This book made available by the Internet Archive.

— -

IMPUTATIVE

RIGHTEOUSNES

Truly Stated,

According to the T £ n b ti R *rf the GOSPEL:

Manifefting,

In what Sence found P k 6 ? £ s T a n T s hold it :

And in what Serice L i b e r-t-ines pervert it.

...,: ■ / —

By Richard Baxter, a compaffio-riat Lamenter of the Churches Wounds

LONDON,

Printed by J. P. and are to be fold by Jonathan Robhiforiy at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and tFilliam Abingtoh, at the black-fpread Eagle at the Weft End of St. Paul's. 1 6yp %i )

The Preface.

Reader,

IF thou blame me for writing again, on a Subjedt which I have written on fo oft, and fo lately (fpccially in my s Life of Faith, and Difputations of Juftification) I (hall not blame thee for fo doing •, but I ftiall excufe my felf by telling thee my reafons. i. The occafion is many loud accufations of my felf, of which I have before given an account. I publiih 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 S-jciniansflxA the other Ubertine$ y (who are neither of them Chriftia??s)and if I miftake not, for the mod part in the dark about onePbrafe^zni that of mens devifing, rather than about the fence: But if indeed it be the fence that they differ about, it's time to do our beft to re&ifie 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 expreiTions:« The

A 2 que-

the PREFACE. queftion is then. Which is the ncceJfaryPhrafe which we muft exprefs our fence by ? We all fay that to Believers, Chrijl is made our Righteoufneft', We are made the Right eoufnefs of God in him; He hath ranfomed y redeemed us 7 as a Sacrifice for our fins > a price; He hath merited and obtained eternal Re demotion for us 7 that Sin is remitted^ covered^ not imputed^ that Right eaufoefs is Reckoned or Imputed to its; that Faith is Imputed to us for Righteoufnefs, and any thing elfe that is in the Scripture, ikit all this will not fervs to make us Chriftians ! What is wanting i Why, we muft fay that Chrijl sRighteouf neftis Imputed to ks as ours, and that Chrijl Jati<fled for our fins I Well; The thing fig-feified feemeth to us true and good and peedful, (though the Scripture hath as good words for it as any of us can invent.) We confent therefore to life thefePhrafes,fo be it you put no falfe and wicked fence on thern &y ether words of your own: Though we wilL not allow them to be necejfary, becaufe not in Scriprure^ (Andwe are more againft adr aingnew Fundamental Articles ot Faith to the Scripture, than againft adding new Or-clgrs. Forms or Ceremonies). But yet it will not ferve t what is yet wanting i why, wb muft hold thefe words in aright fenfe J W&afcf yet ate not your own devifed

words

f — "ft-w* W i

the PREFACE.

Words a fufficient expreffion of the matter f When we have opened thofe words by other -words, how will you know that we ufe thofe other words in a right fence, and fo in infinitum. Our fence is,that Righteousness is Imputed to us 7 that iS) we are accounted Righteous, becaufe for the Merits of Chrifts total fulfilling the Conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father 5 by his Habitual Holme fs^ bis Actual Perfect Obedience, and his Sacrifice^ Satisfactory Suffering for our fins in cur (lead, freely without any merit or Conditional act of mans v God hath made an Act of Oblivion and Deed of Gift, -pardoning all fin y juflifying and adopting and giving Kight to the Spirit and Ltfe eternally to every one that believingly accepteth Chrijl and the Gifts with and by and from him. And when we accept them > they are all ours by virtue of this purchafed Covenant-Gift. This is our fhort and plain explication. But yet this will notfeive: Chriftianity is yet another thing. What is wanting ? Why, we muft fay 5 that Chrifl was habitually and actually perfectly 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 Chrifl irnpu-tatively*) and yet did alfo in and by him fiffcr our fehcslmputatively for not fulfilling it, and

The PREFACE.

Imputatively did f our [elves both [atisfy God's ZfuHice and merit Heaven 5 and that we have our [elves Imputatively a Right eou[ne[s of perfect Holinejs and Obedience as Jtnleftj and muft be jufiified by the Law of Innocency^ or Works) as having our [elves imputativcly fulfilled it in Chrift^And that this is our [oleRdgh-teou[ne[s ; and that Faith it [elf is not imputed to us for Righteou[ne[s^no not a meerparticular [ubordinate Right eou[ne[s^ answering the Conditional part of the new $uftifying Covenant^ as necejfary to our participation of ChriSt^ and his freely given Right eou[ne[s. And muft all this go into our Chriftianity! But where is it written < who devifed it < was it in the ancient Creeds and Baptifm ? Or known in the Church for five thoufand years from the Creation i 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 this evil, as it is for God and the honour of $e[us Ghrift^ though I love it not as blind, nor their Errour or their Evil. But how hard is it to know what Spirit we are of i But it is the doleful V ■• mi£

lhe jr ftxs r ai j&.

mifchief which their blind zeal doth, that makethmefpeak •, That three or four of them have made it their practice to backbite my felf> and tell People, He holdeth dangerous opinions; He is erroneous in the pint of J unification. And bis Boots are unbound and have dangerous Doctrines ; He lea* veth the old way oftfuftification, he favour eth Socinianifm, and fuch-like: this is a fmall matter comparatively. Back-biting and falfe reports > are the ordinary fruits of bitter contentious Zeal 7 and the Spirit of a Sect as fuch doth ufually fo work(yea to confufion and every evil work,)when it hath banillied the Z<?*/of Love and of Good Works. Jam. 3. 14,15, i(5. Tit. 2. 14. And I never counted it any great lofs to their followers, that they diffwade 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 Perfbns of quality, who by hearing fuch language from thefe men,have bin ready to turn away from Religion, and fay, If they thus fet againft and condemn one another, away wkh theui all

2. Becaufe divers great Volumes and o ther fad Evidence tells me that by their invented fence of Imputation, they have tempted many Learned men to deny Imputation of Chrift'sRighteoufnefs abfolutely, and bitterly revile it as a moft Libertine Irreligious Do&rine.

3. But above all, that they do fo exceedingly confirm the Papifts.I muft profefs that be fides carnal Inter eft andkthe fnare of ill Education, I do not think that there is any thing in the World 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: 1. One by Divifi-ons and nnrulinefs in Church-refpe&s, by which fhey perfwade men,efpecially Rulers, that without fuch a Center as the Papacy, there will be no Union, and without fuch Vid'snce 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 of Imputation of Chrifts Right eoufhefs, (with an unfound Defeription of Faith ) faying that every man is to believe it as Gods word (or fide divind) that his own fins are pardoned ^ which when the Papifts read (that,thefe men make it one of the chief Points of our difference from

Rome,)

Rome,) doth occafion them to triumph and reproach us, and confidently diffent from us in all the reft. 1 find in my felf that my full certainty that they err in Tranfubftan-tiation and fome other points, doth greatly refolve me to negleft them at leaft,or fufpeft them in the reft which feem more dubious. And when the Papifts find men moft grojly erring in the very point where they lay the mainftrefsof the difference, who can expert otherwife, but that this fhould make them defpife and caft away our Books, and take us as men felf-condemned and already vanquillied,und difpute with us with the prejudice as we do with an Arrian or Socinian ? They themfelves that caft away our Books becaufe they diffent 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 "Disaffection and abttfe and falfe Speeches againft thofe Mini-

fters

Iters that do moft clearly tell them the truthj is a thing not filently to be cherifhed by a-ny that are valuers of Love and Concord a-mongChriftiaiis 5 and of the truth and their Brethren's Souls, and that are difpleafed with that which the Devil is moft pleafed and God difpleafed with. Thefe are my Reafons, fubmitted to every Readers Cen-fure 5 which may be as various as their Capacities, In terefts or Prejudices.

