) ut per jufttttam ChnSli imputatam formaltter jufti cap. 24/ ftmus, fi per formaliter mtelligat tnharenter , nugas ad$ y agit-) Cfr. Si amem per formalem caufam iatelligat tliudtpfum, quod De us intuetur quando quemy is pecca-torem )ufrificat-> &c. dico hoc non effe snh&rentem ullam qualitatem^ fed Chrifii obedient'tam ££ ]uflittam creden-tibus gratuita Dei mtfertcordia donatam atque imputa-tam. Impojjibile quidem eft, ut h&c jutftiia, qua in Chriflo mh&reti fit ettam noftra per modum inh&fionis j fed quando tanquam membra unimur Chrtfto capitis non eft tmpojfibile, ut no fir a fiat per modum donationis, G? falutifera participationss : atque hie modus fufficit, ut *n J ufltficat tone formalis caufa rationem, e^cactam^ & fimititudmem obtmeat.

Me-rhinks all this ihould iuffice to fatisfie any ingenuous Man, and to cut off -all occafion of quarrelling about F % the

-theterm* when there is fo full and frequent explication of the meaning of it. c . So alfo-^^fe///^ having'out ot Contarcntts tifimguifh-

Bell r/C ec * °^ Rfgh^ 011 ** 1 ^ aBd ft ateci r h e Queition about the torn* I 6 & rmal c ^ e oi Juftification,. he, faith, Hoc fenfu nos c i S i '\negamtis formalem caufamabfoLuta {N.B. ) no fir a )u^

' ftifcationis vffejuftitsamtn nobis tnh&rentem.

j,>j And again, ^on alia rat tone formaltter nos )uflos no*

* mmari, &*Jft dtcimtts tmputatd Chrifli juffitia y quam

^' • 2 * Squats cu'yusdebttumah altero folvttur nominatur$$ e&

ab illo debtto liber ££ immunis ; £? qua is cui procuratus

eft alterttts favor. aut gratia, nomtnatur £? eft alters

gratus. For that which you cite out of his Me4. L i.

c. 27. §• ix. I find there only, the fe words, Chriifiigttur

)uftitia in )uH{ficatione fideltbus imputatur y PhiL 3. 9.

JEdit. 3. -Thofe which you add are not in my Edition, v/<* gua-

per Rob. tenus ejus merit0 jutft.coram Deo reputamur*

Allot urn However they are not repugnant to what I have cited,

Londim both from him and Davenant, becaufe ( as Davenant

1619. * exprefly notes) Caufa formahs hie en am eft merhoria.

Alfied's words, as you cite them, [ Cbrs&us e& ytftitta

-nostra in fenff* caufalt, non tn fenfu formali ] carry no

•good fenfe, at leaft are not fo accurate. For furely if

formalis Caufa^ then Senfus for mails is alfo Senfus Cau-

falis.

You add, [SoRivet Difr.de fide. ] but you (hould

alfo have-noted the Section. Indeed §. 13. he faith,

That ReUarmtne doth affingere nobis fentenStam de jufii-

Colledg. ttd Chrifli, tanquam caufa. formali. And elfewhere

Controverfhe faith, forma $u ft ific attorns confislit in ]uftitt&Chri-

Vtfb.x^. ft* tmputatione, proffer quam nobis remtttuntur pec-

cata.

Pa flit. So Trelcattus, forma justificationis, Relive fumptdy

itb. 2. '*& ABstalts Juftitia Chnfti gratuita imputation qua

rneritum £? obedient ta Chrtftt nobis appltcantur 9 Vt com-

munionts arcliffima^ qua Me tn nobis, £5* nos in illo.

Of Jufti- Dr. Jackfon faith, That to demand what is the formal

fying Faith caufe of JusJification, is as if one fhould asJ^ what is

Sec?. 1. the Latin for Manus : and that it is the folly or knavery

chap. 18. of our Adversaries to demands formal Caufe of their

J'unification, who deny themfelves to be formally )u?t in

the fight of Cod. [ He alone ( faith he ) is formally

jus?i who hath (hat form inherent tn htmfdf by which

he

he is denominated juftydnd fo accepted of God: asTht^ lofophers deny the Sun to be formally hoty becaufen.hath no form of Mat inherent m //, but only produceth heat, tit other Bodtts ].

Thus there is difference among our P^vines about the* term,but they agree in the thing.Some would have no for-* mal Caufe of Justification at all j fome would have fuch a Caufey.but would not have ChrilVs Righteoufnefs impu-* ted,butthe imputation of Chtifts Righteoufnefs to beJt: yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righte-oufiiefs of Chriftto be the formal Caufe of Juitification;, in that fenfe as Davenant and Ames do explain it.

i. As Faith alone is the Condition of our juftificati- j^: on, foalfo Faith alone as continued (though it is not-continued alone) is the Condition of our Continued. Juflification.

- Neque etiam ( faith Cabin ) fie put emus commenda- Inffit.\ r * pott gratuttdm )uHificationem opera, ut & tpfa tn lib. j. locum jufltficdndt homims posleh, jufcedanty ant ejuf-[cap..ij> modt efficium cumMide (NB. ) parttantur. -Aty? §. £. wtm perpetub mam at. filida Videt ^ufftfeats^y illorum immundttresdetegetux.;, tfthil autemabfonumesl^fkc F/dehominem ju^s^e^ri, ut non tpfemodpjufius fit fid tytrfr quoqm ejus fupra dignitatem, jufia cenfeantur.

So Mr. Bally \_Fatthdoth not begin to apprehend tilfe y Of Faith, an^ then leave it to vtror^s y that we might Miain the act* Part 2. corn^lip?ment by them\ but tt doth eyer re [I upon the fro^ Chap. 4; mtje unttlwe cametv enjoy ft ~\ T , P'25^2-5?

2. I know no'-accusation but of tnc £aw of Works? * though in cafe of unbelief and impenitency that Accufa-tion be aggravated by the Lavvpf Grace.

Though Cafoin thinks not that J oh, 5. 45. [ Do not Cahin in thinly that I will accufeyon to my Father y there is one 3<>h.$,tf % that accufeth you) <?ve»Mofes, &c ] to be to thispur-pofe, as fome do . > yet he grants, That it. is Legis pro-Prse reos perageretnfideles.

To queftion whether, he fpake of the Law of Works, were to queftion whether the Sun fliineth at noon-day* When any is acccufed to be an Infidel, or finally impenitent, or a finn'er again!} the Holy Ghoft, as it is a fin that ie is accufed of, fb the Accufation is from the Law : but as Unbelief or Impenitency ( for why you bring in the [in againft the Holy Ghoft, I do not kn#w) doth import F3 I

a want of the Condition required in the Gofpel, fo ( afi J have faid before ) it is no new accufation, but only a re-inforcing of a former accufation ; and fo the refilling of this Accufation, by fhewing the fruits of Faitb aru* Repentance, is not properly a juftifyingof our fehrts by any thing in our fclves 3 but only a proving and manife-fHng that we are indeed juftified by the Righteoufheft of ^Cferift imputed to us.

3, The imperfe&ion of our faith and> Obedience dotk

prove that it is no Righteoufnefs by which we can be )a-

ftified ; confider always, that I {peak of abfolute ahd

univerfal J unification.

Jnmt Si per fe ( faith Cahin ) yel intrinfecih ut Uquun-

M.$.c.u.tvr 9 tirtuti )ufttficaret fides, ut e& femfter debits &

S - 7. impirfc&a y non efficeret hoe mfiex parte • fie mane a effet

juffitia, qua, fruftulum falutis nobis conferret. -i

Delnftitn So Dayenanty Ad jft&tficationcm efficiend*m ncn

Habit, fnfficit juflitta fuo quodam modo perf*#d> % & altquo-

cap. 26. 7nodo imperfecta y fed necejfe eft eameffe legal t modo per*

Arg.y fe&dm y & omxifas fuis nunte/is dbfilutatn. And again,

Ibid. Nttlla jufhtidceram Deo )ufftficat, fed qua ad amuffim

Arg. 4. Legjs perfect a eft : Sed no fir d tnhartns no* eft talis, &c.

&ejufiif. Thus alfo Macco^ius, Quod nobis imputatur ad jufti-

**'$• II- tiam, Intmpe profrtb Cf per fi, feu refit aftu fui ) id

debet ejje perfeflijjimum) ut confiffere r ppjjit cum judieio

] Dei, R^om. 2.2, At fides non eft perfe#$ma, 1 Cor..

it?to* To nieit feems not hard to be certain of the meaning

of that place, Lu^ey. 47. [ Many fins* are ferg ncn her, for fke looped much ]. It appears ( as I nored )» plainly enough by the Context, what-the meaning is, yiz,. not that her love was the caufe of the forgkenefs of her fins, but the fergivenefs of her fins the caujfeof tier love : And you fee how fharply Cdbosn ( whofe words^ I cited ) cenfures thofe that interpret it otherwife.

In Luc, The Parable going before thofe words are fo -deary.

7- 4* e That Maldonate is forced to fay, Videtur ex Lie farMo-

Id non fuijfe colligendum, qxodChri&us colligit, mt*t*d* pecfdta Mi molten remitti, quia mult urn dilextfiet y fi'J contra propterea earn multum dilexsffh, quid mult a ills peecata remiffa effent—>Qu* res fteeiojam Calvino, & cateris hamicts^rrandi occaponem prabutt, negantibuf huh multeri propter precedent i* charitatit opera remijfa

peccata >

peccatd > iBtyerh Vflr&fr quoniam dtlexh multum y fi: tnierpretamibtts y ut diclio ilia quoniam x non eauftm^ fedejfeclum.-> 8! confeqmntiam figntficet: quod uxinam nemo Catholicorurn. fecutw ejfet.

And fee how poorly and pittifully he comes off, >/^. either thus, 1)t Chrijtum tn^erfa parabola ufum fuijfr deceremu*. q. d. Stent ill* dilextt mttltttm^ quia mttltum tilt remtfjum fuerat ^ it a huje rntdiert e cwtrario, quta dtlexit mjiltumy remiffa funl pec at a mult a. Or, whkh he rather inclines unto, thus, Qgo4 Chrtftus he: loco rogat i Quis erga eum pltps dtltget ex ft futnrum, tempts* tfii tamen ex confuetudtne loquends vim pr&teriti habere puto. q. d. Quern tu yudtcasj ex effettu conjeclur^m fa r ciens^ plus ante Damnum fuwm delexijfe * %)trim tilt, magi* amicnm fuiffe^ cum amtcttit cat*fa feneraior de-bitum Htrique rem if em ? What ftraits was this acute Man driven to, beeaufe he was refolved to hold the Conclusion, and yet faw how ill it did fujt with the Pre-tnifes >

i. What others, of whom yoiifpeak do, I know not 3 tiid A they may anfwer for themfelves.

2. I take affiance ( which is a Believing in, pr Relying on ) to be an Aft of Faith it felf, the Aft of Faith being as well Credere in y as fimpliciter Credere. But internal Obedience or Love 5 (for Xnefe you make both one, though indeed Believing it felf is inward Obedience as well as Love, the one being commanded as well as the other) is not the Aft of Faith, though caufed by Faith \ net aftw elicit ut, though attw imperatut, : therefore this is not (o immediate a product of Faith as the oilier.

3. I conceive Affiance to be a part, of Juilifying-Faith, and not only a Fruit of it. To believe in Chrift, which is as much as to rely on him, and to have, affiance in him, is requisite unto Justification. He that frejiewh on htm isnoteonddmned^ John 3. 18.

I. As Juftification \s begun uponfole Believing, fo is ibid. it alfo continued and coiifummated. The Scripture ( fo far as I fee ) makes Juftih*cation (imply and absolutely to ^depend pn Faith, and not. only in refpeft of the begin-' ning of it: yet (it is true ) J unification is neither begun* nor continued, nor consummated upon, iiich a Believing as is not attended with other Duties, That this is the Uniform Doftrine of the prime Protectants, 1 F 4 Ihewed

C 88 3

k ■

kC

fliewed by the confeflion of our greateft Adverfary, to which you oppofe nothing^ Mult4 ad 2 ' Though fome other things befides Faith muft go be-juftificati- f° re Juftification, yet do they not therefore juftifie as cnem re- we U as Faith, it being only Faith that doth apprehend quiruntur Chrift, by whom fo apprehended we are juftifled. quA non Neque tamen h&c Jides (faith Wotton) (pem^ Me Bio.

juftificant nem * timorem^ prcnitentiam excludere cenfenda eft, quafiY Amti.con- ad-eum^ qui ju^ificatus efl<> non pertmerent ; fed h&c J : tra Bellar. omnia ah officio )uftificandi (N. Bj figntficantur pent-tom.%. /. <. th*• excludf. Atque hoc quidem )ujiificandi munus foli cap.i.§.i, Fidetconcentre, hisrationibus oftendo* Quia folaFide JDe Re con- re&& in Chriftum tendtmus, ut per eum juftificemur, £$f cil. part i. promiffiones Dei de )u]iificatione amplett'tmur. z. *Ubi-Hb.z.c.iS. cunque Spirit us Sanftus djertis verbis loquitur de jafti-ficatione tmpih eptfque caufas ex homints parte ajjignat y null am t)ufmodi caufam ajjignat nifijidem. Zoc. Com. But hear alfo Luther, who doth both thunder and Clajf. z. lighten in this particular: Cur infane Sophifia, ajjeris Loc.19.de dilecJionem, fpem, Of alias *»irtutes ? Sciohaseffe tnfig-JttfltJ. ex nia Dei dona^divimtis mandata,per Spiritum Sanftum Tom. 2.in in noflris cordtbus excitari 2? ah. Sao Jidem fine his Gen, donis non exiflere • fed nunc nobis qu&ftio eft, quid cu-

jufque propturn fit. Tenes mant* taria femtna, non autem qu&ro ego, qu&cumqutbus con)untta fint, fed qua cu)ufque propria yirtus. H\c aperte die quid faciat Sola fides , non cum quibus \irtuttbus con)untta fit. Sola autem Fides apprehendit promijfionem^ credtt pro-mitt enti Deo •> Deo porrigenti aliqmd admo^et mannm y C id accipit. Hoc proprtum folius Fidei eft ; Charita** Spes, P at tent i a habent alias materia*, circa qua* y>er-fantur • habent alios limit es, intra quos confiftunt* Non enim ampleftuntur promtjfionem, fed mandata exe-quuntur; audiunt Deum mandantem, non aadiunt De-um promtttentem* ut Fides facit. 1 f. In the next Seftion we are agreed.

Ibid. To this long Sedion I need not fay much. For now

that you explain your felf, there feems to be but little difference betwixt us. All that Iaknat, is this, Thatb Chrift fimply confidered, is not the Object of Justifying Fajth, but Chrift as promifed in the Gofpel: fo that to believe in Chrift 3 doth imply a believing of the Promife, and that not only fo as to affent unto it, but fo alfo as to

apply it. 1 And therefore we often find in Scripture* That the Axiome or Propofition concerning Chrift, is made the Objed of Jnftifying and Saving Faith, fee Rom.10.9. I Joh.%.\. Afts 8. 37. y^.6.69. And thus our Divines often fpeafc of Faith juftifying as apprehending the Pro-mifes.

Sola Tides ( faith Luther ) apprehendh Promtjfto- Locis pau-nem. lb ante ct-

So Wot ton 5 Sola fide Promijfiones Detlde juftificattone tatis. /tmpUftimur.

And Mr. Ball, [Tor faith only doth behold and receive Of the the Promises of Ltfe ami Mercy, &c. When therefore Ju- Coven. fiificatton and Ltfe ts faidto be by Faith, tt ts mamfeftly ch.$; f*i% pgntfied^ That Fatth receiving the Promtfe, doth receive Righteoufneft and Ltfe fieely promifid ].

But I willingly grant, That the Axiome, Propofition or Promife doth but ferve to convey Chrift unto us, and the apprehending and receiving of him* is the Faith by which we are justified. Only 1 fay, it is Chrift in the Promife, or Chrift promifed, who muftbe apprehended and received unto Juftitication. H

Fidei objeftum quod ( faith Amef ) W materiale 5 Medul.l.tl eft quicquid a Deo revelatur'ac proponitur creden- c.$.§. 21. dum, &c.~-*— Hoc objeftum eft immediate femper ali- lbid.§.i$* quod axiomavel enuntiatio fub rat tone vert , fed tllud, 24. tn quo principaltter termtnatur fides, de quo^ $5 propter quod ajjinfus pr&betur tilt ax'tomatt per fidem, eft Ens tncomplexum fubratione bont, Rom. 4. 21. Heb.11.13. Aftus enim credent ts non termtnatur ad axioma, fed ad rem\fatentibus Scholafiicorum clartjfimis. Rat to eft, quta non formamus axtomata, ntfi ut per ea de rebus cogniti-onem habeamus. Principalis igttur terminus^ tn quern ten&tt Aftus eredentts^ eft res ipfa, qu& in axtomate pr&-ctpub (pcftatur.

All this I like well enough, fave that he feems to make the Act of Faith exercifed about an Axiome or Enunciation to be only Aflfent, as to that which* is true •, whereas fomtimes it is alfo Apprehenfion and Receiving as of that which is good, though (it's true) this-Aft of Faith is principally terminated in the thing, which the Axiome or Enunciation doth contain in it.

1. I do not fay, That the receiving of Chrift as King Jft &5y. is Fides qu* jufttfoat, though I grant it is Aftus fidei qufijufttficat. 2. I

V

{.Mi

t. I refer [?*/}] to [Jujttfcat ] q.d. [Faith

which juftifieth, doth receive" Chrift as King j yet this »

not the Aft of Faith, whereby- it juftifieth ]. Or if you

will, thus- Chrift: as King is the obje&of Faith, which

juftifietb, but not of Faith as it juftirieth. Indeed Faith,

which juftifieth hath refpeft to the whole Word of God*

y«t only to the Word of Promife concerning Chrift, and

the Mercy of God in Chrift, as it juftifieth.

Qsrttrd NQntam quirt tur (inquit Amef) qu& aut quid fit

BiRar. Fides, qu&juftificaty quamquA fitratia qua propthdi-

Tom^ c'ltur ytftificare. And prefently after follow the words,

Lit, $• which I cited in the Animadveriions. Again, Vna&

<.I. §.1,2* eMem (inquit ) Fides eft y qua placem&s Deo ad recwi-

tb'id. cdidttonemy & jam reconctliatt dirigimu,r& fufienta-

cap. 2.§.I. ntur ad placendum ipfi in Obedientia *ov a . Arid again,

lb$d. fidemiUam, qt+a juftificat, pr*fupponere, invohere, £?

§.8. inferre conctdimusJidem Htftoru r atqueetiam (jnqut-

bufdam olim ) miracuiorum y fed bifhrU ac miraculo*-

rumfidem fape a juftificatsone feparari palam tft\Quain~*

'tiU mutt a fiat exercitia C ob'ye&a It'idet , non tamtn ]u~

fttficans efl> nifi prout re fait mtfertcordiam Dei in

Ckrifio. Hinc omnes tilt, quorum fides in ee capite

Q Heh. 11. ) laudatur 9 colltmabant ad promtjfionem il-

lam mi}erecordi& in Chrifta.

|. Where do I fay, That the receiving of Chrift as King doth ;uftifie, that you ask rne in what fenfe it doth fe? I fay, Juftifying Faith doth receive thrift as Kin^, but not as juftifying j or that Faith in that refpeft doth notjuftifie.

4. Faith as the Condition of Justification is the recek ving ef Chrift as fatisfying for us.

5. If Chrift's Satisfaction only be oui Riehteoufneft, by which we are juftified j and Chrift as Prieit only made Satisfaction for us, then by receiving Chrift as Prieft only we are juftified. This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument, though J left out the word [only].

And here afib I have Mr. Bla^e agreeing with mc, as

(I think ) in every point, wherein we differ, if he have

Of the Qceafiou to treat of it. c [ It is true f faith be J that

Coven. ! Fa* tn accepts Chrift as Lord as well as Saviour : but it

<M* P*79* * is the acceptation of him as Saviour, not as Lord, that

• «juftifies. Chrift rules his People as a King, teacheth

1 them as a Prophet, but majces atonement for them as a

«Prieft,

* Prleft, by giving himfelf In Sacrifice, his Blood for re-c miffion of Sins, Thefe muft be diftinguifhed, but not «divided: Faith hath an eye at all, the Blood of Chrift, «the Command of Chrift, the Do&rineof Chrift: but c as it; ties and fattens on his Bloody fo it juftifies. He # c fit out a propitiation through Ta'tthin hU Blood, Ronv «^24 v not through Faith i$ his Command. It is the c Blood of Chrift that cleanfeth from all fin, and not th$ c Sovereignty of Chrift. Thele 'sonfufions of the di, «Itinft parts of Chrift J s Mediatorfhip, and the feveral c offices of Faith may not be fuffered. Scripture afligns c each its particular Place and Work. Sovereignty dotty c nbt cleanfe, nor Blood command us t r Faith in his c Blood, not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty ,doth jufti-<fie us. There a?e feyeral afts of Juftifying-Faith, < Hek xx but thofe are not a&s of Juftification. It is c not Ahraharn^ Obedience, Mofcs Self-denyai, Gideon <QXS«t/Kpfd#'s Valour, that was their Juftification, but «his Blood, who did enable them in tfcefe things by hi$ c Spirit].

You* Similitude is not fuitable; for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband, may be enriched or dtgni* fied by him, though fhe never look at him as rich or honourable, but only as bet Husband. But we muft loofe at Cjirift as a Prieft, and as making Satisfaction for u^ that fo we may be juftified by him. For the Scripture doth fet forth thrift unto us in that refped for our Jufti-r fication 5 teApoc. %. 5. H$b. 9<l6. 2, Cor- f. ult* &om x 8. 34. where thoft words [ It is Chriji that died } fliew how Chrift doth juftifie us, and free us from condemn.?* tion, v/^,. by dying, and fo fatisfying for our fins. That which follows of Chrift's Refurre&ioo, £5V. feems ( as to our Juftigcaition ) but for our more full aflurance of the benefit of Chair's Death, and for the effe&ual application of his Satisfa&ion, which he- made for us by his Death, that fo we may he juftified by him.

6. You grant, that Chrift, not as King, but as Prieft, 4pth juftifie us meritorioufly and fatisfa&orily j and that js it which I urge, That ChrifVs Satisfaction, which as Prieft he made for us, is that whereby, or for which we are juftified. Now we fpeak of receiving Chrift unto Juftification, therefore we muft confiderhimas&tisfy,. ingforus 5 and fo receive him as to that pu^pofe, W*,.

bur Juftificatiott; though (I grant ^ whole Chrift, or Chrift in refpeft of all his Offices mult be received * neither may we think to have him as a Prieft to fatisfie for us, except we alfo have him as a Prophet to inftrutt \xi, and as a King to govern us. So I ufualiy Preach and Teach. f7. I. When you fay, That I leave the Errour in his Lan-

(jfr, 6j. ) gUage> but not in his Senfe, your words are ambiguous. For they may import, That Heave, /. e. relinquilh and' defert the Error the one way, but not the other. Or that I leave, /'. e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language, but not in his Senfe. This I take to be your meaning, for elfe you could not fay (except ironically, .which I do not fufped) that it is a fair Expofitiort,' and that ydu like it, Iha e no feafon to ftrive aboutf another's words, efpecially not knowing how they are brought in.'.: but I think meet to interpret words in the beft fenfe that they will bear: neither do I yet fee but thofe words which you tax as foully erroneous, may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them.

2. Where Ameftuxh thofe words,yoU do not fhew:But furely he there fpeaks de Fide Juft/ficante quhtali.Yoyi otherwife he ftiould neither agree with the Truth,nor with fiimfelf in faying, Chrift us eft ob)ettum ad&quatum Ftdet jufttficanii*. The whole Word of God is the Object of Juftifying-Faith, though not of Faith as Juftifying sj and fomuch is acknowledged by Amefin*^ as appears by his \vords before cited. Neither again doth he fpeak of Chrift in allrefpe&s, but as Chrift is the' Propitiation forour fins, as is clear by that very place which you now take into confederation.

Befides, I find Amefw to have fuch words as you

mention, but withall to add fuch, as plainly to e prels

Me Jul. what I fay. Chrift in {inquit J eft ddkfuatum ob)eclum

M*\%C.%f» Ftdety quatentts ( JV.B.) Fides Jufiificat. Fides eti*

§.17. *** non alt a rat tone juftificat, nlji quatenits apprehend*?

iUam'yuftttiam^ ( N. B* ) propter yuam jvfttpcamttf.

I. The Text ( 1 John 4. 19. ) cannot (Ithink) be rightly underftood but as I interpreted it. For v. io, 11. the Apoftle fpeaketh of God's great love manifefted unto \ us in giving his Son for us. And v. io. he ihews whence it is that we love God, v/<„ from hence, that God loved us raft, /. e . we apprehending the Love of God to

t S3 ]

us, anfwer his love with love again. Amat no.n im2 mentby qui amatus fine merito y 2$ Bernard fpeaketlj. Yet we muft firft find and feel the love of God towards us, before we can love him for what he hach done for .us.

2. There is more than a bare affenting Aft of Faith g«ing before the Love, of which I fpeak.

3. Embracing, which from Heb.ii. 13. J note to be j the compleating A& of Juftifying-Faith, doth include or ..prefuppofe amor em defiderii •, we can never fincerely em*

or ace Chrift,if we do not defee him : but amor deleft-ati~ vriis^ or complacentU doth follow after embracing, W<,. .when the thing defired is enjoyed. All that you add,holds only inrefpeft of the former kind, not in iefpeft of the latter,

i. There are divers kinds of Love, but I fpeak of that j8-Love which differs from Defire; and fo did you feem to underftand it, as I noted from your words, Aphorifmy p. 267.

2. Whereas you fay, [ There is no need of faith to rna^e it prefent 1 before tt can be accepted and loved"] 1 you cannot by Faith mean Affent, for that, you grant, doth go before Love and Acceptance. And if by Faith you mean Acceptance, furely there mult be Acceptance, before a thing can be accepted, though in timethefe go together. But perhaps you only mean, That though Faith as an Affent, muft go before in time, and as an Acceptance mult go before in Nature, yet not fo as to make a thing prefent. For you add. That God's Offer doth make it prefent. But though ihe Offer be prefent, yet the thing offered is not prefent, foasthe ObjeA of the JLove of Complacency muft be: for it mult be prefent by way of Enjoyment^ but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for - fo that the thing, though it be offered, yet until it: be accepted, it is abfent, be-

. caufe it is not enjoyed. The ihihg offered muft be defi-roufly, and in thatrefpeel:lovingly accepted ; but it mull: firfi be accepted, and then loved, fo as to joy and delight in it.

3. We look at Chriftas enjoyed, when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight, of which Love I fpeak.

GaudiHm

ThcoUg. Gaudtmn britur ex hoc, (faith Ramuniu* dt Svbundtt) Natur. *fubd alt qua rts fcit fe habere id, quodhabet^ G? non €x Tit- $$. hoc duntaxat-, quod hales*

There ffitift both be the Having of a thing, iand alfo the Knowing that we have it, that we may rejoyce in it,

4. As Affent ltiuft go before Acceptance, fomuft Acceptance go before that Love, of which I fpeak. Ibid, i. I did not fay, or think., thar you thought fo of all

T'ove, W<,. that it confidereth its Object as prefent or enjoyed ; for there is no diftinguifhing here of rhefe, as I have mewed before j the Objeft is not prefent, except it be enjoyed. You grant that Afoot Complacent u doth fo coniider its Object > and I thought you had meant that kind of Love, becaufe you did diftinguifh Love from Defire. Therefore I faid, [ Love as you take it, cOnfi-dereth its Object as prefent and enjoyed 3 v/^. Love as diftinzwftiedfioraDetite. I know not (Iconfefs) what to make of Love, but either a Defire, if the Objeft be abfent, or a Delight, if the Objed be prefent.

2. That vv'hich you fay Concerning Acceptance, Election, and Confent, is nothing tome, who do not enquire whether they be divers ads or no 5 but only mew that they go before Enjoyment, and fo differ from Love 3 as I take it, v^. Love of Complacency, which doth follow Enjoyment. 5 9, I take the Love of Defire to go before Acceptance, and

the Love of Complacency to follow after it. Although AmareXj velle bcnumbc one and the fame, yet this Yelle lonum W tft cum deftderto, fi oBjeftum tbfit, W cum Complacent*a , ft adjtt. r\ X a' Aquinas doth not fatisfie me, when he faith, NuHus

<Jua?n\20. defiderat altqutd ntfi bonnm amatum ruque altquUgau-Art- I • det ntfi-de bono amato -, if he mean, that a thing is ama-Nempe f4im ^ rtU6 * ^ u ^ m defideratum. The very Defiderare (I frtHstem- tn i n k) is Amare, and fo is Gaudere alfo 5 but the one pore, non j s yimuye y„ 0e i abeft, the other Am Are quod ddeft. So natura. y ou j n t ^ Q next Section fay, [ Defire fsLo^e, and Com-

fltctncyis Loye~\. - <

Ibid. 1. 1 did not doubt, much lefs deny ihat there is Amot

Defideriti as well as Amor Complacent t& 5 only I {hewed, that your words there muft be meant of the former, Jn which fenfe I did not oppofeyou, but as it is taken in the

other

C*5 ]

other Tenfe • and fo you feemed to take it before, becaufe you did exprelly diftinguifh it from Deilre.

Neither is your fecond any thing again# me.

3..The Scripture is not fo much to be interpreted accor-' ding to the moft coraprehenfiv e fenfe, as according to the moir proper fenfe, V/>.. that which doth beft agree with the fcontext and other places of Scripture.

Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcafm very unworthily ufed of fuch a worthy Man as Calvin was.

i. The places, which you allcdg .(John 16. 27. and /W4 14. 21.) do not prove, that Love, >/<,. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love, and drift's Love I to us, fo that we muft firft love GodandChrift, before I we can be reconciled unto God in Chrift. For becaufe we are v reconciled unto God in Chrift, therefore we love God and Chrift, 1 John 4.19 The meaning of thofe other places (as Calvin notes) is this, That they that love God, infculftum habent tn cordibus Paterni ejus amaris iefttmomum : To which may be added, That God will ftillmanifeft his Love to thorn more and more.

2. Not only Love, but Obedience alfo muft go before Glorification*, but it doth not therefore follow, That they muft go before Juftification, as your felf hold that Obedience doth not as we are at firft juftified. That there is any other Condition of Juftification at laft than at flrft, is more than I can find in Scripture.

1. What fomehave anfwered, and what you have read Ibid, in others I know not; you cite none whofe Works are extant, but only Mr.Ball, and him at large, [On%he Covenant ] but where in that Book you do not fhew. I find there that he doth ufe the words [ Inftrument ] and [ Cond/tiqn ~] promifcuoufly.

£ The Covenant of Grace ( faith he J exacleth no other Of the thing inherent in us, as a Caufe ( viz. inftrumental ) of Coven J, Juftification, or a Condition (N.B.) tn refpeft of which f- 6 J. we are juftified^ but Faith alone']. This is point-blank againft that which you fay of him. And again, [It *s ibia. ( faith he ) the fole Injirumental or Conditional (N.B.) * Caufe required on our part to Juftification ].

As I lhewed before in the Animatyerfions^ad pag. 24 j. our Divines fay, licks fola juftificat, fed tides qua )u-ftificat, non eft fila : but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith.

Thus

Thus Stapleton fo me where (I cannot now cite th place) teiVityeth of them, faying, Omms adunum Pro. t eft antes decent ftdem )uftificantem ejfe yi^am^ & ope rant em percharitatem^ at que alia bona of era.

2. I grant, That Amor Concupifcentidt. is prerequifite if you will call it fo, as I fee not but you may, though Amor ConcuptfcentU is ufually oppofed to Amor Amici tU) and fo you fpeak of it, p. 5 8. And if you fpeak noli of Amor ComplacentU, then neither do I fpeak againff you. For of that do I fpeak, and had reafon ( I think } to underftand you as fpeaking of it, becaufe you fpake ok Love as diftind from Defire. Perhaps you -fpeak of it only in refped of its Generical Nature, abftraaing fro]

>m

the confideration of either Defire or Complacency, which; are the Species of it: but furely thefe two taking up the whole nature of Love, that Love which is not the one oi thefe, muft needs be the other. We accept or chufe a thing, becaufe we firft Love, /'. e. defire it, or (as we ufe to fay ) have a mind to it: and having accepted and chofen it, we further love it, fo as to delight in it, except our Love turn into Hatred, as Amnons unchaft Love did : but the very Accepting 01 Cr ufingof a thing is not (that I fee ) properly a Loving of it.

3. I grant, that all Love doth not prefuppofe Acceptance, Confent, &c. the Love of Defire doth not 5 but the Love of Complacency doth. This is all that I have defired, and fo much you have yeelded. Ibid* I • The diftindion of fides qu&, and fides qua, as it

is frequently ufed by our Learned Writers, fo it doth hold good notwithftanding any thing you havefaid,' or ( l| luppofe ) can fay again ft it. 23/^. de Quamyps banc controy>erjiam element* ( faith 7</V^/,|

ftdejuft. fpeaking of the Remonftrants) nee ctccum (utloquun-l S. 1 6. fur ) tnterdiunt^ an fides qua eft vtva^ an fides qua efi i Wv^, ad )u(tificattcnem requtratur £$ Logicam tantum pugnam effe velint, Logica tamen h&c pugna realem con-tinet magni moment i. Stquis emm dtcat^ Chriftus qui homo eftinfinitH*, & Chrtjlus qua homo eflinfimtus^ nt-mo fams extfttmabit nihil differre has enunti at tones.

I grant you more than you require, That not only Chrift as Lord, but*ven the whole Word of God is the Object of Juftifying Faith $ but not therefore of Faith as Juftifying. The Hand may receive both Meat and Mony,

yet

yet it doth not enrich, as it receiveth Meat, nor feed as it recciveth Mony. .. . .

2. If ChrifFs Satisfaction be our kighteouinefs, ( which I think you fia\ e ever affirmed, though you would alfo have another Righteoufnefs of bur own, and that unro Juftification ; ) then I fee not but that I may fpeak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending ChrifVs Satisfaction. V01 though the Satisfaction was made unto God, yet it was made for us 5 and in that refpecl: we are to lay hold on it, and receive it, and not only to affent to the truth of it.

You fomewhcie cite Bellarmine yeelding unto us thus much, Imputart nobis Chnftk mentay quia nobis donata r unt^ & poffumsts ea Deo Patrt off err e pro peccatis no-#ris, quohiam Chrsfius fufcepit [uper fe onus faiisfact-?nds pro nobis ^ nofque Deo Patri reconctitandi.

Which words alfo Amefius doth cite, and interpret to Contra be as much as if he did fay, Chrtfti merit a funt nobis a BeUar, Deo donata, ut pojfimus ea pro nobis Deo cfferretan- Tom .4.1,6. jitam S at ssfactionem pro pec cat is noftris* r.i. §.n,

It is Satisfacfio Chrift 1, though by Faith it becomes Noftra, which we mult offerre Deo ; but firft we mult by ( p. 7^ ) Faith receive it, before we can have any intereft in it, to nake fuch ufe of it. Faith juftirieth (I grant) as a Con-lition, becaufe it is required of us, that we may be par-rakers of ChrifVs Righteoufnefs •, but it is not Faith properly, but the Righteoufnefs of Chrift by which we are ufiihed.

ryfiecle Gontarenus ( faith Amef. ) in TraB. de Jufiif. Vh fupra Fide jii/tsjtcamur, non formalitery fie tit Albedo efficit ''*• 5 f«4> larietemalburn^ aut Sanitas hominem fanum \ fed ef~ §• I*. Scienter , ftcut Lrnttio efficit panentem alburn^ C Medi--at 10 efficit fanum : fie, *w7 non dijfimili ratsone. Fides fficit hominem jufium^ C? jufiif cat.

I like your Explication which you now make, and I /W.& £0. hink my labour well bellowed, as being the becafion of t. I perceive all that you mean is this, That the Cove-lant wherein God doth give Chrift,, is not of force to nake Chrift ours until we believe. This who can quefti-Jh, Chrift being given to be ours only upon condition of Relieving > Yet Chrift being fo conditionally given in the * .

Covenant, upon our believing he is made ours by vertue v A 73- y >£ the Covenant: fo that ftill I fee not but that our bd-G lieving

Thus S/v^fe/w fomewhere ( I cannot now cite the place) teftityeth of them, faying, OmmsadunumPro-teftantes doceni Ttdem )uftificantem ejfe yivam^ CJ operant em percharitatem, atquealid bona of era.

2. I grant, That Amor Concupifcenti& is preftequifite ; if you will call it fo, as I fee not but you may, though Amor Concuptfcentid is ufually oppofed to Amor Amici-tU) and fo you fpeak of it, p. 5 8. And if you fpeak not

N of Amor ComplacentiA, then neither do I fpeak againft you. For of that do I fpeak, and had reafon ( I think ) to underftand you as fpeaking of it, becaufe you fpake of Love as difuncl: from Defire. Perhaps you -fpeak of it only in refped of its Generical Nature, abftraaing from the confederation of either Defire or Complacency, which are the Species of it: but furely thefe two taking up rhe whole nature of Love, that Love which is not the one of thefe, muft needs be the other. We accept or chufe a thing, becaufe we firft Love, /. e. defire it, or (as we ufe to fay ) have a mind to it: and having accepted and chofen it, we further love it, fo as to delight in it, except our Love turn into Hatred, as Amnons unchaft Love did : but the very Accepting 01 CI ufing of a thing is not (that I fee ) properly a Loving of it.

3. I grant, that all Love doth not prefuppofe Acceptance, Confent, Cfc. the Love of Defire doth not 5 but [ the Love of Complacency doth. This is all that I have I defired, and fo much you have yeelded.

Ibid. I- The diftinclion of fides <w&, and Tides quA, as it

is frequently ufed by our Learned Writers, fo it doth hold I good notwithftanding any thing you havefaid,or (I J luppofe ) can fay againft it. &*(]>' de Quamyps banc controller flam element* ( faith Rivet^ I

Tidejufi. fpeaking of the Remonftrants ) nee ciccum (utloquun- I §. 16, fur ) tnterdiunt^ an Tides qua eft ytya^ an Tides qua eft j Wv^j ad )uftificaticnemrequiraturj*$ Logic am tantum I pugnam ejfe yelsnt> Logtca tamen h&c pugna realejen con- J tinet rnagni moment 1. Siquis emm die at^ Chriftus qui homo eft infinite, C Chriftus qua homo eft infinitus, n«- j mo farms cxtfttmabit nihil dijferre has enunti at tones.

I grant you more than you require, That not only 4 Christ as Lord, butltven the whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying Faith \ but not therefore of Faith as Juftifying. The Hand may receive both Meat and Mony,

yet it doth not enrich 3 as it receiveth Meat, nor feed as it received* Mony.

2. If Chrift's Satisfaction be our kighteoufnefs, (which I think you fiave ever affirmed, though you would alfo have another Righteoufnefs of bur own, and that unco Juftification ; ) then I fee not but that I may fpeak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending ChrifVs Satisfaction. For though the Satisfaction was made unto God, yet it was nude for us > and in that refped we are to lay hold on it, and receive it, and not only to affeht to the truth of it.

You fomcwhcie cine BeUarmine yeeidingunto us thus much, Imputart nobts thrifts, merit a,) quia nobis donata r unt, C foJJUmus ea Deo Patrs off err e fro peccatis no~ Qrss^ quohiam Chrtftus fufcepit fuper fe ontts fattsfaci-?ndspro nobis , nofque Deo Vatri reconctliandi.

Which words alfo Amefins doth cite, and interpret to Contra be as much as if he did fay, Chrifti merit a funt nobis a BeUar, Deo donata> ut pojjlmus ea pro nobis Deo offerretan- Tom.^.lC* yttam Satisfafltonem pro pec cat is no fir is* r^j. §.n,

It is Satisfacfio Chrift i, though by Faith it becomes Nofhray which we mult offerre Deo ; but firft we mult by ( p. y%^ ) Faith receive it, before we can have any intereft in it, to nake fuch ufe of it. Faith juftirieth (I grant) as a Condition, becaufe it is required of us, that we may be par-:akers of ChrifVs Righteoufnefs ^ but it is not Faith properly, but the Righteoufnefs of Chrift by which we are luftitied.

Rede Gontarenus ( faith Amef ) in Traft. de Jufiif. V*' !*P rA Vide jufhfcamur^ non formaliter* ftcut Albedo efficit ^- 5 <r-4-> arte tern alburn^ aut Sanitas hominem fanum ; fed ef- §• I *• Scienter ■, ficut Lsnstio efficit partentem alburn^ © Medi-*atio efficit fanum : fie, *w/ non dtjfimili rations Fides ffictt hominem ^uftum^ C jufttficat.

I like your Explication which you now make, and I /W.8c £o. :hink my labour well bellowed, as being the becafion of it. I perceive all that you mean is this 3 That the Cove-lant wherein God doih give Chrift,, is not of force to nake Chrift ours until we believe. This who can quefti-!h, Chrift being given to be ours only upon condition of relieving ? Yet Chrift being fo conditionally given in the w .

Covenant, upon our believing he is made ours by vertue v A 73« J >£ the Covenant: fo that ftill I fee not but that our be-G Ueving

t 5)8 3

Heving doth immediately make Chrift ours, there being nothing mote to that end required ©f us, but to believe. But how will it follow, that God doth juftifie Men before they believe, when by his Covenant he doth not juitirie but upon condition of Believing? The Grant of a thing being Conditional, it cannot be actually obtained until the Condition be performed, though upon the performance of the Condition by vertueor the Grant there be aftual enjoyment. ^ Whether the receiving of Chrift as Prieft, and the re-

ceiving of him as King be two diftincl: acts, doth little (t "1 concern our purpofc; yet I think the A&s may be diftincl:, \t' 73- ) t j lcU gh I deny not but Chrift may be i cceived at once in both refpects: yet if he be, it is the receiving of him as Prieft, .not as King? that doth juftifie. I grant that rhc receiving of Chrift in refpeft of any one Office doth virtually include the receiving of him in refped of all his Offices : and he rh.at doth not fo receive Chrift in refpeS: of his Prieftly Office, as to be ready to receive him alio in refpecl of .his Kingly Office, when Chrift ffiall fo be fet forth unto him, doth not at all receive him : fuch a Faith is a falfe Faith, and cannot juftifie.' Yet may there be a receiving of Chrift as Prieft without an exprefs and direct receiving of fiirrt as King, though implicitly and by conference he be received as fuch. Neither is it a falfe "Knowledg, though it be an imperfect Knowledgto know Chrift as a ; Pricft, and not to know him as a King. And that Chrift is fometimes propounded only as a Prieft,/. e. with exprefs mention only of his Prieftly Office, feems clear and undeniable by divers places of Scripture ^ fee John i. ip, gf. and 3. 14, if. and fo other places which fpeak of Chrift as fuftering for us, not mentioning his So. vereignty over us, : though that is there implied and ex-preffed in other places. And though he be ( as fometimes he is ) exprefly fet forth at once both as Prieft and King, •and fo muft exprefly be received at once in both rffpefts ; yet it hinders not, but that the receiving of Chrift as Prieft r and not the receiving of him as King, is that which juftifieth. One may at once receive divers things, and yet thofe things net all ferve for one and the fame ufe, but one thing may ferve for one ufe, and another thing for another ufe, all being,though in feveral refpe&s, uleful and neceftary to be received.

You

You fay that you are of my mind in all this, yet you Ibid* feem to differ from me, in that you make Affiance a Fruit of Acceptance, which you make the very Act of Faith by ( 74. ) which we are juitified •, whereas I taking Affiance for Recumbency, and for that which is meant by Believing in (Thrift, and Embracing him, make it to be the very Ju-ftifying Ad of Faith. That Believing in Chrift doth principally import Affent I cannot fee : to Believe indeed doth feem principally to import Affent j but to Believe in, feems principally to import Affiance.

Credere tn Chriflum ( as Peru* faith well ) eft cert a, i n J 0 h t ^ 'Jtrmtiy & ftabili fiducia Chrtftum^ omntaque ejus bona 29. compleftt^ etfque toto corde, tot a ant ma-, tottfque virtbus mh&rere.

So Wotton ^ Qutd eft in Chriftum credere } An id fo- De Recon-lummvdo 3 credere V >era ejfe, qua Chrtftus loquttur} At ctl.part r. qutd opus erat Spirit ut Sanclo tamnoftum & tnfolens y>er- lib. i.e. 14. bum ufurpare^ preferttm obfeurum etiam^ & h vttlgi in-telltgentia remotum > Quod recle £? clare dtci potutty X£*s-a> OTsW £te, id Spirttus Sanctus no^o more dtcendi y eis X&*rcv 77i£*c/a*, volutt obfeurare > Nam hie certe loquendt modus ^ «? Xe*rdv m&v'ea^ totus eft a Sptritu Sanclo tilt proprtusi nee ullum e Gracid autorem agnof cit^ ne tllos qutdem LXX Interpretes-i qut Hebraa Btblta Grace reddtderunt^a quibus Apoftolt & Evangeltfta muU ta tn Scrtptis fuss, quod tpfum loquendt modum atttnety crebrh mutuentur. Quamobrem plus quam ter'tfimtle yidetur SptritumSancl'um quum novo loquendt mors uta-tur^ quern jj due tarn figntficare perfpicuum eft-> altud quoddam prater communem yocts fignificaitonem propo~ nere Yclutjfe.