My Arguments in the third Chapter I have but briefly and haftily mentioned, as dealing with the lovers of nakedTruth, who will not refufe it when they fee it ift its felf-fcvidence* But they that defire larger proof, rnay find enough in Mr. Gataker and Mr* Wot ton de Keconcil. and ih John Goodwin of Jujlification, (If they can read him without prejudice).From whom yetl differ in theMe-ritorious Caiife of our Juftification,and take in the habitual and a&ual Holinefs of Chrift as well as his Sufferings 5 and equal in Merits; and think that pardon itfelf is merited by his Obedience as well as by his Satisfy ttiomlo fay nothing of fome of his too harfh expreffions, about the Imputation of Faith, arid non-imputation of Chrifts Obedience, which yet in fome explications he mollify-cth, and fheweth that his fence is the fame with theirs that place all our Righteoufnefs

in remiflion or Sin; fuch as^belides thole after-mentioned) are Mufculus, Chamier y 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 vthztChrift's Office island whatF*/>A\f Office is, I find almoft ail Proteftants are agreed in fence, while they differ in the manner of expreflion, except there be a real difference in this point of jimple Perfonating us in his perfect Holinefs, and making the Perfon of a Mediator to contain effenttally in fenfu Civili the very Perfon of every eleff (inner 7 and every fuch one to have verily been and done^ infenfu civili^what Chrifi was and did.

I much marvel to find that with mofl: the Imputation of 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 Ghrifts Righteoufnefs goethfirfl as the Gaufe^ and Rernijfion of Sin followeth as the Efect: So even Mr. Robo-rough pag. 5 5 .andothers. Which feemeth to me to have this Sence, as fGodfaidtoa Believer, [Ido repute thee to have perfectly fulfilled the Law in Chrifi^ andfo to be no fin-

ncr} and therefore forgive thee all thyJin .3 In our fence it is true and runs but thus \ldo refute Chrift to have been perfectly jufi habit u* ally and actually in the Per Jon of a Mediator in the Nature of Man 7 and to, have Jujfered as if he had beenafwnerjn the Per fin of a Spon-for^byhis own Conjent , and that in the very placejand (leadofjinners ; and by this to have fatislyed my Juftice, and by both to have merited free zfuflification and Life^ to be given by the new Covenant to all Believers : And thou being a Reliever^ I do repute thee jujlified and adopted by this fat isfactory and meritorious Righteoufnefs of Chrifl^ and by this free Covenant- Gift^ as verily andjurely as if thou hadjl done it andfufferedthyfelf.

For my own part 1 find by experience, that almoft all Chriflians that I talk with of it, have juft this very notion of our Juftifi-cation.which I have expreffed^till fome particular Difputer by way of Controverfie hath thruft the ether notion into their mind. And for peace-fake I will fay again > what I have elfewhercfaid 5 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 it rightly, nor Humility e-nough to fufpeil their Understandings > wrang ? e about If r ords 7 fuppofing ic to be a-

bout

The PREFACE.

bout the Matter) -, Becaufe I find that all are agreed, j. That no Eled: Pcrfon is Ju-ftifiedor Righteous by Imputation while he is an Infidei or Ungodly (except three pr four that fpeak confufedly,and fupport the Jntinomians)i .That God doth not repute us to have done whatChrift did in our individual natural Per Jons PhyJically:Thc Controver-fie is about a Civil perfonating. 3. That God judgeth not falfly. 4. That Chrift was not our Delegate and lnftrument fentbyusto do this in our ftead, as a man payeth his debt by a Servant whom he fendeth with the money. 5. That therefore Chrifts R ighte-oufnefs is not Imputed to us, as if we had done it by him as our lnftrument. 6. That ail the fruits of Chrifts Merits and Satisfaction are not ours upon our firft believing (much lefs before). But we receive therp by degrtes : we have new pardon daily of new (ins: We bear caftigatory puniibments, e-ven Death and Denials, or lofs of the greater affiftance of the Spirit: Our Grace is all imperfed, Sec. 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, containing, befides the Precepts of perfeft Obedience to the Law natural and fuperad-ded; a Gift of Christ with Pardon and life ;

but

the PREFACE. but only on Condition that we thankfully and believingly accept the Gift; And threat-fling non-liberation,and afar forer punifh-ment,to all that unbelievingly and unthank-folly rejeft it. 8. That therefore this Te-(lament 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 neceflary Condition of our continued Juftification, and our a&uai Glorification. And that Heaven is the Reward of this keeping of the new Covenant, as to the order of Gods Collat /^though as to the value of the Benefit, it is a Free G^purchafed.merited and given by Chrift. 10. That we (hall all be judged by this Law of Chrift. 11. That we fhall all be judged according to our deeds; and thofe that have done good (not according to the Law of Innocency or Works, but according to the Law of Grace) (hall go into ever-lafting life^and thofe that have done evil(not by meer fin as fin againft the Law of Innocency) but by not keeping the Conditions

the PREFACE.

of the Law of Grace, fhall go into ever-lafting punithment. 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 adjudged to Life Eternal^ and net condemned to Hell. And therefore to be the caufe or condition that we are Judged to Glory> and the Caufe or Condition that we are $uHi-fied then, will be all one. 13. That to be Judged according to our deeds, is to be zfuHified 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 hare part in him, and fo whether we have belie* ved, and performed the Condition of that Covenant which giveth Chrift and Life.

15. That the whole fcope ofChrifFs Ser-mons,and all the Gofpel,caileth us from fin, on the motive of avoiding Hell, (after we a>e reputed Righteous) and calleth us to Holitiefs, Perfeverance and overcoming,on the motive of laying up a good Foundation, and having a Treafure in Heaven, and getting the Crown of Righteoufnefs. 16. That the after-fins of men imputed Righteous deferve Hell, or at leaft temporal

punifli-

The PRE FACE.

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 birth to my death, and therefore have no more need of Pardon.) 18. That he that faith he hath no fin, deceiveth himfelf, and isalyar. 19. That Magiftrates muft pu-nilh fin as Gods Officers ; and Paftors by Cenfure in Chrifts name; and Parents alfo in their Children. 20. That if Chrifts #*-linefs and perfect Obedience, and Satisfadion and Merit, had bin Ours in Right and Imputation^ zsfimply and absolutely and fully as it was his own>vtQ could have no Guilty need of Pardon, no fafpenfion or detention of the proper fruits of it, no punilhment fbf fin, (fpeciaily not fo great as the withholding 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 ; and none of it can with any face be denied by a (^hriftian. And if fo 5 1. Then whether Chrifts perfect Holinefs and Obedience^ 3nd SufferingsfNLerit and Satisfaction^ be all given us, and imputed unto us at our firft believing as Our own in the very thing it felf, by a full and proper title to the thing :

1he PKEFJCE.

Or only fo imputed to us, as to be judged a jujt caufe of giving us all the effects in the degrees andtimeforementioned as Godpleafeth 7 let all judge as evidence ihall 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 conplude with this confeffion to the Reader, that though the matter of thefe Papers hath been thought on thele thirty years, yet the Script is hafty 7 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 alTert: And feve-ral things, efpecially the ftate of the Cafe, are oft repeated. But that is, left once reading fuificenot to make them obferved and underftood; which if many times will do, I have my end. If any fay, thatlfhould 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 defective in the mode of one work, than leave undone the fub-ftance of another as great.

7*ij,i*.it}t. Richard Baxter*

B The

c

The Contents.

Hap* i. The Hiftory of the Controverfie , In the w Apojiles days : In the following Ages. Auguftine and his followers Opinion* 'the Schoolmen* Luther : Iflebius : the Lutherans : An^r.Ofiander; The latter German Divines who were againfi the Imputation of ChrijVs Attive Right eoufnefi: Our Englifh Divines: Davenant's fnfe of Imputation. Wotton. deReconcil. Bradftiavv, Gataker, Z?r. Crifp, Jo.Simpfon> Randal, Towne, &c* And the Army- Antinomians check} by the rifing of Ar-minianifm there againji iu Jo. Goodwin, Mr* Walker, and Mr* Roborough V Mr. Ant. Barges* My Own endeavours h Mr. Cranden, Mr. Eyres, &c. Mr. Woodbridge, Mr. Tho. Warren, Mr* Hotchkis, M^Hopkins, Mr. Gibbon, Mr. War-ton, Mr. Grailes, Mr. Jeflbp : What I then af~ ferted: Corn, a Lapide, Vafquez, Suarez, Gro-tius de Satisf. Of the Savoy Declaration * Of the Faith of the Cong'-gational-Divines : Their faying that Chrifts Aftivt and Pajfive Obedience is imputed for 'our fole Rigbteoufkefc confuted by Scripture. Gataker, Ufher, and Vines read and approved my Confeffion of Faith. Plaeeus bis Writings and trouble about the Imputation of Adam'x Sin. Dr. Gel!, Mr. Thomdike, &c. vehemently accuftng the doUrine of Imputed Righteoufnefi. The Confent of all Cbriftians-> efpecially Prote(lants-> a-hout the fenfe of Imputed Righteoufnefi I. The form of Baptifm. 2 > The ApofUes Creed. 3. The Nicene and Conftantinopolitan Creed. 4. Athanafius'x Creed. 5. The Fathers fenfe : Laurentius his Collections: Damafus his Creed. 6. The Augu-

B 2 fian

The Contents.

ftan fanfeflion. J* The En&lilh Articles^ Homilies and Confejjion. 8. The Saxon Confeflion. 9. The Wittenberg Confeffion. ic. the Bohemian Con-feffion. 11. TheVdUtimttConfejJion. 12. The Polonian Confeffims. 13. The Helvetian Con-

: ftffion* H- %he BaC\\ Confiflion. 15. The Argentine Confeffionof*the four Cities. 16. The Synod of Dort, and the Belgick Conftjfton. 17. The Scotttfri Confejjion. 18. 2^ French Confejjion. Whether Imputation of Pajfion and Satisfaction^ or of meritorious Perfection go firji : How Cbriffs

. Righteoufnefi is called the formal Caufe,&c. That it is confined that Cbrift^s Righteoufneflis imputed to Us , as our Cm was to him. Molinaeus ; Mare-iius, Vaffeur, Eellarmine ix conjirained to agree •with us. A recommendation of fome briefs moji deary and fujficient Treatifes on this fubjefi i viz. 1. Mr. Bradfhaw j 2. Mr. Gibbon 5 s Sermon > 3. Mr. TrumanV Great Propitiation. 4. Pla-cmshis Vijput.inTheJ. Salmur. 5. LeBlank 5 / 2/Ev/ej ; And thofe that will read larger , Mr. Wat-ton, John Goodwin, and Vr. Stillingfleet.

Chap. 2. The opening of the Cafe^ by fome Diftinfti-

. ens^ and many Proportions: Joh.Crocius Concef-fionspremifed: Mr. LawfonV Judgment.

Chap. 3. A further Explication oftheControverfie.

Chap, 4. My Re ajws againfi the denied fenfe of Imputation and perfonating. The denied fenfe repeated plainly* Forty-three Reafons briefly named.

Chap. 5» Some Obje£iions apfwered.

Chap. <5> 7,8. Replies to Dr. Tully 5 and a Defence of the Concord of Proteftants againji his Military Alarms and falfe pretence of greater difcord than tbtreif*

tfaS ^^^^^w^-wA ^ J^^sbd^

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

Whether we are Reputed perfmally tohave fuffered on the Cmfs, and to have fatisfied God's Jujiicefor our own fins^and to have been habitually perfeUly Holy* and ABually perfeUly Obedient, in Cbri\\, or by C brill) and fo to have merited our ownjuftification and Salvation. And whether Chriffs Righteoufnefs Habitual A&ive and Taffive, be flrittly made our own Righteoufnefs, in the very thing it felffmply Imputed to M^or only be made ours in the effetts,and Righteoufnefs Imputed to w when we believe, be-caufe Cbrift hath fatisfied and fulfilled the Law, and thereby merited it for us. 'the lafi is affirmed^ and the two firjt Queftions denied*

Have faid fo much of this fubjeft already in my Confeffion, but ef-ptcially in my Difputations of Juftitication, and in my Life of Faith that I thought not to have meddled with it any more *, But fome occaiions tell me that it is not yet needlefs, though thofe that have mod need will not read it. But while feme of them held* that nothing which they account a Truth about the f orm zndManner otlVorftrip is to be filenced for the Churches peace, they fhould grant to me that Real

B 3 truth

(■ ° )

'truth fo near theFoundation(in their own account) is not to be filenced when it tendetb unto Feace.

In opening my thoughts on this fubje& I (hall reduce all to thefc Heads, i. I (hall give the brief HHhry ofthisControverfie. 2. I (hall open the true ftateof it, and aflert what is to be a(Terted,and deny what is to be denied. 3. I (hall give you the Reafons of my Denials. 4. I (hall anfwer fome Objections,

CHAP. I.

the Hiflory of the Controverfie.

§i.XN the Gofpel it felf* we have firft ar>/Pj JL ®°ft r * ne delivered by his own mouth* And in that there is fo little faid of this Subjed that I find few that will pretend thence to refolve the Controverfie, for Imputation in the rigorous fence. The fame I fay of the Ads of the Apoftles* and all the reft of the New Teftament, except Pauls Epiftles.

The ApoftleP^/, having to do with the Jews y who could not digeft the equalizing of the Gentiles with them, and Specially with the factious Jewifii Chriftians, who thought the Gentiles muft become 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 did all the Apoftles,^. 15*)And in his ar^

gumg

( 7 )

guing)proveth thattheMofaical Law is Co far from being neceflary tothe Juftification of the Gentiles, that Abraham and the Godly Jews themfelves were not Juftified by it, but by Faith h And that by the worlds of it (and corifequently 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 Chri.ft alone, and by Faich in him, or bymeer Chrr.ftianity ? which the Gentiles might have as well as the Jews? the Partition-wall Being taken down. This briefly is the true fcope of Paul in thefc Con trover Ges.

§2. But mTauFs own days, there werefome-things in his Epiftles which the unlearned and unliable did wreft,as they did the other Scriptures, to their own deftru&ion, as Pet$r tells us, 2 Pet. 2. And it feemeth by the Epiftle of James? that this was part of it: For he is fain there earneflly to dispute againft fome,who thought that Faith without Chriftian works themfclves, would juftifie,-and flatly affirmeth, that we are Juftified by Works? and not by Faith only i that is, as it is a Practical Faith? in which is contained a Confent or Covenant to obey? which hrft putteth us into a juftified ftate > fo it is that Pratlical Faith attually working by Love? and the atiualperformance of our Covenant? which by rvay of Condition^ necejfary to our Juftification? as Continued and as Confummate by the Sentence of'judgment. Againft which fentence of James there is not a fyllable to be found in Paul. But all the Scripture agreeth that all men (ball be Judged? that is, Juftified or Condemned? according to their worlds. But it is not this Controverfie (between Faith and

B 4 Wor\s)

Worty) which I am now to fpeak to, having; done it enough heretofore.

§ 3. From the days of the Apoftles till Velagius and Auguftine,this Contrpverfie was little meddled with ; For the truth is, the Paftors andDod:ors took i2ot Chriftianity in thofe days for a matter of Shcolaftick fubtihy, but of plain Faith and titty. 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 was made 'to us Wifdom, San&ification and Redemption*

§ 4. But withal thofe three firft Ages were fo intent upon Holinets of Life, as that they a^di^ed their Dodhine^their Zealand their conitant endeavours to it: And particularly to great aufterities to their Bodies, in gre^t 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 into WildernefTes, and Monalieries, whgre,in Farting and Prayer,and a fingle life, they might live as ic were out of the World, while they were in it > (Though indeed -persecution firft drove them thither to fave themfelves )Into thefeDeferts and Monafte-*ies thofe went that had moft Zeal, but not ufuallv moft Knovpledg : And they turned much of their Dcxfhine and difcourfes about thefe Aufterities,and about the pra&ices of a GodlyLife,and about all the Miracles which were Cfome rcallyj done, and (fqme feigned) by credulous foft people faid to he done among them. So that in all thefe ages moft of their writings are taken up, 1. In defending tphriftianity agaipft the Heathens, which was the'

work

v y ) work of the Learned D*o<ftors. 2. And in confuting fwarms of Herefies that 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 thofe times, fecm to give very much to Mans free-will^ and to works of Ho'inefs^ zndjvjfer-ings, making too rare and obfcure mention of the diftindl Interefts of Chrifts Merits in our Juftihcati-ort, at leaft, with any touch upon this Controverfie: Yet generally holding Pardon, and Grace and Salvation only by Chriits Sacrifice and Merits uhough they fpakg moft of Mans Holinef^ when they called men to feek to make fure of Salvation.