I find that Seneca doth ufe the Latin Phrafe, Hunc In Ludo de (inquif) Deum.quts colet} quts credet in eum > Where morte £ Credet in eum ] is as much as [ jiductam tn eo colloca- Claudii lit ]. And fo the Phrafe of [ Believing in ] ufed in the Caefaris, New Teltametft, feems to import as much as the Phrafes of [ Trufttng tn ] and [ flaying on ] ufed in the Old Teftament, as namely, I fa. 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of £aith, parti, chap. 3. p. 24, &c.

So far as I can jj^dg, your fuccefs is net anfwerable to 6i, your defire. But if you did not intend to infer fuch a con-clufion from your earneft feeking the Lord's Ditedion on ( 74# ) your Knees, I know not to what purpofe you did fpeak G 2 of

oHt. For if it Were only to (hew the fincerity of your defire, Whac is your Caufe advantaged, though that be granted, as I know not why any mould queftion it ? iHL What is that which you fay is ycelded > That Faith

doth not juftihe, as ic is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant > Yet you make Juftifying-Faith, as fuch, to be the Condition of the whole Covenant. For * you make it to include Obedience : and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience ?

2. Of J unification begun, and Juftification continued and confummated by fentence at Judgment, I have fpo-ken before, nor is there need here to fay any more of it. ibid, i. No doubt the Holy Ghoft means as he fpeaks : But

what of that ? Doth he fpeak fo as you interpret him ?

z. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James, exprefs themfelves diverfly, yet they agree in the Matter, vt%- That Works do not concur with Faith unto Juftification. Of the Mr. Bali fpeaking of thofe words, [ Faith is imputed

Coven* unto Righteoufnefs ] faith, [ This Vaffage tj dtverjly f* 64. interpreted by Orthodox Divines, all aiming at the fame

Truth, and meeting in the Matn^ being rather feveral Exprejfions of the fame Truth 9 than different Interpretations ].

Then he mews three feveral ways whereby thofe words are interpreted, which differ as much as thafe Interpretations which you mention. They that fay, That the Apo-ftiefpeaketh of J uftification coram Deo, by Works, im-derftand a WGiking~Faith: They that expound it of Juftification coram Homimbus, take the meaning to be, That by Works a Man doth appear to be j uftified. They that underftand it of the Juftification of the Perfon, make the fenfe the fame with thofe firft mentioned : and they diat fay it is meant of the Juftification of a Man's Faith, agree with thofe in the fecond place, making Works to prove the fincerity of Faich, and fo to manifeft a Man's JuftiJication.

j. Are not thofe words [ Hoc efi Corpus meum*\ as^ exprefs words of Scripture, as thofe which you alledg? Though words be never fo exprefs, yet not only ii }nl;v, bur aJfoa faim* is to be confidered.

4, James might well and folidly prove by Works done

many

CioO

many years after, that the Faith of Abraham^ whereby he was juftified, was a Working-Faith, of a Working Nature, a Faith fruitful in good Works, his Faith bringing forth fuch fruit In due feafon, and fo Shewing it felf by Works when occafion did require. Abraham (no doubt) had many other Works, whereby his Faith did appear, yet the Apoftle thought meet to inftance in that Work, which was moft remarkable \ and by which his Faith did manifeft it felt in a more efpecial manner.

hoc /acinus ( faith Chrjfoftome ) tan to pr&(tantius f n % g or erat ceteris omnibus , ut tlla cum hoc collata nihil ejje v/- fj om „ dpysntur. 3 *

What your Parenthefis doth mean ( Legal Juftificati-vn I mean ) I do not well underftana. But how doth James fpeak of Jufiification as Continued, and not as Begun > Is his meaning this, That a Man is indeed at firft juftified by Faith only, but both Faun and Works together do continue his Jufiification > So you underftand it : but finely James doth neither fpeak, ror mean fo. For by Faith alone without Works, in his fenfe, a Man never was, never can be juftified. This is clear by his whole Difcourfe, for he calls him a vain Man that relies on fuch a Faith, and calls it a dead Faith ^ Sec. So that when a Man is firft juitified, it is by a Working Faith : not that Faith mult necciTarily produce Wdrks at the firft, but it is ( as I faid ) of a Working Nature, of fuch a Nature as to produce Works when they are required ; which is the fame with what you fay out of Gratis** ; and this doth anfwer all that you object againft the Interpretation which I ftand for. Who can doubt but Abraham was juftified long before he offered up ifaac^ the Scripture being exprefs for it ? But how then > Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Jufiification which was paft.

Anfxv* No indeed, that Work was not, nor could be ^ but Faith apt to fhew it felf by that Work, or any other, when required, and consequently a W r orking Faith might be, and was the Condition of that J unification. Gratis m, whom you cite, giving you fucli a hint of ir, I wonder that you cou\4 not obfervethis. James and Paul rpay well enough be reconciled, though both of them fpeak of J unification as Begun, for James doth net require Works otherwife than as Fruits of Path, to be G 3 brought

brought forth in time convenient: and Paul doth not exclude Works in that fenfe. Of Jufti- [ Every obfervant Reader (faith Dr. %<tckfosi) may fying- furntfh himfelf with plenty of Arguments all demon fir a-Faith, §.2. tive, t hat Works tarenas St. James meant, not for the chap. 17. jift or Operation only, but etther for the Acl y or promptitude to tt s are mceffary to Juftificatton-, &c. ] Ibid. And again, [ faith virtually includes the fame mind

in us that was in Chnft, a readtnefs to do Workj of every kind) whtch notwithstanding are not Affociates of faith tn the bufintfi of J unification ]•

And thus he reconcileth the two Apoftles, who in this ibid. Point feem to differ, [ St. James affirming we are jufti-

fiedby Works, and not by fatth only, freak* °f the Paf. five Qualification in the Subjecl, or Party to be jufiified^ or made capable of abfolute Approbation, or final Abfo-lution. This qualification fuppofed, St. Paul /peaks of the Application of the Sentence, or of the ground of the Plea for Abfolution : the one ( by his Doclrine ) muft be conceived* and the other fought for only by faith. The immediate and only cauje of both he fiiU contends not to be in us, but without us : and for this reafon * when he affirms that we are )uflified by faith alone, he confiders not fatth as it js a part of our qualification inherent , or the foundation of other Graces, but as tt includes the Correlative Term, or Immediate Caufe of Juftificatton, whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference,and continual afyeft. This is that whtch in other terms fome have de~ * Not that livered, Fides juftificat relative, non * effe&ive., autfor-faithhath maliter, &c. ] no efficiency at all in Jufltfying, but that it is not the Meritorious Caufe of Justification.

Take a few words more from this Author, ( ibid. ) [ The Apofile levels his whole Difcourfe to this Point mamtainedby us, That feeing Right eoufnefi was tmpu-ted to Abraham^ faith, and not through Works, none' after him fhould m this life at any time, ( N. B. ) whB tier before or after the wfufion of Grace, or Inherent Right ecufn-efi, pre fume to fee^ or hope fir like approbation fiom God Qtherwife than only by faith ].

How

How I exclude Love, I have (hewed, even as you do> W*,. Love of Complacency, which you grant doth follow Acceptance, that Ad of Faith by which we are juftified. And when I fay that Proteflants generally deny Faith,. which is without Works to juftifie, I mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them. You might eafily have perceived this to be my meaning by ; what I {aid. out of Cajetan de fdenon (ierilt, fed fesc fat da operibus. A Tree is not faid to be barren, except it doth not bring fyth Fruit when the Seafon doth require.

$. I ihewed you what I take to be meant Jam. z. 23, when it is faid, [ And the Scripture w<u fulfilled, which faith, Abraham believed God, and it wo* imputed to htm for Righteoufnefi~\\ viz,. That by Abraham's readinefs to obey God in offering up Ifaac^ the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear, it was then moil manifeft, That Abraham believed God indeed, and that his Faith was a true Juftifying-Faith, it being operative, and fhewing forth it f If fo evidently by Works of Obedience, when they were required of him $ fo that the Scripture did well and truly fay of him, That he believed God, and tt wai accounted to him for Rtghteoujnefs.

Caftan doth explicate it ( me-thinks ) very well. In L° c * Adverte ( faith he ) prudens Letfor, quad Jacobus non fentit Jidem abfque operibus mortuam efje, (§V. Sed fen-tit Jidem fine opertbus, id eft, renuentem op er arty effe mvrtuam>> efje vanam, C5 5 nop juftificantem. Et rede fenttt^quoniam, qu<& non efi parata operari, mortua eft. Suapte enim natura operatur per ddecricnem, ut Paulus dicit. Quod ergo Jacobus affert verba, Gen.15. [ Credidtt Abraham Deo, &c. ] ad hoc affert -, quodcre-dtdit paratus operar;. Et propter ea dicit, quodm opere oblattoms Jiiii impleia eft Script ur a loquens dejjde Abraham parata operari. Impleta, tnquam, eft quvad execu-tionem maxtmi opens, ad quod parata erit fides Abraham

And though you make light of this interpretation of James> as it it were nothing againit you ; yet Calvin, f n l oc , ^doubted not to fay, Nodo tnfoiubilt conftrtcros teneo, qui-cunque yu/ritiam Abraha? coram £%eo imputatamjingunt, quia tmmolavit jittum Ifaac, qui nondum natus erat, quttm Spirit us Sanftus pronunciat juftum fulfje Abraham. Jtaque necejfarto reft<*t y ut altqutd pojtertus no-G 4 tart

C 104 3

tdri dtfcamus. Quomodo tgttur Jacobus id futffe irn-fletum dictt ? Nempe ofiendere yult, yualts ilia fnewt fides, qua, jufiificavit Abraham, non otto fa faltcet y ant evanida> fed qua ilium Deo reddidit obfequentem ; * H^ is c^ficut ettam Heb. 11. 8. habetur.

prefs a fahtn (it feerns ) never dreamed of being juftified

gainft it. one way at fcft, * and another way afterwards. I would Inftit. /.$. ne t have you put him off with a taunt, as you did before, r. 17. §.9. Parcius tfta tamende.

Of the But let Mr. Blaise alfo be heard fpeak, [ James indeed

Coven. ( faith he ) faith that Abraham was jufiified by Workj> *. 12.79,80 when he hadojferedlhzc his Son on the Altar<> Jam.2.21. But either there we mufi understand a Workjng-Fasth wtth Piicator, Parens, Pemble, &c and confefi that Paul and James handle two diftmft Quefitons, the one. Whether Faith alone juflifies without Works ? which he concludes in the Affirmative. The other , What faith juftifies, whether a Workjng-Faith onljy and not a Faith that is dead & idle} Or elfe I l>now not how to make fenfe of the Apojile, who flratght infers from Abraham 5 / purification by the offer of hi* Son \ And the Scripture was fulfilled, that faith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteoufncfs. How oiherwtfe do thefe accord } He was jufiified by Workj-> and the Scripture was fulfilled, that faith, He was jufiified by Faith ? Neither can I reconcile what he faith, tf this be denied^ with the whole current of the Oojpel ]. -

And he adds a little after, [ Ail Works before of after Connerfio'n, are inherent in us, or wrought by us, are ex-/ eluded from purification ].

Your Interpretations, v/<«. [ Abraham belieyed, i. e. helmed andobejed']- Or, [Yet the Serif ture wa* fulfilled, &c. For Fatth did jufifie him,but not only Faith~\. are fo uncouth and incongruous, that 1 wonder how you could perfwade your {elf, much more think to perfwade others to embrace them. Paul cites f!hofe words to prove that Abraham was juitified only by Believing, and that Juftification is by Faith only : And mall we admit of fuch an interpretation, [ Faith doth jufiifie, but not only } ] < Or £ Abraham was jufii/ied by Believing and Obeying } ] What is this elfe but to mahe the Scripture a nofe of wax, and to wreit it which way we pleafe } Yea ; What is it elfe but to make the Scriptuie plainly to contradift h 1 ' ■ * l : '-.-'•. "" felf ?

C 105 3

felf ? And yet ( forfuoth) you pretend to fland upon the 70 pnToy, and the plain words of Scripture. But Paul ( you fay ) (peaks of J unification as Begun 5 and that ( you grant ) is by Faith only > Well, and for proof of his Doctrine ( fay I) he alledgeth the words of Mofex Concerning Abraham, Mult nor thofe words then be underftoodof the fame Justification ? Will you fay with BelUrmtne, thar Paul fpeaking of the firft j unification, doth fetch a proof from the fecond > As on the other fide, he faith, that James^ fpeaking of the fecond Jultification, doth fetch a proof horn the firit. } This is Cesium Terr* m'tfeere^ C? Mare Ccelo.

6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be fo, but alfo lliewed where the fame phrafe is fo ufed, V/^. 2 Cor. 1 2. 9. And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel thofe places, and interpret the one by the other.

1 hus Camero > Tides ( intuit ) dtcitur perfici of en- Myrothl btv^ quia Fides^ dum prcducit opera^ off endtt quam fit adj^c, ferfefta : ut 2 Cor. 12. 9- Virtue Chrtflt dicttur per- 2. 21. jict tntnfirmttaubwS'i quia turn fctlicet fe maxtme exe-rH, £? prodtt.

And fo MaccoVtus \ Ffdcs fuic perfefta ex operibus> De Juftif. quomodo y>trtu* Chrt&t perficitur m tnfirmttate^ 2 Cor. Difb. io. 12. 9. quta in ed fe exent: confimtlt ratione Fides perfi-ci> per opera dicttur, quia per ea fe pro dtt.

Generally I find the words thus expounded by thofe that either comment upon them, or have occafion to treat of them.

Dicttur ex openbns ( faith Calvw ) fuiffe perfeita^ j n £ 0(r ; non quod mde fuam perfecJionem acctptaty fed quid Vera eJJ'e mde comprobctur.

So Be^a % Hoc igitur ( inquit ) ad declaration em j n L 0Cr quojue pertinet. Fides enim eo perfecJior dtctur, quo p er f ec T-a plentbs per(pe3aefl, ac cogmta, $ quo efficacies >cires ue . perfe* fuas exent qu& prtu* non it a apparebant. ^^ co ~

Fulke doth cite Beda thus expounding it; [ His Faith ni ta 9 Tre-wa* perfected by his Deeds ■, that ts^ by perfetf execution. mc \\ m a £ of Works it was proved to be tn his Heart j. j^ oc

Thus alfo Lud. de Dteu^ Quatenus bona opera *»itam, j n j^ 0Ca fdei^ ejufque \tm, sfficaciam , fmcerttatem produnt^ aaeoque earn tfluflram <$ exornant^ rede dicuntur perfect 0 Ftdei.

And

Symphon- And fo Volants* I Tides jufttficans perflcitur ex bonis Cat hoi. cperibus, non quoad #si&v feu effentiam £? conflhutio-Cap. 36. nem fuam, fedquatenus per ea Jirmatur, rnantfeftatury Theji z. comprobatur j ficut res alt qua turn fieri dicitury quum

patefit. Tides dtc't- And he citesthe Interlincary Glofs upon Jam. z. Per tur perfici opera fides efl augment at a ££ comprobata. per opera And Lyra 5 Et ex openbus fides confummata efl. Ha-quia per bit us entm firmatur tS mantfeftatur per opera, Et fi-' eafepradit rniltter magmtudo fid~i Abrahx apparutt ex ejus obedi-Rivet. entia offer endo filtum, propter quod dictum futt fibt a

Dilh. de Domino 5 Nunc cognovi, &c.

Tide Jv- Thus alfo Mr. Sally [ Faith u perfected by Works* ftif. §. 20. *** that the Nature of Faith receiveth complement or Of Faith perfection fiomWorlj, but becaufe tt doth declare and Part 1. mantfefl tt felf by Lome and good Works ', and is efteemed C. 4. p. 44. f° mt * c h the mare perfect;, as the Works produced are the

more excellent ]. Animad. To illuftrate this, I ufed alfo the Similitude of a Tree, pae- ?4- t ^ le goodnefs of whofe Fruit doth but manifest the good-Where I ncj k °f k > a »^ fo tne power of Faith doth but appear by alfo cited * ts fruits, v/^ Works. You fay that Faith is realJy Z>rPrefton paffe&ed by Works, as a Tree is 6y bearing fruit. But thus ex- ( as our Saviour faith ) a Tree is known by bis Fruit, poundtn? ^ e F rLUt doth not make the Tree good, but only mew it 9 andu- n to De f°- And tn ^ s ver y Similitude have Learned Di-(in<r this v * nes u ^ to tn * s ptirpofe.

(imtlttudt Eez^a immediately after the words before cited adds, to iHu- '^ t fi dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas turn futjfc perfe-(tratt h ^ a > quum optimum altqnem fiructum edidit. Nam quia de caufa '^udicamus ex effectu,Yidetur quod/immodo cauft "ft* "pel mtnui, yel auger 1 ex effect or um prop or t tone. Sed hoc ex effecfis intelligitur qutdem-> & <e(timatur, non au-tem emanat. Vbifupra* So Mr. Ball, [ How then faith the Apojlle that Eaith is perfected by Works ? As we )udg of the Caufe by the Effects y and by the proportion of the Effects the efficacy and, force of the Caufe may feem to be mcreafed or drmi-ntfbed. Emery thing is acknowledged to be perfect, when it workfthj and is efleemed fc much the more perfect, by how much the more it worketh : As we fay the goodntfi of a Tree is perfect, when tt hath brought forth jorne excellent good Fruit. Thus Philofophers teach, That the

Form

form is not perfeft^ when it is confldered as the jirfh , Ac?, but when it is ta^en as the fecond Aft • for by wording it putteth forth its force, and declare}h h [elf. And fo faith is perfected by Worlds, &c. ] as before cited.

You fay alio, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as a Covenant or Promife is by Performance. But the Performance doth only manifeft the perfection of a Covenant or Promife. It is a perfect Covenant or Promife, as foon as it is made, if it be made fincerely and without guile, though it appears more fully to be to when it is performed. Again you fay. That Faith is really perfected by Works, as it hath naturam medu y via. Conditionis, to the Continuation and Confummacion of J unification. But you havo not yet proved, That there is any other Condition of Juftification as Continued and Confumma-ted, than of Juftification as Begun.

Apprehenfto ilia Jidei ha bet fluxum fuum cont'tnu- In Gen.\% urn, £$V. (faith Ri^et) Ouod continuum benefictum Exercit. fide apprehenfum, fi fecundam Juftificationem appeliare 73. yelmt adwrfaril, imo tertiam, quart am, quint am, £5* miHefimam, non repugnamus, dummodo confiet nulla alia ratione ( N. B. J) nos'jufificari d peccat'ts fequen-tibus, quam ea y qua Jemel jufltjicati fuimus a precedent tibus*

St. James ^oth not fpeak of Works perfecting Faith more to the continuing and confummating of Juftification, than to the beginning of it. For ( which muft e-ver be remembred ) he fpeaks of Faith as apta nata ope-rari : and fuch a Faith is requiiite, that we may be justified as well at firft as afterward. Otherwife Works neither at firft nor afterward do concur with Faith to our Juftification.

[ A preparation or promptitude of Heart ( faith Of Faith, Mr. Bali ) to goodWorkj, is an effeft of faith as imme- Part 1. diate as juftification ]. c. 4. p. 5 7.

And again, [ Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, lb. Part 2, and leaye the accompli foment to Workj, but doth reft up- c.4. p. 2 53. en the Promife of Life until we come to enjoy it ].

Yet again you fay, That Faith is really perre&ed by Works, as Works are a part of that neceffary Matter (not neceffary at the firft moment of Believing, but neceffary after ward, wfcn we are called to it ) whereby we are

juftifu-d

juftified againft the Charge of non-performance of the New-Covenants Condition, even againfithe Charge of being an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite. But all this proves not that Works give any peife&ion to Faith, but only that they fhew the perfection, /. e. the fincerity, force, and efficacy of it. Works may manifeft a Man to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite : but it is his Faith, which being unfained, doth indeed make him to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite. All therefore that you have faid, makes nothing agamft my interpretation of thofe words, Jam. z* 22,. [ And by Works was Faith made perfect ].

7. Your felf deny neccjjuatem fr&fentU oferum in

refpeel of our being juftified at firft. And for the Con-

ducibility of Works to the effect of Juftification, James

fpeaketh not of it, but only {hews, that Juftifying Faith

is not without Works, v/^. -a hen God doth call for them.

He fhews that Juftifying-Faith is a Working-Faith, a

Faith ready to Work when occafion doth require : But

that Works do therefoie conduce unto Juftification as

well as Faith, he doth not fhew, neither doth this any way

follow upon the other. A Working-Faith is the Cond; T

tion of J unification, /. e. Faith which is of fbch a nature

as to bring forth the Fruit of good Works in due feafon :

yet arc we not therefore juftified by Works as well as by

Faith. For we are juftificd by Faith only apprehending

Chrift and his Righteoufnefs • thongh the fame Faith

that doth this, will alfo produce good Works, as Abra-

Tides fola &Ws Faith did. That Works do juftifie the Faith, but

jufttficat*. not the Perfon, though lufenot to fpeak fo, yet I think

quia tpfa may be faid without any implication of Contradiction.

eft umcnrn It is true, Juftificatio cauf& eft ettam Juftifie at io, fer-

inftrumen- font, ncn /implicit er C£ abfolute^ fed quoad $ am cau-

tum^ S 5 fam : but they that ufe that diftindion mean ( I think )

ujttca fa- only this, that Works (hew Faith to be found and good,

culta*) in yet it is Faith and not Works, by which a Man is ftmply

nobis qua and abfolutely juftified. Do not ( I pray ) here lay hold

rtcipimus on the word [ abfolutely ] ; it is referred to the word

juftitiamj [juftified] not to the word [ Faith']. I do not fay,

Chrifti. That Faith abfolutely considered doth juitifie : no,it doth

Bucan, juitifie as it is confidered relatively ; Faith, /. e t Chrift

Loc.-$ t. ad apprehended by Faith, is that whereby we are abfolutely

qu£ft. 37. juftified. Though Works may juftifie againft the Accu-

fation of being a final non-performer ot tjis Condition

(fo

C i op ]

( fo I would fay, not Conditions,in refpeft of the Juftifi-cation of which we fpeak) of the New Covenant j yet do they not therefore fimply and abfolutely juftifie, but only againft that Accufation, fhewing that a Man did perform the Condition, v/*,. believe, and fo is /Imply and abfolutely jufHficd, not by Works ( which do but only declare him to be fo ) but by Faith, as the Condition or Inftrument ( for I will ufe the terms promifcuoufly as others do) of Juftification. Faith doth not juftifie as Working, u e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works • your felt deny this in refpect of our Juftification at firft: yet Faith doth not juitifie, except it be of a Working-Nature, i.e. of fuch 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, v/*,. 63* the Moral Law, which (as I faid in the Animadverjions) is the eternal Rule of Righteoufnefs. And of that Law the Apoftle fpeaks, when he excludes Works from Juftification, as appears by his Reafons which he ufeth for proof of his AlTeition, Rom.3.20. Gal.3.10.

Evangel it ( inquit Maccovius) nuUa funt opera bona Thef. diftra&a a Lege formatter. Adverfari? cum urgentur, Theolfigl ex operibus leg is non ]uftficart homtnem, admittunt Part 1. hoc, & dicunt, ita qutdemejfe, fed non protnde non ]u- Difp. 16. (ttficari operibus Evangelti. Hinc dtjitnguunt inter opera Legis & Evangelit. Sed ft obtineat h&c dtflinclio, turn ^ utique dabuntur etiam peccata, qu& committuntur * in . ■Hemp* DocJr'tnam Evangelii: Non ergo trit ad&quata definitio Solam >, £> peccatt, quam dat Sptrttus Sancfus, 1 Joh.3.4. quid pec- mn * tf *"* catum fit Legts tranfgrejfio., -. ™ At E^angeltum dtfttn- in LJoctrt-guttur a Lege. Certe y intertm EYangelit Doftrina nam Le ~ pracipttur Lege. Warn Deus poftulat, ut Evangelio ere- & tSm damus, £$V. rtf _ fc .

So Pemble, I Nor jet ( faith he) hath this Diftin- Of Juihr. ' ihon ( viz. Worlds of the Law, and Workj of the Co- $ e ^' z * (bet ) any ground tn Scripture , or m Reafm. Tor both Chap, z* tell us, That the Works commanded in the Law, and §• z ' Worlds commanded m the Gojpcl, are one and the fame for the fubflance of them. What Worl^ can be named, that is enjojnedus tn the New Teftamenf, which is not commanded us in that fummary Precept of the Moral Lawy Thou (halt love the Lord thy God with all thy

Hwt,

[ no ]

Heart, and with all thy Soul, (5V. What is there againft the Oojpel^ whtch is not a tranfgrejjion of the Law ? —. Ton ipttt fajy It doth not command faith in Chrtft. I anfwer^ Tea^ it doth, for that which commands us tn general to believe what-ever God foaU propofe unto us* commands us aifo to believe in thrift, as focn as God /hall make known that it ts his Will we fhould believe in htm. The Gofpel difcovers to us the Object, the Law commands us the obedience of believing tt ].

The Moral Law may be faid to be a part of the New Covenants it requircth that they which have believed,be careful to maintain good works, Tit.3. 8,14. and to walk AdLoc circumfpe&ly ( ^#f accurate, i. e. quam proximh ad Legis Dei precepta , as Bezja doth well expound it) y Ephef. 5.15. But this is far, and very far too from proving Works to have a co-intereft with Faith in the effect of juftifying. For your Reafons why the Apoftle dorh not exclude all Works abfolutely from J unification > I fee no flrength in them ^ and therefore I anfwer •

Ad iThat which you call Juftification againftthe Ac-cufation of final Unbelief, is indeed Justification againfl; the Accufation of Tranfgreffing the whole Law. For that Accufation being only made void by Faith, where there is final Unbelief, there that Accufation hath its full force. Befides, though the Accufation of final Unbelief may be proved to be falfe by Works, yet Works upon this account do no otherwife juftifie, than by manifefting a Man's Faith, by which Faith indeed, and not by Works be is juftified.

Ad 2. So alfo that Justification which James fpeak-eth of, is againil a true Charge, and the fame with Re-mijjion of fins 5 as well as that which Paul doth fpeak of. For can they that have but a dead faith ^ be juftified againfta true Charge and have their fins remitted } Surely it muft be a Liv ing and a Working faithjudi as James doth require, can work that Effect Jollification againft a faife Accufation, is but fuch a Juilification as the worft of Men and the Devils themfelves are capable of. £e Jvfi'tf. Nemo entm imquus adch y ( as Bradfhaw fpeaketh ) c 3. §.xi. aut injuftus dart pit eft, qui falfo accufari, C confe-quenter etiam eatenus mertto ]ufttjicart non poffit.

Indeed Justification againft the Accufation of final Unbelief is by confequence a Juftihcation againli all

Accu-

[HI ]

Accufations, becaufe Faith is the Condition and Inftru-ment of Univerfal Juflification. But hence it follows that we are juftified univerfally by faith, and not by Works, which are only an Argument a poffenori of faith, and fo of Juflification.

Ad 3. All Works that have a co-mtereft with faith in Juflification, are Competitors with Chrift, or Copartners with him -, fo that Juflification rauft be partly by ' the Righteoufnefs of Chrift through faith, and partly by Worlds.

Ad 4. As the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is freely given or imputed at firft upon condition of faith 3 fo is the free gift and imputation of it {till continued upon the fame condition of faiths which faith both when Juflification 'is firfl begun, and when it is continued, muft be a WorJ^ ing-faith, 1. e. ready to work as occasion doth require. If our Divines affirm, That the Apoflle fpeaking agakiil Juflification by Works, means in point of merit,'(as 'you fay you could bring multitudes of them to this pur-pofe ) furelyitis, becaufe they know no other Juflification by Works, but that which doth prefuppofe Works to 1>e meritorious.

Hear one whom I ( andfo I prefume you alfo ) take for a good Divine, W<,. Mr. Blakf, [ This Juflification Of the (faith he) wrought freely by Grace through faith, Rom. Coven. 5. 14. ism way confiflent with purification by Works. c*li~p$0* And what the Apoflle jpeakj of Election, we may well apply to Juflification : the fame medium equally proves the truth of both ; If by Grace, then it is no more of Work*) otherwife Grace were no more Grace : But if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwife Works were no more Works, Rom. 11. 6. ]

Cafom alfo ufeth this Argument to confute thofe who would have Works to concur with faith unto Juflification? that then we mould have fomewhat to boalt of, which is not to be admitted. Sed quoniam ( inquit^ bona Inflit. 1. $♦ -pars horn mum )uflitiam ex fide C£ opertbu* compofitam c.«II.§.*3* imagtnatur , pr&mo?zftremus id quoque , fie inter fe dijferre fidei operumque juflitiam, ut altera flante ne-cej/ario altera evertatur. Dictt Apoflolus fe omnia pro flercoribus reputajfe, ut Chrtflum lucrtfaceret, &c. (Phil. 3. 8,<?• ) Vides G? contrariorum effe hjc comparatio-nem, £5* indicari propriam ]uflitiam oportere pro dereltfto

habtri

Cm 3

haberi ah eo y fui Vr/// Chnfti )ufritiam obtinere\*—Ia ipfum quoyue oftendit^ cum negat per Legem exeludt gio-rtationem nojha.n , fed per jfidem. Vnde fequnur, quantifier manet quantulacunque operum juftttta, ma-nere nobis nonnullam glortandi mater tarn. Jam ftjjdes omnem gloriattonem excludit, cum )uftitta Jidei fociart nulio paclo juftttia operum poteft. In hunc fenfum tarn dark loquitur quarto cap. adR.om.ut nullum cavillis aut tergfx>erfationibus locum relwquat. Si opertbus^ tnqutt, jftftijicdtus eft Abraham, habet gloriam. Subjungst, atque non habet gloriam apud Deum. Confequens ergo eft, non )uftificatum ejfe openbus. Ponit deinde alter urn argumentum a contrarhs. Quum rependitur openbus merces, id Jit ex deb;to, non ex gratia. Fidei aulem tri-huitur juftitia fecundum grattam. Ergo td non eft ex mentis operum. raleat tgitur eorum fomnium^ (A T .i?. J qui )uftitiam ex Jtde & openbus conflatam commintfcun-tur.

Who thofe multitudes of Divines be of whom yoii fpeak, I cannot tell, becaufe you name none i but I think that few or none of them will be found of your mind, Vt^. That Paul doth only exclude Works from J unification in point of merit \ as if Juftirication might be by Works in fome other refpeft, fo as that no merit thereby is prefuppofed. So far as I obferve, our Divines note this as one main Argument, whereby the ApoiHe doth wholly exclude Works from Juftification, becaufe otherwife the merit of Works could not be denied, which yet is to be exploded. Cent. i. ^us the Ceniurifts among many other Arguments*

ltb.2.c'i. whereby the Apoftles (they fay) prove Juftification to Col. \%j. ^ e hy Faith alone, note this for one ^ Non efi glortandum *4r? t 26, 1n n °b* s '> fed in Domino* Frgo non ex openbus y fed gratis ]u ft tjicamur^ ne quts glortetur^ Ephef.2. I Cor.I.

Ad y. All good Works ( as I have fhewed before ) and confequentjy thofe whereby we perform obedience to the Redeemer, are works of the Law, it being the Rule to which they muft be conformed. But it is Faith in the Redeemer, not Obedience to the Redeemer, by which we are juftificd, though Jufttfying-Fatth muft 3 and will mew it felt by Obedience. , Ad 6- All Woiks that have an agency in Juftification, are meritorious, and fo make the Reward to be of Debt,

Sand net of Grace. Now to your Anfwers. to my Arguments in offojltum X reply \ And for the fifft thus • If Abrahams Gofpel-Works ; did juftifie him otherwife than by evidencing his Faith, whereby he was juftified, if they be made to have a co-inter eft with Faith in his Juftifica~ tion, then they are fet in Competition or Copaitnerihip with Chrift's Righteoufnefs.

That no. Work of the Gofpel doth Juflifie ^. Mr. Pemble Of Jufti'f. provcth by this, That every Work of the Gofpel,. is a §. z. ch. 20 Work of the Law alio •, and therefore the Apoftle deny- §. 2, ing that a Man is juftified by the Works of the Law, doth See Rhei confequently deny that he is juftified by the Works of the as cited Gofpel. That Works do juftific as Conditions under pag. 14*. Chrift, is- repugnant to what your felf hold in refpeft of Juftification as begun: apd I fee not, that the Scripture ihews us, any other Condition of Juftification afterward thanatfirft

2. My Conclusions That Abraham was nor juftified by Works, but by Faith, is not againft Jam.z. ii. ho* more than Paul's Dodtrine Rom. 3. & 4. is. For I mean, as Paul doth, That Abraham's Works did not concur with his Faith to his J unification : fyut James meant only, That Abraham's Faith was not fuch as fome preiume of a dead idle Faith, but a living working Faith; and that his Works did manifeft his Faith to be fuch as whereby he was juftified.

Cum obtultffet (tnquit Bucanus) Abraham Ifaac ^oe. C§#.~ fflium fuum fufer altare, ex cperibu* ftiftificaxu* e/i> ^ 0Cm 3 f •• hoc e/?, compertus eft futff'e ]ujtificatus per fidem-^ td- adquxft* que ex opertbus tanquam tefttmonii* Jufrtficattonis* Et $9* fie homo operibw jufitficatur^ id ejl^ comprobatur ejje tlla perfona, qu& Vhrifti ohedientta jufrtfic/t'tur^ ex Vtt& fanttijicat tone qu& tanquam effeitus illam ftquttur^ & deilla tefratur- Quomodo etiayt Deusdtcttur tnexxre-mo tllo die juftificaturu* eleftos juos ex tpfonum opertbu*. Nam funt duo prtneipta^ unum extflentt<t) alter um cog-nition/s. It a fides prtnetptum extflentts, factt^ ut (imus juftti Opera autem ut princtptum cognittoni* factunt* ut cognofcamur 1»fli t Ideo Dommtts tn extreme/ die pro-pontt princtptum cognittonis ju^ittajide^ quod incurret inocuios omnium creaturarum 3 Max. 15. Vemte btne~ \difti y $c.

H For

For the fecond ; r. The Apoftle Row. 4.4. fpeaketh without anydiftinclion, To ktm that warmth, &c. Now ( as you know ) non eft dtftsnguendum, ubi lex non dt-fiingutt.

t. If Works juftifie, then they muft be meritorious; The Apoftle doth not limply deny a Reward to belong of Grace to him that worketh, but to him that worker h fo as to be juftificd by his Works. Such an one having no need of remiffion of fins, becaufe his Works do juftifie him, ( which they cannot do if they be imperfect, and fo he need pardon ) be is faid to receive the Reward, not of Grace, but of Debt.

* Tides non juftificat 3. Faith as a * Work is excluded from

muatenus eft opu* juftstU, J unification, only it juftifieth as an In-

fed quatenu* apprehend'tt itrument or Hand receiving Chrift and

kuftit'tam Chnjis. Rivet, his Righteoufnefs. Or ( which is to the

Dsfhut. de Tide Juftif. fame effect ) Faith doth not Juftifie, as

Se^h jo. it is a Duty, which if we perform not we

7 fin •> but as a Condition upon which the

Righteoufnefs of Chi ill is imputed unto us for our Jufti-

rication. You are not to be blamed for making ufe of

BeUarmins's Argument, ( for fo indeed it is, not his

Anfwer ) but for not taking notice how our Divines do

anfwer it. Sec Arnef, contra, Bellar. torn. 4. lib. f. cap.

Files fola 4- *d 6. Love, Hope, and Obedience are not Inftru-

iuflificat, merits of receiving Cmilt, as Faith is; neither doth the

Jusa tff* Scripture make them Conditions of Juftincation, as it

J(t umcum doth Faith.

isnftrumtn . r .

Xnm & untca facultas tnnobtsi qua recspsmus )ufttttam Chrtftt.

Bucan. Loc 31. ad qutft. 37.

For the Third •, t. Neither doth James fpeak of any other Juftification.

2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are jollified by it, as a Work or Duty, but only as apprehending Chrift and his Righteoufnefs ', See Cafr. Inftst. lib. 3. cap. II. §.7. And Pemble of Juftif. Seel. 1. chap.* p<ig. 38.

. 3. No more do the greateft Tranfgteflbrs need pardon for that wherein they do not crapfgrefs.

4. Work?

C 115 3

4. Works* as Works cither juftifie by way .of merit, or not at all: But Faith doth not juftifie as a Work or Duty required of us, but as an Inftrument receiving Chrift, or (if you will ) a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Chrift's Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified • See PembU of Jufttf. §. 2. chap, r. pag. 24.

The Exclufion ( v/*> of Works from being concur- <^£ rent with Fairtounto Juftification ) is not only Mr. Vtm-ble's, but generally all Proteftants, and indeed Paul's and the Scriptures : and to take in Works (in that fenfe ) is as Mr. Blai^e before cited truly faith, againft the whole current of the Gofpel.

1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it, is ^£ not to deny it to mean as it fpeaketh. Whether the Rea- & ^?° Tons which I alledged againft your interpretation of

St. James be forced, let others judg.

2. It avails your caufe nothing to prove, That James by working doth mean Works indeed. I prefume Mr. Pembte would not deny that, but his meaning ( I conceive) was, That Works are only fpoken of as Fruits of Juftifying^W/^, and are only faid to juftifie, becaufe they are (as Dr. Jackfon fpeaketh ) a paflive qualification in the Subject or Party to be juftified.

£ Hence (faith he alfo ) is the feeming inconvenience Of Jultify-^ ef St. James his Caufal form of Speech ( Ig i$*/4v Sin&tt- ing Faith, I ifldj &V5-&PT®' ) eafily anfweredt For the immediate §,z.ch.iy* and principal caufe prop 0fed, tt ts ufualte attribute a §, 7. tynd of caxfalttj to the qualification of the Subjeffy though only requtfite as a mere pafjiye dtfpofition, with-1 cut which the prtnapal or fole Agent pall want hts efficacy].

All that St. James intended is this, That juftifying faith is of a Working-Natui e, and not fuch a Faith as fome rely on, v/^. barren and without Works. Now for your Reafons, I anfwer, Ad 1. You fpeak of the un-profitablenefs of bare Faith-, /'. e. (fay you ) AfTent. But quarfum hoc ? You know that Proteftants make Faith to juftifie, not as it is a bare Aflent, but as it is a Receiving of Chrift, and a Recumbency on him.

Fides hac juflrficans ( faith Amef. ) non efi ilia gene- Me dull* talis, quJi tn intetteftu affenfum pr&bemH*yeritatt in Ub.i.c.iy^ Sacris Uteris r ey>el at &$$c.Fides igitur ilia proprie dicitur § w \ * j^ iuftificanS] qua incumbifms* inthriflumad rtmijfyncty H 2 f icc *~

pecc/ttorum* Cf jalutem. And this Tank they hold is not barren* but fruitful in'good Works 5 though not Works, but fatth it felf ( apprehending and applying Chrift ) be it, whereby we are juftified. Dijp- de Idfidet txclujhe trtbuendum ex eo conftat, quod jola ftdejufl. eft fides, quA Dco prominent t credtt, qua jola acqutef-§. 18,19, c *t *n gratuttd promtjjione Det in Chrtfto, & remijjionem 2 o ; 21,2 z. peccatorum apprehendttj <5V. *t)nde ^ettam fequttur y Fidem non jufttficare, qua tenu* eftopus juftittA, fedqua-tenus apprehendtt )ufittta?n Chrtfth Gfc- Nee Jacobus dtjfenttt a Paulo> quamyts alto modo toquendt utatur^ tit redarguat eos, qui fetpfos jaUebant in Am fidei juftt-ficattonem trtbuentes, quam probat non ejje yera-m ab exemplo Charttatts, quA nuUam yim habet^ ft tot a jit ia yerbts, C 2..I& Opertbus autem jufttficari dpud Jacobum, tdem eft,quod apudV.2L\A\\m,\Tim.$.l6.)ujttjicari(ptrsttt y i.e. Vi (pmtus darefm expertmentum^quomodo expert men-tum dedtt Abraham fidet fuA, offerendo fiitum fuum: C5* homo probat us jit) Jl<>x* l u@r', tentatione^ Jaci.12. qu* probat to non jacit ut res jit, fed per experttntiam do-cei rem ejfe. Vndc ettam fides d'tcttur perfict per opera, quta per ea fe prod'it. Ergo cum Pau.lo yult Jacobus, homtnem juftficart fide, fed uterque **&, quA fut experts mentum dat per opera i uft neuter yult opera ejfe jufttfica-tionts caufas, aut ad juftttiam coram Deo acceptari, quorum primum Volunt Ponttfictt^ alterum Socintani & Kemonftrantes. Cencludtmus cum Apoftolo, £? colltgt-mus, fide )ufttficart homtnem abfque opertbus Legts^ Rom. 3. 28. fub qutbus comprehendtmus qu&Ubet opera, quA fecundum Legem fiunt 3 ettam h fanttis S* fidelt-bus. Cum emm tnter Legem jdeforum jiy>e operum, & Legem fidet dtfttnguat Apoftolus, ibtd. v. zy. fiex ope-, rib us jufttficemur, Legis operum & jidet difttn&to ertt yana^ gf Argumentum ex ea deduclum pro fide 1 jufti-ficattone nutabtt • quod abfurdum ut yttemus^ fctentef non jufttficart homtnem ex opertbus Legts, fed tdatum per fidem Jefu Chrtftt ', ettam ms in Jefum Chrtftum credtmus, Ut juft/ficemur ex fide Jefu Chrtftt , non ex opertbus Legis, Gal. 2.22. Sed cum eodem Apoftolofi\ dum ejfe hunc fermonem afftrmamus ftudendum ejfe ti$\ qut credtderunt Deo, ut bona opera tueantur, Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omm inqutnamento, CV. 1 Cor. 7. X, quod cwn fiat de dte tn dtem^ 2 Cor. 4. 16. quam-

d>h

c m ;i

diii cdro concupifcit adwfus Spritum, J$V« Gal. j. 17.' *# e><? #<?» poffumus coram Deo yuftificart. Nam in ju/ti-Jicando pa>rttaUm 'yuftitiam Dctts non refptctt^ fed per-, feftam & plenam, quia Lex male die it omnibus , qui non permancbunt in ommbw qn& pracipit, Deut, 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10.

I have been the larger in citing this Author, both be-caufeheiscminajf, and alfo doth fpeak To fully to the Point, and doth meet with many of your Opinions.

But to proceed. It is Faith and Fatth, /. e. feveral kinds pi Faith, which St. James oppofeth one to the other, fit** Faith which is a bare AiTent, and without Works, fuch a Faith as the Devils have, and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Chrift, and the mercy of God in Chi ill:, and is attended with Works as the Fruits and Effects of it, as the Faith of Abraham and R*hab was. Though therefore he concludes, That Faith cannot fave him that hath not Works, yet i follows not that Works concur with Faith unto Tuftification, but only that a Juftifying Faith will (hew it ielt by Works.

Ad 2. It is granted, That Faith which is no more than a bare AiTent, is neither Juftifying nor Saving : But what of this > Is there no other Faith than Affent > Do not you your kit make Acceptance, which is more than Affent, the compleating A el of juftifying Faith > And how can you fay y That there is the fame force afci ibed toVVorksasto Faith, when you make J unification at firft to be by Faith without Works ? Indeed Works are lequifite in their place, but not as having the like force Vvith FAith unto Justification, ('(hew any Oithodo* VVrker that doth hold fo ) though as necelTary Fruits of xlut Faith, by which we are juftihed. Say not that you fpeak of JufufiCation as continued, for Works, as St. James dzih fpeak of them, are asnccellary untoju-ftiheation at rirft as afterward, vi*> a promptitude and r^adinefs to do good Works : if this be wanting, it is no Juftifying Faith, but ( as St. James calls it ) a dead Faith, altogether vain and unprofitable. m Ad 3. That Faith without Works is a hardening of Unbelievers, I grant: fed quid turn pojfca > Do therefore Works juttifie as well as Faith > But I do not think that St. James brings in {chap. 2. 18. ) an Unbeliever fc fpeaking. For how ihould an Unbelic\er (aprofjf-H 3 fe?

fed Unbeliever, we means for you ufeto difringuifh be* twixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite) fpeak of his Jatth^ faying, [ And I will fketv thee mj faith > ]

inLoc a Cafoin doth far better interpret it, faying, Jacobu$

dicit, promptum fore piis fanfte yty>enttbt*s % excuteye hjpocritis talem jaftantiam^ qua tnflati funt.