§ 5. And indeed at the day of Judgment, the Queftion to be decidecL,wiIl nor be, Whether Chrilt dyed and did his part,but,Whether we believed and obeyed bim and did our part: Not,Whether Chrift performed his Covenant with the Father, but,W he-ther we performed our Covenant with him: For it is not Chriffc that is to be judged, but we by (Shrift.

§ <5- Eut Pelagiu* and Auguftinc difputing about the Power of Nature andFreewiil and the Grace of Chrift, began to make it a matter of great Ingenuity (as Erafmus fpeaketh) to be a Chriftian. Pe-lagius (a Brittain, of great wit, and continence, and a good and fobcr life,as Aufiin faith,E/>i/?. 120.) ftifly defended the Powerof Nature and Freewill, and made Grace to confift only in the free Pardon of all fin through Chrift, and in the DoElrine 3mA Perfwaftons only to a holy life for the time to come, with Gods common ordinary help. Auguftine copi-

oufly (and juftly) defended God's fpecial eternal Election of fome,and his fpecial Grace given them to make them repent and believe, and prefevere ; (For though he maintained that fome that were true Believers, Lovers of God, Juftified and ;n a ftate of Salvation, did fall away and perifh, yet he held that none of the Elett did fall away andperijh h And he maintained that even the Juftified that fell a-way, had their Faith by a fpecial Grace above nature.) Vid. Auguft. de bono Perfever. Cap. 8, & p. & de Cor. & GraU Cap. 8, & 9. & alibi pafjim.

§ 7. In this their Controverfie, the point of Ju-ftification fell into frequent debate : But no Con-troverfie ever arofe between them, Whether Chrift's "pergonal Kighteoufnefs considered Materially or Formally? was by Imputation made ours as Proprietors of the thing it felf,diftin6t from its eflfedfc', or, Whether God reputed us to have fatisfied and alfo perfectly obeyed in Chrift. For Augujline himfelf, while he vehemently defendeth free Grace,fpeaketh too little even of the Pardon of fin : And though he fay,that Free Pardon of fins is part of Grace, yet he maketh Juftification to be that which we call San-edification, that makes us inherently Righteous or new-Creatures,by the operation of the Holy Ghoft: And he thinketh that this is the Jufiification which Paul plcadeth to be of Grace and not of works; yet including Pardon of fin, and confefling xhztfome-' times to Juftifie, figniiieth in Scripture,not to make juft, but to judg jitji. And though in it felf this be but de nomine? and not de m yet, 1. no doubt but as to many texts ofScripturc^/fm was miftaken,, though fome few texts Beza and others confefs to Retaken in his fence; 2* And the expofition of

many

many texts heth upon it. .But ne that took Juiti-tication to be by the operation of the Holy Ghoft giving us Love to God, could not take it to be by Imputation in the rigorous fence no queftion **nor dottier*

§8. Butbecaufe, asfomethat, itfeems, never read Auguftine y or underftood not plain words,have neverthelefs ventured confidently to deny what I have faid of his Judgment in the points of Perfeve-rance (in my Tradt of Perfeverance)fo>it's like fuch men will have no more warinefs what they fay in the point of Justification * I will cite a few of An-guftin's words among many, to (how what he took Juftification to be, though I differ from him de nomine.

Nee quia refti funt corde? fed etiam ut re&ifiat cordejretendit Jujiitiamfuam, qua juftiftcat impium

Quo motu receditur ab illofonte vit&, cujnffo-

lius haufiu juftitia bibitur, bona feiU vita. Aug. de Spir. & Lit. Cap. 7.

Dews eft enim quioperatur in eif & velle & operari y pro bona voluntate. H<ec eft Juftitia Dei, hoc eft> quam Veus donat homini quum juftificat impium Hanc Veijuftitiam ignor antes fuperbi Judai, &faam

volentes eonftituere^ juftitia Dei nonfuntfubjetti.-

Vet quippe dixit Jujiitiam y qua homini ex Deo eft, fuam vero> quam put ant fibifitficere adfacienda man-data fine ad jut or io & dono ejus qui legem dedit.* His antem fimilesfunt qui cum profiteantur fe ejfe Chrifti-anos-i ipfi gratia Cbrifti fie adverfantur utfe bumanif viribus divina exiftiment implere mandata.Epitt. 120. cap. 21. & 22. CrEpift. 200.

Et de Spir. & lit. c. 26. Fadores juftiftcahuntur:, & — 'Nontanquamper opera. Hamper Cratiam jufli^

ficentur i

pcemttr : I urn dicat Gratis luftificari hominem per ft-dim fine operibut legis, nibilque aliud velit intelUgijn to qmd dicit CjraW, ni(i quia juflificationem opera non precedent: Aperte quippe alibi dicit) ft gratia, jam non ex operibus : alioquin gratia non eft gratia* Sed fie intclligendttm eft>> faftores Legis juftificabuntur^ut fchmtts eos nan ejfe fatlores legis mfi ]u[lificentur'•> ut mnjnftificatio facloribuf accedat, fed fadores legis jujUficatio precedat: Quid eft enim aliud JuHficati, /{team Ju(ii facli, ah Mo fcilicet qui juftifieat Imptym,

nt ex impio fiatjuftus ? Aut certe it a diVium eft,

Juftificabuntur, acfi diceretur Jufti habebuntur, jufti deputabuntur.

Et ibid. cap. 29. (jemes qua non feciabantur jufti-tiam apprehenderuntjuf{itiam\Juftitiam autem qua ex fide eftjmpretrando earn exVeo^on ex feipfts prefumen-do h Ifrael vero perfequens legem jujUti*, in legem ju-ftitit, non pervenit: Quire ? Quia non ex fide, fed tanquam ex operibits : id eft tanquam earn per feipfos operands h non in fe credentes operari

T)eum* Dem eft enim qui operatur in nobis .

Finis emm legis Cbriftus eft omni credemi. Et ad-hue dubitamus qu£ ftnt opera legis, quibus homo non juftiftcatur \ ft ea tanquam fua credederit fine ad' jntorio & dmo Dei y quod eft ex fide Jeju Cbrifti-—-Vtpoffit homo facere bona & SanCta, Vem operatur in famine per fidem JefuChrifti^ qui finis ad Juftitiam omni credenti ; id eft, per Spiritum incorporate fa-Uufque membrum ejus, potcft quifque illo incrementum

imrinfecus dante, operari juftitiam* Juftificatio

autem ex fide impetratur Infantum jitftus, in

quantum Jalvus. Per banc enim fidem credemus, qmd etiam nos Veus a mortuis excitethfnterim Spiritu, ut in novitate ejus grattoe temper anter 0*jufte & pie

viva-

(13 )

vbamus in bocfecnlo — qui in KefurreUione fibi con-

grua, hoc eji^ injujiificatione precedit: . c. 30*

Fides impetrat gratiam qua Lex impleatur. 1

Cap. 28. pag. 3 15* Ibi Lex Dei,non tx omniparte delata per injufiitiam, profeflo fcribitur^ renovata? per gratiam: Necijiam infcriptionem, <]w*> Jujiifica-tio eji,peterat ejficere in Judxii Lex in tabulisfcripta. Ibid. Cap. 9. pag. 307,308. Juiiitia Veimani* fejiataeji : non dixit ^ Juiiitia bominis veljujiitia propria voluntatis fedjujiitia Dei 9 Non qua Deusjajiui efi 9 fed qua induit, bominem cum jujiificat impiam. Hsc te[iificatur per Legem & Yropbetas. Huic quippe tefiimonium perbibent Lex & Prophet£. Lex qu'idem hoc ipfo, quod ]ubendo-> & minando, & neminem )u-fiificando, fatii indicat dona Dei juliificari hominem

per Adjutorium Spiritus Juiiitia autem Deiper

fidem Jefu Cbrijii*, hoc eft, per fidem qua Creditur in Cbrijiurn: ficut aittem ifta fides Cbr'ijtiditta non?ji> qua Credit Chrijius, jic & ilia Juiiitia Dei non qua Jujius eft Deus* Vtrumque htim Nofirum ejlfed idea Dei&CbrijU dicitur quod ejus nobii largitate donatur.

Jujiitia Dtifme lege tji^quam Deus per Spiritual

Gratise Credenti confert fine adjutorio legis* Ju~

fiificati gratis per gratiam ipfius : non quod fine volun-tate nojirafiat-y fed voluntas nojlra ofienditur infirma per legem, ut fanetGratia Voluntatem, & fanatavo-luntas impleat Legem. — — Et cap. 10. Confugiant per fidem ad Jujiificantem Gratiam, & per donum Spiritusfuavitate]u\\it'i£ ddetlati, poenam liter g mi* nantis evadanu Vid. Ep. 89. q. 2. Et lib. 3. ad Bcnifac. c. 7.

Et Trad. 3.10 Joa,o. when he faith that, Om-nesquiper Cbrijiurn Jujlificatijujii, non infejed in iilj* he cxpouudech ic of Regeneration by Chrith

Et

( 14 )

Et Serm. 15. de verb. Apoft. Sine voluntate tua non exit in te Jujiitia Dei. Voluntas non efi nip tua'y Juftitia non eft nifi Dei: he expounds it of Holinefs. ~—. T'raditus efi propter deliUa noftra, '& refurr<xit, propter juftifipationem noftrarn. Quid eft, Propter ^fuftificationem noftrarn ? Vt jufttficet nos, & juftos faciat nos. Eris opus Dei non falum quia homo es*fed quiajuftus es: Qui fecit teftne te, non te juflificat fine te : Teamen ipfe juftificat, ne ft juftitia tua. ■

Dei juftitiam dat non liter a Occidents /^vivificacS Spiritus r Vid. ^Grat. Chrifti Cap. t£t'f4>

Abundance fuch pafTages in Auguftine fully (hew that he took Juftitication W fignifie San&ifica-tion,or the Spirits renovation ofus > and thinks it is called the Righteoufnefs of .God and Chrift, and not ours, becaufe by the Spirit he woxketh it in us. ,And when he faith that bona opera fequuntur Juftifi-catum 7 nonprecedunt Juftificandum (as in fence he often doth) he meaneth that we are freelyifanttified, before we do.good. I would cite abundance, but for fweliing the writing, and tiring the Reader. And his followers Proffer, and Fulgentius go the fame way, as you may eafily find in their writings.

Jbhan. Crdcius in his copious Treatife of Juftifi-cation,Di/p. p.p. 442. (kith^Auguftinum Juflificati-onis nomine utramque partem compleSi, id eft, turn Remijjionempeccatorum qu&proprie Juftificatio dici-

tur, tumSanUiftcationem Cum quo nos fentimus

quoad rem ipfam y tantum diffidemus in loquendi forma.

§p. The Schoolmen being led by theSchok-flick wit of Auguftine, fell into the fame phrafe of fpeech and opinions, Lombard making Auguftine

his

his Mafter, and the reft making him theirs, till feme began to look more towards the Semipelagian way.

§ lift And when Church-Tyranny and Ignorance, had obfcured the Chriftian Light, the true fence of Juftiftcation by the Righteoufifefs ofChrift, was much obfcured with the reft, and a world of humane inventions under the name of Good works, were brought in to take up the peoples minds i And the merits of man, and of the Virgin M*rjf,founded 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, Satisfactions, 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 foppe-jries 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 forne words which feem-ed plainly to make Ghrifts own perfunal Righteouf-nete 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 words he (heweth that he meant only, that out fins were Chrifts in ihe-tffeiis and not in themfelves^nd -Chrifts perfcnal Righteoufnefs: ours in the effe&s ,and not in it felf.

§ 12. But his Bock on the GalatimSy and fome other words, gave occaiion to the erronrs of fome then called Antinomians^ and afterward Libertines (when fome additions were made to their crrours.) Ofchefe J/k/w*/ Agricoh was the chief: Whom

Luther

Luther confuted and /educed, better expounding his own words : But Jflebius ere long turned back to the Contrary extreme of Popery,and with Sido-wia/and Julius Pflugj (three Pop»fh Bifhopsmade for that puipofe) promoted the Emperours Interim to the perfecution of the Proteinics.

§ 13. The Proteltant Reformers themfelves (pake varioufly of this fubjed. Mod of them rightly aflerted that ChrilVs Righteoufnefs was ours by the way of Meriting our Righteoufnefs, which was therefore faid to be Imputed to us. >• ne of them follow'd Luthers Hrlt words, and I - i that ChriiisfufFerings and all his pcrfbna! Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, fo as to be ours in it felf, and when judged as if we had perfonally done what he did, and were righteous with the fame Righteouk nefs that he was.

§ 14- AmbfdorfiusjGalluSy and fome other hot Lutherans were fo jealous of the name of works,that they maintained that good works were not necef-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 He-tetkks^ for maintaining that Good works were ne-ceffary to Salvation > as you may fee in the perverfe writings vf Chlufseburgiusand many others.

§15. Andreas Ofiander (otherwife a Learned Protellant) took up the opinion, that we are Jufii-fied by the vety eflential Righteoufnefs of God himfelf. But he had few followers.

§ id- The Papifts faftenipg upon thofe Divines who held Imputation of Chriits perfonal Righteoufnefs in it felf in the rigid fence, did hereupon greatly infult againft the Proteftants 3 as if it had

been

( *7 )

been their common do&rine,and it greatly ftopt thd Reformation : For many feeing that fome made that a Fundamental in our difference.aiid .articulus ft until & cadentis Ecclefi£> and feeing how eaiily it was difproved, how fully it was againft the Doc/brine of all the ancient Church,and what intolerable Conferences followed,did judge by that of the reft of our Dodhine, and were fettledly hardened againft all.

§ 17. The Learned Divines of Germany perceiving this, fell to a frefh review of the Controverfie, and after a while abundance of very Learned Godly Do&ors fell to diftinguifh between the A&ive and Paflive Righteoufnefs of Chritf ; and not accurately diflinguifhing of Imputation,becaufe they perceived that Chrift fuffered in our ftead,in a fuller ienfe than he could be faid to be Holy in our ftead, or fulfil the Law in our (lead. Hereupon they principally managed the Controverfie, as about the fort of Righteoufnefs Imputed to us : And a great number of the rnoft Learned famous Godly Divines ofthe Reformed Churches, maintained that Chrift's Paffive Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, even his whole Humiliation or Suffering, by which the pardon of all fins of Commiflion and OmilTion was procured for us>but that his ASive Righteoufnefs was not Imputed to us, though it profited us > but was Juftitia Perfon* to make Chrift a fit Sacrifice for our iins,ha-ving none of his own,but the Suffering was his Jh-ftitia Meriti.Uis Obedience they faid was performed noflrobonO) non nojlro loco, for our good but not in our ftead > but his Sufferings ,both noftro bono & Iocq, both/ar our good and in our ft e ad : but neither of them foftri&ly in nofhrk Perfona in our Perfon, as if we did it by and in Chrift. The Writers that de-

C fended

^ 15 )

fended this were Carglus^ud that holy man Olevian and Vrfine, and Partus^ and Scultetus-, and Pifca* *or, Alfteditts, TVendeline^Beckjnan^ and many more* He that will fee fhc fum of their arguings may read it in Wendelinfs Theolog. lib. I. cap. 25. and in Parens his Miscellanies alter Vrfine's Corpus 'The-clog. After them C amero w ^h his Learned followers took it up in France. Leg* Cameron* p. $6^390. *£bef Sal. vol. i# Placet Difp. de Juft. § 29. & Part. 2deSatisf. § 42. So that at that time (as Partus tells you) there were four opinions : fome thought Chrift's Paflive Righteoufnefs only was Imputed to us i fome alfo his ABive inftead of our Adual Obedience y 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 vid Man. (Imputed I fay * for I now fpeak not oWfiander's opinion of Inhefion.) And Lubbertus wrote a Conciliatory Tra&ate favouring thofe that were for the Paflive "... part. And Forbes hath written for the Paflive only ' imputed. Molintus cafteth away the diftindtion, Thef. Sedan, v. 1. p. 625. § 18.