Ad 4. The Devils have a true BelieiL /'. e. a true Af-fent; but there is more than Aflbnt in^aftifying Faith ^ even that Faith whereby we are juftified at firft, as your felf do hold. And you confefs alfo that Fait h doth ju-ftifie at firft without : Works • yet ( fay I ) not except k be of a Working-Nature, /. e. ready to Work, when Works are required : and otherwife than as Fruits of Juftifying Faith VVorks do not juftifie neither at firit nor afterward. Ad $. Faith without VVorks is dead, as to the effect

of Justification, even altogether unprofitable, /. e. Faith renuensoptrart^ Or which is not far at a cperart^ as CVz-

In J4c* 1. ) tta * doth well exprefs it. But this is nothing to prove a Co-intereft of Works with Faith in point of Justification • it only proves,That Juftifying Fatth is ot a working Nature. Whereas you add, [ Still here the oppofte fart on one fide is Faith andWorfa, and cn~ the other fide Faith without Worlds ] 5 this doth nothing hinder, but that the opposition is £ as I faid ) betwixt Faith and Fatth) i.e. feveral kinds of Faith^ whereof the one is accompanied with Works, and the other not • the one is operative and fruitful,the other idle & barren.That Abra-ffamwzs juftified not only by that Faith that did work, but alfo by VVorks, is more than St ^ James doth fay, and is directly contradictory to what St:Paul faith. Indeed it is more than you can fay, without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued ^ which distinction St. James never thought of. For farely Justification cannot be at firft £>y a dead and improfitable Faith, as he affirms that to be, whkh is without VVorks. That in Jam. z. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by Works is made perfcct,as acCompIiiliing its ehds,bur only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect. Theend of Faith isc to juftifie • and your felf fay,' That Faith at firft doth juftifie without Works : fo that in your Opinion Faith without VVorks is perfeft, accomplifhing its end in juftifying at fiiih But in St. James his fenfe Faith dcth not, cannot

at all juftifie without Works, i. e. if it be not ready to work : and in that-tcfpeft Works do perfect Faith, /. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear: but of that enough before.

Ad 6. And fo of that alfo in Jam. 1. 25. enough hath 1 been faid alrea^|M||L|iat Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation jHLi.Hyth and Obedience of the Confirmation Conti^p|ipi> and Confummation of Juftification, you often layout never prove. Sure I am James doth exclude Faith, which is without VVorks, W*,. when God doth call for them, from the very Initiation of J unification. For he makes fuch a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils, who furely are fo far from J uftifi-cation, that they have not fo much as the initiation of ic.

Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclufion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is juftified by a Working Faith, or by a Faith which produceth Works, and fo by his VVorks appears to be juftified. The words if taken without any cpalification,, are againfiyour felf, who will have a Man juftified at firft by Faith without VVorks.- \i you will diitinguith of J uftification as at firft, and as afterward, to make the Apoitlc agree with your meaning, though indeed it will not ferve : Shall not others have leave to explain the Apoftle fo, as to make him agree not pnly with them, but alfo with- hi mi felf, and the whole current of the Gofpel } The word >onv there imports no more than it it had been j«6vhc, as appears by the whole feriesot the Difcoutfe, and more particularly by >. 17. where yjiV i*ifl : Mi is as much as/*ov», [£>jt? fe'lf] t> *•' alone without the concomitancy of VVorks, as the Ffriits of it. Be^a renders it per fe' y .TremellJ^s out of the Sjr/ac^Sola : the Vulgar Latin hath in feme tip fa which L'ajetan corrects, faying, pro per fe^ and that he expounds, hoc eft fhU. Wherein 1 jfuppofe he followed* £rafm#* y whofe Annotation on the place*is, t&V hitfitw, i. e. per fe, hoc if*} fola.

Ad 8. Rahai? was Juftified by VVorks Co as Abraham was, andallmuftbe, even when-they are firft juftified, *vyoby a Faith prompt and ready to work whenoccafion doth require.

Ad 9. Our Divines by Faith underftand a Sound and

Orthodox Belief, /', e. Aifent ; and fuch is the Faith of

the Devils fpoken oijam- 2. 19, fuch 3 Faith may be

H 4 without

without Works, and fo is dead, /. e. unprofitable : but that is net the Juftifying Faith which our Divines do fpeak of, ( as I have fhewed before ) who hold that Faith alone doth juftifie without Works, though whhal they hold that Faith which doth juftifie is not alone without Works, v/t,. when God duth call ijggghjpm ; and this is all that St. James urgeth. YoiajflMfc^^/j)/?/ doth evince no more than this, fave that^B^id then you pur a wrong glofs upon the Text, and ever and anon come in with your diftin&ion betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of J unification, quite befides, yea and againil St. James his meaning, as ( I think ) I have diffidently demonftrated. fn Jac. 2 . Oecnmeniw a Greek Scholiaft doth expound St.James, and reconcile him with St. Paul) after the fame manner as I and others do s 'Oi/x. «v-npa syai ( faith be ) -nut* irJ

iw Vi&piv*. Sometimes ( he faith ) Faith is taken for a bare AfTent, \rn <f attKys «xv^jt7u-3^jsa?, and fo the Devils believe : Sometimes it notes- alfo a difpofition joyned with affent, rUu cKt/lixSistue ivpuuiusZnaiy (a*tu fe-ftaias <ruyyjLTu&ijius.§t.J/{mes(he faith^confidereih Faith In the former fenie, St.Paul in the latter. I* jmbC^* u*v tU>,

tt7r\lw fnoi wyy&ToMm V£K£fcV eivd/ rr;r«v 5 &C. 11*^.^ <fi

To conclude, It is not Faith as working that doth juftifie, but Faith as apprehending Chi ill and his Righte-cufnefs : Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Chriit and his Righteoufnefs,and to doth juftifie, is a Working Faith, Your felf grant that VVcrks are not neceflary quoadpr•&-. ftnttam, in refpect of Juftification as begun : and that t}iey are neceflary quoad ejfettum ju-ftijicat tomtom refpect of Juitification as continued^ is more (I pre fume) than ever will be proved. jSi Ok * • I kt P&$ thofe things which you fpeakx>f CalVin* becaufe I fee nothing but bare words. As, * To ma\t faith to be a for Clemens Rom, Ig7sattffis y Jujhn Mar-Condition, is not to deny ty> and the reft, who for 1000 years af-it to be an Inftrument : ter Pauleycu fay)give as much to Works^ Vur Driines fometsmes as you ever did? or more, and make Faith term ttthe one n> aj.feme- to juftifie as a Condition, and* not as timestheothe'^&jhaye an Inftrument, what-ever forced fcraps Vefort jkewed* forne may gather out of a Line agairUi

the

tjie full fcope of the whole Page or Book y I wifh you ha4 cited fome Books, or Pages, or but Scraps, as you call them, whereby to make good what you fay, I am not of fuch Reading, much lefs of fuch Memory, as to give an account ..of fo many Authors, gome of them cither wholly or in part I have read, but I do not remember where they do ex profe (Jo treat of J unification,and therefore I do not niajyel it they do not fpeak fo accurately of W

But for the Opinion of the Ancient Writers in this Point, I (hall refer you unto fome who were much better verfed in them than I am, W*,. Full^ on Jam. i. 4. Da--\>en.tnt dejufttt. Habit, cap- 25. where he anfwereth EeUarmines Allegations, and cap. 2 9. where he produceth his own.

And EckhardCompend.Theohg. Lib. i. cat. 2. who aHedgeth Chryfoftome, Ambrofi, BafiU Cyril, Auflmt and Remark as holding (Thrift's Righteoufnefs to be imputed unto us for our J unification. And he alledgeth Ambrofe, Hterome, AtbanafistSy Clemens Alex . Ortgen.y Nazjanzjn, Chrjfoftome, Bafil, Theodore^ Hefjchttts, Prtmafiuf^ Eptphanius, Fhtlaftriut, Aufttny Seduliuty Maxentttto) J keodul&s^ Fortunatu*, Victor Mar. and Bernard, as-tefti tying that we are juftified by Faith alone without VVorks $ and yet he faith he doth but aliquot ex "\>etujia antiquttate te^timonta, quod ad hanc rem. ffiettat, deitbare.

Beda> omitted by Edward, is cited by B. V/ber as De Statu writing on Pfal, yj* thus, Per )uftiti*m fattorum nuU C£ Succeff. In* falvabitur, fed per folam )uftttidm jidet. &c. cap. z 0

To your other Query concerning Calvm,P.Martyr,8tc. pag, 46. I anfwer in the words of Amejitts, Fides (pec talis mifert- Contra 1 cordis duplies ration? fie yocatur. I. Qua. Cbrtftum Bell. torn. 4 apprebendtt, yel innttttur tpft ad fhecialem mtfertcordi- lib. ^ ci. am per ipfum apprehendendam. z. Qua mtfericordia §. 22« ffttctalem ^am donatam apprehend:t : prior e jenfu )ufrifi-cationem an tec edit, poftertore fenfu fequitur juftijicatjo-nem. Sed quia una $5 eadem eft Jides, qua mtfertcordi-am Dei in Cbriflo jpectaltter appltcat apprehendendo, ££ appltcattonem tllam ]am faciam cenam redattj & per-fetrto yel confolatio t)pt<s in bac cerUtudtne /tpparet, quam ettam hofles gratis, precipue tmpptgnant-> tdcirc$ per iftam certttudmtm ( qua tamtn quoad fenfurn 4

fde

fide potefi ad tempus feparari ) fides jufiificdns foln 3 mult is defcrtfo.

And again,' Fides ifla jufftficans fua naturd produ-. cttj atque ade'o conytn&am feca-m haket /peciatem ae art am perfuafionem de gratia ac mtfertcordta Det tn Cbrifto. Vnde ettam per tfham ptrfuafionem fides juflt-ficans non male fcepe defertbttur ab Grthodoxts y preftrttzn cum tmpugnant gtneralem tttam fidentjmcut omnta trt-buunt Ponttfcti. Sed i. tfia perfuaJtWqitoad fenfum fpftpts n:n femper adesl. —, z. Vartt funt gradus hujus ftrfuafionts, &c.

z. By Apprehending, I do not mean bare Affent, but

Embracing, or Receiving, or Applying.

Contra Amefiut cites and approves thefe words of Cont arena* ^

Bellar. Accipimus ytfttficattomm per fidem. Banc acceptation

loco proxt- nemJhomtstn 3. appellat appltcationsm^ tnqutenspajji^

me cttato* cn tm Chnftt eff'e yelutt Medicmzm communem^ quam

afutfque phi appltcat per fidem £? Sacramenta. Prote-

ftantes appdUnt apprehenfionem^ non ca figntficattont^

c[H& pert/net aicogntttonem intellects•> fed(jua ttiud dt-

cimur apprehenderey quo peryenimus, & <%uod poft mo-

turn ncjirtim atttngtmus.

I rhink that although Juftifying-Faith doth receive Chnft intirely, yet as Juftifying it receiveih him only in rejpcfl of his Satisfaction, which is the Righteouihcfs by which we are juftiSed.- There is no danger in this Doctrine, fo long as People are taught withal, that they mult not look to have Chriit as a Prieft farisfving for them, except they alfo have him as a King leigning over them. Keither doth it feem to me any grofs co. c;it, That apprehending or applying of .(Thrift's Satisfaction, or of Chriit as fatisfying for us, is that act of Fai:h whereby we are juftified. Your Similitude doth not ftfit 3 be-caufe a Husband cannot be offered to a Woman in feve-ral refpeds, as Chriit- may be tfnto a Sinner. I do not conceive Faith to juftifie modo Kkjjtco, or merely becaufe it is of that nature to apprehend Chriffc and his Righte-oufnefs : If it were not for the Promife of the Gofpel, this Ad of Faith would not avail* As fuppofe the Devils ihould apprehend the Righteoufnefs of Chriit, yet ftiould they not be juftifced, occau/e the Promife of the Gofp.-l doth not belong unto them. Yet this apprehend-of Chrift and his ^Righteouihefs being thePhyfical

Aft

Aft .of Faith, and withal made the Condition of Justification, in that the Gofpel doth promife J'.titi£ cation unto thofe that apprehend Chriii and his Rig eoufnefs 5 I fee not but I max well fay, 1 Thar Faith do h juitifie us, apprehending Chrift and his Righteoufneft, this being it which the Gofpel doth require unto Jufiiiication. Faith as apprehending Chrift being the Condition of Jufdiica-tion, it is allonMtofay, Faith do u juf ihe as a;xrehen-ding Chrift, ana Faith doth juftihe as the Condition required unto J unification. Whereas therefore you prove, That Faith or Acceptance of Chrift (imply coniiderec in u felf doth not juftirie i it is nothing to me, who dc not afcribe any thing to Faith in order to Jufrincaiion $ : is coniidered limply in it felf, but as it being of fuch a nature is in that refpect required of us, to that end that we may be juftified. And thus (I think ) do others mean, when they fay, That FaLh doth juftifie as. apprehending Chrif:, and his Righteoufneis: they do not (I fuppofej exclude^ but include the requiring of Faith in this refpect as a Condition of Jnf ification.

PemUe having faid, \_We are ]ufl-ifiedby faith , i.e. by the Righteou nefs of Christy the benefit whereof unto Of Juftif. our purification we are made partakers of by Faith, as §• 2 * c * *• the only Grace which accepts of the Promfe, and gives P« *>7* us afi 'ranee of the Performance ]. He adds a little after, [ He that looked on Christ believing inhtm^ may truly be (aid to be faved and jufiifiedby Faith ^ not for the worthy andby the efficacy of that Aft of his^ but as it ts the Condition of the Promife of Grace y that muff neceJJ'ardy go be fort the Performance of it unto us ; u^on our obedience whereunto^ God is / leafed of his fee Grace to jufl-tfic us ].

Bat fti 11 notwirhftanding all you fav, my Argument: remains good 5 [ Works concur not with Faith tn apprehending Chrift^ therefore they concur not with tt in ju-ftifywg}. TheConfequence is good, becaufe Faith as apprehending Chrift is made the Condition of Jufcirica-tion. For this is that which Believing in, or on Chrif, doth import, which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Chrif, J oh. 1. 12. That Repentance and Qbedi-ence do concur with Faith in being Conditions of Conti-tinuedand Confummate Juftification, you only affirm, but do not prove. Indeed Repentance as taken for 2m

ac-

acknowledgment of, and frnw for fiff, is requifite unt« Justification at fiiHt. Foi how thould we ever look unto Chrift as fufferin^ for our Cms, except we be ienfibJe ot rhem, and humo' :d for them. Yet it is Faith apprehending Chrift, which in the Covenant is made the Condi: i-^o of our Juftificaiion, as chat whereby we are made partakers ot ChriPs Righ eouinefs, by which we are jufti-fied. I: is neither He; enrance, nor Otmiienee, though Repentance ( in the knee before-mentioned ) mufc go before .his Juftirying-Fai:h> and fo before Jufcihcadon 5 and obedience mufi follow after.

^ . Vtn'tUntid f faith Amef.\ audtenus e& UgaUs fefc.

Cor.tr J, \ ; J & I p n r

t^" 3 mulatto amtuedtt qn-idem y^Jtipcattomm^ ut aijpcjitto ex

y. ' crdme r^upujhih fed n° n "t ***[** Reppijcentm I '*' Evangelic.-, e n-tat converfionetntatomic.+ <:■: rtmarta § /'*' ftirsefi- fir.es, Act. n. ^ Ezech. ig. »cle&>pjki$4n ]p&tfic**ttt y aUptt *deo tpfi s )t4f}tjicatio :is tjfuT-un?, qvdlis fuit fan temtid ilia d (abfitem, z Cor. 7. ic Q-vocunctuz m r 4U . u.:-r\ a lot ac deteltatio :cccati non 'erfejj'. <p fdHsflm* ( A T . £. ) uonha-

betY -■ &p rand; nchu )ufitti.tm Chri$lt % Aeautfttto tAlts bom no'-i co;,fi$}it m .. re malt. Refipi(ienti&

£5" filet i '<je : entta h*c tndjg,tatui^ Aft.10. 21. Ri fctmtytfn Deum, C5 jides m Dr<?i>\num Nofhum Iefum Chi ftum. See elfo Mr Ball 01 the Co en. c. 3. p.i8 5 l 9. 6$ 3 Bfc> 1. You need not no Ae your ielr to prove, That by Works are meant Wori-o. For iurely a working Faith, or a Faith bringing forth the Pn.it of Works, doth imply Works. But" the Question is, Whether Works concur with rai h in juAnying, or only are infeparable Attendants, and neceiiarv Fruits of that Fakh which ju-flifieth. You hold 'he former, ye. only in reApea of • continued and coi/-mar e Justification ; I hold the lat-

ter in refpeft of ] ratification begun, continued, and confummate. VVhcthr ot us hath more ground from Saipiure, lee i: be judged by what hath been laid about ir.

But r. whereas you fay, That Works are itill opposed to Faith without Works, or Faiih alone, and not to this or tha. for: of Faith : I have ihewed before frcxii Oe~ cHrnenrAs (not to lpeak of our late Writers) tha: .here is one fort of Faith that is with Works, or o* a working Difpofition, and fuch is Faith truly apprehending Cr

and

and another fortcf Fairh* Ate is without Works, v/^ a bare AfTent: and that St. James doth oppofe ihefe two forts of Faith one to he other, teaching that wc are ju-iiified by the former, no: by the latter.

2. You fay, \_lt ps not only Faith a'one without a wording difpoftioriy bt Faith alone without Works them-felves when there is opportunity ] : yet your felf deny not Only theeffic^y, buaeven the pretence of Works to be requifite, whei we a : e at firfi juftitied : and St. James denies Faith alone ( fo as he doth fpeak of ir ) to have any force ar all to juftifie, as being dead and unprofitable. Therefore you muft needs grant, That it is Faith alone, without a working Difpofition of which Sr. James fpeak-eth* Befides, xi there be a working Difpofition, there will be Works themfelves when there is opportunity. But all this doth only prove, That Juftitying Faith is of a working Difpofition, and produceth Works themfel/es when opportunity is offered: That Works do at any time concur with Faith unto J unification* it no way pro-veth.

3. Surely a difpofition to feed the hungry, is accepted of God, when there is no opportunity to do the thing it felf. And fo a Difpofition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right ftamp, though Works themfelves be requifite when there is opportunity : and ftill I muft put you in mind,that your felf requires no more than a difpofition to work* when we are firft juftified.

4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do »ot fee. He that expe&s mercy from God, muft ihew mercy to his Neighbour. Doth it therefore follow, that Works of Mercy juftifie as well as Faith ? No, but that Juftifying Faith muft and will ihew it felf by Works of Mercy.

5. A real Faith being but a bare AfTent, as in the Devils, cannot juftifie or fave. Who oppofeth this ? Or whom doth it oppofe > So, tha| the fame Faith is juftifying and faving, I think all will yeeld : yet is there more required unto Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment of it, than unto Jufcification.

> 6- Who makes James v. 18. to fpeak fuch non-fence as you tell of > Do they, who fay his meaning is, That: Faith is pretended in vain, if it do not ihew it felf by Works 3 as occafion doth require ? And what more can any gather from >• 20,22, 24, 16 ? You migty fave your

labour

[ »« ]

labour of proving, That by Works are meant Works: you ihoul-a prove that Works are fpoken or as concurring with,£aith, and as having a co-intereft with it in the effect of justifying, and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are juftified. This is that which they mean, who fiy that James doth fpeak of a working Faith, t e, a Faith ready to work, and fo actually working, when God doth require it, not as if inttead of [Works] it \fere good fenfe always to put [ a working Faith ]. Such fophiitry doth not become us.

7. That James dothaffert the neceflity of Works, as fruits of Juitifying Faith, is ever granted : that he doth affertthe neceffity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Juftification, is never proved. Works are thereforene-ccflary to prove Faith to be fuch as God requires unto Juftification.

Againft this firft you fay, James doth make Works

or Working neceffai y to juftitie •, I fay, he doth not, but

only drives at this, That none muft think to be juftified

by Faith, except it be a working Faith,as Abrahams and

Rahab's was. You fay, [The Soul doth not truly fignifie

the Body to be alive']. But the word Jam.i.z 6. is ttvh^,

Breath, which is but an effect of Life, and not a caufe

of it.

Of Grace [ Thus ( faith Pemble ) the comparifon is exac? 5 As

and Faith, the Body without Breath is dead, fo is Fatth without

JM/.240. Words'].

Appendix So Downam •, [ Neither doth St. James compare Workj to the Do- to the Soul , but to the Breath , as the wordmvJ^ ( deri-ftrine of yed of *rvs» to Breath ) doth properly fgnifie^ &c. So the Ger- that the meaning of St. James #, As the Body without taintyof Breath ts dead-> even fo faith without Workj (which Salvation, are a* it were the breathing of a lively Faith ) is dead ]. But if by TrvtSfjjA there be meant the Soul,as 1 Cor.6.ult. I hope you will not fo urt^erftand it, as to compare Faith to the Body, and Works to the Soul, as if Works were the Soul of Faith, and fo did give Life unto it: whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works, and Works do but evidence Faith, and the lively power of it. On J dm. [ The Ape file ( faith Ful^ ) in this Similitude doth not 2-ulr. . ma,{e Faith the Body, and Worlds the Soul , but Workj the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith, which is trutfiHGod, &c. ]

?.. God

2. God ( you fay ) needs no Signs. Well, but God ( fay I ) requiring fuch a Faith, whereof Works are Signs, as Fruits and EfFetts of it, we muft look to the Signs of our Faith, to find it fuch as God requires of us to our Juftification. MaccoVins (it feems) me: with the Objection • At Deo non eft epm experimento. Refp. Hoe Dejufiif. fane verum e& : at non frotnde jequttur homines non Dtfp. 10. frtbere fnt experimentu>m Deo. u l?' $ dura,

3. Faith may be real, and yet not justifying. A real m hanc AfTent, yea and Confent, it limited, fo as to exclude rem ^tde-Chrift's dominion over us, is not that Faith which your re licet. Oppofers plead for.

4. The New Teftament doth make a working Faith yet not Faith as working the Condition of Juftirication.' I wonder how you can ftumble at this, when as you constantly hold, That we are juftified at firft by Faith without Works: yet furely that Faith whereby we are justified at firft, is a working Faith, i. e. of a working Nature, and vyill, when there is opportunity, fhew it Self by Works. That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification, is more than your own Principles will admit, without that diftin&ion of Juitification Inchoated, and Justification Continued, of which though you make much ufe, yet I fee little ground for it. Now for Dr. Preflons words, which I cited, I think they are clear enough againft you.

For firft he faith, That Faith alone juftifieth and mak-eih Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are juftified. You limit it to Juitification as begun, but he fpeaks of Juftification Simply considered, and not as begun only.

2 . He fpeaks indeed of a double Juftification, but not as you do, nor to that intent to bring in a double Righte-oufnefs as requifite unto Juftification. All that he intends is this, That we are juftified only by Faith, according to Paul\ Doctrine ^ yet (as Jams teacheth ) our Faith muft appear to be a true Juftifying Faith by Works, otherwife it is but a faJfe and feigned Faith, as it preccn-> deth to be Juftitying, and he chat pretendeth it, is a Hypocrite. His words without doing violence unto then^ can have no other fenfe put upon them. When any one is accufed of being but a Seeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obedience take Believing merely .as it

C "8 3

is the Condition of J unification by the Covenant, it is but ( as I have often laid ) the making good this Accu-iatioh, That he is a Tranfgreflbr of the Law, and to be condemned by the Law for the tranfgreflion of it, and fo much the more in that he negle&ed the benefit offered in the New Covenant. So that in this cafe to juftifie a Man by his taith and V Vorks, is but indeed to plead that he is juftified by the Rignteoufnefi of Chrift imputed unto hirri through Faith, which Faith is proved to be found and good by his V Vorks.

1. I fee you are very tenacious of your Opinion : but if you will not forfake your Opinion till you fee better Arguments to draw you from it, marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they fee better Arguments to draw them to it. But to the Matter • Me-thinks you might eafily fee the meaning of this, that Abraham's firft J unification could not be by Faith, which was without V Vorks, /'. e. by Faith, which was not of a working Nature.

Thus in that very page ( 5 1. ) I explained my felf, faying, [Faith if it be alone without Works,, i. e. tern* ens oftran^ &c. cannot juftifie ].

2. Do not you fee that your Anfwer is to no purpofe in limiting the words of the Apoftle to Continued and Con-fummate Juftification, whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith, which is without Works, or which is not of a working Difpofition, from being able to juftifie, as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable ?

I T ^ at w^idi you fo flight, as if it were indignus yin-

»j .2. dicenodiK^ Calvin ( a Man as likely to fee into the Apo-3* file's meaning as another} calls nodum mfolubtlem, as

I have before noted. That more Conditions are required unto Juftification afterward than at firft, is more than I can find, and more (lam perfwaded ) than will ever be proved. Did Paul when he fpeakcth fo much of Ju-fHhcaiion by Faith without Works, v«* as concurring with Faith unto Juftification,mcan that we are fo juftified indeed to day, but not fo to morrow, or fome time after > All his Arguments fhew the contrary. Yea, doth he not ^ prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was juftified only by Believing, when as yet that was not the beginning of liis Juftification ? So when James faith, That we are not juftified by Faith, which is without Works, fuch a Faith

being

being dead, and no better than the Faith of Devils 5 was his meaning this, That here after indeed we cannot be to juftified, but yet at prefent we may ? If you be of this mind, Non eqmdem w\>tdeo^ miroYmdgis.

3. Of the fenfe of James his Difcoui fe enough b<^ fore. And for v. 17. I think it might eafily let- you fee that he fpeaketh not (as you v fuppofe ) only of Continued and Confurnmate Justification, but of.Inchoated al-fo, and confequently that he cannot be interpreted others-wife than thus, That faith which doth not {hew it.feJf by Works, isdead,ineffe&ual, and of no force to jufti r fie, either at firft or afterward, as not being that Faith jvjiich is required unto Juftification, v/^. a working Faith, or Faith which is of a working Nature. I have noted before what Oecumtmus (, one that was long before either Cafom or Luther ) faith upon that very Verfe, as alio how in the judgment of the Syriack Interpreter, and other Learned Men i&¥ UwrW there is to be under-flood. %

r. Though Faith may be true and real without Works, lb'$i 9 yet a living Faith it is not \ for a living Faith is operative, fo that, a working Faith, and a non-working Faith are of different Natures^ this being but a bare and naked Affent, but the other an apprehending of Ghrift, and a receiving of him. I little doubt but the Faith of Devils, and. the Faith of Men who are juftified ( even at firft, when you fay Works are not requifite in refped of their prefence with Faith,, though that Faith ( fay 13 is of a working Difpofition ), differ.much in their very Nature.

2. If you will be true to your own Principles , you cannot fay, That Works make Faith alive, or that Faith is not alive without Works asa&ually prefent, though you confider Faith meerly as a Condition of JufUfic^tion,

I feeing you hold faith to be alive in that refpeft, wheri ye are firfl; juftified, though there be no Works prefent y with ir. And though, as there mult be a promptitude to Works at firft, fo there mult be Works themfelves in due feafon ^ yet that Works dp afterward concur with

jFaith unto Juftification, is more than yet I fee, or ( I prefume ) ever mall fee proved.

3. Therefore my Argument ftands good againftyou, until you can make it appear, That Faith alone without

[ the Copartner (hip of Works, is the Condition of Jufti-

fication at fir ft, but Faith and Works together ofvjufti-fication alter ward. I have mewed fome Reafons againft it, but I can fee none for it. Your Similitude of a Fine, &c m is no proof.- Similitudes may illuftrate fome-thing,-but rhey prove nothing.

Ibtd. W You faid, [ The Apoftle faith, That faith did

t Wot\ m andwith his Wcrl>s~] • whereas the Apoftle ufing the Word oimf>«vdid notfpeakof working in, but only of working with.

a- Of what validity that diftinftion is ( of Juftificati-on Inchoated, and Juftification Continued and Confum-mare) you have not yet -ihewed.

3. WhziCafoins Opinion otherwife was, is not to the purpofe. I only alle"dged his E\pofition of thofe words. Fides cooper afa eft open bus fuis 5 and I think his Expofirionis genuine.

On Jam. * £0 alfo Mr. Manton ^ [ That fenfe which I prefer^

z* 22. ( faith he ) //, That his Faith rejhd not m a nailed bare

VrofeJJion, but was operative , it had its tffcacy and influence up on his Works, co-workjng with ait other Graces .* it doth not only exert, and put forth it felf in ails of &elH~\>ing^ but dlfo m wcrkjng ].

Be^a renders it, Admwiftra fuir opirum e]tts y and expounds it, Effcax & ftcunda honor urn operum.

lbid& J*. *•" * flawed before how not only Pifcator and p€mble y but many others both before and after them* interpret thofe words, [ By Works his Faith was made perfect ] $ 1. e. By Works his Faith did appear perfect, S. e. found and good. This jtxpofeion is fuch that as yet I fee no reafon to diflike it.

1. I grant that Faith without Works (yiz>. when God doth require them) is-dead as to the effect of Juftifying •, Yea, and it is alfo dead in it felf, being but a dead Af. fent, having no life, no operative vertue in it.

3. Abraham'sFaizhwasj is, and ftiall- be manifeftei to be perfect, /. e. fincere by his Works, to all that were,, are, arid iliall be able to difcern the true nature of Juftifying Faith. Although there were none then that could difcern this, ( which yet is not to be fuppofed, ifaac was 1 then cf age to difcern it, and fo others of 4oraham% Family to whom the thing was known) yet to after-Ages the perfection of Abrahams Faith is made manifeft by his Works, efpecially his offering his Son upon the Altar.

And

Cui3

And if God did fay, [i\T«j» / know that thott feanfr tne, &c. ] why may it not be faid, fpeaking of G$d, dv%&i7m7rv.$5is i that thereby Abr/tk^m's Faith and ics Perfedion appeared to God himfelf ? Certain iris,- that the Work fpuken of did proceed from Faith,-: Heb. 11.7. And therefore as the Effect doth fhew the Caufe to be perfed, fo did Abraham's Works fefpeeiaily that of offering up ifaac ) fhew Ids faith to be perfsft.' To the Second: .

1. Though jufUfyingFaith include in it three Ads, mentioned Heb-11„ 13, yet there are but two cf them properly and peculiarly Ads of Faith. ' For Seeing, or Knowing, the frit there mentioned, is but prefuppofed tihto Faith.

Beilarmmexw this faith truly, (though it was little to De Ju/ftf* his purpofe ) 5 Cogntt'to apprehenfha prxexigttur quidem Ub.i. ci&. adJidem^ fed non eft tpfa proprieties.

The other two Ads,' yt^,. Perfwafion and Embracing, though diftind, yet are both comprehended in Believing.

2. I fee no cloudinefi in this, £ BtlieVtng )uft'tfieth y toot as it is our Aft, but m rejpeft of its Objeft, ] • neither is this to fpeak darknefs, except ro a dark llnderftanding, which ( I know) yours is nor. But you know what is faid of fbme, Vdciunt ntmium mtelligendoy ut nihiltn-telligant. What is more vulgar with Divines f and thofe no vulgar ones neither) than to fay, That Faith doth nor juftiric as it is a Work of ours, but in refped or its Objed, Ch'rihS whom it apprehendeth, and by whom fo apprehended, we are juftified ?

Hu)m fat isfaft torn s Apprehendenda mediurti ( faith Vigner. de one whom Ri^et much commends} yWtf.<?"/?• Deo fie x Satt s fa&. crdtnante, ut rion alii illius parttcifes flnt^ qua??* y#i thrift tn-earn fhcera ficte am.leftuntur, non it a tamen ut if fa ter of era, fdes rat tone fut nos Deo gratos fact at & acceptos y fed Rivet. ratione oljeftt, ^uodapprehendit^ & cuj&s meritum nobis Diff, 19 applicaiy £? jerf eft am obedient tarn 9

jpSo^/v^/himfelf faith \ fidesnon )ufificat y quatenus jr) e p' f ^ e 7fa opus ju/titU, fed quatenus dpprehendtt jufitttam Jufitf. Chnfi. . Dtjf, 10,

Divers others to this purpofe have been cited before. Your Queffion [ Why doth not the objeft jufitfie without the Aft ? ] is foon anfwered 5 Becaufe the Aft ( Be-I z lieving)

L *3* J

.ving} is requite Ktttj Deo fie ordinante^ {is

lie Author be b ) That fo the Object

( C turn's Rjgl -me ours □

ficati t of :hc Object ( Chi

inefs ) that the Act ( Believing ) doth jufliSe. hen you transform them tbus 3 [ // its Of td ] j I iV, [ in refpett

cf UsObjeft ]? and lb you firft cited it; Mymeanj

• v;< ChriiVs Ri^hteouf-5 apprehended by Faith, whereby we a:

/.. £.7 *tff£ai i^r ]ufiif:atio propter Chriftum (fairh

• :,/ * 1, Amefus) mm ahf in*, quo fenfn C

r« 2 7, § 14. ^ ^ .7 r ^ ; , r cdttcuu, fed propter Chri-

ftum f..:

Thb' is ciear by that j£&$ \ 3. 3$, [ 5} £//w all that bt-

■ufitfed\

I add Mr. i. chin fenfe are the fims

lere is little 1

Of the or cloudinefs) in the Expreflion ' {_TheThirdExpoftton

Coven. *fi ^ ' f&M* * imputed for Right eoufneji^ 1: is

C.6.P 6<s* nct underfiwdmatti ; the Dignttj^ Worthy

. and Perfection of faith made us juff ^ but relatively ana

mreffecr of its Qbjei is, to us believing^ Rtgkte-

cufnef, fc. of Ckr;f? y is freelj imputed, and by fait r *

to >e freelj receive Right eoufnef^ and remiffion of fins

freelj gi. re to fay^ Edith jufti-

■ Right eoufmf, are phrafes ejut* dent. For ;■ its merit or dtg-

nitj y but as an In.trumen:* *~nd correlatrveljj thai is, the merit of Chris? apprehended and received by fa*th y just is apprehended and receives., t' fyeeck^ rvherebj the A& cf the ofaffry by rts . {irtil connexion betwtxz tbem 3 is gi limenij.

■ e about Wafts perfecting Faith, hath been c Faith may

..una-ture, as to ma when God

V. tstji [ :•:'.-/ *t Medium U

Cok n mean c ;

The Tree and its Fruit are confidercd as diftind; ut Caufa £? Effeftumi non ut Totum C? Pars ; and fo the perfedion of" the Tree is only manifested by its Fruit. It is not therefore a good Tree, becaufe it beareth good fruit $ but it therefore beareth good Fruit, becaufe it is a good Tree.

For the Third : If Procreation ( as you grant ^ do not perfed Marriage in its Effence, then it adds only an accidental perfedion unto it. J

4. Your Explication is indeed now move full* fo that I can better fee your meaning, yet {till I am unfatisfied. For I do not conceive that Faith properly is our Covenant, but that whereby we embrace God's Covenant. Though a Covenant differ frorn a Promife, yet it doth include a Promife. Now a Promife is de future ; fo that our reciprocal Promife, both of Faith and Obedience, I take to be our Covenant. Faith is in part the matter of the Covenant, but not properly the Covenant it felf, and perhaps when you call it our Covenant, you only wean, that it is the matter of our Covenant.

I being' there the Refpondenr, it was fufficient for m$ 7j. to deny, the proof did lie upon you. Yet neverthelefs the AfTertion ( v/^,. Faith alone is the Condition of^the Covenant, for fo much as concerns Juftification ) is fuf-flciently proved by thofe places,, where we are faid to be juftified by Faith, and that without Works, v/^. as con T curring with Faith unto Juftification. And for the rea-fon of the AfTertion, ( *>*> becaufe Faith alone dotkap-prehend ChrifVs Righteoufnefs ) much hath been faid of it before. What do our Divines more inculcate than this }

Wotton faith, that only Faith doth juftifie y Quia fola fide re ft a in Ckriftum tendtmut, Q» fronts'.]} ones Detdc P^ftsficatione amfietttmur. De Reconctl. Parti, lib. z* tap. 18. ;

'Amefiu* faith •, Dolor ac deteftatio fecedtt non *poteft tjje caufa jujiifcans y quia non habct wm a*flic an ds nobis ]uftitiam Chrsjii. Contra Bellar. /w. 4. lib. $. caf, 4.

So Bucanus -, Tides ( mqmt ) fola juftsficaf, quia if-fa eft umcum inftrumentum^ & umca facultas tn nobts<> ]ua recifimws luftitiam Ckrtfii. Loc* '31. ad Q^*{?.

^ I s This-

i: ^341

Of the Thus alfo Mr. Sail ; [ By Repentance we j>now our

Coven. felvesj we feel our [elves y we hunger and thirft after

fhap. g. Grace \ but the hand which we ftretch forth to receive

P*i8,i?» **•> is faith alone^ &c. ] And a little after \ \_When

therefore Jufttficatton and Life is [aid to be by faith y it

is mantfeftly fgmfied^ That faith receiving the Promifej

doth receive Righteoufnefi and Life freely promtfed ].

You your klf do fometimes fay, That Faith hath in it an aptitude to fuftifie in this refpeft \ only you deny, that this aptitude of Faith is fufficient,and fay that therefore it doth juftifie, becaufe God in his Covenant hath made it the Condition of J unification. Now I alfo grant, That if Faith were not ordained to that end of God, its bare aptitude, or its being that whereby we apprehend Chrift* would not juftifie. Yet (I fay ) it appears by. Scripture, That becaufe Faiih alone hath this aptitude to juffifie^ vi^ by apprehending Chrift,therefore God hath ni?de.it-alone the Condition of J unification. Ihis appears in that weave faid to be juftified by Believing in, or on Chrift, which imports an apprehending and receiving of him, Joh. 1.12.

2. Repentance doth avail with Faith, yet are we juftified only by Faith, and not by Repentance, and that for the reafon even now alledged, W-c becaufe not Repentance, but Faith is the Fiand by which Chrift is received.

j. Though RemiiTion of Sins be ordinarily afcribed to Repentance, yet it is no where faid, That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteoufnefs, as it is faid of Faith. Repentance in fome fente is precedaneous to J unification, Justifying Faith doth prefuppofe Repentance ^ yet Faith and not Repentance is made the Condition and Instrument of Justification, as being that which doth appre-liend the Righteoufnefc of Chrift, by which we are juftified.

4. That though Faith only be the Condition of Judication at firft, yet Obedience alfo is a Condition afterward, is often faid, but never proved. I take Juftihcation both at firft and afterward to be by the Righteoufnefs ^ of Chrift imputed to us •, therefore net by Obedience, but by Faith, by which alone we apprehend the Rightc-oufiiefscf Chrift, that fa it may be ours unto J.uiufica-tion. Certainly that was no; the beginning of Abraham*

C 135-3

barn's Juftification, which is mentioned Gen. if. 6. Yet by that doth the ApoiUe prove that Abraham was, and all mull be, juitified, not by Obedience, but by Faith only.

1. Faith apt to produce good Works, isneceffary to/^ 8C74. procure that firft change, which makes us (inGodVac-

count ) Juftos ex In)uflts. For if it be net fuch a Faith, it is dead, and of no. force.

2. I hope you will not deny, but that being juitified by Believing, every after Ad of Faith doth find us juftified j for you are againft the Amiffion and Inter cifion of Jultifi-cation. Yet I confefs. That the continuance of Faith is neceffary to the continuance of Juftification. So it muft needs be, feeing we are juitified by Faith 1 therefore e\ e-jry Ad of Faith may be faid to juiiifie, as well as the firit Ad, becaufe by after-Ads of Faith we continue juitified.

Nihil ertt abfurdi^ ( inquit Rivetus^ fi dica/nus^ in [ n Cex.Tf. yuoltbet y>er& fidei aftu tmputari )uflttiam credent}. Etfi £xer. 8 2. entm jufttficatio fit actios moment dneue^ cu]us nunquam plane amtttitur iff a ft us tn ptts^ qui femel '^ufiifica'ti funt, indigent nihtlominns reno^atione jenfux juftification is fu&) qui fenfus fit per fidem y & tunc dicttur ett-am fides imputariad juftatam.. Nam apfrehenfio tU.a fidet habet flaxuni fuum continuum fecundiim plus & minus \ prafertim cum fidelis? ^ ft jufitficdtus^ fubinde tn peccata tncidaty propter qua opus etiam habet remtjjio-ne pecedtorum. Quod continuum beneficirum jide dp-prehenfum^ ft fecundam jufiificationem appeUare. teltnt adyerfarih tmh tertiam, quartamt quint am ^ C mille-fimam^ non repugnabtmus^ dummodo conftet, nulla altd rat tone nos juftificart a peccant is fequent/bus, quam eS y qua femel yuftificatt futmus a precedentibus.

Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Juftifi-cation no more afterward than at firit.

3., Your reafons whereby you endeavour to confute

this Aflertion, [ As our purification is begun^ Jo it if

continued, viz. by Fatth only, and not by Workj as con-

1 current with Faith unto Juftification afterward^ though

not at fir (I 3 feem to. be of no force. ..

I anfwer therefore, Ad V How do I contradJd it by faying, [As it is begun, fo it is continued by Faith V] What though there be divers Ads of Faith, yet itiil.it is I 4 Faith v

C '13* 3

Faith, and Faith without the concurrence of Works, by which we are juftified as well afterward as at firft, which is ail that I aifert ? Becaufe a continued Acl; of Faith is requifite to the Continuation of Juftification, doth it * Hop Re- therefore follow that Works have a co-imereit with Faith pent once in the effecl: of Juftifying ?

is requifite Ad 2. Do you think * Repentance only requifite to the tinto Ju~ Continuation of J unification, and not alfo to the Incho-ftification, ation of it >

and jet Ad $. We are not to meafure God's Covenant by Hu-doth net mane Covenants. God's Covenant doth reach further l u ${fi e *> t h?n to Juftification ; and more may be requifite for the was Jhew- enjoyment of thofe benefits which belong unto Juitified sd before. Perfons, than is requifite unto Juftification. - 74, Your Similitudes are no Proofs • and you ftill fuppofe

that there is one Condition of Juftification at firft, and another Condition thereof afterwards 5 that though at firft we are juftified only by Faith? yet afterward by Faith and Works. But though Works are required of Juftified Perfons, as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are juftifi- . ed • yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Juitification, which as it is begun by Faith only, fo is it alfo continued. Your felf obferve, That Abrahams Believing, mentioned Gen. 15. was not his firft Acl: of Faith. So then he was juftified before by Faith, and fo was he alio afterward, even by Faith only, as the Apoftfe from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works ( v/*,. as having a cq-partnerftiip with Faith in Juftifying ), Abraham was juitified both at firft and afterward. ifcd. I# Do y OU think that Abraham was juftified from the

guilt of thofe many fins, which he committed after his firft J unification by his Works > Credat Jud&us: for my part I cannot bur deteft fuch Doctrine. I know no way whereby he could be juftified from thofe fins, but by Faith inChriftj even as he was at firft juitified. Eefides ( asT noted before, and that as acknowledged by your felf), * Vide Abraham wis juftified before he produced that Act of Calvin. Faith fpoken of Gen. 1?. and in the interim no doubt he fnftit. /.$. commuted feme fins, yet ftill by Faith,' and not by <\i4 §.11. Works ( zsPa^L the wet h ) * he was juftified.

2. You do but ftill affirm, without any proof at all, That Abraham % Juftification could not be continued by

the

3

the fame means ( V/>> by Faith alone ) works not concurring with it unto J unification) as it was begun.

3. For Sentential J unification at the Laii Judgment, I have faid enough before.

Bucan having faid, that Abraham was Jufttfied operL LoC$i. 4I lus> tanquam tefttmomis Juftificattoms ; Adds, £uo- y u *&'39* .modo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo tllo die y^fiificaturus eleftosfuos ex ifforum operibu*.

And again j Fides princ'tpium exigent i^ facit ut p-mus )uftt > Opera autem ut prmctpium cognitionts fact* unt^ ut cognofcamur ]ufi. Ideo Deus in extremo' die froponet frmcipium eognttionis yuftitia jidei<> quod tn-curret in ocutos omnium creaturarum.

4. I think the Argument is good and found, [ ChriiVs Righteoufnefs, whereby we are julHfied, is an everla^ iting Righteoufnefs • therefore our JufHfication is an everlafHng JufHfication ]. This alwayes piefuppofed, That this Righteoufnefs of Chrift be apprehended by Eaith* for otherwife there is no being juftified at all by ic.

1. Tobejuft quoad pr&ftationem Conditionis^ is but Ibid&*fi. to be juft in fomerefpecl: , and in fome refpe& jtft even

the moft unjuff may be. Yet it is true, This pr&ftatio Cohdiiionis mWbe of force to procure Univerfal JufHfication : not that it is it felf the Righteoufnefs by which we are julHfied, but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, and fo by his Righteoufnefs are univerfally julHfied. And though this performing of the Condition be required unto JulHficarion, yet neverthelefs that remains good which I faid in the Animadverfions, \_ If we be fully freed from the accufation of the Law^ we are fully jufifed ]. For can we be fully freed from the Accufation of the Law, except we perform the Condition required in the Gofpel } And if we be fully freed from the Accufation of the Law, will the Gofpel accufe us } It is the Law that worl>eth Wrath, Rom. 4-15. The Gofpel doth free from Wrath, though not without performing the Condition 5 for then it furrereth the Law to have its force, and to inflict Wrath -, and that fo much the more, in that fo great a benefit was neglected.

2. The performing of a Condition, as the Condition is a Duty, is a Righteoufnefs, but fuch as cannot juftifie,

as

C if8 3

as we now fpeak of Juftification. But as tha Condition . ismeerlyaCondirion, the performing of it is not properly Righteoufnefs, though by it we partake of Righte-oufnefs, v/o the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, by which we are juftified.

3. Therefore this is no contradiction, to grant Faith to be the Condition of J unification, and yet to deny it to be the Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified.

X>e Sdtif- That which you think to be moft clear, Vigneritts (be-facr. Chr$- fore cited) thought moft abfurd. An pojjdbile eft ( in-y?/, inter quit ) ut fit Fides Inftrumentum a capiendo, ju(titta y Opera Ri-( feu Conditio ad obttnendam juftnia:// requipta^ Ji it a veti Difj>. loyui libeat) & fimul fit tpfa, yuam qu&ri/nus, jufti~ IJ§.6i. t f a f

Indeed youfeembut toftrive about words 5 for here immediately you confefs, That it is but a Subordinate Righteoufnefs, meaning (I think ) that which all ac-knowledg, that it is but a means whereby to partake of ChriiVs Righteoufnefs. And you that charge others with Self-Contradictionj feem not to agree with your felf. For here prefently after you fay, [ This Perfonai Right e* cufnefs praftitx conditionis N»T. must be had^ before we can haw that which freeth tto from the Law ] j yet elfe-where your Expreflions are fuch, as if being firft juftified ' from the Accufation of the Law, by the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, we ihould after be juftihed from the Accufation of the Gofpel by Perfonai Righteoufnefs. However ( as I have faid before ) this latter Accufation is but a further profecution and confirmation of the former, by taking away the Plea that fome might make why the Accufation of the Law mould not ftantf good, and be of force to condemn them.

4. Of what force is Satans Accufation againft any, if he cannot make good his Accufation, fo as to procure his Condemnation ? And are not Unbelievers and Rebels againft Chrift condemned by the Law > Is it not for fin that they are condemned ? And is there any fin which is not againft the Law > The Gofpel indeed may aggravate Sin, and increase Condemnation: and fo thofe words which you cite [ The words which I [peal^ jhall judg

jouy &c. ~J may be underftood y as thofe are more clearly to the purpofe J oh. 15. 22. //'/ had not come and fpokfn K*tQ them* thej had not had fin^ (v/<,. in fo high

dcgfCd

degree as it follows) but now they ha\e no doa^for their fn. But ftill it is by the Law that all iiimers are convinced and condemned. As for Righteoufnefs, whereby one isjuftified fromafalfe Accufation, it is but fuch as the Devil himfelf may have, as hath been noted before, though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accufati-ons whatfoever. And when Satan do h accufe any of not performing the Condition of the Gofpel, he doth but only ihew that fuch ftand guilty by the Law, and fo are to be condemned, as having no benefit of the Gofpel, be-caufe they have not performed the Condition of it: So that ftill it is the Law, by which Satan doth accufe and bring to condemnation.

But bv the way 1 obferve, That in this place of your Afhor % (/>. 308. ) you fay, That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2, g, 14, 15, 16. Paul concludeth, that neither Faith, nor Works, is the Righteoufnefs which we mult plead againft the Accufation of the Law, but the Righteoufnefs which is by Faith, /. <?. ChrilVs Righteoufnefs: Yet before in this Writing you ftand upon the very Letter of the Text, and will ha^e it to prove", That Faith it felf properly taken is our Righteoufnefs. If you (iy that you mean our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, yet fo you agree not with your (elf in your Apborifms, where you make Paul in thofe Texts to fpeak of our Legal Righteoufnefs.

1. They againft whom fames dilputed, relied on Faith 7 j% as the Condition of the New Covenant 5 but it was not

fuch a Faith as the New Covenant doth require, it was a Faith renuens 0per art ^ upon that account James confuted them, not as if Faith alone without Works ( though yet a Faith ready to (hew it felf by Works ) were not the Condition of } unification.

2. I amforrythat Eez % a y s words, which I cited, and which to me feem very excellent, fhould be fo cenfured by you, as if there were I know not how many miftakes in them, but truly I think the miftakes will be found to fc>e in your cenfure.

To your Exceptions I anfwer; 1. Quis yet ex noftris^ \>el ex Traafmarmts Theologts, Fidsm f-roCaufa (nem-f€ Infirumentali ^^Jujirficatsonts non habei >

z. Be2a attj tu negas ^ Tjtri potius ajfentienium > Ouiddico Bez-a ? Q^ts en'tm tftudnon dtc'tt } Sedhomt-num authorttate nolo U obraere^ rattoms ante aiiats. exptndantHY* 3. <**$*'

C 140 3

3. Affjrmds tantnm, non probata Opera /JJacobo ft a* biliri ut *$u(iificationts Conditiones £5* Mtdta* Effefti ut. tjfecli pot eft effe necejjitas ad y>eritatem caufz com fro-bandam-i nee alia rat tone operum necejjitas a Jacoboy?*/-btlitur^ nequeenim ad ]ufttficat tone m procurandam^ fed ad earn duniaxat comprobandam^ tanquam Juftifican-tis Fidei ftuttus^ Opera m necejfarta flabiliuntur} ut antea *x tpfa Apoftoli Argumentations oftenfum eft.

4. Nee Beza, nee alius quifjvam {quid [ci.im ) di~ fttntttonem iftam de Juftifcattont InchoaXa, c? Jufltfica-tione ConXinxatai quajifc. alia hu)usj *Ua illtus ejjet conditio* perfpeclam habuit. Hu)us wventionis gloriam ego equidem ttbt non m video.

Ibid. 1. Certain it is, All Works are not the fulfilling of

the Old Law's Condition • but all Works whereby we are juftified, are the fulfilling of it ^ and therefore ( as I faid in the Animadx>erfion$ ) to bejuftified by Works, and to be juftified by the Law, are with Paul one and the fame } See Rivet, Difp de Vide Juftif. §.21. the words are before cited.

2. We are juftified by the New Law, againft the Ac-cufation of th? Old Law. Certainly if we be accufed of Unbelief and Rebellion againft Chrift, we are accufed of being Sinners. For are Unbelief and Rebellion againft Chrift no fins ?

3. Who doth not fo diftinguifh of to Credere, except fome few whom I have no mind to follow > But how will rhis Diftin&ion, mter quod opus-> C? qua opus, ferve to keep in Obedience, as having a joint inrereft with Faith in Juftification? What dark Equivocal ( I pray ) is this, That Faith doth juftifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of ChriiVs Righteoufnefs } Your felf acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to juftifie in this refpeel ; and in this refpeel: (I fay ) Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Juftification.

ibid. I take what you grant, vk,. That fad doth not im-

ply Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our firft Juftification : that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Juftification afterward, you mould prove, and not content your felf with the bare affirming of it» Doth not Paul by that Gen. jf. {^Abraham believed (W, &c. ] prove that Abraham was juftified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience ? Yef that was not the firft time

that-

C .141 J

that Abraham either believed, or was juftified. The truth therefore is, Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which juftifieth both at firft and laft, but not as concurring with Faith unto Juftification either at firft or laft.

1. There is a nece0ity of Faith mewing it fejf by ibid.&t 76. Works, that fo it may appear to be fuch a Faith whereby

Chrift is truly apprehended and received. But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in juftifying, becaufe only fuch a Faith doth juftifie as doth alfo produce Works > You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Juftification at firft, yet finely Works muft follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at firft jufti-fied.

2. For the Texts alledged, that Mat. 12. 37. [ By thy words thou (halt be juftified, &c. ] is as plain you fay as [ We are juftifiedby faith ]. But if it be fo plain, it may feem wonderful, that BeUarmme fhould never make ufe of it, when he labours to prove, That Faith alone doth riot juftifie; which ( fb far as I obferve} he doth not. Nor do the Rhemifts on the place take any notice of thofe words, who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but feem to make for them. Yet it feems fome of our Romifti Adverfaries have laid hold on thofe words.

But hear how Calvin doth cenfure them for it y jQgod Ad Mat: dutem Papifta ad eneryandam fidei jufttt tarn hoc tor- * 2 *37* quent^ pie rile eft.

Certainly all good that we do, may juftifie quadante^ mus, fo far as it is good : But can we therefore be fimply and abfolutely, or f if you like thofe terms better ) fully and perfectly juftified., either by our Words or Works > Thofe places that require forgiving of others, that fo God may forgive us, mew indeed, that it is.no true Juftifying' Faith which doth not, as occafion requires, ma-nifeft it felf in that kind : but we are not therefore juftifi-ed as well by forgiving others, as by believing; nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Juftification. That in 1 John 1. 9. and Ails 3, 19. (hews that Repentance muft go before Juftification, and is required unto Juftification, but nor fo as Faith is required.

Repen-

+*lta re- Repentance is required, that we may be juftified, but yuir'tur } not that we may, be juftified by it, as we are by Faith, t^ Jufii- thoughInftrumentally and Relatively, as it apprehendeth \cationem Chriit's Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified. For ;n& non Prayer, it is a Fruit of Faith, and therefore called. The ufisficant Prayer of Faith, Jam. 5. 1$.

Amef. loco [ Repentance (faith Mr. Ball Of the Coven, r.3. ^.18) *nt€ cita- is the Condition of faith, and the Qualification of a. to* Perfon capable of S.thatten : but faith alone is the

Caufe of J unification and S ah at ion on our part required ].

And immediately after he adds ; [ It is a penitent and petitioning faith , whereby we receive the promifes of Mercy \ but we are not juftified, partly by Prayer, partly by Repentance, but by that fahh which ftirreth up Godly forrow for Jin, and injorceth us to fray for Par m den and Salvattcn ].

And again 5 [ Prayer is nothing elfe but the Stream or Rher of faith, and an tffue of the defire of that which joyfullywtbelteye']- Of Faith, Parti. Chap.B. pag. 10?.

For that place. Acts 22. 16. the Expofition which I gave of it in the Animddyerfions, is confirmed by this, That the nature of a Sacrament is to fignifie and feal, as the Apoftle mews, Rom.^. 11.

Quatenus ergo Jidem noftram adju^at Baptifmus^jn* quit Calvinus) ut remijfionem pecedtorum percipiat ex folo Ckrifti fangxtne, Lay>acrum anim& Decatur. It a aUutio? cujus meminit Lucas, non caufam defignat \ fed ad fenfum Pauli refertur, qui fymbolo accepto, fee-cat a fua effe expiata (N.B.) melius cognovit —->Cum tefiimonium haberet Paulus gratia Dei, jam tils remiffa erani peccata % Non igttur Baptifmo demum ablutus eft) fed n^am gratia, quam ddeptus erat, confirmati-on em accepit.

That PahFs fins were but incompleatiy warned away by Faith until he was baptized, your Similitudes (which are too often your only proofs) do not prove. Yea, a Kings Coronation, ( of which you (peak ) when the Kingdom is hereditary, is ( I think ) but a confirmation of what was done before.

The purifying of the Heart fpokenof, 1 Pet. i- 22. is (Iconceivej to be underitood -z> Jam.^%. 3cjer^.\^.

C 14* ]

V/*> of purifying from the filth of fin by San&ification. And for I Pet.^.iS* who denies thejdiligence of the Righteous to be a means of their Salvation ! But what is that to prove Works to concur with Faith unto J unification }

i. I take what you grant, That at firft believing a 76, £77. Man is juftified fo fully, as that he is acquitted from "the guilt of all Sin, and from all Condemnation. And fure-ly at the laft one can have no fuller Juftification than this is. That afterwards he is acquitted from the guilt of more fins, is not to the purpofe, feeing he is acquitted from all at firft, and but from all at laft, though this £ all ] be more at laft than at hrft. Oherwife the fortification of one who hath fewer fins, ihould not be io full as the Juftification of him, whofe fins are more in number.

2. That there is a further Condition of Juftification a£ terward than at firft, hath been faid often, but was never yet proved.

3. That which you call Sentential Juftification, ( v/^ at the L.aft Judgment) I hold to be only the manifeftati-on of that Juftification which was before. That becaufe Obedierice is a Condition of Salvatioriy heretofore it is alfo a Condition of Juftification, I deny (as you fee) all along in the Antmachpzrfions^ and therefore I thought it enough here to touch that, which you fay of full Juftifu cation, efpecially feeing your felf hold Obedience to be no .Condition of Juftification at firft. You lay the weight of your 7 8th Thefis upon the word [ full J which therefore was enough for me to take hold of.

For your Queries therefore about Sentential Juftification ac Judgment, I have told you my mind before, and you might fufficiently underftand it by the Ammacfoet-Jionu

When you prove, 1. that Juftification at Judgment is a Juftification diftinct from Juftification here,and not only a manifeftation of it.

z. Th.it Juftification at Judgment hath the fame Con •

ditiohs with Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment l»of it, W^. Glorification.

And, 3. That confequently Obedience is a Condition of Juftification at Judgment. When you lhall prove f I fay ) thefe things, I mall fee more than yet I do. In the mean while, befides what hath been faid before,

hear

C 144 3

toe. 31. hear what Bucan faith to this purpofe ; An perficitur ju-

quAft. 46. fltficatio noftra in hdc yttd } In Jufttficatione quernad-

modum )udtcamur^ £? reputdmur a Deo )ufti<, tta etiam

adjudtcamur yttA Atern&. Rattone i-

Ron impedtunt Yttii 6- giiur decreti diVmi^ C fententtA iffi-

riginalts rejldui macula us de y/ta Aternd ftolatA a Deo judtce ;

flU^ quin etiam in hdc item rattone juftitiA, quam tmputat no~

yttd perfefra Jit )uft>fi- bts Judex Cceleftts^ )am forfeit a eft ju-

catio. Qu& reyera nee flificationoftra tnhdc yttd, ntfiquodin

inttndttur, nee remitti- alteramagis patefactenda {N.B.}fit

tur^ rem ipfam quod at~ ac reyelanda eadem ilia )uftitta tmpu-

tinet. Gataker. contra tata<> C arftms ettam nobis applicandd*

Goniariim. p* i&i 27. Ea tamen tot a perficitur in hdc yttd^ in

qua pot eft homo dici plenh perfefteque

juftifieatus. filit Dei fumus { ergo juftipcatt } fed

nondum patefattum eft quid erimus^ 1 John 3.2. At

jl executtonem rejpicias, & rationem habeas yitA, & glo-

rUj qua nobis adjudicature ££ q ha nobis inhafura eft y

quia tn nobis non perficitur in hac yita y tmperfetta etiam

^fu&ifi'catio tn hac yttd cenfert poteft.

I- I think there is not the like right of Salvation and, Juftificatioh, but that although we muft be faved by Works, though nut by the Merit of them, yet we cannot be juftifiecLby Works, except it be by the merit of them, Myreafonis, Becaufethat whereby we are;uftified, muft fully fatisfie the Law 5 for it mult Fully acquit us from all Condemnation, which otherwife by the Law will fall upon us. 1 his Works cannot do,except they be fully conform to fhe Law,and fo be meritorious,as far forth as the Creature can merit of the Creator. But being juftified by Faith, u e. by the Righteoufnefs of Chriil through Faith imputed to us, and To put into a ftate of Salvation, we muft yet fhew our Faith by our Works • which though they be imperfect, and fo not meritorious, yet make way for the full enjoyment of Salvation. And me-thinks the Scripture is fo frequent and clear in diftinguifiling betwixt Jufti-fication and Salvation, as to the full enjoyment of it, that * it may ieem ftrange that you lhould fo confound them as

you do, and argue as if there were the fame reafon of the m fcne as of the other.

2. You might eafily fee, that by [ Via Regni ] as op-

pbfed to [ CauCa Regnandt ] 5 I meant only to exclude

: , the Merit of Works, not to deny Works to be'a Means

and

r H5 3

and a Condition required of us for the obtaining of com-pleat Salvation. Salvation is a Chain confifting of many Links, but (bis not Juftification; it is but one Link of that Chain.

3. If all the World of Divines be againftthis, That purification at Judgment is but a Declaration of our Ju-itification here 5 I have hitherto (it feems ) been in fome other World For truly ( fo far as I obferve ) both Scripture and Divines ufually fpeak of Juftification, as we here partake of it. As for Juflification at Judgment, it is but rarely touched, either in Scripture or in other Writings : Neither ( fo far as I can fee ) will it confift with either, to make Juftification at Judgment a compleating of our Juftification, as if before we were but imperfectly juftified: but rather they (hew, that our Juftification is then fully declared and made manifeft, and that then we come to the full enjoyment of that benefit, which we have right unto by our juftification, v/^,. Glorification. For whofu he jvfttficdy them he alfo glorified^ Rom. 8. 30. I have fpoken enough of this before j but you do fo continually re j-cat the fame things, that lam forced alfo to repeat things oftner than I would.

1. That Juftification by Sentence, v/*,. at the Laft ib'td. Judgment, and Continued Juftification,arefevea:al kinds

of Juftification diftindt from Juftification begun, and have feveral Conditions, you continually affirm, or fup-pofe, but never prove.

2. My debate with you was about thofe words, [That which we are juftified by, we are farmed by ] ; and [ the fu% foJJ'ejjion or enjoyment of Saltation ]. What your reply is to the purpofe, I cannot fee. And befides, you had need to clear thofe words, \_In juftifymg it is the fame thing to give a right to a thing , and to give the thing it felf]. For if you mean, That as foon as a , right to a thing is given by Juftification, the thing it felf alfo is actually given 5 it appears to me far otherwife.

For I think that Juftification prefently gives a right to Glorification •, For what doth debaV from that right, but fin > Now the guilt of fin' is done away by Juftification ; therefore there is a prefent right too to Glorification, yet no prefent enjoyment of it. How I do yeeld your Afferti-#n, you do not ihevv.

K Your

xas. I giant here more than you defire, v/<„ That not . only to morrow there will be Condemnation to him that iliall not rincerely obey, but even 10 day there is con-.demnation to him \ hi:> Faith being not prompt and ready* . to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience, is not fuch as doth juftine him at all. But though Faith, whereby we are ;u-. ftified, muit and will mew it felf by Works, yet we arc ! not therefore juiliiied by Works as well as by Faith. PmI doth exclude Works, as well from J unification afterward asatfirit, yiz* as concurring with Faith unto the Effeft of J unifying . tor he {hews that Abraham was juilihed, not only at mil, but alfo afterward, by Faith and not by Works, Rom. 4. 2, 3. And James doth require Works as well to Juftirication at rirft as afterward, >/<,. as F ruits of that Faith whereby we are juftified. For otherwife he faith it is a dead Faith, ineffectual and unprofitable. Though Works do not prefently appear upon our firft 6c-lie\ ing, yet if they do not appear in due feafon, that Faith doth not juitihe : Such a Believer doth not ceafe to be, but indeed never was in Chriit, v/<,. as a juftified Perfonisinhim. ilia. How is Juftirication at Judgment a declaring of a Righ-

teoufnefs in qiuilion > The Word of God (the truth whereof is unqueftionable ) aiTures us that all true Believers are juftified. And that fuch and fuch were true Believers, God by his Word and Spirit did evidence unto them before, though then he will make it more fully evident unto ail ! That Satan {hall publickly accufe at the Laft Judgment, is more than J fee cither Scripture or Reafonrbr. He iliall then be judged himfelf, and that in fome foit by the Saints, 1 Cor, 6. 3. He Iliall then have little courage to accufe the Saints, though now he doth ir.

Yet I qucftion alio whether Satan do at any time directly put up unto God any Accufatiorrs againft the Saints. He feems to be called the Accufer of the Bre~ thrtri) Apoc. iz. io. # becaufe by his Initruments he is * See Vr. ever * traducing and Hindering them. He is faid to ac-Mede on cufethem, Mbuw to 0«« 3 betore God, or in the fight ct the place. God 5 not'n* 0*-~, unto God, as the unjuft Steward was accufed to his Mailer, Sn&K^du^ i^\6.u Th#

in

C i47 3

in Job 1. &2. feemstobe parabolically expreffed. Satan knows his Accufations againft the Saints to befalfe; Therefore he knows it is to little purpofe to accufe them unto God. Efpecially at the Laft Judgment, by the very feparating of the F.lecl: from the Reprobate, he will fee that it is in vain to bring any Accufation againft the Eleft : and therefore how there ftiould then be any fuch publick Accufer, or any queftion of the Righteoufnefs of the Saints, I do not fee : befides, that excepting thofe who will be found alive at Chriit's coming, all have received their doom before, though not fo openly as then they ihall. That Obedience is a Condition of Glorification., not of right unto it, but of poffeiTion and enjoyment of it, I here and every-where confefs*

I. What mean you by thofe words, [ Doth obedience /W.& 78; get Faith t ] Doth any fuch thing follow, upon that which I fay } But you fay, [ If Obedience only mamfeji faith , how then doth it procure Plight > J

Anftv. It is not faid, That Obedience doth procure right, but only thus much is fignihed, That none can have rig: t without Obedience, as the Fruit of that Faith by which right is procured. As I faid before of Works, fo I fay now of keeping the Commandments, ( which doth comprehend in it all good Works ) it is fpoken of only as a Fruit of Faith, which Faith indeed doth ( In-ihumentally and Relatively ) proemeRight.

For the words of Jarms 1 have faid enough before ; I have neither lift nor leifure to repeat the fame things continually upon every occafion. What your multitude of other Texts is, I do not know • but if they be not iuore forced, than by my Opinion the words of James are, there will be little caufe to complain of the forcing of them.

2. That Faith without Obedience doth give right at fit ft, you grant: The fame right ( I hold ) is ftill continued only by Faith • though Faith, if not of fuch a Nature as to produce Obedience, can neither gi\ e right ac firit, nor afterward continue it. Though Repentance (

muft go before J unification, yet fiaith alone may juitihe, . and fo give right 5 which though it be not the fame wjth Juitifying, yet it is ncceflai Uy joined with it.

C 148 3

y. Jus in ?e, I take to be fuch a Right, as from which the Poffeflion it felf is not, nor can be /eparated.

4. 1 he Text doth not afcribe Jus ad ram to Obedience, but only Declarative : rs a Fiuk of Faith it mal;eth it appear, thai: there is fuch a Right/which Faith hath procured.

y.' I do indeed believe. That a Man may have,and hath Jus adGlonam without Obedience* even as he is juitifi-ed without Obedience. For certainly as foon as a Man is juftified, he hath Jus adGloriam. For what doth hinder but fin, the guilt of which by Juitihcation is done away > Yet Hill I fay, Faith which doth juftifie, and fo gives right to Glory? will fliew it felf by Obedience. Thofe words [ //" he live to Age ] are needlefs : for we fpeak continually iof the J unification of fuch as are of Age. But how can you ferioufiy ask me rhis Queftion, when your felf put it out of all queftion,- holding that a Man ( that h of Age, I prefumc ) is at firft juftitied, and confe-quently' ( as I think you will not deny ) hath Jus ad Glonam^ by Faich without Obedience ?

6. It is no debating of Faith to fay, That after it, as a Fruit of it 5 Obedience is required to give Jus in re, /. e. to bring into the actual pofTeflion of Glory. How can you pretend this to be a debafing of Faith, who debafe it much more in making it unfufficient to give Jut ad rem-, except there be Obedience concurrent with it } Though yet herein you do not k< ep fair correspondence with your felf, without a d\ tin&ion of Jus Inchoatum^ and Jus Contmua*Hm \ which uiitinction how it will hold good, I do not fee. ~ It any ihal! think chat you have faid enough to prove,

1 hat we are jufttfied by aPcrfonal Rightcouinefs, I ihall think that fuch are foon fatisfied Ibid. *< When we fpeak of J unification, we fpeak of it as

taking off all Accu&Ubn, and as oppofed to all Condemnation. Ar.d what Righteoumefs is fufficient for this, but that which is perfect ?

2. ThztJL14d.de Dieu hath not the fame DocTiineon Rom. 8.4. as you deliver, I have fuinciently lhewed before : And if he had, I take the Authority o£ Calvin and Davm-mt ( whom 1 ched, and to whom many others 0ii o ht be added ) to be of more force againft it, than de

Dieuf

C 149 3

Dieus could be for it. That Holinefs and Obedience is neceflary unto Salvation, fo that no Salvation is to be ex-/pe&ed without it, it were pitty (asI faid in the Ant-mad^erftons ) any mould deny : but to argue from Salvation to Juitificarion, Dr. Fulf^ told the Rhemtfts, is On J ami Pelting Sophiflry : Yet you feem to wonder that I make a 2. 24. great difference between the Condition of J unification, and the Condition of Salvation. As for Right to Salvation that's another thing : as Faith alone doth juftifie, fo it alone gives Right to Salvation : Yet becaufc this Faith is of a working Nature, therefore before the attual Enjoyment of Salvation, Faith, as occafion doth require, will mew it felt by Obedience \ and that is all which the Apoftle teacheth Rem. 8. 13.

* Verumeftqutdem (faith CaWtn ) nos fola Dei mi- Ad Loci fertcordti juftifie art in Chrtfto : fed &qne £? tftud y>erum ac certum^ omnes qut juftifieantur yocari a Domtno^ ut dignh fua Vocattcne vtvant.

It is true, He that proved a Man lived not after the flelh, but mortified it, doth juititie him from that Accu-' fation, That he is worthy of Death : but that is only, be-caufe a Man's not living after the fleili, but mortifying it 3 proves the truth of his Faith, whereby he hath intereft in Chriit, and fo is freed from all Condemnation, as the Apoftle clearly ihewevh Rom. 8. 1. If that be a Re at us to make Faith only the Condition of J unification, yet Obedience alfo a Condition of Glorification. I fay with the Oratour, Quod maxtme accufafori optandum eff y habes confitentem reum: But what Re at us there is in this, I do not fee, nor could our choicelt Divines ( it feem:> ) fee any in it.

Rhet faith, that Opera feyuuntur Juflificatisnem^ fed Co/leg. pr&cedunt Glortjicattonem \ the wordb were cited more Control erf. at large before. Diff?. 36.

So AmeftH* • Nos non negampts bona opera uUam re- Contra tattonem ai falutem habere ; habent entm relattonem Bellar. adjuncli confequentps^ C effettt ad falutem ( ut loquun- torn. 4. l.$ m tur ) adept am, ££ adjunct? antecedents ac dijjponentts c. 6. in in-1 ad falutem adtptfeendam. it to.

Thus alfo Day>enant\ {Dejuft/t. Aftual* cap. 32.

ftb tnttto-^) Verumeft^ nos negaye bona opera requtrt^

ut Conditiones S.thttis noftr^ ft per bona opera tntelliga-

K 3 mu*

mtts exacle bona^ & cjua Legis rigor i refptndeant: ft eti* am f,er Con Utiones Taints* tntelligampts Condition*; fee-dens^, quibus recipimnr m favor em Dei y C ad jus (jV.Z?.) aterna Vit&. Hac emm pendent ex fola condittone ji-dei Chrijlum Mediator em apprehendentis. At falfum efly nos negare bona opera requ'tri^ ut Conditioner falu-t#) fi per bona opera mteUtgamus illos fructus inchoata. juftitiaj qu& feyuunturjuftificationern^ c5* {N.B.) pr&-cedunt giorificaxionem* utvta ordinate adeandem.

What fome Divines in their private Contefts with you may do I know not • I (hew what eminent Divines in their publick Writings do deliver, even the fame that I maintain, >/<,. That Faith alone is the Condition of J unification, and of right to Salvation and Glory: and yet that Works are alio requifite as the Fruits of that Faith, and as making way tor the actual enjoyment of Glory.

For the term [ Inflrument ], I was not willing to

wrangle about it? neither am I willing to ftrive about

words. Yet I told you, I thought it might well enough

be ufed as our Divines do ufe it. And \ always let you

know. That tho perhaps Faith may more fitly be called a

Condition, yet not fo as to make it to be merely Caufa

fine qua non^ but fo as to afcribe fome Caufality and

Efficiency unto it in refpect of Jnitirication, vt^. m

that it apprehendeth and. rcceiveih Chi iiVs Righteouf-

nefs • by which through Faith imputed unto us we are

juftified.

Of the {fatth ("faith Mr. Bali) is 'not a bare Condition*, wnh-

Coven, out which the thing cannot he ', {for that is no caufe at

c>6'f*JO. all) but an Inflrumental Caufe , &c ]

This ( as you might fee by many Paflages ) is the very reaion why (I think ) the Scripture doth attribute J unification to Faith alone, and not to Works, nor any other Grace befides Faith \ becaufe only Faith doth embrace Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, Though therefore I neither was, nor am willing xa^/^wv, yet I neither did, nor do difclaim the word [ Inflrument ] as unmeet to be ufed. And indeed feeing Faith hath fome Caufality in Jufti-g, what Caufe it mould be rather than InitrumentaJ, I do not know.

Hear

C 151 ]

Hear Mr. Ball again, if you pleafe, [ Ifwhen we Of the Jpeal^ of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace^ by Coven. Condition we underfiand whatp>e\>er ps required on our c.-$. p.zc*. fart j as precedent, concomitant, and fubfe^uent to Ju-fiification. Repentance, faith and Obedience are aU Conditions : but if by Condition we under fiand what is en our fart required as the Caupe of the good promtped, though only Infirumental^ faith or Belief tn the Promtfe is the only Conctttton ].

And again ; [ faith is a necejfary and lively In fir u- ibid. p.l£ # mem of Justification^ which ps among the number of true Caufes, not being a Caupe without which the thing is not done, but a Caufe whereby it ps done. The Caups without which a thing ps not done, is only prepent m the action, and doth nothing therein • but as the Eye is an active Infirument for Seeing, and the Ear for Hearing ^ jo ps faith aifo for J^fitfytng. If ft be demanded who fe Infirument it is > It is the Infrrumtnt of the Soul ^wrought therein by the Holy Ghcft, and is the fee Gift of God'].

So Amepus when Beltarmtne obje&ed ; Sacrament a Contra promijfiones applicant, & no fir as factum I non ergo per &*& tom * 4 modum mftrumenti appltcantts fides fila juftificat. //£. 5. r.4.

Heanflvers; Sola tamen ex its , qua. punt in nobis y <*dii. yel a nobis erg a Deum : Jolajides acctpiendo ; quia Sa~ cr amenta punt d Deo erga nos j$ Promtjjionem applicant, ut tnfirumenta dandi^ non acciptendt-

Thus then is Faith taken for an Inftrumentof Justification, in that by Faitii we receive the Promife., or Chrift promifed, by whom we are juftirled.

Bellarmme again objecting 9 Hoc non multum refert: nam utrumque e/? mfirumentum Dei.

He anfwers ', Plunmum refer t 9 quia ficul Sacra men-ta quam\>ts aliquo fenfu poJji&t diet tnfirumenta no fir a, qvatenus per ilia tanyuam per media aJJ'equimur jinem no fir urn, proprie tamen punt tnfirumenta Dei: fie eti-am fides , quam^is pojjit loocari tnfirumentum Dei, quta Deus jufttjicat nos ex fide ($* per fdem, Rom. 3. 20. propria tamen eft instrumentumnftrum . Deus nos baptt-<>it^ ££ pretty non nojmettpp', nos credtmus tn Chrt-fiuz>ty non Deus.

If you defire more to this purpofe, besides what hath

been (aid before, I refer yai to Mr. I?/./* of" the Cove-

K 4 nam ,

C 15* 3

nant, ebjp. 12. and Mr. /^*<k/ again ft Mr. Goodwin^

1. The non-rulfill:: C :::air:on c Covenant doth conaerr r^e Law, and for the

l^eing no freedom fro;v : by rhe New-Cofe-

nan:. hout fulfill] nd it ion of

it. :, and that

on the terms upon which i: 0 the

Vd-Covcnant, which will 6e fo muc

htbi in the Jimmad-

l 5j : :h hough

may be'jui; -

1. Of not en ant. 2. Oi ;. Or being guilty ncnr.

: .. e orten faid ) are but n. That we are gui-: ^e condemn co ; and . and the m( noed,

and Condemn -

Ads Ij :.

2. T: faience with ¥:.

it re-

5. Y fee that I do . vhere-

Conditions of Juiti-. both now and f llxL 1 not much pofe y

ledgit?

:hemi who

-/ o: Af*/-

thew did relate thofe words, \_l will not dnnt^hence-forth, E5V. ] out of due place, why are you fo peremptory in your Aphortfms as to fay 5 [ Luke doth clearly fieal^ of two Cups, and doth fubpw the fa words to the jirh, which was before the Sacramental ] ?

3. Why do you call that Supposition, [/f Luke had not written ] a merry one ? Is it ridiculous to fuppofe fuch a thing >

Let us fuppofe ( fays iMr. Cawdrcy and Mr. Palmer ) Of the that Queji'ion had not been put to our Sxygotir, and that Sabbarh, the Apoftie had not written his Eptftle to the Ephefi- Part 2. ans, &c. ] c.£. p.i27.*

May not one as well fport with this Suppofition of theirs, as you with that of mine > Luke himfclf ihews, That he wrote his Gofpel after others, Lu\. 1.1. Probable it is, that he wrote after Matthew and Mark • -And how mould any reading only thefe, imagine that thofe words [ / will not drtnl^, &c. ] were meant of any other than the Sacramental Cup, they not making mention ( no not in appearance ) of any other ?

Apud Matthamm (inquit Amef. ) 16. 29. pronomen Contra iflud demon fir at i\>um, \_ ex hoc fruit u V$t'ts\ necejfario Bella r. refertur ad Mud, quod precedenttbus "verbis fuit eodem Tom. 3. pronomine demon^ratum^ f Hoc eff fanguis meus ]. A4. c . 1.

Though Matthew and Marl^ had not written, yet it §.48. had been no fuch boldnefs to fuppofe Luke to relate fome words out of that order wherein they were fpoken, fuch Anticipations ( as I faid, and you do not gain-fay it ) being ufual in the Scripture.

Thus again Amefius ', Ex tpfo Luca ( quamVts tbi lb d m tranfponantur 'verba ) contra colltgttur aperte, ilia yer-ba perttnere ad Calicem Myfticum & Sacramcntalem Ccena Domini. Nam cap, 22. i 7. dicitur D cm inns gra-tias egiffe fuper illud poculum, in quo dicit fru&um W-tis potfea manfiffe^ eodem modo quo v. 1 9. gratia* egit fuper panem. Hac autem graft arum aft tone tntelligi benediclionem £5* Confecrattonem Sacramentalem conce. dtt Bellai minus, cap. 10. &c."

1. It is fuch a Juftification, as the Apoftle where he ibid.Sc 80. doth profeffedly treat of that Subject, doth {c^rcc ever mention : nor yet do Divines ufe to fpeak of it. Therefore your [ totus Mundus Theologorum Reformat or um ],

C 154:

x* Vox, prxtcrca nihil. Why do vou alledge none of them ?

^uris confultos tnim in ha: cauf* minus moror. But

and if we maintain the word [ Juflijicatton ] is taken in

fenfu forenjl ; What of that > May it nor yet neverthe-

Lfsbe as I fuppofe it is, v/^,. That Justification at the

Laft Judgment is only a full manireihtion of tha: Juftih-

cation which we have here, and net ( as you affirm ) our

actual, moftpropet andcompleat Justification, a* if here

our Jultification were but potential, \i and in-

compJeat >

flcdul. AmtfiM handling this Point, faith, Jufttficatio eft

lib.l.c.ij. fententiA pro aunt tat 10, \j non phyficam Altquam ant

§. 7* rextern commuiaxtonem denot.it in S. liter is^ feu foren-

femdut moralem ilU/n y qu& in SententiA pronunttattone

Qf rebut.ittme confifltt.

Yet he hath nothing at all (that I fee) of Juftificati-on at tlie Great Judgment 5 much lefs that it is the actual? moil proper and compha: J unification. , He faith moreover ; Sententi.i Ioac fust; 1. tn mentc

lota.* $ 9, p if qnafi concepts per modern decrets )uftijicandt. 2. fttttin Chrifto capite noftro a mcrtuis )am rejurgente pronunt t.t tit. 3. Virtualiter pronunttMur ex prima tlLt relatione, ef*A exjide t,ig<mr.ita exurgtt. 4. Ex-prejje pronvnciatur per S tntum Dei xejlantem Spirit1-bips no'lns reconciiut.ionem nostrum cum Deo, —, In hoc te?rimonio S:i ttns non t.trn proprte tpfa ju/itjic/t-tioconfifrtt, jnant a ft* *Us ante a cosicejf a perception per aftum jidei fUM tt m .

But as for the proqpuncingof this Sentence at the Lait Judgment, he doth not (o much as make any mention of it. Neither doth Cafotn ( that I find ) in his Initiations, though he treat at large of Justification, and that in fen fit jorenf^ fpeak any tiling of Justification at the

Judgment; nor indeed any that I mccr with, e: it be on the by, as BttcaniM and MjccoYsph, who agree with me, as I have (hewed before.

2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after, That fo

Faith may appear true and genuine, fuch as doth indeed

receive drift, and fo j.iitifie^ Is not this a Efficient

£ inquired after } But in that which

iRegnnm^ t$e. -.ire extra

>rgct that wen:. - incation •,

C 155 3

or at leaft that I do not make the Condition of Juftifka-tion and of Salvation every way the fame as you fome-times do. This may fufhce for your two firft Objections.

To the Third and Fourth, I anfwer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant \ Partiad.i [ E- De Jufiit. mm ] non femper ret cdufam denotdt^ fed illations con- Habit, feqmntiam^ Jive a can fa, five ab ejfecto, five a (igno^ cap.^i. ad feu undecunque petttam ; .—• Stc quanAo thrift** dicit Object. <?. electis^ Venite btnedtcti^ <5c. Efurivi emm, $c par-t tenia ilia non cum can fa faiutis y fed t

c * m fig no c auf a connect it ur. Nam ilia- Maccovius de Juftific. bona o r era^ qu>A tbi recenfentur^ funt Dijb. io. J-ftfjicatur Jigna ipcta fidet, adoptiows 9 infition^s m quis ex opertbu* apudDe-Lhnftum^ prAdeflinationis ac favor is di- um non jufitfibatione cau-yum, quA funt verA cas.JA ftiutis /*, fed )uftijicatione effc-

You are therefore too tree and forward eti v!> fignt. in faying, That the Uies pretended for this enquiring after friere Signs are frivolous. What though the bufinefs at Judgment be to enquire of the Caufe, and to fentence accordingly ? May not the Caufe ( take it in the Law-fcnfe ) be made to appear by Signs, even as the Caufe ( in the Logical-fenfe ) doth appear by the Effect, and the Tree by the Fruit ? That Obedience is tp(a Caufa, de qua qu&ntur, the terms [ Therefore"] and [Becau[e~\ do not prove* no more than the term [_For~], And here I may with better reafon fay than you did, Appdlo totum Mundum Thcologoritm Re-for ma to rum.

But here I mufl mind you of one thing, which ( it feems ) you do nor obferve, v/^,. That thofe terms which you build upon, [ Bccaufe ] and [ Therefore J are neither in the Original, nor any Tranflation ( tha:I know ) except the Vulgar Latin, which hath Qwd.

Bellarmine urging thefe Particles, A me (in* anf vers, Mat.25 .21,23. Nulla parttcula repent ur m(i in Vtr(tone non probanda. Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3.

I. You cite abundance of Texts, but to what pur- g 0 , pofe ? You would have me try whether thev fpeak only of Signs, or or Conditions. Conditions of what do you mean } Oi Justification > That you are to prove : but

how

how it can be proved by any of thofe Texts, I cannot fee. They fpeak of the neceffity of Obedience unto Salvation, of God's rendringunto Men according to their Deeds, of the reward of good Works, &c. But doth it therefore follow, that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Juitirkaiion > I am loth to be fo plain with you, as fometimes you are with me, other wife I could fay, I have feldom feen fo many places of Scripture alledged to fo little purpofe. Some of thofe places you feem to lay more weight upon, as John 16, 17. and z Cor. ?. 10. and 1 John 3. 21, 23. For here you do not only note the places, but you aifo cite the words, as if they were more efpecially to be obferved.

Nov/ for that J oh. id. 27. [The father hath loved you^ beca:<fe jo * have loved me ] ; What do you inter from thence ? That Works juftirie as part of the Condition of Juftification ? If this be a good Confequence, I may fay, Reddat mibi minam qut me docuit Dtalecri-csm.

1. Works and Love differ as well as Works, though Works flow both from Love and Faith. In Loc. Calvm makes thofe words [ becaufe -you have toyed

me~], to denote an unfeigned Faith, which proceeded! from a fincere Affection, here called Love. And I grant that fuch a Love, */*,. ofDefire doth go before Juitirying Faith.

3. God doth love thofe that love him, and that love-Chrift, amore amiatiA \ vet amove benevolent /*, he loves us before we love him, 1 J oh. 4. 10,19-lhid< Secundum hanc rattomm (tnqatt Calvinus ) hie ! dt-

etmur amari a Deo> dum Chrtftum dtltgtmus, qxta pignut hdbemm pater n& ew Jde&onis, &c m

That in 2 Cor. $. 10 [ According to, &c. ] avails your Caufe nothing. For may not Works be confidered at theLait Judgment, fo as that we (hall receive according to them, and yet be no par: of the Condition of Juftification, but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are jufci-fied ? So for that in Jch.^. 22. \_hecanfe we keep his Commandments^ &c. ] In Loc. 1 fy u i tn Calvm 5 Non inftlllgit funiatam ejfe in

oforthus nostris ot+ndt fidnciarn 3 Jedw hoc tan turn tnfi-tngt p'etdienh 2? fncerum Det turn.

cultum. Nee ab r urdum ytdert debet^ quod parttculam Caufalem ( N. B. ) ufarpet, utcunc/ue de caufd non dt-(putetur. Nam ace 1 dens infeparabtle inter dum Can ft loco font folet. Quemadmodum ficfuts dtcat^ "Quia Sol Meridie fttpra nos lucet^ plus tunc ejfec alerts* Neque tntm fequttur ex luce or in calorem.

1. You lhall confound Juflification and Salvation, be- ib\d. twixt which ( you know ) I make a great difference.

2. I fee not that any of the Texts alledgeddo prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Juftification, or to Right to Salvation. Obedience is an Argument k poffer/ore of our Right unto Salvation, and a prtore a means of our enjoyment of it. More than this by any Text of Scripture ( I prefume ) will not be proved.

Your Firft and Second hav e nothing bur mere Words. Ibid*

Ad 3. Ianfver, No more is the word \_'J u ft tfication ] in any of the Texts which you cited.

Ad 4. What trick do you mean ? Or what prejudice > Do you fo wonder at this, That I cannot be perfwaded by any of your Allegations, that we are juftified by our per-fonal Righteoufnefs > Or thai Works concur with Faith unto J unification, as being part of the Condition that the Gcfpel do-:h require, ttiat thereby we may be juftified } Then all Proteftant Divines are Men to be wondred at, or at leaft never confidered the Texts, which you al-ledg ; and furely that were a great wonder.

Ad 5. For Juftification at Judgment, I will fay no more until I fee more proof of your Opinion about it.

Ad 6. The Qualifications fpokenof tend to that end, That we may enjoy Salvation, but not that we may have light to Salvation : They only rnanifeit that Right,which by Faith in Chrift we do obtain.

Ad 7. Of James his words enough already.

Ad 8. I with you were more Argumentative, andlefs-Cenforious, or at leaft more wary in exprdfing your cenfure. To fay [ It ts next to non-fenfe ] is over-broad • If you had faid, That you could fee no good fenfe in ir^ this had not been fo much, as truly I cannot in your words. For may not a thing be fpoken by way of Sentence, and yet by way of Argumentation too ? I think, Yes 3 when a reafon is given of the Sentence. Bar what;

ihoiild

lliould that in Lnl*e 19. 17. torce me to confefs > That Works are more than Fruics of Faith, by which we are juitihed ?

Why do you Rand to much upon the word [ Becaufe ],

whereas you acknowledg that Works are no proper caufe ?

May it nor be laid, [ This is a good Tree, becaufe it

forth good Fruit ? ] and vet the goodneis or' the

Tree its Fruit 5 and this is but

of the other. So what mould I fee

in 1 none mould be laved by Chrilt,

but fuch a dient unto him, that I fee • but not

that Obedience is that v\ I.. 11 e ( at ieait in pari )

juitiried. Yea, I think your confideration,

Tha g ana< build upon, ipeaking

Obedience, and not o: Faith at all,

cither mull be interpreted, That Obedience and Works

anfneceflary Fruits ot JuitifyingFaith, orelfethe;

rfier than en to make

C v , n of Juitiricati-

on . ^ -

. I know not : Bur g nents Merits, ( : m urging ) but to an-

hich I org .hole Script

feeni to m ion, than with Faith un-

to J uion,

v., 1 need U\y no n j: i r -

h The! ence:

1 l ' and fo if them, That O

enc,e is tl 1 Fhat itisTihc

thofe Teas. If

youfay, 1 F***S

^current with though it neceiTarilv Bow

. .1 as the realon oi

e i591

of Juftifymg Faith. If Sententia be Prdmii Adjudication then ( I think ) Caufa Senttntta mufi be alfo Caufa Pr&mn adjudtcati. The word [For ], when we fay [Justified for F<ttth~]i muft note either the formal, or tt^ meritorious Caufe: the rat to Sententia may be drawn * l from that, which is neither the formal nor the meritorious Caufe of Juftification, nor yet a Condition or Inftru-ment of it, but only a Fruit and Effect of that which is fo.