§ 18. In England moft Divines ufed the phrafe, that we were Juftified 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 moil elaborately in it, and maintaineth Imputation fliflly, in terms > yet when he telleth you what Protectants mean by it, faith, that [Pojfknt nobis imputari^ non folum noftrfpajjiones, alliones> qualitates^fed etiam extrin* Jica qugdam-) qttx nee a nobis fluunt^ nee in nobis b&-*

rent

(19)

retit : T>e faUo autem Imputantur, quando illorum intuitus & refpeUus valent nobis ad aliquem effedum^ eque acfi a nobU aut in nobis ejftnt. (Note, that he faith, but ad aliquem effedum, non ad omnem.) And he inftanceth in one that is a flotbful fellow himfelf, but is advanced to the Kings Favour and Nobility for fome great Service done by his Progenitors to the Common-wealth. And in one that deferving death is par* doned through the InterceJJion of a friend, or upon Jime fufferlng in hit jiead which the King impofeth on his 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 difcourfe and wearying the Reader, I would cite many other of our greateft Divines,who plead for the Imputation of ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, that Vavenant hereexpoundeth himfelt.

But fome lefs judicious grating upon a harfh and unfound fence, Mr. Anthony Wotion a very Learned and Godly Divine of London, wrote, a Latine. Treatife de Reconciliation, one of the Leamedlt that hath ever been written of that fubje&,in which he labcureth to difprove the rigid Imputation of Chrifts Holinefsand Obedience to man •> and (hew-eth that he is Righteous to whom all fin of Oiiiif-Con and Commifiion is forgiven * and confuteth thefe three Aflertions. I. That A Sinner is Reputed to have fulfilled the Law in and by Chrift*2. And being reputed to have fulfilled the Law* is taken for formallyjujlasafulfillerofit. 3. And being form ally juji as afullfller of the Law, Life eternal is due to him by that Covenant, that faith, do this and thei Vid. Part. 2.I1. 1. Cap. ii« pag. 152. Cumfequen-* tibia. Thus and much further Mr. VSotton went to

C 2 the

( *0 ) the very quick of the Controverfie,and irrefragably overthrew the rigid Imputation*

But Mr. William Bradfkaw, a Learned Godly Nonconformity being grieved at the differences a-bout the A&ive and Paffive Righteoufnefs, and thinking that Mr. Wotton denied all Imputation of the A&ive Righteoufnefs fwhich he did not, but owneth it to be Imputed as a meritorious Caufe : ) Part. 2. li. i. Cap. 13. pag. 165. Ne Mud quidem negaverim? imputari nobis illius jufiiiiam & obedi-entiam? ut ad no\lrumfruUumredundet: Idunum non comedo? Legem nos in Cbrifto & per Cbriftumfer* vajfe? ut propter earn a nobis pr&jiitam vita sterna ex f/dere y Hocfac et vives? debeatur. Mr. Bradfhaw 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 the Adtive and Paffive Righteoufnefs are both Imputed^but not in the rigid fence of Imputation denying both thefe Propositions.

1. "that Chrijibythe Merits of bis Paffive Obedience only, bath freed us from the guilt of all fin, both Atfu-al and Original? of Orniffion and Commiflion.

2. That in the Imputation of Cbrifis Obedience both ABive and Paffive? God doth Jo behold and*confider a [inner in Chriji? as if the [inner himfelf had done and fuffered tbofe very particulars rvbichChriji did andfuf-feredforhim^nd he wrote a fmall book with great accuratenefs in Englijh hrft, and Latin after,opening the nature ofj uftihcation 5 which hath been deservedly applauded ever fince. His bofom-Friend Mr. Tho. Gatabgrfa man ofrareLearning and Humility)nbxt fct in to defend Mr. Bradfoaw's way, and wrote in Lain Aniaudverfions on Lucius ( who oppofed

Pifcator,

( *«0

Tiftator, and erred on one tide for rigid Imputation,) and on Pifcator who on the other fide was for Judication by the Paffive Righteoufnefs only > and other things he wrote with great Learning and Judgment'in that caufe.

Abouc that time the Dodtrine of perf )nal Imputation in the rigid fence began to be fully improved in England-* by the Sedt of the Antinomians' tmlyet called Libertines) of whom Dr. Crifpe was the moft. eminent Ring-leader,whofe books cook wonderfully with ignorant Profeflors under rhe pretence of extolling Chriit and free-Grace. After him rofe Mr. Randal, and Mr. John Simpfin, and then Mr. Tlovph, and at laft in the Armies of the Parliament* $altmarft} z ar\(\ fo many mcre,as that it feemed to be likely to have carried moft of the Profeflors in the Army, and abundance in the City and Country that way ; But that fuddenly (one Novelty being fet up againft another) thfe opinions called Armini-anifm role up againft it>and gave it a check and car-ryed many in the Army andCity che clean contrary way: And theft two Parties divided a great part of the raw injudicious fort of the profeilbrs between them, which ufually are the greateft part: but cf-pecially in the Army which was like to become a Law and example to others. \ Before t?fe John Goodmnfnot yet turned Arr nian) preached and wrote with great diligence a* bout Juftification againft the rigid fence of Imputation, who being anfwered by Mr. Walke\\ and Mr* Robourougbj with far inferiour ftrengthi his book had the greater fuccefs for fuch anfwerers*

The Antinomians thenfwarming in London^ Mr, Anthony Budget, a very worthy Divine was em-

C 3 ployed

£ 22 )

ployed to Preach and Print againft them i which lie 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 converfant my felf with the Antino* man and Ar minim 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 more fierce,and working towards greater changes and fubverfions \ And I found that they werejuft falling in with Saltmarfa that Cbriji hath repented and believed for us, and that we mufl no more queftion our Faith and Repentance^ than Chrift* This awakened me better to ftudy thefe points h And being young, and not furnifhed with iqfficient reading of the Controverfie, and alfo being where were ho libraries, I was put to ftudy only the naked matter in it felf. Whereupon I fhortly wrote a final! book called Aphorifms of Juftification, &c. Which contained that Dodrine 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 retraft it till I had time to reform them.Mens judgments of it tteafs various, fome for it and fome againft it : 1 had4>efore been a great efteemer of two books of one mme>Vindici<e &rati£, MuPembles and Dr. e fvpiffes-> above moft other books. And from them I had taken in the o* pinion of a double Juftification, one in foroVeias &n Immanent eternal A& of God, and another in foro ConfiientU^ the Knowledg of that*, and I knew no other : But now I faw> that neither of

thofe

I 23 ; thofe was the Juftification which the Scriptinc fpake of. But feme \\2tf-Antin0mians which were for the Juftification before Faith, 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 y and yet more fully in fome Difputations of Juftification againft Mr. Burges, who had in a book of Juftification made fome exceptions > and pag. 34.tf.had defended that [As in Chrift z s fitjjmng we tv erelookyl upon by God asfuffering in him *, fo by Cbrijis obeying of the Law, we were beheld as fulfilling the Law in him*'] To thofe Difputations I never had any anfwer. And fince then in my Life of Faith, 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, ofeled Infidels) and Mr'. Benjamin Woodbridgy Mr. Tho* Warren againft it. Mr. Hotchkis wrote a confiderable Book of Forgivenefs of fw,defending the founder way : Mr. George Hopkins, wrote to prove that Juftification and Sanguification are e-qually carryed on together: Mr. WartonJAx. Graile* Mr. Jejfop, (clearing the fence of Dr. T'wijfe,) and many otheis wrote againft Antimmianijm. But no man more clearly opened the whole do&rine of Juftification, than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons Minifter at Blacky Fryers, in a Sermon Printed in the LeUures at St. Giles in the Fields. By fuch endeavours the before-prevailing Antinomianifm was fuddenly and fomewhatmarvelouflyfuppreiTvd, fo that there was no great noife made by it.