3. The Scripture doth not fay, That Works do juftifie us in that fenfe as you take it, v/-^. as joint Conditions with Faith of Juftification.

4. I think it not fo proper to fay, [ We muft be judged, and receive our Reward by our Works ] as [ according to our Works ]. And however, to be judged by our Works, is not as much as to be juftified by them, other-wife than as they are Fruits and Effe&s of Faith, and fo manifeft our Intereft in Chriit, by whom all that believe are juftified, Arts 13. 39.

$. Your [ For ] muft needs be the fame with [ Propter ]. When you fay, [ We are justified for Faith ] fore* ly in Latin it muft be propter Fidem. Here [ enim ] will not be fu it able.

1. That which I intimated is this, That in refpedt of ibid. God, fuch an outward judicial Proceeding needed not, no more than God doth need a Sign. Whether the Judicial Proceeding be all upon mere Signs, and the Ipja Caufa. Jufth'tA not meddled with, is not to thepurpofe. Though why may not that which is in fome refpect Ju&itid Cau-

/*, and fo Juftttia Perfonx quoad iff am Caufam^ be S'tgnum Fidei, & per confequens JuftttU Chriffi nobis per FtdemimputatX) qua fimplutier •& abfolute juffifi-carnur }

2. and 3. That which is the Condition of Glorification, i? not therefore the Condition of Juftification, or of right to Glorification, which doth immediately flow from Juftification, or at leaftis infeparably joined with it. No Man can be accufed to be Reus Pcen^ and fo to have no right to Glorification •, but he that is accufed co be Reus Culpa : and from that Accufation we are juftified by Faith, which is made manifeft by our Works.

I. I perceive I did miltake your meaning, the contex- ibid.

ture

ture of your words being fuch> that one might eafily mi-flake the meaning of them.

2. Your Affirmation is no Proofs and as well may you lay, That becaufe in other places of Scripture the Righteous are ufually fpoken of in refpecl of Perfonal Righte-oufnef>,in opposition to the wicked and ungodly therefore all thofe places prove, That Perfonal Righteoufnefs is that whereby we are juliified. Becaufe we mull: have a Righreoufnefs inherent in us, as well as a Righteoufnefs imputed to tis * are we therefore juilified as well by the one as the o.her } Appeilo E\>angelium partter ac totum Mundnm Theologorum Reformat or urn. Ibsd.&ii. I' Your j4phorspns tend to prove Juftification by Works to which end you prefs the words of St. James? and reject the Interpretation which our Divines give of them.

2. Paul indeed and James did not confider Works in the fame fenfe. For Vaul considered them as concurring with Faitfi unto Juftification, and fo rejected them : but J awes looked at rhem as Fruits of Juitifying-Faith, and fo aiTei t-d the neceiiity of them. You do not rightly un-derftand Pant's words, Rom. 4.4. of which I have fpoken before. He doth not fpeak absolutely 3 for fo he fhould quite abolii'h Works, which in other places he doth maintain and plead for, as without which we muft not think to be faved : but he fpeaks in reference to Juiti-fica ; ion, and fo he excludes Works even for this very rea-fon, becaufe the) cannot juftifie* except they be meritorious, and fiich as that the reward of them is of debt; and not of Grace, W^,. pardoning Grace y for oiherwife whatever reward the Creator dorh bellow upon the Crea-ture> it is of Grace- Yet it doth not *C§j (' ine»uh} Sunt oje- therefore follow that Faith is meritori-r'r\ lilts del turn fr&wi- ous, becaufe we pre juilified by Faith. um txpenditur yuoddatur Fcr Faith doth juftifie Relatively, in re-jOZck iratu/tum e s 7. Cal- fpeft of Chrill's Righteoufnefs, which it •in. Infftt. lib. 3. c. 11. appfehendcth, and by which fo appre-$^% % Vtithb$L flura. hended wc aie jollified : but fo Works cannot juftifie •, they muft either juftifie for their own worth, or not at all, fave only Declarative ', by manifeftingour Faith, and fo our Juftification. See Mr. Bdllpti the Coven, c.^.p. 19, &c.6.p.69,7°- L

1. The

„. I. The Scriptures do plainly fo diftinguiih, as to deny %u Working, that thereby we may be justified, Rom, 3.18. and 4. ?. Yet to affer , Working, that thereby we may be fayed* Phil. 1.12. You will fay, That the former places fpeak of Meritorious arid Legal Working.

But, 1, All Working which is good, is legal, as I have ihevyed before^ i. e. according to the Rule and Prescript of the Law, even Gofpel-Obcdience is in that re-fpect Legal. And when the Apoftle doth exclude the Deeds of ihe Law from J unification, he doth not mean i( as fome take it ) Deeds done by the Power of the Law, without Grace, but Deeds which the Law doth prefcribe however done. For he denies that Abraham was juftifi-cd by his Works y yet doubtlefs they were not done without Grace.

The Apoftle taketh it as granted,That all Works whereby we ar^juftified, are meritorious: for ti there be no meritorioufnefs in them, he fuppofeth there is no being juflified by them. For indeed how can Working juftifie, if there be any defect and failing in it ? Therefore Faith it felf doth not juftifie in refpeel: of it felf; but in refped of Chrift whom it apprehendeth. See CaiVm Inft. Ut>. 3, *#p* 11. §.7. the words were before-cited.

To your Second • I b&ve always denied that there is the famereafoh of Salvation ( v/^> compleat) and J unification ^ and have always held, That J unification at Judgment is but a rrianifeftation of our jprefrnt Juftifica-tion.

To your Third; None is Reus Peenk, except he be Heps Culpa • and there is ho Reatm Culpa* but by tranf-grefling the Law, though it maybe aggravated, and fo the other, by the Gofpcl. But properly the not-fulfilling of the Condition of the Gofpel, taking it merely as a Condition, and not as a Duty, doth not bring a new Guilt, but only leaves a Man in the old Guilt, with art aggravation of it, he having no benefit of the Gbfpel to ftree him from his Guilt, and being the more deeply guilty, in that he neglected the Mercy which he might have obtained \

L 1. Some

C i* 3

ibid. i. Some of your words ( Iconfefs ) 1 do not under-

ftand, nor can I fee what reference they have to mine in the AmmAfoerftons. But when you fpeak of Right to Juftification and Salvation, youfeemto mean Sentential juftification at Judgment. For elfewe have here Juftification it felf, and not only a right unto it, though we have only a right to Salvation, and not Salvation it felf ; I mean in refpeft of the fulnefs and perfection of it. And though Juftification and Salvation flow from the fame Covenant, yet there is more required unto Salvation, than unto JuftiHcation by that Covenant: and fo you al-fo hold in refpeft of your firft Juftification.

1. You trouble your felf more than needs with your Diitinftions, which ( as you do ufe them ) do but involve the Matter in more obfeurity. Surely my words of themfelves, [ Freedom from all fin in refpeft of imputation, and from all condemnation for fin ] are far more perfpicuous, than when you fo multiply Diftinftions to find out ( forfooth J the meaning of them. For, i. Is not [ Freedom ~] more plain than £ Liberation > ] though they both fignifie the fame thing. 2. Can there be an Active Liberation without a Pafllve, or a Paffive without an Aclive ? If God free us, are we not freed ? And if we be freed, doth not God free us > What need then to diftinguiih in that manner > If freedom relate to God, it is Active ^ if to us, it is Paflive. And what difference "betwixt Liberation, or Freedom, ( W^. from the Imputation of Sin, and Condemnation for Sin ) and Abfoltition ?

3. The Reprobate are Condemnati per fenttntiam ■■ Judicis, J oh. 3.18. ttiamfi fententtA publico, proldtio^ *')ifque plena executio in ulttmum ufju% diem fit dt-lata.

4- Not only right to Abfolution, but Abfolution it felf is perfeft to a Believer through Chrift, Rom. 8. i # Neither are there any more Conditions of Juftification at any time than Faith: though more fins be every day committed, and fo more ate to be pardoned, yet ftill 1 Faith as well afterward as at firft doth procure the pardon of th"ern, without Works, as therein concurrent with it.

Non\

C ■!** 3

$?on aiiamjuftitiam (faith Cabein ) adfinem ufyue Inftit.l *; *»itx habent Jideles* quhm qua tillc (nempe Korn. 4. C?f«I4*§*U< 2 Cor. $.■) defcrtbttttr.

y. Actual Abfolution, and Judicial per' Jententiam Judicts, is in this life, and that perfect, though there be 110c a perfect declaration of it till the Laft Judgment.

6. When you fay, [ Condemnation ps not perfeft, if any at all, ttU the La ft Judgment], you do in effect queftion whether there be any Juftification till then. For

if no Condemnation, then no Juftification. But Con- ^ *

demhation* (I fay) is perfect here, though the Sen- f if **v tence be net publickly pronounced, and fully executed ***£*' • till hereafter. *" c f *'*.

7. I do not fpeak of freedom from all fin as the Anti- ™*° * ?t ~ nomians do, as if God did fee no fin in his Children, and therd °j™ they had no fin to be humbled for : but I fay, That God £' r J» M doth not impute fin unto them, fo as to condemn them e * ey>e ' for it. And fo much furely the Scripture doth fay, if I underftand it, 2. Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 1. For freedom

from future fins, I have faid enough before.

8. The word [Juftification] may be ufed in fenfu, Wftdmarfa; ( as I have fhewed before) and yet Juftification at Judgment be but a manifeftation of our prcfent juftification. Your Quotations out of the Ctytitans are not againftme, fori fay, Sentmtia Judicts ]am lata eff-^ etiamfi in extremo demum dte plene publtczque

fit rervdanda. Ifpeakalfoof an Authoritative Manifeftation j' and therefore your Inftance of a Woman mani-fefting a Felony, OV. is not to the purpofe.

Obedience as a Fruit of Faith is neceffary, both necsf °1-fit ate praceptiy fo that it is fin to omit it; and alfo ne-ccjjitate medt'h fothat we cannot be faved without it. But if it be a Means, ( fay you } then it is a Condition. Well, but a Means and a Condition f fay I ) of what > Of Salvation } It is granted. Of Juftification } It is denied, neither doth this follow upon the other.

Taking Chrift for Lord is virtually included in taking Midi him for Prieft •, fee Rom. T4. 9. and zCor. 5.15. They <»nnot be divided^ though thev be diftinguiihed. That L 3 Faith

Faith which reeeiveth Chrift as Piieft, doth alfo receive him as Lord, either exprefly, if Chrift be propounded as Lord, or at leaft implicitly : yet Faith only, as receiving Chrift as Prieft, doth juftifie, for the reafon alledged before, to which I fee nothing that you have faid of force to refel it. Wicked Men cannot unfeignediy receive Chrift as Prieft, whiles they retain a Heart ftanding out in rebellion againft Chrift as Lord. Can they indeed embrace Chrift as fatisfying for them, and yet not yeeld up themfelves in obedience unto him ? »

The Apoftle ( it fcems ) was of another mind > [ The love of Chrift (faith he) conftratneth u*. IF or we thus )udg^ That tf one died for all, then were all dead ; And that he dted for *U> that they which live, fhoutdnot henceforth live unto t he mfelves, but unto htm that died for them, androfe again ]. 2 Cor. J. 14? If*

And again, £ / am crucified with Chrtft* neverthelefi I live s jet not I, but Chrift liveth in me ; and the life which I now live y I live by Faith tn the Son of God> who loVedme, and gave himfelf for me ], Gal. x. 20.

This is the nature of that Faith which doth receive Chrift as a Reconciler, to work through Love, Gal.5.6. May I not retort upon you,and fay 3 When you have taught wicked Men, that Faith alone doth juftifie at firft, and tbey are willing to believe* will you perfwade them that they are unjulufied again, becaufe Works do not follow after > For my part, I know no unjufiifying of thofe who are once juftified. You fpeak fometimes of being juftified to day by Faith without Works, and of being unjuftified to morrow, or the day after, except Works come in and help to juftifie. But I fay, Faith without a promptitude to Works doth n©t juftifie at firft $ fuch as do not receive Chrift as Lord, and do good Works, when there is opportunity, were never juftified at all, they never had a true Juftifying-Faith, which is never without Works, as the feafonable Fruits and Effects of it: Yet Faith both at firft and laft doth juftifie without Works, as concurrent with it unto Juftification. What you fay of a willingnefs to receive Chrift, is nothing. For I fpeak of a true actual receiving, which I fay cannot be of Chrift as Prieft, except it be ( either exprefly or implicitly) of Chrift as Lord alfo: and yet we are juftified by receiving

him

trim in the one refpeft, and not in the other. None can have that Faith which juflificth, but they ihall have alfo other Graces and Works of Obedience in their feafon j Yet do not other Graces therefore, or Works juHifie as well as Faith.

Bdlarmtne objecting •, Tides Wrd poteft ret;fd adile. c °ntrd iitonefeparari. Bellar.

Amejins anfwers \ Altyua fides potest • talis ef} Von* ^ om - 4* tificia : fed ilia fides 3 cut nostr'tbutmttd juftificandi Vtr- "b.f.CQ. tut em, cum untonem fact at no fir i cum Chrifto, a Chrtftt ac ^ %' Spirttt* vivtficante^ C Sanfttficante non potest feparari.

Yet he faith J Tides non jufttfieat, ut refy'tcit praccepta /**d.cap^ , cperum factendorum, fed folnmmodo ut rtfytctt promtf- §• ^* Jionem graft a.

So Dr. Prtdeaux y Tides fola jufttficat, non rdtione extftentUy abfque jpe & chant a te, fedmunerts. Left.$, dejuftf. §.7.

And Mr. Bail of the Coven, c 6. p. 73, £ Abraham , Wat juft/fiedby Tatth alone ; but this Tatth ^though alone , in the Aft of' Jufttficatton, no other Grace co-worl^tng with it y was not alone in extftence^ did not Ue dead ttt htm y as a dormant and idle qualttj.*—* —.* Worlds then Thofe ( or a purpofc to tpal^ with God) juftfie as the pajjhe ^ords jest qualification ef the Subjeft, capable of Jufificatton, or a U*dg af-&s the qualification of that Tatth which ju/hfii>th \ or as ttrwards y they tejitfie or gtve proof that Taitb ts Itvelj.: but " ut ***} faith alone juftfiethy a* tt embraceth the promtfe of fee art Itttfe forgivenefi tn Jeftes Chrtfi ]. ta J 0 '*

Here by the way obkrvc how Amefius^vidMi^ Ball!^ a fi* Jpeak of Faith apprehending and embracing the Promife ^ which manner of fpeech may alfo be obferved in oilier eminent Divines 3 yet you fomewherc cenfure Mr. Cct~ ton fomewhat fharply for fpeaking in that manner.

I. If it be as difficult for the Underftanding to believe? Ibid, & 84, ( s. e. affent unto ) ChriiVs PrieiUy Office, as is his Kingly, then it feems alfo as hard for the Will to confent to.> or accept of the one as the other. If the Will be inclined to a things it will move the Unde. ftamiing to affent unto it. Quad \>aUe yolumss-, fie Ih tridimAs. That the Jews be ieved neither Ghiift's Kindly nor his h I ' Prieilly

Prieffly Office, was the perverfnefs of their Will, as well

as the error of their Under ftan ding. What the Papifts,

with whom you have met, do fay, matters little ^ we fee

what thfir great Rabbies fayand maintain in their Di-

fputations. Yet it is no ftrange thing, if even they alfo

now and then let fall foraething, wherein they give te-

fttmony to the Truth, though in the whole current of

their Difcourfes they oppofe it.

Contra Ameflus ilieweth, That Bellarmine in that very place

Jkllav, which you cite, doth contradict himfelf, whiles he is over-

Tom. 4= earneft to contradict Proteftants* Bellarminw hie im-

hb 6s c.\ % pltcat feipfum contradiclione^ ut nobts poffit contrad't~

'ad 2 2, cere.

Whereas you cite Rhet difclairning that which Bellarmine maketh to be the Opinion of Proteftants, W^,. That Chrift's Righteoufnefs rs the formal Caufe of Ju-ftification, I have faid enough about it before, V/^. That fome underftanding the Term one way 3 fome another, our Divines exprefs themfelves varioufly j yet all agree in the, thing it felf, >/*,. I hat Chrift's Righteoufnefs, through Faith imputed unto us, is that by which we are juftrfied • See Dawnant de J:<ftit. Habit, cap, 24. adj. where he anfwers this very Argument of BelUrmtne^ though he contract his words, and leave out thofe which you cite • but however, bpth there, and in other places which I cited before, he hath enough to this purpofe, concerning the formal Caufe of Juftihcatfon, and how the Righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed to us may be fo termed. ZcB. J. Dr. Prtdeaux alfo (I fee ) is offended at Bellarmine

t)e Jvfttf. for faying, Sedita imputari nobis Chriffi juffitiamy ut §.II. per earn formaliter )ufti nommemur^ & ftmus^ id not cum refta rat tone p-agnare contendimits 5 as if this were the Opinion of Proteftanrs.

At yuis unquam e noftris ( faith the Doctor ) not per ]uftitiam Chrift i imputatam-, formatter yufttficari afferuit 3

But fee how and in what fenfe he doth difclaim that Opinion \ Annon for mam qvamlibet tnh&rentem^ qui formaliter jufti denomtnemur^ femper explofhnus ?

In this fenfe alfo Da^enant doth reject it $ Quod dicit JBellarminus, impojftbile eftfe, ut, per juftitiam Chrifti imput a tarn formaliter jufti fimta, ft per formaliter in

telligat

C 1*7 3

tdligat inh&renter) nugat agjt, at que tribuit Mam ip-fam fenttnttam Protefiantibus y quam oppugn ant. De Juftit. Habit. cap.z+. ad^. Yet in another fenfe he holds that Chrift's Righteoufnefs imputed to us, is the formal Caufcof our Juitification ; the words wete before cited.

And as others, fo Dr. Prideaux fpeaks the very fame Vb/fara* thing, faying, Juflificamur per )ufitiarn thrift*,'non perfonA^ qua ipfe eftveftitpjj, fed merits qua fuos >« fi/ty nobis irnpiitatam.

But for the principal thing intended in this Seftion of yours, Though wicked Men may be more ready to receive Chrift as their Juftifier, than as their Ruler, (fo you exprefs it ) ; yecit follows not, that the receiving of Chrift as a Ruler, is .that Aft of Faith which doth julti-fie. For the difficulty of a thing is no good Argument to prove the neceflity of it, either at all, or to fuch a purpofe.

2. My fecond Note was to this purpofe, quite to take away the force of your Argument, and fo (I think ) it doth notwithstanding your Reply. For have we r.ot God's means to overcome chat averihefs of nature, if the receiving of Chrift as Lord do neceffarily follow Pardon, as well as if it be a Condition of Pardon? When I make iz a Fruit of Juftifying-Faith to take Chrift for Lord, I do not fay but that Chrift may at once be received both as Prieft and as Lord, and fo muft, if he be fo propounded -I fpeak of exprefs propounding and receiving: But my meaning is, That though we be juitified by receiving Chrift as Prieft, perhaps not yet hearing of him ( eft-prefly) as Lord, yet that Juftifying-Faith will alfo.put forth it felf to take Ghrift for Lord, when he is fo fet forth unto us. To be juftified before we take Chrift as Lord, is not to be juitified, before we take Chrift as Chrift. For Chrift is Chrift as Prieft, though not only as Prieft. Indeed to receive Chrift in refpect of one Office, fo as to refufe him in refpcci of another, were not to receive Chrift as Chrift : but that is not the Cafe 3s I do put it. And for the moral neceflity of raking Chi ill as Lord, which you ask what it is, if it be not a Conditio on: I fuppofe it may be morally necefiary as a thing commanded, and yet be no Condition of J unification. For L 4 can

<an nothing be commanded, and fo be morally neceflary, but it muft be commanded and be neceffary to that end, that thereby we may be juftified } Works are commanded, and fo neceffary, yet you hold them to be no Condition of our Juftification ac firft, neither indeed are they afterward, as that of Gen. 15. 6- with Rom. 4. 2,3. doth ir-refragably prove.

Your Argument I thus retort, [ He that is juftified, is in a State of Salvation, and fhould be faved, if he fo died. But he that hath Faith without Works, is juftifi^ ed ; Ergoi he is in a State of Salvation,' and if he fo die, /hall be faved j. Anfwer for your felf as you pleafc : for my part I fay, The fame Faith which received Chrift as Prieft, and fo juftifieth, is ready alfo to receive Chriit as lord, when he is fo propounded 5 even as that Faith, whichjuftifieth, is ready to produce Works, when they are required.

84, 1. You fhould not only fuppofe, but prove, that the

excluding of Obedience from Juftification ( as co-partner with Faith in juftifying ) is a Scandal given, and an Error.

z. If it were not Paul's defign to advance Faith above Love, CV. in point of Juftification, what then means his fo frequent aflerting Faith to be that whereby we are juftified, and his never-mentioning Love, SV. tothatpur-pofe ? • , . ■ *

3. Your felf acknowledg an aptitude in Faith to ju-ftifie as apprehending Chriit, and I acknowledg, that bc-fidcs this God hath appointed Faith for that purpofe, in refped of i s aptitude, making choice of it rather than of any other Grace.

ihtJL I have alfo oft enough confidercd what you have faid.

Jujtsficatto ("faith Dawn ant] fur gat ^ & ablutt h rcatu%$ poena pcccatt^ tdque uno moment 0^ ££ perfeile^ De J u ft it. Habtt. caP.z^. ad Arg. 4.

Though Juftification be perfect, as freeing from all Condemnation ; yet fo long as there may be Accufation, there is need of Juftification. Whereas you fpeakof the Law juftifying, Cfc, h ts God that jvfttjjetb^ Rom. 8-33. though according to theGofpelor New-Covenant,

(for that, Iprefume, you mean by the Law ) and by the imputation of Chrift's Righteoufnefs. Chrift as our , Advocate doth plead our Caufe, and procure our J unification ; and at the Laft Judgment, as God's Vicegerent, he will publickly pronounce Sentence.

I fee nothing againft me, but that ftill you run upon /£*V.& $f* this Suppofition, That there is the fame Condition of Salvation, and of Juftirlcation at Judgment, whereas I fuppofethat Works are a Condition of Salvation, as full and compleat, but not fo of J unification at Judgment, that being but a manifeftation of our prefent Juftihcation, and fo Works looked at but as Fruits and Evidences of Faith, whereby we are juftified. If lilyri-cu* his Doctrine were the fame with this, his fe!low-Pro-teftams f I dare fay ) would not blame him for it. Neither do I fee how lllyricus could, or any rational Man can grant Works to be neceffary Fruits of Faith, and yet deny them to be means or Conditions of Salvation, in refpeft of the a&ual and full enjoyment of it. ' For, furely as Faith it'felf is required that we may be juftified, fo the Fruits of Faith (to be produced in due feafon ) are required that we may be glorified. But why do you thus itill jumble together Juftification and Salvation, faying, [ Illyric;us his Error was in denying Works to be ne~ ccjjary to J'unification and Saltation > ] Yet when you cite Bucer and Melanfthtn as afTcrting the neceflky of good Works, there is not a fyllable in them about Juftihcation, as if Works were neceffary in that refpect.

Bucer in that Conference at Ratifbon<> which you cite, though he maintain Inherent Righteoufnefs, (as who doth not } ) yet he faith, Hie juftttti nemo )ufitficatur coram Deo juflificatione Vit&> as he is cited byLud.de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. ubi plura \>ide.

So Mdantthon is cited by Be liar mine as holding with Z)e Jufiif, other Proteftanrs of prime note, that, Solajides juftifi- ltb.le.14. cat, & tamen fides yu& juffificat, non eft foU.

And Wotton faith, ( DeRccoval. Part z. lib.i.cap.ig. Num. 4. ) Lutherus, Melan&hon, Calvinus, Chemni-tius, ei fotifilmum caufia nos tnfufa C^ wh are ate )u,ftitii jufttfican non pofi'e contendunt^ yub'd ilia in nobis it a imperfecta fit) ut m Dn conJ}ed'i*r?ty qwm ad judt-■■ \ / candurn

C 170 3

c&ndam accedat, prodtre non audeat* But of Bucer and Melantthon more by and by.

For llljrtcns^ what in other places he may hold I cannot tell, but in the Centuries ( whereof he was the chief Author) he fcems to agree with other prime Prote-ftants; For he brings in 27 Arguments, whereby the Apoftles (he faith) prove, Hommem folk fide abfque openbus Legis )uftificari ; Among which the 13d is this; Dua ftmt tantum W<e ad falmem, $$ nulla eft ter~ tia, &c. Vna harum eft per opera Legis 5 altera eft per fidem in Chriftum^qui pro n ^bts Legem impleytt. Sed tlla^ qua eft per opera Legis, poftulat a nobis integerri-mam impleitonem^ quam quia nemo pot eft praftare y om-nes damnantur a Lege, La yeri qu& per fidem eft, gratis propter epera Chriflt, don at )uftitiam & tit am credentibus. Qui ergo \>ult per opera falvari propria , is alteram viam tollit $ £? e contra, qui y>uh per fidem fait an gratis, is non pot eft per opera fua jufiificart. Gal. ?. ( perhaps it fhould be Gal. 3 ) Rom- 4. C2 10. Ephefz.

Here he feems indeed to confound Juflification and Salvation, as if there were the fame reaibn of both, and Works were no more required unto Salvation than unto Juflification. But furely by Salvation he meant a Right unto Salvation, which doth neceffarily go a]ong with purification ^ and whatfoever it be that doth juftifie, the fame alfo doth give a riglit unto Salvation. For other -wife he makes Works and new Obedience neceffary to the full enjoyment of Salvation.

For he treats at large de nova obedientia feu bonps ope-ribu» jufltficatorum ^ and he goes through the feveral Commandments, and brings in a Catalogue of Good Works which are required in every Commandment.

Though he fometimes only expreffeth thefe Reafons, why new Obedience and good Works mult be performed, ut glorificetur Dei**, G? inferViatur proximo^ & ftnt te-ftimonta yer* fidei • yet even thefe reafons do imply that new Obedience and good Works are neceiTary unto Salvation, W<,. inthatfenfeaslhave explained. For can any think to be faved, except they have a care to glorifie God, to ferve their Neighbour, and to give tejftimonyof

their Faith ?

' . But

But fometirnes he fpeaks more exprefjy to this purpofe, ibid. Col. faying, lis qui jid& gratis accepzrunt remijfwnem pecca* 349, &c m torum 9 Apo/loli ttism de no^itate Vtt& concionantur^ c5* fcenas commtnantur rurfes fefs peccatps fine pamtentia poUuenttbtss.

And among other places he aliedgeth that Fhil.z. Cum timore & tremore veftram ipforum falutem operammi. • And among other reafons, Why all mult repent and walk in newnefs of Life, he brings in this as the fixth \ Subitum extreme jfpdicji advent us j And cites that 1 Joh. 2. Manete m eo, ut cum apparuent^ fiduciam habeamus^ & non pudefamus in adventu ejus : And that 1 The//', f. Ipfi plane fcitts^ quid #* es *B g Domini y ut fur in nofte^ it a venturus ft; Cum enim dixertnty Pax & tuta omnia , tuncrepenttnus ets tpgruet mtentu* y ficut dolor partus mulieri pr&gnanti, &c. Protndt nc dormiamus-) C^r.

And for the next reafon he brings in this 5 Panx xter$i& impcenitentium, citing Rom. 2. Juxta durittam tuam, C cor pan it ere nefcium* colligis tibi ipfi tram m die irs.^ quo patefiet juftum judicium Dei, &e. Ventura eft in-dignatto^ tra, ajfliftio-, fi? 4nxietas adverfus omnem a-ntmam hominis perpetrantts malum^ &c. ' This ( I think ) is fufficient to ihew that lUyricus (at lead when he helped to write the Centuries} was as much for Obedience and good Works as either Bucer or Mdantthon^ for any thing that I fee you cite out of them, and that he made them fo Fruits of Faith, whereby we are juftified, and have right to Salvation, that withal he made them Means or Conditions of Glorification y and more than this the words of Bucer and Melanithon do not import.

Whereas you fay, that Day>enan?s words, which I cited, have nothing that you diilike, fave only that Grace is faid to be infufed m ipfi aBu )uftificandh which yet you (hew how it is not to be difliked 5 you confider not for what end I cited thofe words, v/^. To (hew that all Proteftants generally acknowledg and profefs, ( fo he, . Omnes emm agnofcimus^ & dare projitemur ) that Inherent Righteoufnefs doth go along with Imputed Righ-teou fnefr, though it be this and not that by which we arejultified, and confecjuentjy, That Works are neceffa-

C 172 3

ry as Fruits of Faith, and Means of Salvation, though yet Works have no Copartnerihip with Faith in justifying.

Neither Bucer nor Melanfthan, nor any of our famous Divines that I know, did teach other Doctrine. And be-caufe you feem to carry it fo as it Melanfthon and Bucer had been of your Opinion y though what I have faid already may fuffice to ftiew the contrary, yet I will add a little more. Tom. I. Melancl'aon faith -, Plane £5* dare dice, Obedientta

loc.de nrftra, hoc eff, ju/titiabonx confronts* feu operum, qu& bonis Deus nobis percent, necejjario fiq*i reconciliatiowm

Oper* debet.

But here he faith no more for Works than generally

Protcflants do •, he is far from making th.m concurrent

with Faith unto Juft'ification.

/bid. de Again, Sednos (injvit^ fciamvs fuum locum ejfe

Vocab. juftitia operum, longe yei 0 alia confdatsone opus ejfe tn

fid. qx&rendd reconciliations

i'md. And again 5 Cum dicitur, Jide )uftificamur, non ait-

uddicetur^ qncm qt*oi propter Eiltum Dei acciptmus ? e-mijlonem peccatorum, & reputamur j^ftt. Et quia, overtet apprehends hoc beneficturn dtcitur fide, t. e. Ji-ducid mtfert cordis, promtffk propter Chriftum. 2 nt ell-gat ur ergo profofit10 correlative, fide fumus ]uftt, 1. e. per msfencordiam propter 1ilium Det fumus )uft't feu accepts. Tom. i.de And he alledgeth Bafil, faying ; Sine ulla fophtjtica Ecclef detrahit ju/tificationem bonis o^enbus 5 nee loquitur de p. 133, ceremontaltbusj fed de omnibus ^mutibus \ nee tenxxm loquitur de operibus ante reno^ationem^ fed de vtrtutsbus tnrtnrtatts, ac jubet fentire, quid fold Jiductd m'tferi-cordid. propter Chriftum promifj's. juftt fumus. —-—. H<tc efl f- tnquit Baiilius ) perfetta S> tntegrd gloriatio in Deo, quando neqtidem propter juftttiam fuam altquis effertur, fed agnofcit fibi dceffe veram jujiittam^Jide au-tern fold m Chrtjium ju/tifican, &c* In Pr&fat. Bucer alfo commends Melantthon for faying s Sola fide Enerrat. juflificamur-, folius mifericordu Jiducia yuftt pronuntia-EpifloU mur.

ad Rem. And prefently he adds 3 Nemint fiquidem pio dmtfam eJJ'e potest) qutn per folamDes rm J tricerdt.im i prop jerque

*ue unifts Chrifli meritum^ac null A omninh voffrd quani-Ubet fan it a opera, C germanttfimos Sfirst us jrttftus 9 nos juftificemur^ hoc efl y h Deo )ufti pronuntiemur>

i. I ara forry to fee you fo bent to maintain what you 8 J» have once done. Is it fair to take hold on a few words of an Author, and to pafs by that which immediately followeth, and {hew that he meant quite contrary to what is pretended > Is not this to make your felf guilty of that which you accufe others of, v/*> to take up fome fcraps againft. the meaning of the whole Book, and even the very Page out of which you take them >

2. I think nothing is more clear, than that Mr. Ball's words following thole which you cited, gainfay your Opinion, W<,. of Works concerning with Faith unto Justification. For he exprefly faith, 1 hat Faith alone juil i-fieth, and that Works do but teltifie and give proof, that faith is lively.

Is not this the very thing that I fo much contend for > And yet you flick not to fay, That he yeeldeth Faith and Works to be the Condition of J unification, as if they were Copartners in this refpecl, whereas he afcribeth Ju-itification wholly to Faith, and excludeth Works from having any concurrence with it in juitifying. A little be- Of the fore the place by you cited, he oppofeth thofe who make Coven. Faith and Works the Condition,without which Rcmiflion p. 70. cannot be obtained, and iaith it is impoffible to conceive how Faith and Works mould be conjoyned as Con-caufes in Juftification, feeing Faith attributes all to Free-Grace, and Works challenge to themfdve*. And a little before that again he faith, [ We read of two ways of Jufltfica- M**-tion, by Faiths and by Worlds $ but of a third manner ', P» ^9 by Faith and Worlds both, as joint Caufes, or Con-caufes y we jindnothing in Serif ture~\ . As he makes Faith to be more than a bare Condition, if by [Condition] be meant only Can fa. fine qua non, fo do I : yet he doth ufethe words [Condition] and [Inftrument] promifcuoufly,and doth fometimes call Faith the one way, fometimes the other. He fuppofcth alfo, That if Works concur with faith unto Juitifieation, they are Con-caufes, and not fuch Conditions as are only Cauf& fine yusbus non^s you feem to take it.

$. You fay that you allow of the Explicatory terms, asljudgthem. Why ? then you allow of this, [Faith

alone

alone doth juftifie]; yea* [as it embraceththepromife

of free forgivenefs in Jefus Chrift] • for fo immediately

Mr. Ball doth explain himfelf* And for this very reafon

Of the he denies Works to juftifie,becaufe [Works do not embrace

Coven. Chn?7~\ : Your diftinduon of Inchoated and Continued

p. 70. J unification, will here Hand you in no flead. For 6efides

that Mr. Ball fpeaks of J unification fimply confidercd,

it's certain that Works neither at firlt nor afterward ccn-

concur with Faith in embracing the promife of free-for-

givenefsin Jefus Chrift: and therefore if Faith juftifie

in this refpec~t,(as Mr. Ball faith it * doth,

• And\>. 71. he proves it y and you (eem to give your approbation

becaufetn Scripture every of what he faith) lurely both at firft and

where faith tn Chrift,tn afterward Faith alone doth juftifie :

the Lord Jefus, or the though Works appear in their feafon, yet

Blood of ihrtsJ, U fatd to they do not concur with Faith unto ]u-

jufe'ifie, not faith in other ftification.

Tromifes-) Threatntngsyr 4. That which you cite out of Mr.jff*//, Commandments, p. 20. doth not reach home to your pur-

pofe. To fay, as he there doth, [A dt(po-fition to good Workj it necejjary to*Jufttficatten~\, is no more than to fay, A lively and working Faith, or a Faith apt and ready to Work, is necelTary unto Juftification. So when he faith, [Good Works of all forts are neceffary to our continuance in the jtate of Justification, and fo to our final abfoluiton, if God give opportunity ] * y he meaneth only this, that Works are necelTary Fruit's of that Faith by which we lay hold on the Righreoufnefs of Of the Chriit, 'and fo are juftified and abfolved. [ The faith Coven. that is lively ( faith he ) to embrace Mercy, is ever con-P 21. joyned with an unjeigned purpose to wal^m all well-

pie afing, and the fincere performance of all holy Obedience, a* opportunity is offered^ doth ever attend that faith whereby we continually (N.B.*) lay hold on the Pro-mifes once embraced* Actual good Works of all forts {though not perfecT: in degree) are necejfxry to the continuance of Actual Jvfltficattoni becaufe faith can no longer lay claim to the Promtfes of Life, than it doth Virtually or a&ually lead us for war dm the way to Heaven], It is clear, that as well afterward as at firlt> he afcribes Juilification only to Faith, as being only chat which doth embrace the Promifes, though he require a working Difpofition at firft, and Works themfelves afterward

ward, as opportunity ferveth, to teftifie and give proof that Faith is lively, * as he exprelly fpeaketh. The words * Of the which you further add, I have cited before, an d they are Coven, directly againft you, mewing that as I and others take p. 73. the word [Condition] Faith is the only Condition of Ju-fHfication,and Works no part of it. And fee what Mr.Ball addeth immediately after thofe words, [Faith andWor^s are off 0fed in the Matter of Juftijication, not that they cannot (land together in the fame Subjeft^ for thej le tn-feparably united^ but becaufe thej cannot concur or meet together tn one and the fame Court , to the Jufltficatton or ylbfolution of Man ]. That which you cite from />. u, is not to be underftood (as you feem to take it) of actual walking, but of a difpofition to walk, as he faid p. 20. \_A difpofition to Worlds, &c, ] This difpofition is the qualification of that Faith, or always conjoined with that Faith, whereby we are partakers of ChrilVs Righteouf-nefs. This plainly appears to be his meaning 5 both by the words immediately going before, and alfo by the words in the preceding Page, both which are already cited.

1. If Perional Righteoufnefs be not perfect, but have ibid. need of pardon for the imperfection of it, then there is no being juitified by it. This very reafon Luther, Melanff-hon, Cafoin^ and Chemnitius give^ why we cannot be juitified by Inherent Righteoufnefs, as I noted before out of Wot ton de Re con* fart 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. num.%. And to this purpofe I alfo have cited before the words of Cafoin, Vavenant, Amefius^ Rreet and MaccoVtus. As for the Metaphyfical Perfection of Being, which you fpeak of, it is but fuch as doth belong to things that are mod imperfect. And for Pr&ftatto Conditions N.Legisjt is not (as 1 have faid before) properly that Righteoufnefs by which we are juitified, though it be required to that end, that we may be partakers of ChrifVs Righteoufnefs, and fo (v/^,. by that Righteoufnefs of Chrirf) be juitified. 2. Of J unification qua/n conttnuationem^ £J Sententiam Judi-cts (nempe tn ultimo Judicio) enough hath been faid before. Neither Cafoin, nor any of our famous Divines, (that I know) nor yet the Scriptures (fo far as I can find) do teach, that we ate juitified by Faith alone at fir it, .but by Faith and Works afterward 5 yea I have (hewed the contrary both from the Scriptures^andfrorn our Divines % yet they both teach, That Faith whereby we are ( both at

firft

fir ft ami afterward) juftified, hath in it at firft a readinefs to Worksi and afterward doth work, as oppoi tunity is offered. Quid comment<t tft Tides fmquit MaccoviusJ tn jrogreffu vtta y ut t ant urn ncnpof J?t) quantum in initio > Ergone tngentum fides mutavertt^ 3c. De Jujtif. Dtfp lo. SeeCalvw Inftn. lib. 3. cap.i^. §.11. andi^/Vffin Cen t \ 5. Exercit. 8 3. fag. 404. C0L1. Whereas you fay that Calvin maii'taineth a true Perfonal Righteoufnefs • What is that to the pur-pofe > Who doth not fo ? If that were all that you bade fee Calvin for, truly you might foon cite Authors good ftore : but (as Martial fpeaksj Die altquid de tabus capellts. Shew that cither Calvm, or any Judicious Orthodox Divine doth hold fuch a Perfonal Righteoufnefs, as whereby we are)uftificd : both Calvin and all our eminent and approved Writers (that I know ) deny this Perfonal TUghteoufnefs to be available unto J unification. Yea, andfo do fome of chief account in the Church of Rome. Contarenus^ a Cardinal , to this purpofe you may find cited by Ameftus contra Belldr* Tom.$. lib.S. cap.i. Thef.i. Pightus alio, a great Romifh Champi-on> is as clear and full tor this as may be. In tllo {^tnqutt JDe Vide fc. Cbrifto) juftificamur, non tn nobis \ non no(ira ? fedil-C Ju/r. it us juftttta, qua nobis cum tllo communtcanttbus imputa-tur. Profrta )uftttt& mopes ^ extranos in tllo doctmur jufti-tiam mu&rere. Much more he hath to the fame purpofe, and herein dothfo fully agree with Proteftants (though about Faith, as being that alone whereby the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is imputed to us, he diflents from them J ; that Bellarmine having recited the Opinion of Proteftants, faith, (Deju/rif. lib.2.cap.i.) Ineandem fententiam^ jive fottus error em mcidit Albert us Pightus *, he adds alfo, Et Author e s Ant idtdagmatis Co lontenfis. And for Pightus he faith further, Bucerus in Itbro Concordia m articulo de Jujrificatione^ fdtetur Ptghii fenttntiam non dij]entire a Lutheranorum fen tentta y quod attmet adcaufam formatem Juftfcattonts^ fed folum quantum ad caufam apprehenpvum^ quam Lutherani folam Jidem, Pightus dt-U&ionem pottus quam fidem ej/e d^finit. Here by the way obferve, That Bucer (if Bellarmine did truly relate his Opinion, though not his only) made Chrift's Righteoufnefs imputed to us, the formal Caufeof J unification, and Faith the only apprehenfive Caufe : and that therefore he was far from making us to be juftified by our Perfonal Righteoufnefs,& from making Works concurrent with Faith untc Juftification , but that otherwife is evident enough by what hath been cited before out of him. The truth of my Conclufion (I think I may well conclude) is firm and clear, >/<,. That according to Calvm (and fo Bucer and all our famous Writers) Perfonal Righteoufnefs is not that whereby we are juftified. What colour you can have to

except

. except againfl: this Conclufion, to fay it is merely my own, is to me a wonder.

Ibid. Repentance and Love to Chrift are not excluded fiorn our ' firft Juftification, yet have they no co-intercft with Faith in Juftify-ing j Faith, not Repentance, or Love being Caufa apprehenfra (as Bucer and other Protectants dofpeak) that which doth apprehend Chrift's Righteoufnefs, by which fo apprel ended we are juftified. Neither is it denied, that outward Works are recjuiflte, that we rrpy continue juftified here, and be fentenrially (folemnly and openly) justified at the laft Judgment: yet it follows not that Juftification as continued and confummated at Judgment, is by Wofks,as concurring with Faith unto Justification, 'it is"the Righteoufnefe of Chriit apprehended by faith, by which we are juftified from firft to lait, only this Faith being of a working Nature, we cannot continue juftified, nor mall be {t. e. declared to be) jultiSed at the laft Judgment, except we have Works to terrific and give proof that our Faith is lively, as Mr. Ball before cited doth exprefs it: but thus alfo it will follow, that Works being wholly wanting, we never had a Juftifying Faith, nor were at all juftified.

86. i. That the Qualification of Faith is part of the Condition of Juftification, fo that Faith alone, as apprehending Chriit and his Righteoufnefs, is not tfe Condi ion (or Inftrumental Caufc, fori <lo not take Condition for Caufa fine qua non, but for that which hath fome caufality in it) you have not proved. The Condition of our Juftification is that we believe in the Loid Jefus Chrift •, this prefup--pofeth a defire of him, and inierreth a delight in him, and fubmifTion to him ^ yet it is only believing in him, by which we are juftified. 2. Though the taking of Chriit for King be as Effential to that Faith which juftifieth, as the taking of him for Prieit, yet not to Faith as it juftifieth. Of Fides qu&^ and Tides qua yufttfcstt, as alfo of taking Chrift for King, and taking him for Prieft, 1 have faid enough before. $. I mean that Faith only juftifieth,as it receives Chrift as Prieit, th6 that Faith which juftifierh doth receive Chriit as King alfo. 4. If it be (as you grant) thrift's Satisfaction, and not his Kingfhip (or Sovereignty) which juftifieth meritorioufly, then (as far as I am able to judg) it is our apprehending of Chrift's Satisfaction, and not our fub-mitting to his Sovereignty, by which we are juftified. The Act of Juftifying Faith, asjuftifying (me-thinks) can extend no further than to that" Office of Chrift, in refpect of which he juftifieth * or than as Chrift is our Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified 51 Chrift as Advocate doth only jultifie by pleading hi> Satisfaction for us y and our intereft in it, and as Judg, by declaring lis to be Juftified by it : and ail this fectmdwn fcedus no^um? which is the ground of our Juftih-

M c;.tion.

cation, ?. Ifoconfefs Faith to be the Condition of Juftification, that neverthelefsl hold it to juftifie as apprehending ChriiVs Righte-oufnefs, God having in thar refpect required Faith of us, that we may be juftified. And herein (as I have {hewed before) I have Mr. Ball and other Judicious Divines agreeing with me, who call Faith a Condition of Juilification, and yet make it to juilihe as it apprehendeth Chrift and his Righteoufhefs.

[hid My words clearly, fhew my meaning, >/*,. That Judication as it is begun by Faith alone,fo it is continued/o that Obedience hath no more influence into our Juftification afterward than at firft. Jufti-fying Faith at firft is Obediential, /. e. ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience *, and afterward, as there is opportunity, it doth actually bring forth the fame ; yet both at firft and afterward it is Faith and not Obedience by which we are juftified.

Ibid, i. I have alfo oft enough told ypu, that you bring nothing of any force to prove Sentential Juitification at Judgment a diftinct, kind of Juftification, or any more than a declaration and manifefta-tionof our prefent Juitification- 2. For the Texts which you alledged, you do not anfwer what I objected. You alledged them to prove, That we are juftified compleady and finally at the^Laft Judgment, by perfeverance in faithful Obedience. I objected, That they fpeak of Juftification,as it is here obtained, and fo make not for your purpofe 5 to this you fay juft nothing,only you feesi to fay fomething to thofe wolds in the end of the Ammadyerfion^ [Thej /hew who are juffified, not by what they are juftified'] * but that which you fay, is of fmall force. For none can truly fay as much of the Texts al* ledged for Faith's Juftifying,feeing that thofe Texts expreily fay,That we are juftified by Faith, and that Faith is imputed unto us for Righ-teoufnefs, which the other Texts do not fay of Obedience.

Ibid, i- Did you never underftand my'meaning about Faith's ju-ftifyin^ until now > Nay, you feem net yet to underftand it. Doth not Faith juftifie at all, if it only juftifies Inftrumentally and Relatively ? Is this fo ftrange unto you, that when we are faid to be juftified by Faith, it is meant in refpect of the Object, v/*> Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, which ismdeed that by which we are juftified, though it mult be apprehended by Fakh,that we may be juftified by it? Where is now the totus mundxs Theologorum Rtformatorum^ which fome-ticne you f^ake of ? My acquaintance in this kind is no: fo great ( I think ) as yours, yet I have before alledged many to this purpofe. I will here add one more, a Man of note, Dr. Prideaux^ (Lecr.^. de juftif.$ : ll>\A)l6.) Jufttficamur (inyuit) per juftitiam Chriftt&c. Aryui fides ex carte no fir & hanc yiftttiam fie a Deo tmfutatam, ap» jrehindit filf* nmodb $$ applics.% ■ qtfia ne^ne Chant ath Vil fflei, vel

alter*

C 17P 3

/titer* habitus hoc munus competat. And again, ^fuflificat prima Deus Pater admtttendo, C? tmputando. z. Deus Filtus, Sattsfact-endoy & advoc at um agendo. 3. Sptritus Santtus reyelando&obfig-nando, /^, fidesapprehendendo & applicando, %.Qpera^manife(tando £5* declarando. And again, Animadvertere potuit Bertius, nos non proprie juftificationem fides attribuere^ fed metalepttce^ quatenus objefti aftws propter arcJam connextonem inter ilium & habitum, ufitata Scripture phrafiy m habitum transfertur. 2. For Chrift's Righteoufnefs juftifying formally, or being the formal caufeof Justification, I have mewed in what fenfe fome of our Divines do hold it, and fome reject it, and that the difference is rather in words, than in the thing it felf. 3. To me it feems no obfcurity to fay, [Faith cc Believing doth juftifie, becaufe (Thrift's Rigkeoufnefs,except it be apprehended by Faith, is not available to Juftification]. Is not this as much as Faith doth juftifie Inftrumentally,or as apprehending Ghriits Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified > The reafon why Chrift's Righteoufnefs cannot juftifie, except it be apprehended by Faith, is this, That God doth require Faith or us ^ Faith (I fay) apprehending Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, [Believe in the Lord J ejus thriff] that fo we may be juftified. God's Will is properly the Caufe, yet there is a congruity in the thing it felf, an aptitude (you grant) in the nature of Faith: it is of an apprehenfive Nature, and its apprehending of Chrift's Righteoufnefs (the Will of God ftill prefuppofed) doth make this Righteoufnefs ours, even as a Gift becomes ours by our receiving of it. It" Davenant's words, which I cited, be not againft you, then nothing that I can fay is againft you. For I cannot exprefs my own mind, as to that point, more clearly and fully than he doth. I will repeat his words again j ( De Ju(tit,Hah$t. cap, 28. ) Nihil ufixattm quam caufg, appltcanti illud tribuere 9 quod proprie & immediate per-tmet ad rem appltcat am, Quia tgttur fides apprehendtt, £T appltcat nobis ytftitiam Chrifli^ id fide 1 tpfitrtbuitur^ quod reapfe Chrift 0 de-betur. Is not this againft you, who fay, Append, p. 120. [Faith ts a Worl^ and A3 of ours 5 and if Faith pfi'tfie as an apprehenfton of Chrtflj it juftfieth <a a Worl^ f ] Do not thefe words oiDavenant tell you, that it is not Cauja applicans^ but res appltcat a ; not Ftdes 3 but Chriftus fide apprehenfus that doth juftifie ? Faith then is faid to juftifie, yet not in refped of it felf, but in refpeft of its Object: it is not properly Faith apprehending, or the apprehenflon of Faith, but Chrift and his Righteoufnefs apprehended, by which we are juftified., Much hath been faid before to this purpofe. If this be nothing againft: you, I know not how in this particular to fay any thing againft you : if it be againft you, furely it is nothing but what that Reverend Author faith in the words cited. And mark (I pray) upon what occafion

M 2, he

C 180 ]

he brings in thofe words. EeUarmtnc (De Juftif. itkz, cap.y.} faith that CWv/;*, from Rorri.^. 1)ht dicttur fidem A'brab& tmputatam ejj'e sdjuftitiam^ gathers, nihtl ejjh altu-dnoflram yuftitiam fycmpe c[Ha-)uftijicamt4r) juim Jidem in Chrtdum^ td eft , (iST.Z?.) Chrtfii )ujiitiam Cbrtftt fide apprehen r am. Againft this he objects, Apofio-lit* diett tffamjtdem trnputari ai )ufhtttam ; jides autem non eft jufiitta Chrtfti, &c. To this Daxenant anfwers, Sed frtvcla eft h&c o!?]ec?to. Nam nihil ufitattw auam carfjt, apl'tcantt, 2>V. Your Objection is the very fame in erTeft with BeUarmmfs ; fo that if Dave-nants words be any thing againft Ee liar mine,they are as much againft you. And truly as you put off the words of Davenant^ fo you might with the fame eafe haveunfwered all my Auimadverfiwsi and fo you may all thefe Exceptions, by faying, That they are not againft you. It is a ftrange faculty that you feem to have, of making any thing for you, as when you bid fee Calvm on Lukji. 6. and no.hing againft j you, as here in this place.

Ibtd. When Mr. Manton fpeaketh of Faith Justifying as a Relative Aft, his words immediately before (which I alio cited) fhew his i meaning, >/<,. That Faith juftifieth in its relation to Chrift, as it re-ceiveth Chrift : fo that not every Act relating unto Chrift, but that which dcthfo relate unto him as to receive him, is that which juftifieth : but what I fay of the Act juftifying, mult always be underftood in the fenfe before explained. That Faith in refpeft of its apprehen-five nature, is more than Caufa fine qua non^ to me is clear j it is Ca-ifaapp 'tcansi as Da\enant in the words even now cited doth call it. z. To contend much about Faith's Inftrumentality,I do not like y I mean in refped: oi the word [ Ixftrumentalny ], fo that we agree in the matter; yet as our belt Divines have ufed the word, I fee not but it is convenient to be ufed. $. I grant that it is a material quefti-on, Whether it be the receiving of Chrift only as Pi ieft that doth ju-ftifie 5 for the confounding of ChriiVs Offices, and of the Ads of Faith (as Mr. Elaine before cited faith well) is not to be endured. But I fee no neceffary dependance of this queftion upon the other, v/^. Whether Faith juftifie as an Inftrument, a fole-working Inftrument, or as an Ordinance, or Relative Action required on our parts • which Mr. Manton faid is all to the fame iffue and purpofe, and fo I think it is.

87. For the diftinclion of God's Will, you might at firft apprehend what I meant, though perhaps my E <preiTions were not altogether fo clear as afterward ; neither indeed do you feem to fpeak fo clearly of it in your Aphonfms. 2. How pertinent thofe Teftimonies which you fpeak of ai c ? I cannottel! ; but truly as you cited Calvin on Lttl^i. 6. ■. ter to cite many. 3. What you alledg out of Davert,mt->

nam* I might evade,ty faying as you did, That it is not againft me ; but I will not put you off fo. I anfwer therefore. Ad i. {Bona of era funt rieceffarta omnibus fideitbus^ & juftifiratis, qui habent ufum ra-tionisJS fer At at em operari r oJfunt^\. It a fanh res habet: qui* ne-gat > Sed num ideb boms operibm *qxe de Jide jufrtficamur } Ad-yerte, qu&fo if fa autboris tut verba. { Bona of era funt necejjari* )tt(lificatis\ mn yiftificandis. Nam {ut fate Augufli-nus) {Bona of era fequuntur juftijicatum^ non fr&ce- Dejide £J dunt jujtificandum. Quidqubdtutffe faterts y nos fide oferibus^ abfque operibu* in initio jttftificari > Ita^ inquies^ fed cap. 14. foflea ut jufttficati fmus^ofera etiam h nobisrequsrun-tur. At Davenanrius iftud non dtcit, non us eerie verbis quA citdfli. Jubes autem legere fequentia j lego tgitur^ {facile eft hujufmodi of era mult a (frafertim interna) commsmorare fine qutbus )ufrtji-ca+io nunquam futt ab ullo mortalium obtenta, nunquam obtmebi-tur], Sedne hie quidem dtctt cfera if a far iter ac jidem juftificdrt* Ea enim^ qua ad jxftificdtionem requivuntur^ cum its qu£ jufttficant) confundi non debent^ ut bene monet Contra Bel-Amefiiis. Qutn £? //>/* Davenantius latum difcrimen lar. Tom* 4. fac'it inter Fidem £? Ofera^cum Ft em ideb juflificare L$. r. J. §.t. die at y quodjufttttam Chrtfii affrehendat^ac nobis df-flicet. I denim Fidei peculiar e eft, nee Oferibus ullo De Juftit. modotrtbui foteft. £* Davenantii tgitur fntentia^ Hab.caf.z4. non fartim Jide, fart in oferibus , fedjide fold juftifi- *4rg. 8. camur. Ad 2. That Conclufion is the fame in effed with the former. Some internal Worts mull go betore Juftification, yet they do not therefore jufcine as well as Faith. Dayenantius eo ipfo loco negat opera ntcejjaria ejfe ad )uftificationem^ ut caufa*<y fed tantiim ut ab obtmenddm Equeftrem dignitatem neceffartum eft adire aulam regtam, at que coram rege in genua fe dimtttere. Ft-dem autem (loco alio, at que alibi citato) die it ejfe caufam affile an-tem juftitiam^Chrtfth atque ideb ei tribu^quod froxtme Clf immediate fcrtinet ad rem affltcatam \ Fidem nemfe dici jufttjicare, cum frofrie )uftitia Chrijti jice affrehenfa )uftijicet \ id quod ego mordi-cus teneo. Ad 3. De retinendo filicet, & conferyando Jufttficati-onis ftdtU) ante a fat is refponfm eft. Id nunc dico Davenantium nee in frwcifio JufttficationiS) nee in frogrejfu ejus Vim yirtutimque juftificandi oferibus »,uxta ac Fidei tribuere, ettamji dicat bona of era ad Juftificationis Statum retmendum Gf confers an dum ejfe necejja-rta y id quod ego libenter agnofco. turn enim tn iffo Jujtificattonis exordio Ftdem oferibus gratnddm ejje oforteat^ froccdente demum "Juftificatione Fidem opera far ere necejfe eft. Ad 4. JDico te extra oleai y agar 1, cum ego de Conditione J uft if cat ignis loquar y atqut ifti-

ufmodi

upnodi quidtm Conditione^ qua. )uftijicart dicimur^ ttt dutem oppol his mthi author cm de operibus jufttficatorum ( /. e. Eorum^ qui jam jufi/ficati funt-i C? fide qu'tdem^ ncn oper'tbus^ ex authorts iftius fententik ) ad Jalutem necejjar'us dtjferentem. The Pages to which you further refer me, I cannot confult, my Edition differing from yours, as you might perceive by fome places which I cited. But your Inference is of no force, as having no ground for it, >/<,. That if I will be of Davenanr's mind, I muft be of yours. I do not fee that Vavenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do, who hold that they juftifie, and urge the words of St. James fox it, whereas Bave~ nant (aslhave mewed) makes Faith to juftifie as apprehending and applying ChrifVs Righteoufnefs, which furely Be Ju&tt. Works cannot do. He faith alfo, Opera fequuntur Aft. cap. 21. JuftifLcationem^ ^ pr&cedunt Glortficat/onem y being not acquainted ( it feems ) with your diftin&ion of Juftification as Inchoated, and as Confummate at Judgment, whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of j uftifi-cation, as of Glorification. What Davenant doth mean when he calleth Faith an Inftrument, he doth fufficiently fhew, making Faith to have a Caufality in Juftifying, by apprehending and applying drift's Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified. But do our greateft Divines give as much to Works as you do ? This you will undertake ( you fay ) to manifeft. Why ? then make it appear, that they hold Works to juftifie as well as Faith, or to have a co-intereft with Faith in the Effeft of Jufcifying. Except you perform this, ( which I prefume you never will ) you cannot make good your Undertaking. So do our greateft Divines give more to Faith than you. As you urge the to jnrh of St. James for being juftified by Works, fo you alfo infift upon the very Letter of St. Paul y and will have Faith it felf to be properly our Righteoufnefs, by which we are juftified : This our greateft Divines do not no more than the other. Yet you flick not to brand them, as making Man his own Juftifier and Pardoner, noio? <j* *•*&* pv'yv %$Y.Qr oJoviwit •, Truly this is over-grofs. What profeffed Adverfary could reproach our greateft Divines more than thus ? Whither will not a Man's partiality carry hirn, if he be let alone } May you not as well fay, That Chriftmade fome their own Saviours, becaufe he faid, That their Faith had faved them ? I had thought that all the Glory did belong to the principal Agent, rather than to the Inftrument. And to what purpofe do you fay, I Who can forgive Jin s but God only} ] Do they that make Faith an Iiftrument of Juftification, deny this any more than you, who make both raith and Works Conditions of ic >

Yea,

Ci8M

Yea, fome will have that MonHrum herrendum, and firft-born of Abominations ( as they phrafe it ) Mr. Kend*l to be laid at your own door. For my part I {hall fay againft Mr no more than this, That you feem as guilty this way Goodtvtx, your felf, as they whom youcenfure, though neither 0^.4.^.140. you nor they ( I think ) are indeed guilty in this kind. But why may not Man's Ad be an Inftrument of God's Ad ? Or to fpeak more properly, Man ading be an Inftrument of God ading ? We are workers together with God, 2 Cor. 6. I. Surely not in a way of Co-ordination, but in a way of Subordination 3 and fo Man may be God's Infcrument. I am not therefore of your mind, but think, that the Gofpel rather h properly a Means, and Minifters Inftru-mcnts : though to be nice and curious about words, fo that the Matter be found and good, I do not love.

Ibid. & 88. 1. That Faith doth juftifie, as it apprehendeth Chriit, appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum \ I have given you enough to this purpofe before. Now to your Reafons why this is to fet up tb Credere j I anfwer ; Ad 1. Not Apprehendere 3* Credere ftmpltciter^ but Apprehendere & Credere /*, /, e. Appre-hendere Chrtftum, £? Credere m Chrtffum^ are all one. And when it is faid, That this doth juftifie, the meaning is, Chrtflus fide ap-prehenfus jufftfic/tt: fo that this doth not fet up to Credere, as fome do fct it up, who make it as our 1 Ad limply confldered, to be that Righteoufnefs by which we are juftified. 4d a. Their meaning is not obfeure, as you pretend, that you may the betrer oppofe it. The Objed of Faith, Chrift's Righteoufnefs apprehended by Faith, doth juftifie : and fo Faith is faid to juftifie, not as confldered in it felf, but inrefpedof its Objed, which it apprehendeth, becaufe it apprehendeth that, v/3> Chrift's Righteoufnefs which doth juftifie. Ad 3. The formal reafon why Faith doth juftifie, is its Apprehcnfi-on, yet itill that is in refped of the thing apprehended, Caufa applicant 7 dludtribuitur quod, immediate perttnet ad rem appiicatam. Id fije/ ipjt tributtur* quodreapfe Chrtfto debet ur^ as Davenant before cited doth exprefs it, whofe words you faid were not againft you, though none can be more in this Matter.

For the fecond Point you are quite miftaken. For I do not put a difference betwixt Juftification and Right to Salvation, but betwixt J unification and Salvation it felf, /. e. the full enjoyment of it, »*&. Glorification. I have frequently exprefled my felf to thiseffed, That by Faith alone we are juftified, and fo have Right to Salvation •, yet by Works and Obedierrce alfo we muft come fully to enjoy Salvation.

In hoc Fcedere (fcil* Et*ngmco> faith Da^enant y 2)t Juftit. Actual, cap. 30. pag.mtht 396. ) ad obttnendam reconcdiationem , juftificattonem^ atque &ternam Vitam* non alia recfuiritur Conditio, yuam yer& $5 y>iy>& fide*. Prefently after he explains himfelf thus y Jufltfrcatio igitttr, & jus ( N. B. ) ad &ttmam warn ex Condittone jclim Fidei fufpenditur.

By the way you may obfeive how he calls Faith the Condition, and the only Condition of our Juftification, and yet he makes it not to be Caufa fine qua'non, but Caufa Instrument alts t$ Caufa applicant* as appears by his words before cited. Your following Arguments are not againft me, you do but fight ( as they fay) with your own fhadow. Yea, you having obje&ed againft your felf, Ram. ?. 10. You anfwer dire&ly as I ufe to do, *w>> That Paul doth not diftinguifh betwixt Reconciliation and a Right to Salvation, but betwixt Reconciliation and actual (and Compieat) Salvation. You add,That Paul makes them both Fruits cf Free Grace. And what Proteftant ("fay I) doth not fo ? A necefTity cf good Works, as the way of attaining unto Salvation is afferced, yet it is denied that good Works are meritorious of Salvation. That in Rom. 8. 6. ( whence you infer. That only Faith is not the Condition ) proves not that Faith alone is not the Condition of Juftification and Right to Salvation, which is all hat I contend for. What you mean by thofe words \_Lifea*weU**Atghteaitfn?fi~] I do not know. Neither do I fee what thofe Verfes, 13, 14, 17. ( *ic. of Rom. 8. ) are for your purpofe. Whereas by the way you fay, [ Faith juftifas, not qua Inftrumentum, vel Apprehenfio pcoxirne, {cd qua Conditio prsftita, btcaufe Justification is giyenas a Reward \ and Rewards are giten en Moral Confederations •, and not merely Phjjlcal ] ^ I ha\e told you before, That I alfo include a Moral Consideration,and do not make Faith to jufti£e merely as it isoffuchan apprehensive Nature, but as being of fach a Nature, Giod therefore in that refpeel: hath been pleafed ro make choice of it for that end, that by it, apprehending Chriit and his Righteoufnefs f/'. e. properly by Chrift and his Righteoufnefs apprehended by it ) we Should be juftificxi

F 1 N1 s.

THE

SUBSTANCE

O F

Mr. Cart Wright's

EXCEPTIONS

Confidered.

B Y

^ICH. <BAXTE%

LONDON,

Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinfou, at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. fouls Church-yard, 1675.

The Subftance of Mr. Qatt-Wright's Exceptions confi-dered.

O reply to thefe Exceptions verbatim, I conceive were a fiuful lofs of time, and a great wrong to to the Learned Author, and more to my felf, and moft of all to the Reader and the Truth. For it would unavoidably tire us all, and drown the Truth in a mountainous, heap of pfelefs Altercations i and the main bufinefs- would be to manifeft a Reverend Brother's miftakes, which I conceive may fooner kindle the hre cf Anger, than the light of Information.

I (hall therefore pafs by all that part of the work, and only deal with the remaining Differences, which are.the Soul of the Book, and that not in the Order as they lie, but as they feem of greateft moment, or are molt infixed on by the Reverend Author.

Themainfubftanceofthe Exceptions, confifteth of thefc points following :

i. That I fay Faith (and (econdarily fincere Obedience) are as to the Law of Works or Innocency, but the Conditions of our Judication by Chrift's meritSj from its condemning fentence ; But they

A 2 are

a re our material Righteoufnefs in refped to the Lan> of Grace > viz. a particular Subordinate Righteoufnefs ,becaufe a Conditio* of our Pardon and Salvation. But Mr. C. yieldeth that they are fuch a Condition, but not that we are juftified by tbem y or that they arc our Righteoufnefs thereto.

2. That I make Works to have a co-intereft with Taitb in Juftification.

3. That I make Faith to be but a Condition of our main Juftification^confifting in iemiflion of fin ; But Mr. C. makes it a C*«/? 3 which he calleth Caufa applicans*

4. That I make two Laws* and Mr. C. but one > only yieldeth to call the Promije the New-Law.

5. That I make the New-Covenant a Law to have a peculiar penalty, which Mr. C denieth.

d. That I make Obedience a Condition of our right to Salvation, [Juris coniinuandi vel non amit-tendi) though not of our firtt Righteoufnefs : And Mr. C. makes it a Condition of Salvation it felf and not of our right to it h yet confefleth that it is the fame thing that is the Condition of Juftification, and of riglv: to Salvation.

7. That Mr. C. makes the GofielGrant to be properly, Afentence of Abfolution by God as Judg h and I make it to be but A Donation of pardon and life by God as ReQor and Benefattor by Law, and Deed of Gift, andfoa virtual, not an aSnal judicial Sentence : Which yet I little flick on.

8. Mr. C. taketh the Judgment after this life to be no other or farther Juftification than we have here, but only a further Declaration of it: And I take it to be a decifive Sentence, to put cur right out of conuoverik ; giving us our Jut Judkatum*

as

our ^Difference* $

as the Promife did our Jus Conftitutttm> and moreover, being the orderly means to our poflefllon.

As to the firft of thefe Differences, I would know, Whether it be about the Matter or the Word that we difagree ? If the Matter , then Mr. C. would never have granted, i. That Faith and Obedience is an inherent ov perfonalRighteoufnefr^ and fo called commonly by Scripture and Divines. 2. That it is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant. 3. That if we be accufed to have no right in Chrift, becaufe we have not fulfilled this Condition^ we muft plead the aftual fulfilling of it by our felves, or perifh i and not plead any fulfilling of it by Chrift: for us, nor any pardon for our not fulfilling it. 4. Yea, that even wicked men may have a true particular Righ^oufnefs^ (though not thi* which is the Condition o£~Salvation) Ire-member now no one material difference left between us.

And if it be only Verbal: I. I conceive that the Difpute, [Whether the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant may be called Righteoufnefi, or we be faid to be juftified by it ? 3 when we are agreed in the thing* is not worth the contending about. 2. Mr. C. faith, /v?i. of his Exceptions, Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re confiet* 3. He confdTeth fas is faid) that even a wicked Reprobate may have a particular Rigbteoufnefs* and own-eth Bradjbaws fo denominating it. He therefore that will yield that the Devil or a Reprobate may be called righteous quoad caufam particular em, and that that is Righteoufnefs* methinks fhould not deny it in our cafe. 4. He confefleth (for it is undeniable) that all our Divines do give the name of

A 3 Righ*

Higbtevifh:]} to oar inherent Rigbteoxfnefs: There-tore de nomine we differ not. 5. He denieth not (for it is paix denying) that Scripture often calleth our FaUb and fmcere Obedience by the name of RigbttoifjheffiSo that when I focall it J dobutfpeak 2s the Holy Ghoft hath taught me* Thus far then methinhs, we (hould be fully agreed 'as in fenfe fo) that the name of Rigbieppfjncfr is lawful and tit to be applied to our Faith it felf, and perfonal Obedience.

It remains then de nomine^ whether we may fay, 1. Either that this Faith or Rightewfnefs doth ju-fiifuin? 2. Or that we arejuftifiedby it >

i or the former fhrafe. I ufe not to fay [Faith ;«-ftifhtk ;1 1. Becaufe k foundeth as if I made it an efficient Caufe. 2. Becaufe Scripture rather ufeth the other phiafc.[_iFe arejujlified by Faith<~\ Though there feem fmall difference int he fe fpeeches, yetin-deed the latter beft fitted] the nature of a conditional or dijf -fuive Intereft : And the Holy Ghotf is the fittdi J:idg. But for the latter phrafe, and the former taken in the fame fenfe as the latter, viz* j That Fj: \%h £ a Condition^ and thence confequen-

tially , as the vzatttr of our fnlfirvie>it particular Righe<v:fiitfir\ I fhould think that here is no room for ardi6greemcnt* For*

i« None can deny but that I fpeak in the Lan-

ic Holy Ghoft, who faith, [_A man is

i n i by Faith only \ J and that

\_bf (itr 1 ud^ and by our w$rds

xve , ,y not I miftake the mean-

1. Our n is

-cr, but about the

fin-. 1 2i Anc I zm

ririt

firft blamed for, is not the mifunderftanding of a particular Text, but of the Vottrine of Justification.

2. It is beyond all doubt a contradiction unworthy the Pen of any Learned man to fay, this is our Right eoufnefs, and yet will not in Untumjuftifieus h (and in totttm, I ever denied it as much as they :) Forma froculdubio informat & denominate

3* To ju(tifie, (in the fenfe I ufe it) is (firft; to confthute Righteous, (for I take it f for constitutive Jufiification firft :) But it may be faid, that we are confiituted Righteous by Faith and Obedience (not fpeaking of univerfal Righteoufnefs :) Therefore it may be faid we are jufiified by them*

Nothing can be faid to this Argument, but againft the minor, by denying that the word [Jufli-fie'] is ever taken for configuring Righteous, but only for Sentencing usfo: But I never yet met but with one Learned man , that I remember, that was of that mind. Our Divines ordinarily diftinguifh of Jufiification confiitutive and fentential: 1. His Rea-fon is, becaufe it is ftill taken infenfrtforenfi, and fo we maintain againft the Papifts. But I anfwer, Our Divines take not fenfum forenfem, as excluding, but including, fenfum Legalem,vel Civilem (as we corr-monly fpeak) but only as excluding fenfum Ethi-cum, as it (igniheth merely our ads and qualities of Ethical Jujiice or Virtue. Now fo I grant againft the Papifts, that J unification figniiieth not moft ufually nor very oft an infufion of new Qualities > but 1. Non reatumculpg vel pxn&, which is Innocence and Legal Righteoufnefs* 2. Sentential Ab-filuthn. Now I fay no more, but, 1. That our Njn-reatus culj>£ finalii impxnitentit & infidelitatit

A 4 ant

aut Rebellion** , is our particular Righteoufnefs or Juftification. 2. Our Non-reatus fan* propter banc culpam is founded herein as the matter. 3. Our Non-reatus poenx <eteru£ in general dependeth on this (at the laft Judgment) as on a Condition. 2. 1 little doubt but Scripture (mentioning Juftification by Faith) means it of conftitutive Juftification * and Mr. C. for ought I perceive, thinks fo too- taking it and fentential Juftification for all one.

If then we may be faid to be [made Righteous] by Faith and Obedience, then we may be faid to be ju-fiified by them: But the former is true * Therefore, &c .

That Righteoufnefs which makes not righteous, is a thing never yet known, except it were only «o-men juftitU fine re, and it were only equivocally fo called. For Righteoufnefs is a mere relative form, and therefore mult make, that is, formally cofijiitute the perfon righteous fo far. Even as there is no exiftent Worthinef, that makes not worthy \ or Guiltiwfs, that makes not guilty, or Vnrighte-mfnefi, that makes not fo far unrighteous > or Good-ttefs, that makes not fo far good: I think none will coucradi& this.

4. I'll tell you what I will do ? If godly Divines wculd not have me ufe James's phrafey and fay, \We are jufiififd by JV^rks^ yea, or by Obedience, yea,or%< Faith* as /W/fpeaks, rather than wrong lie Churches peace, I will utterly lay it by in fpeech and willing * and I will only fay. [iVe are made righteous^]' and not, \We are jujhfied'] by them. And fo in my Explication of our Righteoufnefs, I will fay, that we have a twofold Righteoufnefs ; I. Idhaent perfmal Right eon fiefs {Evangelically fo

caliedj

ffiig&teottfnefe, &c* 9

called 0 which by w reafon of its exceeding Imper-fedion (for fo I am content to (peak) will notju-ftifie us of it felf in Judgment: This confifteth in-choatively, or at firft, of faith and Repentance with* out external Obedience > afterward, of Faith continued^ and Obedience added. 2. The other Righ-teoufnefs is meritorioujly Cbriji^s Satufsttion for our fin-, and formally the pardon of fin it felf whereby the defaults of all our Faith, Obedience, and other Graces, together with all the fins of our lives, are remitted, or our jus adimpunitatem & regnum. Our Faith or Obedience is none, no not the leaft part of this Righteoufnefs of Remiffion, and right to Life: But yet Chrift in granting his Adt of Pardon or Grace, did except final Infidelity and Impenitency out pf it : And therefore as he pardoneth none fuch, fo his Righteoufnefs of Remiffton a! way fuppofeth concurrent our perfonal Righteoufnefl (qua talis, not to be remitted*) Chrift never died to purchafe us pardon for lovirfg God, hating Sin, Repenting, Obedience, &c* but only for the fin that adheres to thefe in their deficiency or evil company. Why may not this much reconcile us? Nay, Note thefe two things: 1. That Mr. C. in his pleading for an imperfecfl Righteoufnefs, fo denominated from its Conformity to the Law, page <58, tfp. profefTeth, that [Accepting for Righteous, and accounting jui}^ is as much asjujiifyingh^\ and that, [it U the New-Covenant that fo accepteth our Wor)q , as they are a finctre, I though imperfett, Conformity to the L.itv as a Rule \] and that h [for his part he (hould fay, that xve and cur a&ions are juftified from the Law of JForks , i. e. from the Condemnation of it.] Now is not

here

io $£>f petfottai

here as much 5 or more by far , than I (ay for Works ?

i. More : For I do not think that God's acceptance of our Works, is a juftifying them from the Laris Condemnation > but that they are unjuftifiablej and 1U11 condemned by the Law 5 and that the Go-fpd was never of force to fave mens Work* from the Law's Condemnation, but only to fave the per-fon: Nay, that if the Works be not condemned by the Law, the perjon cannot be jufiified by Chrili:, but muft be jutfified by his Workj: For juftified Wor^s will jujiifie the perfon, fofar as they are ju~ jtifiedh and if the Works be not condemned^ the £fr-fon cannot be condemned for them.

2. But 1 intend not this as an Accufation of his. Opinion \ for I believe he meaneth foundLy : .But then at leaft confider, Whether this be not as much as I fay ? He alio wet h here, and profefleth to ufe the term \_Juftification of our Words'] as the fub" jecl : And if it be fit to fay, Godjuftiji^h our Workj^ then what man can devife a Reafon why it is not as fit to fay, Godjujlifieth us thereby f fo far in tanto, though not in toto: For as Bradjhaw truly faith, Every Juftificationof tbecauje, u indeed ajuftifica-Hon of the perfiw. I take it for granted therefore, that Mr. £'. alloweth me to fay, that we are juftified by our Works and Faith as our particular Right eoufnefs, by a particular Juftification : Yea, he in other places plainly expreflcth as much. Now he muft needs know, that I often told him, 1 take it But for a "particular Rigbtecufnefi , and to be but Materia Jujiificationis particulars, & conditio Ju-ftificationU pienarU/jel (fuppofua condiiione prtjuta) univerfMii*

2. Note

2. Note alfo, That he gives it as the very fum of all his Anfwer on this point, that [our faith (and Obedience) as an imperfeB Conformity to the Law , is a particular Right eoufnefs^ and fo it ju-i\\tki h not > but as it is the Condition of the Covenant 9 it juftifieth, and Co it is no Rightecufnefs^ Now it is here granted, that zperfonal Righteouf* nefs is requifite to our Jujiification, though not as Righteoufnefs. If Faith , which is our Righ-teoufne(s v be necefTary, though not as our Righte-oufntfs, but as a Condition \ for my part I have all that I deihe for fubftance in his Concedion, that Faith jujlifieth as a Condition. The reft is but of the name : And of the name himfelf faith, p. 40. [The ghtejiion is not-, Whether we befaid to be juftifi-ed by our Worhj or Words (that heconfefleth) but bow and in what fenfe we are to befojuftified: There U a particular Jujiification y and a declarative Jufti-fication: Thus we arejttftified by our Works and Words \ but a full and formal Juftification U only by Cbrifi's Righteoufnefs , through Faith imputed to us.

But what Reafon gives he through the whole, why Faith is no Righteoufneji as a Condition ? He faith fiill, that [It is no new Accufation to be accufed of nouperforming the Conditions of the New Cove-itant, but a makjng good the former.'] But it is moft evidently a diftin&fubordinate Accufation towards the/making good the firft. Is the means and end all one ? Is it all one to accufe a Traytor of being liable to death for Treafon merely as fuch j and to accufe him of not performing the Conditions in an A<ft of General Pardon? and fo having no benefit by that Ad for his efcape ? The words are not the fame, nor the fenfe the fame, therefore the Acer-

fat ion

iz £>f petfonal

fation is not the fame. Thofe things which are di-vifible are not the fame : But thefe are divifible* ergo, &c. The Devils may be accufed of being guilty of death for fin as fimbut not of non- performance of Conditions of Recovery : For a mere Negation is no ground of Guilt or Accufation.

But he thinks, that [the Law conftituteth the officium Credendi, and the Covenant the Condition h therefore as a Condition performed, it is no Kighteoufnefs ; and as a Duty performed, no jm-ftifying Kighteoufnefs, but particular.] I anfwer, i. If this were all fo, yet when the Covenant doth take one Legal duty for its Condition, our Salvation may lie on that particular Kighteoufnefs. 2. Will it, or may it ever be quetiioned in Judgment, or nor, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant ? I think it will be the main Queftion : I am fure in Confcience it is the main. If it may ever be queftioned, Whether we have right inthePromife and Cbrift's blood or no, I know no way of Legal evincing it, but by producing thcVeed of Gift, or our performance of the Condition. All the doubt then to be difcufled will be of the latter > and on this will Reprobates begin to plead, [Lord we have done thus and t\m\\ for the Gift will be undeniable. Now if this will be a Caufe to be pleaded at Judgment ( yea, for ought I can underftand by God's Word, the great Caufe of the day,) then certainly the Defendant will be Guilty, or Not-Guilty* and his Caufe will be juji, or unjuft. If he have )u\\itiam Cauft, then Mr. C. is milhken j if he have not, the man is condemned. Mr. C. is very much out to imagine (and make it the fubftance of moft of his Anfvvers-in the main Queftion) that our performance

performance of a Condition as fucb, may not be a Righteoufnefs. What if it were granted to be no 'Ethical Righteoufnefs (and yet I am loth Covenant-breakers fhould have fo much countenance, or that God's Covenant-keeping fhould be denied the name of Righteoufnefs', ) doth it follow that it is not a judiciary Righteoufnefs •> a juftitia forenfis which is near eft to our great Juftification >) If Contractors enter a Suit one againft another for not-keeping Covenants, may not, muft not the Accufed or Defendants Caufe be )uft<, or unjuft ? If a man enter an A6Hon againft another for not-performing a Pro-tnife^ for not-doing what by Leafe or other Cove-riant he was bound to > I think the Law will pronounce him and his Caufe juft, or unjuft •, and acquit and juftifie him, or elfe condemn him accordingly. It it be capable of being a Caufe in Law, or the matter of an ABion or Suit, then it is moft neceflary a righteous or unrighteous Caufe. But,

3. I do not think it tolerable fo to exclude the Law of a Law from this work. For,

1. The very Covenant is a Law, even the pro-mifory parti I prove it, 1. God is fo fuper-eminently and tranfcendently above us, and our ab(blute Sovereign, that we are not capable of entring into a ftri& Covenant (as among equals) but fuch as par-tkipateth of the nature of a Law. We have fo wholly our dependance on him, and good from him, that he can make r\o Law of favour*, or for our good y but fo far it muft be as a Benefa&or (it being otherwife with earthly Sovereigns, whofe Subjects receive not all their propriety from them :) And alfo he is fo conjun&ly our abfolme Sovereign, that he can enter no Contrail with us but authorita-*iwly< 2. From

J 4 ®f petfonal

2. From the Definition : A Law taken rnoft fitly, though largely (forjusConftitueni, adequate to jus Conjlitutum v and not for Lex, as its narrowly taken,as diftinft from Precept, Priviledges, C n-trafis, &c) this true proper Law is out Conftitutio debiti Authoritativa i or, Signum voluntatis Kcttor'u debitum Cmftituens* Now Conjiituere debitumpv£-mil, is as true an Aft of tbti Lan> (though every Law have it not, which made foTie exclude it j) as conjiituere debitum officii. Yea, afts of abfolute/iw Grace or Pardon are true Laws. So that God did make the New-Covenant as Benefaftor and Lt&:flator both > and fo gave the Legal ;/# ^/ Beneficium, and conftituted the Condition of bis own Gift.

2. Befides, I am not yet of Mr. C$ mind, that the Precept it felf, which he calls the Law, is not a ieal part of the Covenant. What though it be part of the Law ? fo it may be, and of the Covenant too » for the Covenant (as Mr. Lawfon hath well (hewed) is truly a Law, called a Covenant from the more excellent part (the Promife) and from God's Conde-fcention, and from man's^equifite Confent; Yet called a Law, as being the authoritative Conjiitution of what fhall be ^ *0 us (good or evil) and what (hall be <fa* /mw ax for the obtaining of one, and efcaping the orher. But of this more anon about the Law.

3. Nay, as llnrighteoufhefs condemneth not di-reftly, as it is contrary toVuty, but as it is contrary to the Condition of Life, and is the Condition of the Threat: So when it concerneth Judgment, the word Righteoufiefs doth moil nearly belong to Duty as a Condition, and remotely to Duty as Duty performed.

a&tgttfeDttftiete, &c* i*

2. The fecond Queftion or Point of Difference, [I make Works to have a co-intereft with Faith in Ju-ftification.]

But how ? It is fure confefled not in ouxfirft Ju-ftification, and that it is principally in our laft great . JulHfication at Judgment. Do I advance Works higher than others ? or do I not rather feem to de-prefs Faith lower ? I never made Works to bt the thz tnjhumentalCaufe oi ]unification, as others do faith. I never made them the caufa applicants, as Mr. C. makes Faith. I never .made them any proper caufe. I do aver in the end of my Aufwex to him, thaft I give lefi to Faith, hmt.no more to Works than others.

His Anfwer is this : [Why ? then make it appear that they bold Works tojuftifie as welt as Faith, cr to have a to-intereft with Faith in the effett tfjuftifying : Except you perform thit (which I prefume you never -will) you cannot make good your undertaking. ] Anf I have proved over and over, that they affirm Repentance a Condition of Pardon h and Obedience a Condition of final Justification. If I prove that they do thus, and that I do no more, do I not prove that I give no more to Works than they ? What, muft I prove that they give no mere to Faith, and fi make no greater inequality than I, before I can prove that they give as much to Works I The co-intereft of a Condition I can prove by forty of them, that they give as far I: But muft I prove that they give Obedience the co-intereft of a caufe, which Ideny my ftlf? J y J

So

So I did in the next lines cite Davenant, faying the very fame words as I, and as fully as I defire, and largely explaining and proving them. Yet Davenant (aid well, and I fay ill, when I am ready to fubfcribe to his words in the fenfe as they muft plainly import, or with a Proteftation to un-derftandthem as rightly as I can : If this be not non ex fide perfonM , fed ex perfom fidem> dec. as TertuL what is ?

And what is the Difference ? Why it is faid, [Vico te extra oleas vagari, cum ego de conditione Ju-jiificationU l&quor? atq\ ejufmodi quidem conditione quk Jujlificari dicimur : tu autem oppom rnihi an* thorem de operibus Juftificatorum , u e. eorum qui jam Jujiificatifunt, &fide quidem-, non tyeribut-y ex authorii iftius fententia* ad falutem necejfariis diffe-rentem.']

Refp. i. Futajfem propius ad rem controverfam pertinere y quid egoloquor y & de quali conditioner quam turn, cum ego ret & tu aSoris partes agii ?

2. Nonne Davenantius etiam loquitur de conditione ? & de conditione fwe qua non? & de conditione ad Justification* Jiatum retinendum & confer-vandum ? into de conditione concurrente vel prtcur-foria ? IpfiQima authorii verba funu

3. Nonne &ego de Juftificatorum operibus femper fum locum , quando dixi ea ad Juftificationem con-tinuandam effe necejfaria.

It is further anfwered by Mr. C. to the fifth Con-clulion, [Some internal Works nm$ go before Jujii-fication, yet they do not therefore juftifie as mil as Faith. Davenantius eo ipfo loco negat opera neceffa-via effe ad Juftificationem ut caufai, fedtantum ut ad obtinendam equeftrem dignitatem, &c. f idem autem

(all*

(alto loco) dicit ejje caufam applicantem juftitiam Chrifii, atq\ ideo ei tribuit quod prexime & immediate pertinetad rem applicatam, &c.l

Reply. 1. Doth not he fay, that they are necefc ftry [ut conditioner prwurforU f\ IF they are Conditioner, they have the interefi of 'Conditions in Justification. I fay not, [they juflifie us,'] becaufe that phrafe founds as if I alcribed an efficiency to them » but onIy,that [we arejufiified by them at Conditions.} And to fay, [It is a Condition of juftification, and yet we may not be juftified by it as by a Condition] is no better than to fay, £Such # thing is an effici* ent, but caufeth not as an efficient,] I deny them to be Causes as well as he.

2. And what if you proved that he makes Faith a Caufe, when I do not, and fo doth not fo nearly equal them as I > Doth that prove that t give more to Workj than he ? or rather that t give left to Faith ? He that will affirm, that he afcribetli no more to Works than you, is but forrily confuted by your faying, that he afcribeth left to faith, that is, that he gives Works a co-intereft with Faith : Which he may do, by derogating from Faith (or from your eftimation of it) without adding any further dignity or power to Works.

Mr. C. gives this as his fummary Anfwer, [Tour $rft inference i§ of no fotce, as having ho ground, viz. that if I will be of Davenant'/ mind, I muji be of yours. I do not fee that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do. (2.) Who hold, that they juflifie h and urge, (3.) the words of St. James for it i whereas Davenant ( 4. ) makes Faith to jujlifie h ($') as apprehending and applying Cbrifl's Rigbte-oufnefl, which fmely Workj cannot. He faith atfo,

B (6'.) Operi

(6^0perafe^wnmr Juflificattonem &pr£cednnt GIgT rificvmntim * hfag, not acquainted itfeems with your dijiinEhiom of Juftificationy as Inchoate* and as Con* fammeeatiJvMgwen.t-> whereby you would have Works toifo m wdl a Condition: of Juftificatiott as of GlorV-

JfopJfew* worlds were fpoke againft moft exprefs

mdkmz mtermMsy I think thefearey i m That my

wo^dSsFwew gjioiaiadTefs, when I have no fitter ex-

jpseflibns of my own mind, than in T>avenant y $

wottfev 2> Ifediiwot, UbattbeyjujUfie,'] but that

(jW awfeftzfied kfikenh] which phrafe better fits a

ir«iere:Cb^fci©iii than the former.3.1 take the words

fames !ft?fee Serfpture 5 and doth it prove, that

f^jBJsfe mm€ m Works than Davenant > becaufe I

the e&ftfeft words of Scripture ? What if I

irFiifuiidbiand that Scripture ? doth it follow that

I give mow to Works ? 4. Is this an Argument

m ground fSttar Accufaticn on [^Davenant makes

JFjzlhwfi0ifif y af apprehending and applying CbrijVs

buottfoefi * Works cannot fo do ?] What then >

sfm Dzwffi&nt gives lefs to Work* than you ? A

; corf qm\x& ! Or is it, [therefore Davenant

mrfgv mt Warty to p$$**l dvfa- Nor I, if you

trafc fccfi&XMff, as you fay, Vavenant doth make

f'dmsCd&fe* But, 1. Is not this his giving more

ttv $a&% aftd not iefs than I to Works ? 2. Doth he

*%y ttm Worksare Conditions of Juflificati-

cn, femz'pK&Nfovy and: concomitant, and fome for

mxtmtutigjt ? And I frill profefs, that we areju-

d bj ihsm^M as Conditions* If you fay, I call

t Ikiti K*| $ by which we are juftified, I have

&6w&&a& before v that is Hide'nomine, and I

b»c ^ pojforiore> becaufe they are Cw-

ditions

editions of our Justification, and you and Davenan* Call them 4 particular Right eoufnejs as well as !• I ftill fay, as to oqr univerfdl Jujitfication, they have no further intereft than the very ejfence of a Condi* tion imports \ and if Vdtynsk* giveftherri not this, he was to blame to tell us otherwife. 5. I make Faith alio to juftifie [as Apprehending and Apply .ing>] if you do not take the word [As] ftri<% pro raiione formal^ but as fignifying Faith's Jpeciat aptitude to a >preheminence in this Work; And I affirm, that/^r/ydo not juftifie is Apprehending or Applying : (tfill remember, fhat when I ufe the phrafe [Faith }uftifieth>~] I ufe it in Conformity CO your JDifcourfe, and mean it as is before explained. 6* Do not I fay, as well as he, that opera fe-quuntur Jujiificationem & pracedunt Glorificationem ? and doth it thence follow, that he was unacquainted with my diftin&ion of Juftification Inchoate and Confummate at Judgment ? Why? i.You know the fame man was acquainted with the diftin&ion be« twtenjuftification Inchoate and continued.!* And that that he faith Worlds follow Ju(lification> makes them precurfory Conditions ot Juftification^ and Conditions of its Continuance? and fo plainly acquaints you, that it is thofe external Wor\s, which he makes Con* ditions of continuing Juftification, which he faith, follow it > which no doubt but they do. 3. Think you then, that this Learned man did not know, that Chrift would come again to judg the quick and the dead ? and fo could diftinguifli between Juftificati-on here and hereafter? Or did he ever dream, that the Saints fllould be judged^ and yet not juftified then ? why,then they muft be condemned? For judg* ing is the Genus, and hath but thole two fyecies. B i But

Bat I have fpoke further to this than I in-*

tended.