About Imputation that which I affertcd was a-

C 4 gainft

t»4 J

gainft the two fore-defcribed extremes \ infhort,

f That we are Jujiifiedby Cbrips whole Righteouf-cc nefs, Taffive, Aftive, and Habitual^ yea the Di-tC vine fo far included as by Union advancing the reft ' c to a valuable furficiency : That the PafTive,that is, cc ChrifTs whole Humiliation \sfattifa£tory firft, and u fo meritorious,and the Adiive and Habitual meritorious primarily. That as God the Father did appoint to Chrift as Mediator his Duty for our f c Redemption by a Law or Covenant, fo Chrift's cc whole fulfilling that Law, or performance of his " Covenant-Conditions as fuch (by Habitual and "A&ual perfe&ion,'and by Suffering) made up " one Meritorious Caufe of our Juftirication, not ■ c diftinguifhing with Mr. Gatdkgr of the pure mo-C5 raJ,andthefervilepartofChrift's Ohedience,fave f$ only as one is more a part of Humiliation than the cc other, but in point of Merit taking in all: That £c as Chrift fuffered in our Head that we might not "fuffer, and obeyed in dur nature, that perfection u of Obedience might not be neceffary to our Ju-■* Q (lification, and this in the perfon of a Mediator * c and Sponfor for us finners, but not fo in our Pe rjr "fonsi as that we truely in a moral or civil fence, u did al| this in and by him * Even fo God repu-* c teth the thing to be as it is, and fo far Imputeth <c Chrift'sRighteoufiiefs andMerits and Satisfaction % to us, as that it is Reputed by him the true Me-* ; ritcrious Caufe of our Juftification * and that for u it God maketh a Covenant of Grace, in which he * c freely giveth Chrift, Pardon and Life to all that B accept the Gift as it is ? fo that the Accepters * c are by this Covenant or Gift as furely juftified |j and faved by Chrift's Righteoufnefs as if they bad

« Obeyed

(2 * >

ff Obeyed and Satisfied themfelves- Not that Ghrift << meriteth that we (hall have Grace to fulfil the <c Law our fdves and ftand before God in a Righ-" teoufnefs of our own, which willanfwer the Law " of works andjuftifieus: But that the Conditio cc ons of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being cc performed by every penitent Believer, that Cove-Pntmt doth pardon all their fi*s (asGods Inftru-" ment) and giveth them a Right to Life eternal, C; for Chrifis 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 moft Learned Papifis, Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wottm, Vafjuez by Davenant, Suarez by Mr. Burges, as fpeaking for fome fuch Imputation, and Merit : Grotius de Satisf is clear for it.

But the Brethren called Congregational or Inde-pendantin their Meeting at the Savoy, Oft* 12. 1658. publifhinga Declaration of their Faith, Cap. 11. have thefe words [flhofe whom God effectually callethjoe alfo freely juftifietb y not by infuftng Rigb-teoufnefs into them, but by pardoning their Shis, and hy accounting and accepting their perfons as Righteous > not for any thing wrought in them , or done by them, but for Chrijis fahg alone: not by imputing Faith it felfi the att of believing, or any other evangelical Obedience to them, as their Righteouftefi ', but by Imputing Chrijis Aftive Obedience to the whole Law, and Paffive Obedience in hi* death for their whale and file Rigbteoufnefr, they receiving and re fling on him and hit Righteoufnefs by faith."]

Upon the publication of this it was varioully fpoken of; fome thought that it gave the Papiftr

To

I 26 )

Co great a fcandal, and advantage to reproach the Proteftants as denying all inherent Righteoufnefs, that it was neceflary that we (hould difclaim it : Others faid th^t it was not their meaning to deny Inherent Righteoufnefs, though their words Co fpake, but only that we are not juftified by it: Ma* ny faid that it was not the work of all of that party, but of fome few that had an inclination to fome of the Antinomian principles, out of a miftaken zeal of free Grace>and that it 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,leii it irritate them to make the matter worfe by a Defence, & 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 fubferibe it,and that they meant but to deny Justification by inherent Righteoufnefs. And though fuch men in the Articles of 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 fbmetimes 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 rv&rds are in the AJfembliesConfejJion^thoHgh they might better have been left ouu

Scrip-

( *7 )

Scriptures. Declaration.

Rom. 4.3. What faith the C 1 Not by impu-

Scripture ? Abraham believed tmg Faith it fcjf,jart

n / j . 1 / • of Sieving, or any

G*rf, *arf U was counted to him othet . Evangelical Oc

for Rigbteoufnefs. bedience to them A

Ver. 5. Jo fcim fM wor\etb thdr Righteoufhcfs] w*, &«* believeth on him that Jujiifyetb theVngodly, his Faith is counted for Rigbteoufnefs.

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

Ver. 11. And he received the fign of Circumcifwn^a feal of the rigbteoufnefs of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcifed, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that Righteoujnefs might be imputed to themalfo.< -Ver 13. Through the Rigbteoufnefs of Faith. 1 Ver. i<5. Therefore it is of Faith

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

19> 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. He was ftfongin Faithfully perfrvaded that what he hadpromifed, he was able alfo to perform S and therefore it was Imputed to him for Rigbteoufnefs. Now it was not written for bis fake a-lone that it was imputed to him,but for us alfo : to 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 ■ -fo Jhall thy feed

be : And he believed in the Lord, and be counted it to him for Rigbteoufnefs, 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 Rigbteoufnefs. Luk-

r*8)

Luk.- i p. 17. Well done thou good Servant , Be-caufe thou haft been Faithful in a very little\have thou authority over ten Cities.

Mat* 25.34, 35, 40, Come ye bkjfed..—^ fori was hungry and ye gave me Meat.

Gen. 22. i<5, 17, By my felf I have foorn. .

*7>ecaufe thou hajh done thii thing*' ——

Joh. 16'• 27. For the Father himfelf loveth you, becaufe you have loved me and have believed that I came mtfrom God. Many fuch paflages aye in Scripture.

Our opinion is, i\ That it is better to jufiifie and expound the Scripture, than flatly* to deny it : If Scripture fa oft fay, that Faith is reckoned or Imputed for Right eoufnefs., it becometh not Chritfians,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-ftindtion.

2. We hold, that in JuAification there is confi-derable, r. The Purchasing and Meritorious Caufe of Juftification freely given in the new Covenant. This is only ChrifFs 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 h And fo 3. The Condition of pur 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 > whereas perfect Obedience

. ( 25> ) dience wm required of us, 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. 29. Every one [ * For their fok which doth Righteoufnefs is born R^teoufncfs.]

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

is Righteous-, even as he is Righteous* . Whofoever

doth not righteoufnefs \s not of God.

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

Heb. 11. 23. Through Faith they wrought Righte-oufnefs. Heb. 12. The peaceable fruit of Righteoufnefs. Jam. 3. 18. The fruit of Righteoufnefs

is jown in Peace. ■ 1 Pet. 2. 24. TJiat we being

dead to/in, Jhould live unto righteoufnefs, Mat 5. 20. Except your Righteoufnefs exceed the Righteoufnefs of

the Scribes and Pharifees-.&c. Luk. i.ji. In Ho-

linefs and Righteoufnefs before him all the days of our

Life* Adh ic. 35. He that feareth God^ and

worketh Righteoufnefs tf accepted of him^ • Rem*

(5. 13, 16, 18,1 9, 20. Whether of fin unto deaths or

of Obedience unto Righteoufnefs. ■ 1 Cor. 15. 34.