The fum of my Reply to this Queftion is this : i. I never gave Workj a co-intereft with Faith, in caufing or effecting our Jujiification : For I never gave Faith (xxch wintereft. 2. I never gave tyor\s an equal interest with Faith- 3. I never gave external Wor]q any intereji in our firji Jujiification. Only to that I require, that the Faith be fuch as Mr. C. himfelf fo much pleads for, A workjng Faith, or non renuens operari \ or that hath Works in it Virtually, (as taking Chrift for King to be obeyed.)

Contr. 3. The next Difference between us is this: Mr* C. makes Faith to be Caufa applicans of our Juftificationi and I ma\e it to he hut a Condition.

I underftand my own term partly, but I underftand not his: What Caufe is this Caufa applicans * As far as I underftand him, he meaneth an efficient Caufe : And that which is an efficient, may be fa id co effett. Here is the difference then, I do not make Faith to effeU the pardon of any fm > that is, to pardon me (as a lefs principal Caufe:) But had Mr. C. given us this Caufality of Faith in any no* tion familiar to us Logicians of the lower Form, we fhould better have known what to make of it. In the mean time fhould I prefume but to pafs my Conje&ure which of the forts of Efficients he intends, perhaps I might wrong him by my miftakes % yet let thefe two things be remembred : 1. That I hereby give lefs to Faith, but not more to Workj. 2. That I only excufe myfelf, for not calling Faith*

A

of out jJJttfttficatton; n

A Caufe of Jufiification: But I do not accnfe others that fo call it, nor will I contend with them about it, if they mean a moral Caufe, ox per accident only\ if they will give me leave to forbear. And though anon I (hall (hew, that I hope you may yet mean the fame as I by Caufa applicans-y that it is but dijpo* fitio caufe materialise id eft, Recipientis i yet be-caufe fo great a number of great Divines call it the iuftrumental Caufe, I muft firft fpeak to that fenfe, on that fuppofition.

And here I remember Mr. Cs next words to thofe even now cited : [Do our Divines give more to Faith than you ? I. As you urge the to (^toi> of St. James, for being juftified by Works', fo you alfo infift upon the very letter of St. Paul, and will have Faith it felf to be properly our Righteoufnef by which vpe are juftified: This our greateft Divines do not> no more than the other^j

Reply* i. I had rather be accufed of adhering tooclofeto the words of the Holy Ghoft, than of departing caufelefly from them.

2. How oft have 1 told you over and over, that I make Faith to be no further our Righteoufneft, than as it is the Condition of our Righteoufneft merited by Chrifl? And knowing this, could you think and fay, that I give more to Faith than your felf, who fay, it is the Condition as well as I ? Sure the naming of this Condition by the name Righteouf-nefs-> is not giving more to it! If it be, i. You cannot fay fb, that ufe the name your felf s 2. And here feem to confefs I have [the very letter] of Scripture for it: And that's enough I think to juftitie the name? while I agree with you in the thing.

B 3 .He

iz mtyfytt jfaitpeacaufe

He proceeds thus : [Tet you fticl^ not to brand them as makjng man bit own Juflifier or Fardoner, TloTov a*. tV©-' cpvy^v ifK& o<Sb'vT&v. dirtily tbisU over-grofi: What profeffed Adversary could reproach our greatefl Divines more than thus? Whither will not a mans partiality carry him, if he he let alone ? May you not as well fay, that Chriji madefome their own Saviours, becaufe he faid, that their Faith had faved them j? I bad thought that all the glory did belong to the principal Agent, rather than to the I4-ftrument^]

Kepty> Where I have offended God in wronging men, I defire and hope for pardon. Yet if I may give a true account of my words, I muft fay, 1. That I would have you review, whether it be you or I that broke (he Ninth Commandment, I did not fay, that thefe Divines do make man his own Juflifier h but only that [I give not to Faith, and jo to man fo much as they, not daring to make man his own Juftifier."} I am afraid I Jhould be guilty of this, if I faid, that Faith effedeth our Juitihcation : Doth it follow that I fay, *they are guilty of it ? I think not, for all your anger. For Confequences are not to be fattened upon men that difown them, atleaft, as direUly guilty of them : I fee them, or feem to my felf fo to do \ it would therefore bring that guilt on me, if I held their opinion, though it may not on them (unlefs remotely.)

2. I never once thought of charging the men as holding, that they juiiitie themfelves > but only I charged their opinion with it confequentially. And muit the Reverence of men prohibite us to mention or intimate the ill Confequences of their mi-fiakes ? Then hath the ,Serpent got the day, when

he

lie hath once lodged his errours in Reverend breafts: It will be no more lawful to difturb him, if he be once fo houfed. Who is hethat li veth, and erreth not ? What errour in Morality hath not abfurd and vile Confequents? If we mention them, it feems we ate given up to a lamentable ftate of fin.

3. I now underftand why you heap up the Words of fomclate Reverend Divines, which I thought did make up utramq\ paginam in your Exceptions , and though themfelves might receive a fair Anfwer, yet did feem your mod irrefragable Argument. But if this be fo, it's vain to difpute any more: For if £ bring Scripture or Reafon, you may fay, The Divines are againft it. If I argue againft their Opini-ons>by (hewing their abfurdities 5 yqu may fay,What frofejfed Adversary could reproach them more ? Its too grofs to charge Abfurdities or ill Confequents on a Dodhine that fuch men hold. Then muft miftakes dare us and deride us, when they are got into thefe holts, we can follow them no further.

4. What fay you by Amefius, that faith, That there is fuch a Concatenation of Truths, that whoever denies one, and holdeth one errour, doth by Confequence overthrow the Foundation > Caf.Covf. I am not of his mind, unlefs.it be limited to (bme kind of Truths: But it Teems then he thought, that confequemially every errour denied Chrift the Foundation : How far was this man given up to reproach, not only the late Reverend Divines, but all men living ? far more than I.

5. M. C thinks that Chris's adive Tlighteoufiuj} in obeying the Moral Law, is not imputed to us for our Right eoufnejs. I fuppofe his Reafon is much drawn fromfeveral Abfurdities or ill .Confequents

B 4 which

%4c wftetftet faitpe a caufe

which he thinks will follow, if the contrary be af-ferted: Perhaps, that it will make Chrift's death needlefs or vain \ (for thofe that fay as he, do charge it with no lefs.) Muft I therefore lament the condition of Mr. C. as one left of God, to reproach all thofe Churches and Divines that are againlt him, las bad as their profeffed Adverfaries do ? and fay, He makes them deny the death of Chrift ?

6* If I muft believe as the Church believes, which Church is it ? why am I not as excufable for being loth to reproach the Church of Chrift for 1200, if not 1400 years after Chrift (who never made Faith the Injtrument of jujlifying^ that I could yet find) as accufable for reproaching fome part of the Divines of Europe for 150 years, by declaring the Reafon of my diflent from the ill Confequence of their Opinions ? If we muft go to the Toll^ neither you nor I (hall be well pleafed j if to the Ballance^ to weigh the Authority of Divines, where dwells he that muft hold the fcales >

7. Either we may charge Confluences on the owners of miftakes, or not: If not, then how come I «tobe charged with this hainous crime h which can be no way made good, but by pretending fuch Confequence ? If we may, then I might doit\ which yet I did not on the we^, but their Opinion*

8. If this Confequence follow not their Dodhine, then dlfprove it. My proof is this: [He that faith, The ad: of my Believing is the efficient Caufe of my Juftification, doth confequently fay, that I juftifie my felf: But, &c. therefore.] The major is plain, in that, [If the adt be an Injirument^ it is the Agents Instrument: But I am the Agent > therefore.") And

of out Jttfttficattott; zi

if I do by this Inftrumeut produce the effed, then I do pardon my felf, for that's the effedt.

£. You fay, [Whither mil a mans 'partiality carry hint, if he be let alone?~\ i.Thac Partiality was the caufe either you do hpou* or you do not. If you do not, according to my fimple Opinion, ycu fhould not have fo fentenced ; If you do know it^ then ei- ' ther direttly by feeing my heart from Tor}^ hither * (which I will not fuppofe you to pretend to:; Or elfe by fome certain fign. Suppofe you have figns of my reproaching our Divines, yet'prove by your ligns that I did it through -partiality: I fay again, -prove it. 2. If it were from partiality, then it is by fiding with fome other party againft you, whom I prefer before you : That party is either my felf alone, or fome others. If others, who be they > Papifts or Proteftants ? or who ? I know no party on Earth that I prefer before them, or equal with them (which I fpeak on fuppofition that I know my own heart as well as you do.) If it be my felf, then the Charge is much higher: But the prover muft be mpMxyvdsu$. To value my own judgment before fo many, andfuchmen, and thence fo to reproach them, I confcfs is a hainous crime: where I know nothing by my felf, yet am I not thereby juftified. But furely, if I do know my own heart, I am partial in all my ftudies, for thofe men whom I am charged to be partial againft, even againft my felf, and all others now living ; But the light of appearing-Truth is that which forceth me to differ from them h and if I am miftaken, I have not yet learned a remedy. Btit certain I am, that partly partiality for th^fe Reverend men, and partly the lothnefs to incur their cenfures, and efpecial-

z6 mtytfytt 5Fattft be a cattfe

ly lothnefs to occafion their offence and difquiet, have been fo ftrong a temptation to me to (hut my eyes, that I have been fometimes provoked to fay, [Vepart from me \ thU knowledg U an ungrateful bttr-then^ an offence to my deareji Friendly and makes men take me a/5 a man of Contention :~] fed vicit Veritas, (if I miftake not.)

I think he that confiders, i. That you hzvtthat party on your fide who are a ftronger temptation to partiality than any party (befides Chrift, his Truth, and the fame men in other things,) that I have to fway me againft them. 2. And that you fo much ufe their rvords^ where I conceive better Arguments are wanting, may perhaps fee caufe to put it again to the enquiry, Who is more likely in this Caufe to be partial ?

1. As for your inference from Chrift's words,[T&y Faith hathfaved thee.~\ I reply, 1. Chrift did not fay, that I can find, \jthy Faith it the efficient injirumental cauje of thy Salvation^] nor I think any thing equipollent : For I fuppofe he intended no more than the intereft of a Moral Condition \ if you take it to be fpoken of faving him from his difeafe^ or from the guilt of fin. But if you can prove, that it was fpoken of faving him from the power of (in by further San&ification, then I will yield, that their Faith was fome caufe. 2. So far as a man is the efficient of his own Salvation, I think he may properly be called his own Saver: Men are called in Scripture the Saviours of others *, why not as truly of them-felves, when they are faid to fave themfelves ? If it be unfit Cas it is) to ufe the word Saviour in this fenfe, of a mere man, the Ileafon is not from any Logical unfitncfs (unlcfs that fo full a name fhould

nor

of our ^unification; zy

riot be unlimitedly given to him , that is the caufe of one part of Salvation, and not the refh) but it is, becaufe it will be juftly ofifenfive, now Chrift hath made this his proper name. But can you prove, that man doth as truly pardon bimfelf as he doth reform bimfelf further by Faith ? and fo that Logically there is no more againft calling him his own Pardoner or Jujiifier, thaft [the faver of bimfelf from aftual fm^\

ii. You fay, you [bad thought all the glory had belonged to the Agent , and not to the Inftruwent.~\

Reply, i. We were not fpeakingof the glory, which is a Moral Intereft (where fpoke I a word of that ?) but of the Natural Efficiency. 2. I never was of your mind, nor ever (hall be I think. I know as the creature compared to God is nothings fo its honour compared to his is nothing > and I know its honour, as well as its efTence and exiftence, is all derived from God. But I think God puts an honour upon every Infirument that he ufeth, and rrioft in their bed and nobleft Works.?Proved> i.The Relation to God^ the principal Agent •> puts an honour on it, to be Inftrumentum ~t)ei. 2. The Relation to the end or happy effeft^ puts an honour on on it. 3. Every Inltrument hath an Aptitude to its office, and that Aptitude is honourable. 4. All free Agents have a Moral honour in being inftru-mental to any good, in that they adfc it voluntarily. 5. God will commend the Moral atiions of his people, that were but mere Conditions of the cffc& \ therefore furely thofe that were Infirument s : And Gods commendation doth both fuppofe them honour able y and put a glvry or honour upon them.

3. But it it mull be as you fay you thought it to

be,

2S CTi)etf)et 5Fattft be a cattfe

yet I pray you remember to do me this right, as when-ever I give more to Obedience^ or lefs to Faith than you would have me, do not charge me with derogating from the honour of Faiths feeing no glory is due to it as an Injirument! And if I do give lefs to Chrift than you, tell me of ir, and fpare not.

He next asks, [Whether they that make Faith an Ltjhument^ do deny any more than I (who mahg both Faith and Wor\s Conditions) that none but God can forgive fins f\

Reply. I think they do deny it more than I. I confefs they do not make man the principal Caufe > but in making him the Instrumental-^ they make him as an Injirument under God to pardon himfelf \ I think. The effed may be afcribed to every Caufe, according to the nature and proportion of its Cau-fality : But Conditions are no Caufes as fuch.

2. You make both Faith and IVorhj Conditions of Salvation s i. e. Glorification : And is not that as much againft the honour of Chrift, a? making them the Conditions of Juftification in Judgment ? If it were true, that one were dilhonourable to him, it would be as true of the other > but is indeed true of neither.

Here I remember the like great offence that you took before at thefe few words [James tool^ not Calvin/ counJelf\ when youhadfaid, Calvin7 counsel was not to ufe the phrafe , of being jujiified by Wvrlq. And you fay, that [_it contains mthing but a taunt againji Calvin, and that it's unworthy ufage ef fo Reverend a man.]

Reply. Truly, I do reverence fcarce any name, Cnce the Apoilles days, or at leaft fince Auflin y more than Calvin s : And there was not in me, that

of our 3Jttftificatfott; 29

I know of a taunting intent > nor do I fee any thing in thofe words that contain fuch unworthy ufage as you exprefs. The words fignifie but this, [James bis prattice was contrary to the counfel that Calvin there gives , not to uje the terms-> of being jufiified by Works : ] I thought the Emperor or the Pope would have endured as hard language as this. Certain I am, the greateft perfons in honour Ecclefiafti-cal or Civil that ever I knew, would not have taken it for fuch unworthy ufage (as far as I can be certain by their making lighter of far worfeO Truly I fear, that this extream high expectation of fuch fu-perlative Honour in the Minifters, is the great thing that threatens our calamity : When the example of the fall of the Roman Clergy by Luther, hath no more humbled us.

After this again, you bid me, [futnotoff Calvin with a taunts as I did before."] But I have laid more to thefe by-pages than I thought to have done.

The fum of all is this,I underftand not what Caufe it is that you call Can fa applicant, till you tell me. But I verily think that you are of my mind, and do not know it, and that you mean with Dr. Hmffe caufarn dijpofitivam (for fo he oft faith, Faith is of Judication j) which is but ViftofitioRecipientis, and is part of the fubje&ive material Caufe,and no efficient at all > fome call it a paffive ^receiving* In-firument: And indeed conditio pwftita is dijpofi* tio moral* recipient In the mean time, I pray you take it rather for a depreffing Faith (which yet you fay the glory belongs not to as Inftrument) than for an advancing WorJy> if I fay that Faith is no efficient Caufe of Juftiiication*

Contn

jo £)f tDe bibtt&ty

Controv. 4. [Mr* C. actyiowledgeth but one Law, from which the Covenant U dijiintt j and I makf two diftintt Laws*

To this I have fpoken at large to others, and therefore (hall fay little now *, the rather, becaufe I take what is faid to Mr. C. to remain fatisfa&ory for all his Aufwers. Only I (hall briefly explain my meaning about this.

Prop. 1. A Law is Vebiti (vel juris) conftitutio \Authoritativa, vel fignum voluntatis Rettoris debitum conjiituens. This Definition is not of Lex, as di-ftind from Precept, Priviledg, Control, in the narrow fenfe i but as it is the Conftitution of all Moral right or due, and fo the ati is adequate to the pro-dua debitum. This is called Jus h which word fignifieth both Jus Conjiituens, and Jus Conjiitutum. The firft is, Law in the true general nature of it *, the fecond is Debitum* Even ContraQs do oblige by an exercife of that lmperium which a man hath over his own anions and himfelf : Or elfe they are not efficiently obligatory at all, but only the Antecedent Conditions i which when man hath put, God feconds them with an Obligation.

Trop.2. The parts of a Law are two : 1. One is the Conftitution of what Jhall be due from us. This is called Precept, de agendo vel non agendo (which is Prohibition:) This conftituteth the debitum officii. 2. The (econd is the Conftitution of what Jhall be due to us. This is twofold: 1. Of Good. 2.0iEvil. j. Of Good: And that is twofold, I. Abfolutely

given^

given, without any Condition > which is commonly called the aft of God qua Benefactor, but fo is all giving whatfbever v yet is it his a& as Legiflator too* 2. Conditionally : Which hath two adte, 1. To constitute the Jus ad Datum, or the Vebitum beneficiu 2. To conftitute the Condition of that Jus oxT>ebu turn* And that is, 1. The Condition of our firft right* 2. Or of our continued right. 3. The Constitution de Vebito malt poena, is ever conditional, i.e. propter culpam : And though the word Condition is commonly ufed in bonam partem, as a member of Promifes and Contra£ls, yet is it truly and properly alfo ufed in malam partem, as a member of the Threatning.

Prop. 3. All the Dodhines, Narratives, Hiftorl-cal and Prophetical found in Scripture, are Adjuntts of God's Law in the ftri&eft fenfe j and parti of it in a larger fenfe\ yea, they are ftgna Conftituentia Vebitttm, and fo true parts of Law ftridtly taken in their demote ufe, though in their nearefi tife they are but Adjunfts; even as Narratives of the matter and occafion, are in many Statute-Laws of this Land.

Prop. 4. All the generical effence of a Law, is found in each individual* and there needeth no other form> but mere matter for the reception of that general nature, to make an individual Law.

Prop. 5. The Specification of Laws therefore, is not fo proper as the Specification of Subftantial Beings, but a Moral, lefs proper Specification.

Prop.

5* £>f tfte tit&etfitp

Pr^p. <?. Laws may be faid fpecifically to differ, and be diftinguifhed thefe ways : i. From the fecial end h efpecially when the ends are much diftant or deftru&ive of each other. 2. From the very . matter , when the difference is very great, and fo from the Condition of Premiant or Penal ads. 3. From Divers Efficients, i. e. Legislators ', or the divers grounds of Legiflativc right, and fo of Legislation. 4. From the fignifying matter , and fo fome are written, fome verbal, &c. 5. From the ilate of the fubjeft to whom the Laws are given. 6. From the number of parts: So fome are only Precepts, fome are only for reward upon duty, fome only for divifion of Inheritance, or Con-ftitution of particular Rights without Conditions. Some have all the forementioned parts, Preceptive, Penal and Premiant : For they are not eflential parts of a Law in Genere, but only of fome Laws in $ecie, from the order of effeSing* Some are made immediately by the Sovereign Power * fome the Sovereign makes mediately, by giving power to others to make them', as Under-Laws of Corporations, && fo from the manner of the San&ion, as remediable, or remedilefs, Reward and Penalty.

Pro.j. The word[L^»?lagreeth properly to all the parts of God's Law, taken fingly •, not only to the Precept and Commination,but alfo the Promife: Yea, it is as properly called a Law as a Covenant '-> becaufe a Law doth but Jus ConfiitHere &-6Uigare fnb-ditum\ but a Covenant is a [elf-obliging, and a making a duty to our felves, and fo putting a Law upon our felves. Now in the moft ftridt fenfe, God

can-

Of 0(fl>'£ HflOU &

cannot be faid to be obliged^ Vurandus and others (hew :) But in that the pttkft Goodnefs^ Veracity, Fidelity and Immutability of God doth afcertain to us the thing promifed > therefore, after the manner of men, we may fay, that God by his Word doth oblige bimfelf who yet ftridtly cannot be a Debtor ; And thus God is faid to Covenant.

Prop. 8. This fame a& of Promife is called a L w and a Covenant in feveral refpe&s. It's called a Law, in that it is the a£i of a Retfor^ performed to the ends of Government y impofing onus theadiof contenting, and annexing a reward and penalty.

Thus it is Lex (iritta difta. It is called a Covenant, partly as God doth, as it were, engage him-felf:(And fo the mere Promife iszfimple Covenant) partly as he requireth marts Promife or Confent to the terms (and fo k is a propounded or tendered Covenant-mutual 0 and partly as man doth actually re~ promife and engage himfelf to God, and accept the terms of God's Covenant: (And fo it isanadlual, mutual Covenant orContradfc.) But it is called Jus Confiituensy a Law in the general fenfe, as it is the Conjiitttmn oi Right howfoever.

. Prop. p. Though the true nature of a Law be found in each of the formentioned adts fingly, yet it is the preceptive A<ft that is mofi eminently fo called, especially as (dif-jundtively) taking in the Penal Ail with it, explicitely or implicitely. And fo the great and eminent work of Laws is obligate aut adObedientiam aut adpoeuam> and the pretniant Adt is not of fuch conftant ufe and neceflky.

C Prop.

34 4M tl)e UttietrCtp

P™/>. 10. The word [Law] therefore is more comprehenfive than the word [Covenant") ftri&ly taken j the former, being properly ufed as of every Angle adfc fore-mentioned i the latter only of the *Promife. Yet is the whole Law fometimes called a Covenant from the Fromife, which is a noble part of it i but that is an improper Appellation, as calling the whole by the name of a part : But the other is more proper, as calling the whole and each part by the name of that general EfTencc which doth inform each part, and the whole. Properly therefore God's Covenants are his Laws (unlefs when the name Covenant is improperly ufed of mere Pre-di&ions, and then Remotely and Redu6Hvely they are Laws) but all God's Law is not a Covenant.

Trap. ii. According to the forementioned ways of Specification, God's Laws may be thus fpecified and dittributed : i. As from the jpecial ends. And fo God's Laws are either, i. For the obliging the Subjedt to perfett obedience h or for the recovering and refioring him from his revolt, and from his mifery. The former is alfo, I. As obliging to obedience every wty perfett • This was the Law given to Adam in Innocency, and it doth not fo oblige us nor* : JCj 3 For it cannot obligate ai pr£teritHm,zr\d to duty^ fo far as Penalty is fuffered for former m-performance. 2. Or as obliging to perfett obedience only for the future, as fuppofing former fin : Xjt* And Co it is the general Law of God, and that Law of Nature which ftill remains in force to fain Mankind, obliging him ftill to obey or differ.

of dews jumwL' %

2. The recovering Law is fpecified both, i. Asic refioreth rebelling Apoftatizing man to God and bis obedience, I. Incboatively, by Repentance and faith. 2. Progreffively, by fincere Obedience, through San-deification.3. Perfefily,in Glory. And*. As itrcftoreth undone, loft, condemned man from his mifery y 1. Relatively, by Gift. 2. Really, as in the three fore-mer-tioned degrees. For that which brings us to God, (to Obedience, as the means to pjeafe him as the end) doth thereby reftore us from our own Mi-

fiv-

3. God's Laws are fpecified from their matter* thus :

1. As to the Precept: God hath a Law Cor had) whofe matter was perfeS Obedience fas be-fore-defcribed :) And he hath a Law, whofc matter isRepentance for Imperfe£iion, Faith in him that refioreth us from fin, and fincere Obedience for the future to God-Redeemer.

2. As from the matter of the Promifory part : So God had a Law made to Adam, which (as Divines do think, and it is very probable) did promife Adam not only Immunity from God's Wrath, D-ath, &c. but alfo a Celejiial Glory afterward, iu €a£e of his perfect Obedience. God hath now a Law, by which he promifeth to give Cbriji bimfelf to be our Heady Husband-, and Lord, and Saviour, and with him Remijfion , Adoption , J unification, the Spirit of the Redeemer, and a Glorification with our Head, where we (hall forever praifc him that hath redeemed us to God by his Blood, and made us Kings and Priefts to God i and in order thereto, that he will by degrees takeoff our fin by San&i-ficatkm, and our penal ttiifery by Prefcrvations,

7,6 <©f tije m&etnep

Deliverances, Confolations, and at laft by the Re-furre&ion and final Absolution. Thefe things were not the matter of the firft Promife.

3. As to the Tbreatning, (though fome fay that the New-Law hath no threatning : yet) 1. God's Law purely Moral, I. Did threaten toman in In-nocency, Veath in general 9 which contained the lofs of God's Favour and Spirit, and of his pre-fent felicity, and his hopes of what was promifed for the future *, together with the pains and difTo-Jution of his body, and everlafting pains (at leaft) to his Soul: Which pain would much confift in the gripes of Confcience for his not-continuing his In-nocency, and in the fenfe of his mifery in the fore-faid Lofs. 2. The fame Law o( Nature,ca\kd Moral, as ft ill continued to fain man,dot\\ threaten upon every further Tranfgrelfion, the increafe of our forefaid mifery (fo far as we are capable fubjedfo ) and doth by more renewed Obligations, bind on us the fame.

2. God hath befides this, his fpecial Law of Grace, which threatened more than the Law did to Adam, or as merely natural it doth to any: (I mean as it is made to man as man, and for obedience as fuch, and not as it is made to man as redeemed for 'Recovery and Reftoration :) that is, This New Law threatneth the lofl and -privation of all that good, which we before mentioned, as the matter of its promife > as the lofs of Cbrift himjelf, that he fhall be no Head, Husband, or effectual Saviour to us > nor be our Advocate with God to juftifie us, nor intercede for our Salvation ; We (hall lofe all the hopes we had of God's favour, as to be reftored by him, and of the Remiffion ol our fins, and of Ju-itification and Adoption , and of the fancftifying

Spirit

pirit, and all the Confolations of God, the joy an d peaee in believing, the deliverance from the Capti -vity of Satan, and from the dominion of fin, the right by promife to the bleflings of this Life, and ro eternal Glory, as purchafed and reftored, and of final Abfolution in Judgment. The pain of ferfe alfo is much more than the firft Law did threaten ; For as in general it will be zfar forerpuni/hment, fo specially it will be infli&ed fox ingratitude againft the Redeemer h and it will much confift, i. In the fenfeof the greatnefs of the fore-mentioned lofs. 2. In the gripes of Conference for their ingratitude, and wilful negle&ing and reje&ing of fo great and free a Salvation.

And whereas fome fay, It is no Privation, and consequently no punishment, to lofe that which they never had.

I anfwer, It is very falfe : If they had but an offer pf,itand conditional Promife({pech\\y fo free and fure a one) and were put into a pojjibility of it, and a way to attain it, lb that their own refufal only de-priveth them of it (or their Impenitency and Ingratitude) this is properly a Privation and a Penalty; Though it's true, according to their Dodhine that deny Ghrift's general Satisfaction, and that he purchafed to all men a poflibility of recovery, it would be no punifhment to mifs of it, as being but a Negation, and no Privation*

4. Alfo and moft principally from the matter of the feveral Conditions of the penal and prcmiant Ads, are God's Laws fpeciHed and diftinguifhed. The Condition of the firft Threatning, was the leaft particular fin; the Condition of the Threatning of the New-Law, is only find Impenitency, fa-C 3 fidelity

fidelity and Rebellion againft the Lord that bought us, inrefped to the penalty of everlafiing wrath and death: But lefler fins are oft punifhed with ■feme withdrawings of the Spirit of Grace , and fome fenfe of God's difpleafure, and temporal afflictions. The Condition of the Promife of the firft Law was perfect obedience, without the leaft fin: This is now ccafed (though Mr. C« deny it) * for, I. The matter of the Condition now would be»<*-turaliter impoflibile : man having once finned, it is impoflible he mould be perfed, and that which is done, {hould again be undone. It is therefore an intolerable conceit for us to conceive, that God offers life to tinners, on condition that they be not finners > and that he hath a Covenant in this form, \lf thou have not finned in Adam, thou Jhalt live*] God's Promifes run not upon terms of natural im-poflibility : For fuch a Promife is indeed a "threatening or Sentence^ and no Promife, and is equivalent in Law-fenfe to this > \jE>ecaufe thou haji finned in Adam, thou art guilty of Veath*~] 2. The Conditions of the Promifes are future or frefent ufually, and not fomewhat paft j at leaft, where Duty is the matter of the Condition, as here it is. And when the time of the Condition is expired (as it is when it is become naturally impoflible)the Promife ceafeth. 3. God is, as it were, obliged by his Promife, while it is in force : But when the Condition isabfolute^ ly violated, God can no longer Hand obliged. Our Covenant-breaking difobligeth him. 4. Cejfante na-*tttrali fubjedi capacitate cejfai promrflio : But the ca-parity of a!i Mankind is ceafed of receiving the benefit of the firft Covenant on its terms > therefore, &w 1 Mr.

Mr. C. faith, This would as well prove, that the Precept ceafeth , becaufe man U nncapable of obey* ing it.

I anfwer, i. A man lofeth Benefits by his own fault, but no man nouft be freed from "Duty ox Penalty by his own fault. Nemo ex propria crimine commodum recipit, we may lofe our own rigln by our fin, but God lofeth not his. 2. The Law doth ceafe to oblige us to Obedience abfolutely perfett ; It doth not command usnow that we (hall not be guilty o/AdamV/w^.But for the time to C0Wf,Obcdience is not naturaliter impoffibile y but only moraliter per accidens exprava difrofnione, which aggravates tin, butexcufeth not from duty: But our capacity of the Reward, on the terms of that Covenant, is as naturally impojjible, as it is for contradid;ory Pro-pofitions to be both true, [Peccavimus in Adamo,J and, [N,m peccavimus in Adamo.]

Mr. C. obje&eth, That it may feem unreasonable that the Promife ceaft, and the Threat be in force.

I anfwer, The contrary is true: Nothing more reafonabley than that man's fin fhould forfeit his own right, anddifoblige God, without forfeiting God's right, and difobliging thcmfelves. So much of the Condition of the Promife of the firft Law.

Now I add for Comparifon : The Condition of the Covenant, or Promife of the Law of Grace, is Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience , which much differs from the former Condition. Of this more fully anon. So much of the Specification of God's Laws by the Conditions, the Promife and Threat * and fo of the Specification of ihemfrom the matter of each part.

C4 3. God's

40 Df tt)e hihtmv

3. God's Laws are fpecificd from the divers Relations of the Legiflator, and the divers rights of Government: And fo God's firft Law of Nature was made by him as Creator, or as ReUor ex jure Creations: But his Law of Grace is made by him as Redeemer, or as ReUor ex \ure Redemptions. Here I might eaiily (hew a multitude of mifchievous er-yours that follow the denying univerfal Redemption quoad pretium &fatisfaOionem:Eut I pafsthetru Efpecially note here thefe three things following ; t. That the jus Redemptionis doth notdeftroythe the former jus Creations \ but fuppofing it is fuper-addedtoit, and fomewhat fubcirdinate. 2. That therefore the Law of God, as Creator is not de-tfroyed or abrogated by the Law of thtRedeemer y but is fuperadded, and that in a certain Subordination to it. 3. That yet the faid Law of Creation ftands not now alone (as God's right of Creation to the Government ftands not alone, but conjunct with his right of Redemption:) And therefore, 1. The 'threatening is not now remediless as then it was, but conjunct with, and potentially or virtually deftroyed by the remedying Law. 2. And therefore the Precept is not now to the fame ends cnly, or rvheliy as before the fall: The immediate end indeed is the fame, that is, that man be obliged to Duty to his Creator > but remotely there is this change, the end is not now to retain peifed: man in his perfe&ion, nor to keep him from falling from his tirft felicity, or forfeiting his right to the benefit of that Covenant: And the immediate remaining end, remaineth not alone ; For the Law of Nature is not how only to oblige us to obey the Creator, but alfothe Redeemer: And itisalfoto

be

Of <ws %m: it

be the Rule of our fincere Obedience, which is the Condition of our Salvation : So that now the Law of Nature (or the Moral Law) is the Law of God as Creator and Redeemer both : For all things are delivered into the hands of Chrift, and therefore the Laws. As if the Subjedb and Laws of a Nation of pardoned Rebels, fhouH by the King be delivered to his Son as their Governor, having procured their pardon : So that there are no Laws in the World now but the Redeemers Laws But yet we muft itill obferve a wide difference between his Law of Grace, which is jfroper to God-Redeemer as Redeemer > and this remnant of the Law of Nature, which the Redeemer found thefmner under when he redeemed him, and which was with the (inner delivered up to him, partly ftill to oblige the finner to duty, partly to oblige him to punifhment, thatfo he might be a fit fubje& for the Law of Redemption, whofe very nature is to be a remedying Law, to diffolve the obligation of the former.

4. God's Laws alfo arefpecified, or atleaftdi-

verfified by the different matter of the/jgtf. And fo

fome Laws of God confitt in his Revelations by the

mere Wctkj of Nature., within us, and without us,

in which we may read much of God's mind > the

invifible things of God being ften in the things that

are made, fo far as to leave men without excu(e.

This is now commonly called the Law of Nature ;

Other Laws God hath revealed by Works indeed,

but \t is fupermtHral Works: And fo ChrilFs Life,

Miracles, Death, Refurredtion, giving the Spirit,

were a real Law to the World that could know

them : For they were (igns of God's Will de T)e-

hito Credendi } &c. Other Laws God hath revealed

by

4* £>f tf|e 2>it>erfitp

by word of mouth, others by Infpiration, others by Writing i which arc now his principal Handing Laws, adjoyning to that of Nature (and containing its matter.)

5. God's Laws are divers, according to the divers dates of the fubjed. And fo God's iirft Law was to innocent Man in his Friendjbip, and in fome felicity. God's remedying Law of Grace (yea, and his remnant of the pure Morals)is made to man fain. But with this difference *, The Morals as fucb, remain to oblige man qui peccator^ not only qua pecca-tor. But the Law of Grace is to oblige, and to recover a (inner qua peccator Kedemptus & Reftau-raudits eft. And as Laws of men are diftingui{hed, fome being for defending the juftj fome for punifh-ing the nnjuft > fome for loyal Subje&s, fome for thofe that have been difloyal, &c. fo may we fay of God's Laws. But the differing ends here included are more confiderable.

5. So from the number of Parts-, or the feve-ral Rights conftituted, are God's Laws diftinguifti-ed. Some conftitute only the duenefi of Duty or Penalty : (as the remnant of the Law of Nature^ or pure Morals, which loft the adjoyned Promife, and fo flood alone to Adam before the Promife was made : I fay alone, though not without mercy and pofflbility of remedy, yet without any Promife of a remedy revealed.) Other Laws of God have Precept, Promife and Threatning, as is aforefaid.

7. Some Laws are of God's own immediate en-a&ing, though he may ufe a Scribe to caufe the/iga, or a Herald to promulgate them, yet no ones JViU cnterpofeth to give them a Being: Such are the Laws of Nature and Scripture. Other Laws of God ate

fo

fo his, as that immediately they are the Laws of men : Such are all Laws of Common-wealths and Churches,which are not againft God's fpecial'Laws, but according to their general Determinations and DiredHons : Which are all only as Under-Laws, to be made and altered pro re nata i which it was not fit (hould be determined a-like to all Ages and Nations by one univerfal, ftanding Law *, nor yet did God think fit to be called down to every alteration, fo as to be the vifible Governour of eachChurch and Commonwealth : And therefore he hath entrufted a certain Legislative power for fuch under-Laws in the hand of his Officers j and what they do, according to his Commiffion, he owneth and maketh jt his own Laws > and fo commandeth us in the Fifth Commandment to obey them.

8. Laftly, God's Laws are much differenced from the manner of the San&ion* And fo the fbreatning of his firfi Law , though it Jhewed no remedy-* yet it excluded not all poffibility of remedy nor was a peremptory undijfolvable Obligation: Much left is the remaining part of it fo now, when the Covenant of Grace is made. But the Ihreatning of the Law of Grace, to the final non-performers of the Conditions of that Covenant, is a peremptory ^breatning, and its Obligation is remedileji and un-diffolvable. This is becaufe God hath adjoyned to it a Predictions that there (hall be no more Sacrifice for fin, nor remedy, nor efcape. Thus much of the feveral Specifications or Diftributions of God's Laws.

Here note thefe two things:

i. That I have not inftanced all this while, in the Law of the Jews Church or Common*wealth as

fuch,

44 £>ftl)em&erfltp

fuch, becaufe the Explication of it hath fuch difficulties, that cannot thus obiter and curforily be opened.

i. From what is faid it may appear, that the firft and moft eminent distribution of God's Laws, as ftanding at the greateft difference, is between that made to Adam in Innocency, and that made by the Redeemer for our Recovery. For in almoft all the forementioned refpedts are they differenced, as I have (hewed already. And the fecond moft eminent diftribution of God's univerfal Laws, is into the remnant of the Law of Nature, Creation, or pure Morals, as now put into the hand of the Redeemer > and the pioper'Ltfw of the Redeemer being Lex remediam, a Law of Grace.

Note alfo, That becaufe the Covenant or Promt-fory part is the principal part of this Law, it being purpofely a remedying Law, an A& of Oblivion, therefore it is more commonly called the Covenant than the Law, and more commonly and properly, called the Tromife than the Covenant > and frequent-ly alfo (or fometime) a Teftament (though fome deny it ,) and oft a Confiitution, Vijpofition, Ordination, which is a Law, and oft and properly alfo called a Law. But the Law of Works with Adam, was principally contained in the Precept and Comi-mination i infomuch, as it feemeth a very hard Con-trover fie with fome, Whether there were any Covenant or Promife at all or no. There is none found written, unlefs implied in the Threat *, and that is hard to be concluded, feing every threat of death implieth not a prbmife of everlafting life; And whether it were contained in nature or no^ is hard to fay.

Partus

Par&us in Proem, ad Comment* in Rom. denieth that there is any Covenant of Nature? but only of Grace > and faith, God cannot naturally be obliged to the Creature. Others think, that though in point of Commutative Jufike he could not, yetas~Rf#0r ob fines Regiminis fecundum Jufti-tiam diftributivam, he was quafi obligatus? to reward man perfe&ly obeying, though bono far they dare not fay. Thefe things are left very dark, or at leaft, we fee little of them. But (though it be probable by fome paffages in the Gofpel, and fome-what in Reafon, that Adam had a Promife not only of continuing in that felicity, but of a greater* yet) I never read, to my remembrance, the name of Covenant ox Promife ufed of that Law to Adam.

The third molt obfervable diftribution of God's Laws, is between the Law given by Mofes to the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews, and the Promife or Law of Grace by Jefus Chri/i. The differences I will not now adventure on > only I fhall fay thefe three things: i.That one was but particular to one people, the other univerfal: 2. That among the Jews, this was by an excellency called the Law* fo that they in a manner appropriated that term to it,as if they knew no othqr Law. 3. That therefore in Paul's Epiftles it is this Judicial Law that is commonly called [the Law^] and which he difputeth againft diredly and exprefly in theDodhine of Ju-ftification, and whofe Abrogation he fo contends for, and which he fets againft the Law of Faith, and the Grace and Truth that came by Jefus Chiift. If this be not obferved, the Scripture, efpecially Paul's Epiftle^ will not be underftood.

The

4* dM ti)e Dtfcetfiep

The fourth moft obfervable difference between God's Laws.is between the Law ofGrace^or the Fro-mife as before Cbrij}^r\d the fame as after Cbrift.This difference, though very great, yet is tnofily but accidental in the Promulgation. At firft it was revealed more obfeurely, and after more clearly : At firft eminently to one Nation, and after univerfally to the Catholick Church (and for the gathering of it firft :) So that the term [Gojpel] is appropriate to that Publication, which was after Chrift \ and the former 'called only the Vromife. Yet fome difference more than accidental here is between thefe two : Fori i. They before Chrift, were bound to believe only in a Mefliab in general i we are bound to believe that jfefus Chrift is be, or we (hall die in our fins: They were to believe in him as to come > we, as come already : A more general dark Belief would fave them* it was not fo necelfary to Salvation to know his Death, and Refurrettion, and Afanfion, and coming again to Judgments (for fure the Difcipks were in a ftateof Salvation, when they knew not thefe :) But now all thefe are necelfary to Salvation to be known. 2. The matter of their Obedience to the Redeemer, was not then the fame as now : Then they muft (hew fincere Obedience partly in obfer-ving the Jerrijh Lan> \ but now not fo : Nay, we have Sacraments newly inftituted, and Churches otherwife ordered, &c 3. More of the Spirit and Grace was poured out after Chrift than before > in-fomuch, as that eminent degree hath the name of {the Spirit] oft appropriated to it: And fo it is jfiid, the Difciples had not yet received the Spirit, becaufe Chrift was not yet glorified: And it is called the Spirit of Promife , that is the promifed

Spirit-

Of d50&'$2Ulfo& 47

Spirit. So much for the Diftribution of God's Laws.

Prop. 12. The nature or ufe of a Law, is to be the rule of our a&ions, and of God's Judgment: Regula attionum Moralium, & norma judicii, becaufe it conftituteth what is due both from us , and torn.

Trap. 13. Whatever Law therefore is in force for us to liveby\ we muft neceffarily be judged by it; And whatever Law we axe judged by, we muft either bcjuftified or condemned by: Forjudging is the genus^ which exifteth not but in thckjpecies of Ab-folution and Condemnation.

Prop. 14. Tojujlifie or condemn a man according to the Law, as the rule of Judgment is tojudg that the reward is due, or not due j or the punifhment due, or not due to him, according to the tenor of that Law fc that is,that he is guilty, or not guilty.when he is charged with a fault, and to have no right to the reward, or to be liable to the penalty, becaufe of his fault*

Prof. 15. To beguiltlefs* is to bejuft in fenfu foreufi againft tbefe Accusations : To be one, i.That is faultlefs \ 2. Or to whom the benefit or reward is due, or to whom the penalty is not due according to that Law, this is to be jujh

Prop. \6. He that is thus juji, is therefore ju/Ji-fied, becaufe he is juji : For the juftitia Caufie, & ita perfonx quoad banc caujam, is it which is to be

enquired

4$ £)f t|Je biUtttfy

enquired after as the bufinefs of the day: And it i$ the Office of the juji Judg,s to jujlifie the juj} qua talis, becaufe they arejuji > and condemn the unjuji, becaufe they are unjuji. For to juftifie, is but to fentence him jufl > that is, juji, becaufe he U juji. It is therefore impoffible for any man to have jufiitiam caufe, a juji Caufe, or Righteoufnefs of his Caufe at God's Bar, and yet riot to be jujiified by it.

Prop. 17. Yet that which is the caufe of Juftifi-cation in fenfu forenfi, is not always a proper caufi in a Phyficalfenfe * but fometime only an Antecedent, or Vijpofnio materia, or Caufa (me qua non: The Caufe that is to be tried.

Prop. 18. Though mediately (quod ad reatum tulp*) it be the Precept that will be the rule to jlidg men juft or unjuft by, yet ultimately it is the penal or premiant a& of theLaw,the Promife or thtfbreat* »ij!g,which is it that concludeth men juji or unjuji, and is the immediate rule of justifying or condemning them, and not the Precept or Prohibition. Theft do but determine de Vebito Officii, or what was or (hall be due from us to God * but the final bufinefs of the Judgment, is to determine what is due from Cod to us: And this is conftituted in the Promife and the Threatning only.

Prop. 19. It is therefore the Condition of that Pro-mife or threatning, that will be the very thing by which we muft be tried ; (For the Condition is part of the Promife which is conditional*} And the Queftion of the day will be, Whether we did perform that Condition of the Promife or not ? and fo,

Whether

of d50&* Eaun 4<*

Whether the Condition of the Threatning be found upon us or not.

Prop. 20. That which is our performance of the Condition of the Promife, and not committing the Condition of the Threat, is therefore our Material Right eoufnefs* by which we are juftified in that Judgment againft the Accufation of non-performance.

Prop. 21* As there was a Two.fold Law entire ', confifting of Precepts, Threatning, and Promife, ( or at leaft the two firft, by the confent of all, were in the Firft Law) made upon a double ground of Legiilation, to a different End, a different Sub-jed, &c £b is there a Two-fold Judgment^ and fo a Two-fold Juftification and Condemnation : One by God as Refif0r,according to the pure Law of Wor^s* as Creator: The other by God in Chrift as Redeemer and Rettor of the Redeemed World* upon the terms, and by the Law of Grace. The Judgment of God-Creator, according to the Law of Works, hath two parts and feafons, according as that Law doth much differ as it ftood entirely in Innocency, and without Remedy, till the promife of Grace * and as it ftands in part, and with that Redeeming Promife fincck

i. The firft Judgment that God held, was after the Fall of Adam* when as Creator according to that firft Law, he fat upon the Offcndors, and pajfed the Sentence of Condemnation on all Mankind : but before the Execution* yea even in the Judgment* the Mediator as it were interposing * that is, God in mercy refolving upon, and promifing a way for

D tfc^e

the refcuing of the Offendor by the Satisfaction of his Jufticei he look'd upon that Satisfaction and Sacrifice as in ejfc morali ••> and upon conGderation of it as future, he pad a Sentence of Conditional Abfo-lution and Pardon, in a Promife of the Meflias to bruife the Serpent. But this was but fomewhat obfeurely done: Hereupon he prefcribed typifying Bloody Sacrifices as the Conditions in part, and as further teaching intimations of the promifed Sacrifice. He accepted the Bloody Sacrifice of Abel fin-cerely offered in Faith* and he reje&ed theilln-bloody Sacrifice of Cain offered*without Faith and fincerity i and told him, [If thou do well, (that is, according to the New-Law alfo ) Jhalt thou not be acceped? (viz* through the promifed Seed and Sacrifice ) i but if thou do i% fin lieth at the door 3 : expounding the Covenant of Grace more fully, as being Conditional, and Faith and fincere Obedience being the Conditions : which it is moft likely God fattier expounded then to the Patriarks, than is left written. This Covenant God yet made plainer to Noah, and yet much plainer to Abraham, and to the Israelites in Types \ and yet much plainer by the Prophets, efpecially David and Ifaiah. Thus God did firtt, by his own adtual Sentence or Promife, and then by the fame revealed fullier by Prophets and Laws, conditionally jujiifie the fallen World, and abfolve them from their guilt.

But becaufe the Sacrifice offered, and Satisfaction performed, was more than the fame as merely promifed and undertaken > therefore God referved the fuller Declaration of that Absolution, which is the Fruit of it, till the MeiTiah (hould come. And then God did again more fully pronounce the Sentence

of

■

of dcfoa^ %m$. s t

of Conditional Absolutions twice, or two ways: Firft, He did by a Voice from Heaven pronounce, £ This vs my "Beloved Soh-> in whom I am well-pie afed y hear ye him ] > q. d. [[According to his undertaking he is Incarnate, and is now fatisfying my Juftice, and doth allthat I require at his hands for Man's Redemption. This is he in whom my Wrath is ap~ peafed to the World, (not abfolutely to acquit them, but ) Co far that if they will Hear him-, they ' fhall live ]. Next this, The Lord Jtfus himfelf having taken fuller pofleflion of his Dominion and Empire, doth moft clearly publifli the New-Law of Grace : That, [ Whoever doth Repent and Believe^ Jhall be pardoned and faved> &c ] This Law is an All of Pardon : And being fo oft fpoken by God himfelf, and now byChriftin the flefh, it is equivalent to a General Sentence of Judgment. Not as Abfolutely and Actually pardoning particular Sinners : for fo it is but a Law of Grace, or a Promise of it on Condition : But as it is the folemri Pronunciation of a General and Conditional Absolution to all Mankind, foitisa kind of Sentence, or equivalent thereto. And thus God the Father as Reftor, according to the Law of Works, hath himfelf, by an Ad of Grace, Juftified Conditionally the fore-condemned World* And this Conditional Justification is not to be fleighted, becaufe but Con* ditionaU and becaufe that many afterwards perifh ; For it is a pure free Gift \ and the Condition is but the accepting of the Gift according to its Nature^ viz* Chrifl and Life : And Acceptance is fo naturally Jup^ pofed necejjary in all Gifts-, that it is riot ufed to be exprejfed as a Civil Condition^ but implyed among rational Men -> and the Gift called Abfolute^ (though

D 1 in.

k

5* ©ftftetufcetfltp

indeed fo far Conditional) » And Refufal and In* gratitude ufeth to deprive Men of thofe Gifts

which the Laws of Men ca\\ Abfolute*

Befides, ithelongeth not to God a§ Legiflator, to give Men Hearts to accept bu Gift ( but in another Relation ): And he gives Chrift, and Pardon, and Right to Life, as Legiflator and Rettor fecundum Leges, and as Benefactor together. And therefore God doth quantum in fe as Legiflator, jujiifie all

Men*

In the fira Juftification of the Father, or God-Creator, (I mean by him as JudgX the fole Condition, and fo the fole Rigbteoufnefs of the Juftified World, is the Sacrifice and Merit of the Lord Jefus Cbriji, who is therefore called the Lord our Rigbteoufnefs. No Aft or Habit of Man's, either Faith or Worlds, is any Condition of this firfi Justification. Thus was God in Cbrift reconciling the World unto bimfelf, not imputing to them their tranfgreffxons. Thus have we Redemption in bis Blood, even the Re-miffion of fins : Thus having purged (or made purgation of) cur fins by bimfelf, he afcended and fat at the Right Hand of God, Heb. I. 3. Here Cbrijl ' the Redeemer was not the Judg, but was judged, and loco delinquent & rei: God the Father here was Judg,who firji condemned his Son, as it were ; and after Satisfaction given, jujiified firji him as Sponfor, and then the World for his fake. Thus God fir-gave thofe all the Debt, who yet perifh by taking their fellow-Servant by the Throat. Remember that we difclaim all Man's Works or Faith, as not being the teaft part of, or Ingredient in, This General Conditional Jujlifi'cation of fallen Mankind, by an Aft of Far don equivalent to a Sentence.

But

But feeing it was never in the thoughts of the Father or Mediator to make us GW/ 5 and exempt us from his Governments therefore a Lordwc muft full have, and therefore a Law : and he was pleafed by a Lapp to make the forefaidJu{lification> and convey to us our Right in Chrift and his Benefits. And this Law impofeth on u* Duty to the Lord-Redeemer^ and conftituteth the Conditions on which we (hall live by him, and fo is of ufe for the Application of his Benefits i and according to this New-Law the Redeemer that hath bought us, doth here govern us S therefore according to this Law will he judg us. So that the Great Judgment at the Laft Day, will be by Cbrijl as Redeemer^ ( and God the Father in and by him ) and fo by the Redeemers Law.

I will not dare to determine that there will then be no ufe of the Law of Works as a Rule of Judgments ( butnoneasthe#///y Rule to any } \ or that there will be no juftifying Men from the Guilt of Death as due, according to the Sentence of that fir ft Law.

But thefe things I may fay, i. That if there be any Accufation of Men merely as (inner s, and as guilty of Death by the firft Law y then muft there be at Judgment a double Jujiif cation requifite againft a donble Accufation* One is againft the true Accufation, that is, we finned againft the Law of Worhji and thereby deferved the Penalty. Againft this ( confefling our fins ) we plead, The Blood of Cbrijl procuring us pardon, and that Pardon as given us conditionally in the New-Covenant. Then comes the fecond Jujlification to be neceffary, in that here we are devolved over to the New Covenant, and to be tryed by the Redeemer md his Law : and D 3 , then

54 $Df tl)e DfocrGty

then the Queftion is only, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant or not ? Againft the falfe Accufations [ that we have not ] we muft be juftified by our AHual Performance, as the Matter of our Righteoufnefs. This Juftification is fubordinate to the former > and by this the former is brought to perfection, and fo we are absolutely jujlified.

2. Note alfo > That the Scripture doth fo much fuppofe our Antecedent Conditional Juftification by God-Creator in the Blood of Chrift, that it fcemeth to defcribe the general Judgment, as if that former were done already, and the latter only or mainly were apt to do, as the Work of that Day, as the means of making the firft abfolute. For Cbriji of Redeemer (hall be the Judg '•> and for loving or not loving himfelf in his Members, fhall the Sentence pafs : not upon the mere terms of the Law of Works, but for improving or not-improving their talents of Grace, I mean of Mercy received from the Redeemer. Here is therefore a Particular Juftification from the falfe Charge of non-performance of the Gofpef-Conditions, neceflary > and alfo a General Juftification from the guilt of all fin indeed committed, neceflary, as the conjun& Grounds of the total and final Vniverfal Abfolution. Which we may, according to the tenor of the Law, conceive of as in this order, (and fo produceth alfo the Juftification in our Confciences, according to the Rule of the fame LawJ.

Firft, The great Queftion is, Whether the Sinner U to be fent to Heaven or to Hell ? Saved or Damned ? The Accufer faith. He U to be damned. (Here's the Accufatioa de fine).

His

His firft Accufation, as the Reafon is, [ Lord, he bath broke thy Law, which faith-. The Soul that li-veth fhall die ]• The Juftiher faith, Q I pardoned all Men for the fakg of the Blood of the Redeemer, on Condition of Faith and Repentance^. ( This part of the Judgment, that in the Golpel-Defcription feemeth to fuppofe as done).

The next Charge or Accufation is, [ Lord, he did not truly believe and repent, and therefore hath no benefit by the Law of Grace : (or elfe) He added not fincere Obedience, or did not perfevere, and therefore hath loft: h'vt Right to thy Pardon ^). Againll this we are juftified by pleading Not-guilty ; that is, That we did Believe, Repent, Obey fmcerely, and Terfevere. Upon which our Judg will determine, That according to the Law of Grace we are Jfgt-. Guilty in the Point we are Acculed, and consequently that univerfally we are not lyable to Condemnation.

By all this it appeareth that Jujlification being confidered > !• As oppofite to Accufation i> 2. As oppofite to Condemnation > That there is a Two-fold Accufation, and confcquently a Two-fold ] : ujiifiction oppofite thereto, and that there is a Two-fold Condemnation of the wicked virtually in Law : Alfo that there is one final Peremptory Sentence of Condemnation in Judgment, which (hall pafs upon them upon this double Ground. And there is one final Sentence of Life for the Justification of Believers in Judgment > which pallcth alfo on the double ground of the forefaid double Juftification, as oppofite to Accufation : of which the firft only is Jultification a Reatu, the fecond, Contra Reatum faljum impaUum \ vel quod rei non fumm : Theie

D 4. are

16 £>t tfte mtttov

are done in Law at our firft Believing, from which time forward there is no Condemnation to them that are in Chrift > but before they were in Chrift by Faith, there was a Condemnation. Alfo that though there be two Laws that Condemn^ yet there is but one that Juftifietb\ though that one hath a double juftifying force, from the forefaid double Accufation > wherefore one is a Condemn atione Legii veteris , the other is ne Condemnemttr Lege nova^ vel injudicio per Legem novam. Which I make all plain thus.

i. The Law of Wor\s condemneth Men as fin-Hcriy (ftill pardoned).

2. The Law of Grace condemneth them further as fncb and fuch finners in Jpecie^ viz* as final Re-jefters of Chrift.

The firft of thefe the Law of Grace remittetb conditionally before Faitb (to all) aUually^ upon Believing. The laft is never remitted^ nor any juftifi-ed from it.

I (hewed before how there may be a double Accu* fation in Judgment:one true,that we were to be condemned as Sinners; the other falfe, That we were to be condemned as Unbelievers, Rebels againft Chrift, or Apoftates. We are juftified from one by pleading Remiflion, and from the other by pleading Not-Guilty v that is, our perfonal Rigbteouf* nefl, in tantum, fo far as that Charge extendeth. This is Juftification by Plea or Afologie^ whether by others, or Chrift as our Advocate: Upon which, as the Ground, or JuftitiaCaufe, follows the final abfolute fentential Juftification from the main charge (of being lyable to Damnation, and having no right to Salvation) by Chrift as Judg.

Though

£>f dhoti's %m: ff

Though it may be faid alfo, That he juftifieth in the forefaid fubordinate fenfe, from the particular Accufations, ( of being condemnable as Sinners and being Unbelievers, and being Condemnable as Unbelievers) as Judg, both as he concludeth of the diftindi parts of the Sentence before the fum or whole, and as he concludeth thofe Parts and Pre-mifes in the whale; Firft, Judging, [He is not condemnable for fin fimply as againji the Law of Works']. Next, I He v$ not guilty of final nonperformance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace > therefore not condemnable for that* or by that Lan> 1: And then, [ Therefore he is not condemnable at all^but hath Right to Life ]. That I doubt not but God will make Man capable of a fhorter difpatch at that final Judgment, than we ufe to have at Humane Barrs, and therefore our Pleadings will not be fo particular and exprefs. But yet as they will proceed on thefe Grounds, fo this Order and thefe Reafons of the Sentence will be made manifeft to the World, how ftiort foever it be, and we (hall be enabled to fee the implyed Reafon and Order,without particular dilatory Expreffions.

By this it appeareth that iris impofliblethat a Creature can be under any Law, whofe Office it is to be the Rule of Anions and Judgments but he muft be judged* and fo either Juftified or Condemned by that Law : which is exprelfed alfo in Scripture by our being judged according to our fforkj y that is, his performing or not-performing the Conditions of the premiant or penal A& of that Law. And to be judged according to our Wor\s^ is to be juftified or condemned according to our Wor\s : which JVbrks muft needs be part of the Caufe to be then

tryed >

5$ £>f tijc SDtfcerdtp

tryed j and every C*tf/e is Jujl 01 Vnjujl: and the jufticeof the Cavfe, is the juftice of the Perfon as to that Caufe: ana a Man is therefore juftified by the J*dg, becaufe he is jar/?, his Caufe being juft. And fo is it no hard matter for a willing unprejudiced Mind, to fee how Works do or do not juitiiie, though p-rhaps they may differ about the fitnefs of each others Notions and ExprelHons hereabouts.

I confefs I think that thofe plain vulgar Chriftians, that never troubled their heads with the Notions of Divines, about which are moftot our Controver-iies, have as right, if not much fighter appre-henfions o{ the Subllance of this Dodhine of Jufti-fication than moft others. And that very Speech, which the Mjrroxc of Modern Divinity (o blameth, as joyning our own Right? onftujl with CbrijVs^ to make up one entire Pvighteouihefs, is yet in it felf no unfit Exprelfion, but apt to fet forth the very (cope of the Gofpel > and in the Mouth of a found Chriftian it is found Divinity : I mean theft vulgar words, [iFemu.ido our beft, and God will help us hy bis Grace, and forgive us wherein we fail ] ; or, f Cbrift by bit Spirit canfeth all the Regenerate to Believe, Repent, and fincerely obey him to the death, and forgivetb all their fins ]. This is plain Doctrine, which any honeii Country-man may under-itand, though never fo illiterate j and which is not only enough for Salvation, as to this Point, if (bundly believed, but for ought I know, may be niore than moft Difputcrs will furfer themfelves and others to know quietly, without contradiding it again by their Novelties. And I doubt not, if the word Jmipcation be p vn, or ever heard,

( which

of <W£ %ms. j9

( which yet I am far from deflring ) yet while the Do&rine of RemiJJton of Sin, and Right to Life, is known and believed, then is the fame thing known in other words. And it's not inobfervable, that the Apoftle's Creed rather ufeth the term [For-givenefs of fvf\) which poor People better understand, and not the term [ Juftification ], about which the Learned have tilled the World with needlefs Quarrels.

Forghenefs of Sin is not the whole Righteoufnej 7. God never forgiveth his fin, that hath nothing hut fin: He never made a grant of the forgivenefs of all fins, without Exceptions, but only of the forgivenefs of all upon condition of our performing theGoftel-Conditions: And the Condition is a plain Exception of the non performance of it felf, out of the Matter of the Pardon. Inherent Perfonal Righteoufnefs is confefled by all Proteftants and Chriftians. A Righteoufnefs which makes not Righteous, fo far, is a palpable Contradiction. To make Righteous, is to juftifie Conflitutive. So far as any Man is ConftitutedJujh-> God will, i. Efteem him, and Accept him as Juft * 2. Sentence him Juft h 3. And ufe him as Juft in Execution. And Chrift the Advocate will maintain him Juft, if there be need or caufe.

When the word [ funification ~\ is taken only for Kemijjion of Sin-, and Right to Life, (or Edging us fuch as have this) then it is a needlefs que-ition to ask, Whether it confift materially in any Works or A&ions of our own : Faith and Repentance can be but preparatory Conditions of it, and none of the Matter, only Chrift's Righteoufnefs meriteth it. If Jnftifimion be taken for Making,

Ejieeming,

6om$tfyttfyt%m of ©ace

Ejleemhig, or Sentencing us Performers of the Go-fpel-Conditions, then the matter of it is only in our own Hearts and Lives. If JulUficatio* be taken univerfally, it comprehendeth both the former. If taken for the final Sentence pronouncing us non damnandos fed glorificjKdos, then it is grounded on the two former, (whereof one is fubordinate to the other) as being Caitfa duplies duplex Ju-ftitia.

The Fifth Controverfie between us, is> Whether the New-Law or Covenant have any Penalty conjiuu-ted by it felf or whether only the Law of Jforkj do confiitute penalty ?

To this I need to fay no more than I have done already, becaufe his Opinion is grounded on the former, That there is but one Law '<> which overthrown, this falls with it.

Mr. Cs Error lyeth in his confounding Legem in genere, Cum hac Lege Operumin freeze. ^ A Law in general is a Determination or Conititution Authoritative de jure, and obligeth ad Obedientiam aut ad Tznam* But Laws are feveral ways jpecified, as is afore declared, and I will not repeat.

The Penalty proper to the New-Law, confift-eth in thefe Particulars following.

i. To have no part in Chrijt, to be no Member of him, not united or efpoufed to him, is one part of the Penalty, as it xspxnadamni: Who will fay that the Law of Works aid threaten this ? It would have been to Adam but a Negation^ and no Privation, and fo no Penalty.

2. The like may be faid of the miffing of Jnfti*

Uionand Pardon of all iin i which is a part of

the

fjafceanp proper penalty? *i

the pxna damni, which the Law of Works knew not. Before the Law of Grace was ena&ed, and by Chrift's Blood and the Promife, Remiflion was made poffible > yea, conditionally given, it would have been no Penalty, though a mifery, not to be forgiven.

3. The like may be faid of the denyal of Satisfying Grace, and the help of the Spirit to them that quench it.

4. And the hopelefnefs of their Condition that fin againft the Holy Ghoft.

5. And the non-liberation from eternal Torments.

6. But efpecially the Peremptory Sentence of Judgment, and Execution according. The Law cf Works being violated, the Communication was difpenfable on valuable Confiderations, and the Obligation to Punifhment diflblvable, and the Punifhment it felf removable : But the New-Law hath affixed .a prediction to the Comraination, making the faid Commination indifpenfable, the Obligation undiffolvable, and the Punifhment certainly everlafting and remedilefs} not only (as the firft harp) providing no Remedy, but decreeing that none Jhall be provided at all.

But I have mentioned thefe before, about the diverfification of God's Laws, and there alfo mentioned a real difference in the Painoi Senfe,betwetn that which is threatned in the Law of Works, and of Grace. But if Mr. C. be refolded to confound thefe Sinners, and fay God hath but one Law, looking only at the general nature of a Law, when he (hould look at the diftinft ftecies, then there's no Remedy.

6z caljctfKt ©ftcWcncc lie of

6* Our Sixth Controverfie is > Whether the fame thing which is the Condition of our Salvation fas Mr. C. confciTeth Obedience is) be net alfo a Condition of our final fentential Juflification, and of our Right to Solvation (though not of our firfl Right) ? I affirm and he denies.

Our firrt Right to Salvation is given with our Juftifrcation or Pardon, upon our tirft believing : but our Obedience upon Opportunity is a Condition noH-amittendii or without which it fhall not continue, nor (hall we have ever Jus in re. This I proved I think diffidently in the Poftfcript of my Papers to Mr. C- but he eatily put by all, with the ditfin&ion of [ Right to Salvation ] and [ Salvation it felf]-

Before I confider his Exceptions, I will add this Anfwer to his Diftinction. i. He yeeldeth the whole Caufe in acknowledging, i. That Jujiifi-cation and Right to Salvation have the fame Conditions, (which he could not deny). 2. That O-bedienceisa Condition of Salvation. 3. For his Diftintf ion isfwe differentia 1 there is no luch thing in the World, no nor poffible, as a proper Condition of Salvation, diftinft from a Conditio of Right to it. Firir, I hope, with any fair Dealer, I may take it for granted that he doth not equivocate in the word Condition, taking it for a mere Phyfical gualificatiw, called a C^iiiird or Preparation, in another fenfe than ours > but that we are (till fpeak-ins of a Condition in fenfu Chili, Legali, vel Mo* rali: Not as the Drynefs of the Wood ; or the Application of it to the Fire, is called a Condition of its Burning > nor as the valiant Mind cf Souldiers

3&icrt)t to Saltation* <%

is a Condition of their valiant Fighting and Conquering, not impofed by the General, but naturally neceflary by way of Qualification or Enablement : but it is a Condition conftituted by a Promife, Law, Covenant, or Teftament that we arc fpeaking of. i. I fo explained my Mind fully. 2. The fubjed-Matter of our Difputc will be on no other fenfed Condition *, fo that I may well take it for granted, that we are agreed in this, and that Mr. C. will not feek any Evafion by an Equivocation in this word.

And then the Cafe is part queflion ', for every Condition is a Condition of Rigbt> which I prove thus.

It is a Condition of that which the Promife gi-veth : But it is Right ( to Salvation ) which the Promife giveth * Therefore it is a Condition of Right (to Salvation). The Major is paft difpuce > it being the Condition of a Promife, and a part of that Promife, and its Office, to fufpend the efficacy of the Promife or Donative A&. The Minor is as far paft difpute with all that know, that the proper product of Laws, Covenants, Promifes,e^c. is Right or Duenefs. The Promife gives nothing elfe immediately and naturally but Right. As Sandtification, Glorification, Health, Riches, or any benefit not relative *, the Promife gives but Right to them, (though it be called a giving the thing it felf morally, becaufe God doth infallibly fulfil his Promife): But it is by adual natural Cau-fation that the thing it felf muft be after given or 'conveyed. Therefore feeing we fpeak not of a Condition in a Phyfical fenfe, (as Eating is a Condition of Living) but in a moraK or civil ? or judiciary

64 OTljctfjet £>fceDtettce be of

ciaryfenfe* it is paft doubt that it's eflential to a Condition to have a refped" to Right, and to be Conditio juris, vel obtinendi, vel retinendu

And if the AfTertors of the contrary be called to prove their diftin&ion from the Scripture, you fhouldfeeon what arbitrary Affirmations and Inventions of their own, fuch Dodtrines are built. For inftance, when it is promifed, Mar\\6. 16* That, He that believeth and is baptized, Jhall be fa-ved]: And Rom* 10. Whofoever Jhall call on the 2$ame of the Lord (ball be faved~]. And Heb. 5. p. He became the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him']* Prove now by fuch evidence as fhould move an impartial Man, that Believing only in the firft Promife, and fuch other is Conditio juri* > and that, [Calling on the Name of the Lord, and obeying] are not Conditiones juris, vel obtinendi y vel retinendi : That Faith only is a Condition in a judiciary fenfe, and Repentance, Love to God and Obedience are .only Phyfically Conditions, or are Conditions of Salvation, but not of Right to Salvation : Prove that in the fame Text, Job. id. 27. Faith is made a Condition of Right to God's Love, and Love toChritf is made a Condition of his Love, but not of Right to it ', [ For the Father himfelflo^ veth you, becaufe ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God ]. Is here either rea-fon or room for your diltindtion > Q Becaufe ] is equally added to both, what-ever kind of Condition they are. The Text faith exprefly, [ Blejfed are they that do bti Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the Gates into the City]. And can you prove that by Right here is not meant Right ?

And

And again obferve that Right to Salvation, and Right to Juftification at Judgment, are not, yea, cannot be denyed to have the lame Conditions: For that which juftificth our Caufe, will juftifie us : But that which proveth our Right to Salvation, ju-ftifieth our Caufe; For our Right to Salvation, is our Caufe it felf to be then judged.

The Seventh Controverfie is, Whether the words $f the Gofiel-Promife or Grant, forgiving fin, be properly a Sentence of Abfolution by God as Judgj Or rather an Aft of Oblivion or Vonation of Pardon and Life hy God, -partly as Benefafior, and partly as Re-Mor, by Larv and Guilt ? Whether it be a Judicial Sentence only Virtually or Actually ? Mr. C holdeth, that the words of the Gofpel, [ He that bdieveth (hall be juftified and faved] \ are an actual fentence of God as Judg : I hold that it is but an AS of Oblivion or Condonation, and a Gift of Life hy God as Legislator and BenefaBor, and fo but a Virtual Sen-. tence.

But firft let it be noted, That all this is but a Controverfie de nomine, and not de re* As long as we are agreed what this A6t of Oblivion is, and What it doth, I take it to be a matter of no great moment, whether it be de nomine, to be called a Sentence of Judgment, properly or improperly. But my Reafons are thefe.

i. This Gofpel-A<3: is called by the name of a Law, both in Prophefies, and in the words of the Gofpel it felf, Ifa. 2.3. and 8. 16, 20. 8C42.4. & 5i«4# Mich. 4. 2. Rom. 3. 27. Gal 4. 2. Heb. 7. 12. Jam. n. 25, & 2.8,12. 1 John 3- 4. Heb. 3. 10, 16*

E a. It

66 3f tfte pat&onmg 3lct

2. It is Norma aBionum moralium & norma judi-cti: Ergo, it is a Law, i John 2. 5. Heb. 4. 2,3. ]am. 1. 22. ]obnU. 47, 48. & 14. 23. & 15. 7. J<?fo# y. 22, 23. ]am. 2. 12, Rez/. 20. 12,13. Mwk 25. J0&. 3. 16,18, ip.

3. A Day of Judgment is foretold and defcribed in the Gofpel, in which a final Sentence will pafs on Men according to this Law. Ergo, &c. The Law and Sentence are not to be confounded : For they are not all one : The Normajudicis, according to which Men muft be judged, is not the Judgment it feifc

4. A Law is an univerfal Rule, and the fandion Conditional, and it neither juftifieth nor condem-neth any' antecedently, but only after they have kept or broken it > And then it doth it ut Lex^ and not ut fententia judicis : But a judicial Sentenced about particular or individual Perfons and Cafes \ and fuppofeth a Law kept or broken, and fuppofeth Accufition, ( virtual or a&ualj); and alfo the particular Caufc to be judicially decided, is, Whether the Law condemn or abfolve the Perfon (virtually): Therefore the Law and Sentence are no more to be confounded, than a Lawgiver and a Judg.

5. If it be a Sentence of Judgment, it is a Sentence fecundum normam alien jus Legit > fome Law is the Rule of it : But no Law is the Rule of it * Ergo, it is no Sentence of Judgment, properly fo called. If any Law be the Rule of it, it is either an ViiiverUl Law made to Mankind, or a particular Law (as that made to Noah* to Abraham, to the Jews by Mofeii &c. ) Not the latter : If the former, it mutt be that called the Law of Nature, ai:d Covenant'of Works made to Adam-> or the

Law

Law or Covenant of Grace made in Chrift : Not the fir ft : For to fay, [ He that believeth (hall be faved 3> is not to Sentence as Judg according to the Law, [ In the day that thoi* finneft thou (halt die]-Not the latter *, for then the Law and the Judgment were all one h and to fay, £ He that believeth (hall be faved ], would be all one as to (ay, [_ John or Peter hath right to Salvation according to the Pro* mife, becaufe they are true Believers ]. He that is not Satisfied with thus much, let him think as he lift, for I (hall trouble the Reader with no more.

The Eighth Controverfie is, Whether the judgment of Chrift upon Believers after this Life* he not properly a jujlifying Sentence ? I affirm it, and Mr. C. denyeth it, and taketh it to bz only a Veda-ration of our Juftification which xve had in this Life.

Every judicial Sentence, is a Declaration > but every Declaration is not a judicial Sentence. This Queftion therefore is not, Whether it be a Declaration, but whether it be not fuch a Declaration as is a Sentence of the Judg in Judgment ? And if fo, Whether it be not a proper Juftification, ( though herealfo I know, according to his meaning, the Queftion is but de nomine).

1. That is a proper Sentence of Judgment, which is the publick Declaration and Decifion of the Judg; to put our Right to Salvation out of Con-troverfie, againft all Accufers, and to give us our Jus Judicatam^ by determining of our Jus Confti-tutums and this as an orderly means to our full poffdHon, But fuch will be Cbrift's Sentence at

E 2 the

the Laft Judgment i Ergo> it will be properly a Judicial Sentence.

2. The Scripture doth moft exa&ly defcribe it as a proper Judgment > It calleth it the A& of Chriii as Judg > It calleth it a Judgment: It defcri-beth the Caufe, the Perfons, the Plea, the Evidence, and the Sentence i, I Feu 4. 5. 2 tint. 4. !• Aas 17.31- John 5. 22,24,26,27. Rev. 20. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4c 4* 1 Pet. 1. 17. L^io.14. Heb.6.2. 8c p. 27. Ecclefii2. 14. &n. 9. Row. 14. 10. 2 Or. 5.10. ftfottk 25. throughout.

2. It is an Article of cur Creed, That Chrift (hall come again to judg the quick and the dead » and among Chriftians paft difpute. And if he judg-, he fentencetb as Judg. And if he fentence as Judg, it is either a Sentence of Justification, or of Condemnation: All Judgment which is the gea*/, is found in or. ft j^tffji ^4c7.r > There is no

middle. It is a Judgment of Condemnation or of Jujiification. If the N-zwe be quefiioned, I appeal to all Lawyers, all Men that live in Civil Soci-Divines^ efpecially Protectants, who q againft the Papifts, that the word Juftifie isrr. y taken i s the New Tefiament in

a judiciary Senfe, for either the Sentence of a jWg, or the Plea of an Advocate at Judgment. I think this Controvertie needeih no more words. And if I (hould here cite an hundred Divines that call this Laft Judgment by the name of a Sentence of Jufti-fication or Condemnation, I ihoald merit nothing of the Reader, but rebuke for troubling him with un-ifary words.

And

And now having reviewed all that I find remaining Controverted, between this Learned, Reverend and Pious Brother and my felf, about the Matter which he thought meet to Animadvert on, (or at leaft all that is worth the Reader's notice), I am glad that our Differences are brought into (b narrow a room > and that it is very doubtful whether every one of them be not only de nomine : And 1 think it but a needlefs trouble to the Reader, to an-fwer all his numerous Citations out of Amefw> Fifcator, Par£us-> Zanchy, Calvin-, Vavenant, &o and fuch late Divines, which make up the main Body of his Reply > Nor to make fo tedious an enquiry, Whether he or I do beft underftend thofe Writers Senfe: The Controverfies themfelves being cleared, 1 have done. And my defign is but this s

i. To perfwade Divines not to make God's Servants believe that they differ in great and weighty Matters, and fo to render them unfit for each others Love and Communion, when they differ but in Words and Logical Notions*

2. To perfwade Men to fuffer their Brethren peaceably to reft in that Truth, and thofe EKpreflions of it, which "are found in Scripture, and the Church Vniverfal for above a thoufand years refted in, and not make Humane Notions feem neceffary to our Salvation and Church-Communion : Nor in a fiding Humour to fet the Phrafes of fome late honoured Divines,againft Scripture and the Univerfal Church, and then to make them Engines of dtftru&ion, by making them feem needful Truths, which are but new incongruous Notions, which muft at laft be ae-tacqued, to force them to confefs that their meaning, js the fame with that which others long have taught.

PrK

TOSTSC^JTT.

IMuft in treat the Reader, when he judgeth of the Second Cafe, ( about the Intereft of Wor}q with Faith, in our Title to Life ) to remember, That the Queftion is not >

1. About Works of Innocency.

2. Nor Works of the Mofaical Law.

3. Nor Works meriting of God by their worth, in point of Commutative Juftice> (or the forefaid governing Legal Juftice.)

4. Nor of any A&s of Obedience to Chrift as Chrift as antecedent to Faith and juftification.

5. Nor of External good Works of Charity, as antecedent to Faith, or to our Jirft Juftiiicati-on.

6. Nor any Works, to which is given theleaft part of that which is proper to God, to Chrift, to the Spirit, to the Promife.

But I muft intreat him to fee the Cafe ftated in the Preface to my Difputations of Juftihcation, and to remember that thofe that I oppofe do hold i

1. That Faith itfelf, as an A<ft of ours, is part of the Works to be denied as a Means or Condition of our Juftification, and fo a part ot that Subordinate Righteoufnefs, and that we are jufti-fied by it only as an Inftrument.

2. They fay, That he feeks the prohibited Juftification by Works, who looketh to be juftihed by

be-

believing in Chrift as Teacher, King, or any A& of Faith befides the receiving his Righteoufnefs.

3. Much more he that thinketh Repentance, Love to Chrift, Defire of him, Prayer for Pardon, &c. or any other Adt of Man, is a Means or Condition of our Juftification or Pardon : To be juftified by any fuch A& but as part of the Condition, is to be juftified by Works.

4. Much more to make fincere Obedience the Condition of Continued or Final Juftification in Judgment. See the reft of the Controverfies in the aforecited Preface and Books. And alfo in my Pacification or Catholic}^ Theology, where this Caufe is handled poiitively and defenfively : And he that blameth me for writing fo many Books of the fame thing, fhould be one that firft confidereth how many Books and daily Inve&ives and Cenfures of Men that never underftood the Caufe, have called me to it, and made it neceffary. Four or five Divines rofe in Holland, efpecially at Frankera, (not-withftanding the excellent Amefius his better endeavours) who have owned ill Definitions of God s Covenants, and laid the Foundations of Antino-mian Libertinifm, ( efpecially Maccovius, and C/»-to, and Cocceius, and CloppenburgtHi too much con-fented ) making the Covenant in Conftitution to be nothing but Ele&ipn by Eternal Decree, and the Covenant in Execution, to be the fulfilling or execution of that Decree of Election in all our Mercies > and Juftification to be but God's eternal Decree, and Man's Juftification in Confcience, and before Men, with other fuch confounding Notions j when verily the better Defcription of God's

King-

Kingdom, Laws, and Covenants fliould be in our Childrens Catechifm \ and ftiould not be unknown to Learned Men v nor (hould they thus learnedly poffefs many honeft godly (but not long and througly ftudying ) Minifters, with fuch Notions which corrupt their Conceptions^ their Charity, their Sermons, and their Converfe as hinderances of Truth,.Piety, Love, and Peace.

Finis.

m

WW WW W ????¥ ; ?f $Y?Y??T??*

A

POSTSCRIPTS

ABOUT Laft BOOK.

WHen this Book was coming out of tjifi Prcfs, I received another Book of Mr* Danvers againft Infants Baptifm, iri which he mehtioneth Dr. Tullies pro-ting what a /\^z/? I am, in hts Jujiif. Paul, (with Dr. Pierces former Charges) and lamenting that no more yet but one T>u fully hath come forth to Encounter mc^ Epift. and Pag. 224. The perufal of that Book ( with Mr. tombs fhort Refactions) di.~ ie^eth me to fay but this inttcad of any further Confutation.

That it is (as the former) fo full of faife Alls* gattons fet off with thegreateft Audacity (even a few Lines of my own about our meeting at Saint James's left with the Clerk, grofly faliified) and former falfifications partly juftified , and partly paftovct, andhismoft paffionate Chafes.geciuod-

74 3t#o&ftript about

ed upon Miftakes , and managed by Mifreports, fometime of Words, fometime of the Senfe, and fometime of Matters of Faith in (hort, it is fuch a bundle of Mijlakf, Fiercenefs and Confidence, that I take it for too nfelefs zuaunpleafantz Work to give the World a particular Dete&ion of thefe Evils. If I had fo little to do with my Time as to write it, I fuppofe that few would find leifu*$ to read it: And I {kfire no more of the willing Reader, then ferioufly to perufe my Book (More Reafons for Infants Church-memberfhip) ^yith his, and to examine the Authors about whofe Words or Senfe we differ. Or if any wtiuld be Informed at a cheaper rate, he may read Mr, Barrets Fifty Queries in two (beets. And if Mr. fambes revile me, for not, tranfciibing or anfwering more^qg his Great Boo'l^, when I tell the Reader that I fuppofe him to.have the Book before him y apd am not i*pund to tranferibe fuch a Volume already in-Print, and that I anfwer as much as I think needs an Anfwer, leaving the reft as I found it to^h^ Judgment of each Reader, he may himfqlf take this for a Reply * but I jnuft judg of it as it is.

I find but one.thios in the Book that needeth any other Anfwer, than to perufe what,.is already Writ* ten: A«;d r thac is about Baptizing Naked : My BooK was writrea i^4p. A little before, eammqn uncoutralUd fame wm, that not far from us in one-place many of them were Baptized naked, r?prp.ving the Cioathingwayas.Antifcnptural : I never heard Man deny this Report: I converged with divers of Mr. Tombes"$ Church, who denied it not: As never aay denied k to rne, fo I never read one that,.did deny it to my knowlecig: He now tells me Mr,

Fifoer>

$$K> Danver's laft 20J*O!t» 7*

Tijher, MuHaggar, ancf Mr. Tombes&d ; Let any Man readMr. fombes Anfwer tome, yea and thaft; Paffage by him now cited, and fee whether there-Be a word of denial i Mr. Fifher or Haggar I never ; faw : Their Bool^s I had Teen, but never read two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. "fifhers, though I numbered it with thofe that werewrit-ten.on that Sui>je&, as well I might: I knew his IMucation and his Friends, and I faw the Great Volume before he turned Quaker , but I thought it enbugh to read Mr. "tombes and others that wrote before him, but I read not him, nor all Mr. Hag* gars : if I had, I had not taken them for compel tent Judges of a fad far from them , and that three years after: Could they fay, that no one ever did Jo? The truth is that three years after, mlfta-kmg my words, as if I had affirmed it to be their ordinary pradice (as you may read in them) which I never did, nor thought, they vehemently deny this: (And fuch &m//f/> reading occafioneth many of Mr. Danvers AccufationsJ. I never (aid that no Man ever dented it ; for 1 have not read all that ever was written, nor fpoken with all the World : But no Man ever denied it to me, nor did I ever read any that denied it. And in a matter of Fa&, if that Fam6 be not credible, which is of things Late and Near, and not ContradiUed by any one of the m 0 Ji J interejfed Perfons thrnflves, no not by Mr. fombes himfeif, we mull: furceafe humane Couverfe: Yet do I not thence undertake that the fame was true,' either of thofe Perfons, or fuch as other Writers beyond Sea have faid it off. I far? not any or,e;Eap^ tized by Mr. Combes or any other in Kiver cr elfe-SVhere by Vtypng at Age J If you dp no jndrfbhr^ y

7* % #crftfctfpt about

I am foiry that I believed it, and will recant it* &ad / not feen a Quaker go naked through Worce-J??ratthc Aflizes, and read the Ranters Letters full of Oathes, I could have proved neither of them. And yet I know not where fo long after to find my Witneffes: I abhor Slanders, and'receiving ill Reports unwarrantably : I wel! know that this is not their ordinary Practice : The Quakers do not thofe things now, which many did at the riGng of the % Sedt i and if I could, I would believe they never did them.

2.This Book of Mr. Vanvers^vith the reft of the fame kind, increafe my hatred of the Vifputing Contentions way of writing, and my trouble that the \ Ciufe of the Church and Truth hath fo oft put on ] me a neceffity to write in a Difputing way, againft i the Writings of fo many AiTailants. '

3. It increafeth my Grief for the Cafe of Mankind, yea of well-meaning godly Chrillians, who are unable to ju^g of many Gontroverfies agitated, fctherwife than by fomc Glimpfesof poor Probability, and the efteem which they have of the Performs which "do manage them, and indeed take their Opinions upon trurt from thofe whom thry moil reverence and value 5 and yet can fo hardly know whom to follow, whilft the groffeft Miftakes are fet off with as great confidence and holy pretence, as the greatell Truths. O how much (hould Chriftians be pitied, that muft go through fo great Temptations!

4. It increafeth my Refbftftfbn, had I longer to live, rb converfe with Men that I would profit; or

ft by, either as a Learner hearing what they have to fay, without importunate Contradiction, or as a Teacher if they defue to Learn,of me ; A School

J way

$$t> Danver's laft 26O0ft 77

way may do fomething to increafe Knowledg ; but drenching Men, and firiving with thern, doth but fet them on a fiercer ftriving againft the Truth; And when they that have need of feven and feven years Schooling mpre, under fome clear well ftudied Teacher, are made Teachers thcmfelves, and then turned loofe into the World (as Sampfons Foxes) to militate for arid with their Ignorance, what muft the ChurchTufFer by fuch Contenders ?

5. It increafeth my dirtike:of that Se&ariarr dividing hurtful Zeal, which is defcribed James 3. and abateth my wonder at the rage of Perlecntors : Far I fee that the fame Spirit maketh the fame kind of Men, even when they moft cry out againft Perfe-I cutors, and fcparate fur theft from theqi.

6* It refolveth me more to enquire lefs after the Anfwers to Mens Books than I have done : And I fhall hereafter think never rhe worfe of a Mans Writings, for hearing that they are anfwered; For I fee'it is not only ealie for a bilking CMan to ta\ on, and \o fay fomething for or againji anything, but "it is hard for'them to do othtrmife^ even toholi-their tongues ^ or Tens , or Teace: And when I change this Mind, I muft give the greateft belief fo Women that will talk moft, or to them that live • longeji, and fo are like to have the laft word, or to them that can train up militant Heirs and Succef-fors to defend them when they are dead, and fo propagate the Contention. If a fbber Consideration of thefirftand fecond writing (yea of -pfitive. Trincifles) will not inform me, I fhajl have little hope to be much the wifer for all the reft.,

7, I am fully farisfied that even good Men,arc here fo far from Perfection, that they muft beat

with

?3 % $ofticttpt about

with odious faults-and injuries in one another, and be habituated to a ready and eafie forbearing and forgiving one another. I will not fo much as defcribe or denominate Mr. Danvers Citations of Dr. Fierce, to proves my Popery and Crimes, nor his pafTages about the Wars, and about my Chan* ges , Self-contradi&ions, and Repentances , left I do that which favoureth not of Forgivenefs r O what need have we all of Divine Forgivenefs!

8. I (hall yet lefs believe what any Mans Opinion (yea or Practice) is by his Adverfaries SayiHgf> Colletiions, Citations ■, or moll vehement Affeveta-tions, than ever I have done, though the Report* ers pretend to never fo much Truth, and pious 2eal.

p. Khali leTs trufta confounding ignorant Reader or Writer, that hath not an accurate defining and dijiinguiflnng Understanding, and hath not a mature, exercifed , difcerning Knowledg than ever I have done v and efpecially if he be engaged in a Sett (whjph alas, how few parts of the Chriftiaa World efcape! ) For I here (and in many others) fee, that you have no way.to feem Orthodox with fuch, but to run quite into the contrary Extream : And if I write againft both Extreams, I am taken byjfcch Men-as this, but to be r for both andagairtfl \ both, and to contradift vny felf. When I write a--gam ft the Per(ecutors, I araone-fcf the Se&aries, and whenl writeagainft the Sedartes,- I am of the * Persecutors £d$ fc If I belie-not ".die Pfelati/is, I am aConformift; If I belie not the Anatytiftfr-Jk*'''* : dependent$. r ^&c.„l am one of them : If I belie not the Papifls* J: am a Papift *, if I belie not the At-minims* Jam an Amman* if I belie not the CaU : 1 vinijis

vinijis^ I am with Vfeudo-TMenus and his Brother, purus.putus?uritanus> and one 'guifotutb Vurita-nifmum tot us fpirat (which J&fepb Allen too kindly interpreted); If J be for lawful Epifcopacy^ and lawful Liturgies and Circurnjiances oiJVorjhip , I am a temporizing Confarmiji: If I be for no morejzm an intolerable Non-Conformift (at this time forced to part with JHoufe, and Goods, and Library, and all fave my Clothes, and to poffcfs nothing, and yet my Death (by fix months Imprifonment in the Common Goal^iS) fought after and continually ex-pe&ed, If I he as'very -a Fool, and as little under-ft and my [elf* And as ihuch contradiU my felf as all thefe Confounders and Men ot Violence would have the W0f ldrbeUeve,it is much to my cofl> being hated by them all while I feek but for the common peace. jftft. sfcukt I \\*m alfo further learned hence to take up pry content i>r Gods Approbation , and (having dpii^-aty duty, and pitying their own and th^ Peoples fngres) to make but fmall account of all the Reproaches of all forts of Sectaries * what they . will fay againft me-living or dead, I leave to themftlves and God> and (hall not to pleafe a Cen* foripusSect, or any Men whatever, be falfeto my Conference and the Truth : If the Caufe I defend be not of God, I defire it may fall; If it be, I leave it $v God howrfar He will profpet it,and what Men (hall thinks fay of me : And I will pjay for Peace to f him/that will not hate and revile me for fo doing, s Farewell*

'

\

1

J