Jwakj to Righteoufnefs and fin not. —— Eph. 5. p. The fruit of the Spirit is in all Goodnefs? and Right e-

oufiefs. Dan. 12.3. They fly til turn many to

Righteoufnefs. Dan. 4. 27. P>rea\pff thy fins by

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

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

Theehavelfeen Righteous before me. —— Gen. 18.

t 23, 24, 25, 2(5. Far be it from thee, to dejlroythe

Righteous with the Wicked. — Prov. 24. 24. He

that

S 3° )

that faith to the Wu\ed thou art Right eoks^ him jhall

the people Curfe^ Nations Jhall abhor him. I fa.

3. 10. Say to the Right eousjt Jhall be well with him^ I fa. 5. 23. 'that take away the Righteoufnefs from the Righteous. —* Mat. 25. 37, 46. Then Jhall the Righteous anfwer. "the Righteous into life eternal. ——. Luk. 1. 6. They were both Righteous before

Cod, 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-jGod tejiifying of his Gifts. By Faith Noah being teamed of God of things notfeen asyet^moved witbfear, prepared an

Ar^ • by which he became heir of the Righteoufi

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. £•

TLbehaxvis not made for a Righteous manjbutfor .

Many fcore of texts more mention a Righteoufnefs diftin£t from that of Chrift imputed to us.

Judgnow,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 file Righteoufnefs^ is not fo Reputed by God nor Imputed: But Chrifts Obedience and Suffering is not our file RigbteoufneJs.

See Uavenanfs many arguments to prove that

we have an Inherent Righteoufnefs.

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

Anfw. 1. We can tell no mans meaning but by his words>efpecially not contrary to them^efpecialiy in an accurate Declaration of Faith. 2. Suppofe it had been fo faid, we maintain on the contrary, 1/

That

That we are Juftified by more forts of Righteouf-nefs than one, in feveral refpe&s. We are juftifi-ed only by Cbrifis Righteoufnefs as the Purchafing 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 Chrift and us, (efficiently). We are juftified efficiently by the Righteoufnefs of Chrift as our Judg, paffinga 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 andHoIinefs.

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 himfelfby his new Law or Covenant, the fum of which is, \_Exceptye 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 Unbelief, but only of not-fulfilling the Law oflnnocency, that will fup-pofe that we are to be tryed only by that L<w,which is not true : And then wc refer the Accufer only to Cbrifis Rigbteoufnefs, and to the Pardoning Law of Grace, and to nothing in our felves to anlwcr that charge j And fo it would be Cbrifis part only that would be judged. But Mattk 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

(tall

ftiall be all judged according to what we have 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 Cbriji : And (hall the Terti-tent Believer fay, I did never Repent and Believe, but Cbriji did it for me'&nd Co ufe trvoLyet,one of Chrift, and another of himfelf, that he may be juftified ? Or (hall the Vnboly, Impenitent Infidel fay, It's true I was never a Penitent Believer, or holy, but Chrift was for me, or Chrifts Righteoufnefs is my fole Righteoufnefs ? that is a fafhood > For Chrifts Righteoufnefs is none of his. So that .there is a particularperfonal Righteoufnejs, confifting in 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 necefllty in our Ju-flification. Therefore Imputed Righteoufnefs is not the fole Righteoufnefs which tnuft juftifie us.

I cited abundance ot plain Texts to this purpofe in my Confeflion, pag. 57. 8cc. Of which book I add, that when it was in the prefsj procured thofe three perfons whom I rnoft highly valued for judgment, Mr. Gata\er, (whofe laft work it was in this World) Mr. Vines, and laftly Arch-Bi(hop Vfoer to read it over, except the Epiftles (Mr. Gataher read only to pag. J 63.) and no one of them advifed tne to alter one word, nor fignified their diffent to any word of it. But I have been long on this: to proceed in the Hiftory. —

The fame year that I wrote that book,that mod Judicious excellent man Jojhua Plactus ofSaumours in frame, was exercifed in a Controverfie conjunct with this \ How far Adams tin is imputed to us. And tofpeak truth^at firft in the 'fbefes Salmurienft

Vol.

( 33 .)

Vol i. he feemed plainly to difpute againft the Imputation of Adam"s adlual fin,and his arguments I elfewhere anfwer.J And Andr Rivet wrote a Collection of the Judgment of all forts of Divines for the contrary. But after he vindicated himfelf,& fhewed that his Doctrine was, that Adams fact is not im-"mediately imputed to each of us, as if our perfons as perfons had been all fully reprefented in Adam's perfon (by an arbitrary Law or Will of God) or reputed fo to be: But that our Perfons being Virtually ox Seminally in him, we derive from him fir ft our Perfons-) and in them a corrupted n3ture, and that nature corrupted and juftly deferted by the Spirit of God, becaufe it is derived from Adam that fo finned : And fo that Adams fa& is imputed to us mediately, mediante natura & Corrupione ,but ncft primarily and immediately.

This dodfrrine of the Good and Judicious man was thought too new to efcapefharp cenfures* fo that a rumour was fpread abroad that he denied all Imputation of Adams fa&,and placed original guilt only in the Guilt of Coruption,for which indeed he gave occafiori.A Synod being called zzCbarentonJ.b\$ opinion without naming anyAuthor was condemned-^ allMinifters required to fubfcribe iv.Amyral-dm being of Placem 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 CerijfolmoiMontauban wrote againft him,pvetend-inghim condemned by the Decree, which Vrelin-court one that drew it up, denied,profefiing himfelf of Placeus his judgment. And Rivet alfo, Marefi-%u % Carol. Vaubuz and others, mifunderftanding him wrote againft him*

D For

(■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-dam, being fuppo.fed to be in Being,we are at once Reputed to be fuch 3S Virtually finned in him, and fuch as are deprived of God's Image. And if either muft be put iirft, me-thinksit fhould rather be the former, we being therefore deprived of God's Im-mage (not by God, but by Adam) becaufe he finned it away fromhimfelf. It fatisfieth me much more, to diftinguifh of our Being and fo finning iu Adam Perfonally and Seminally, or Virtually ; we were not Perfons in Adam when he finned > therefore we did not fo fin in him : And it is a fi&ion added to-God's Word,to fay that God (becaufe he would do it) reputed us to be what we were not. But we were Seminally in Adam as in Caufa natu-rtf/i,who was to produce us out of his very effence : , And therefore that kind of being which we had in him, could not be innocent when he was guilty : And when we had our Natures and Perfons from him, wearejuftly reputed to be as we are, the off* fpringofonethat actually finned; And fo when our Exigence and Perfonality maketh us capable Subje&s, we are guiltv Perfons of his fin *, though not with fo plenary a fort 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 patents fins by nature, than is fufficiently acknowledged or lamented by rnoft, though Scripture a-bound with the proof of it: And that the overlooking it, and laying all upon, God's arbitrary Covenant

vcnant 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 fo charge all culpability on mankind, as the Law of Innocency did alone. And there is fomething of Pardon in the Cafe. And the Evglifo Litany^ (after Ezra, Daniel and others) well prayeth, Remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the oifcnces of our Forefathers, &c.

This fame Tlaceus in Theft Salmnrienf Vol* i* hath opened thedodhine of Juftification fo fully, that I think that one Difputation might fpare fome the reading of many contentious Volumes.

The rigid affertors of Imputation proved fuch a ftumbling-block to many, that they run into the c-ther extreme, and not only denyed it,but vehemently loaded it with the Charges of over-throwing all Godlinefs and Obedience. Of thefe P<zr%r (as is faid)with fome others wrote againfi it in an anfvver to the Affemblies Confeflion : Dr. Gell often re-proachetb it in a large Book in Folio. Andlafrly and moft (harply and confidently Herbert Thorndike % (to mention no more.)

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

D 2 The

The Confent of Chriftians, and fpectally Pro-teflants^ about the Imputation of Ghrifs Kighteoufnefs in tfuftification •, Hove far and in what fence it is Imputed.

I. CEeing Baptifm isourvifible initiation into •^ Ghriftianity,we mutt there begin > and fee what of this is there contained. Mat. 28. 19. Baptizing them into the name of the Fatber,theSon, and the Holy Ghofi, Mar. i<5- i<5. He that believeth,and ubaptizedfhallbefaved, Aft 2.38. Repent, and he Baptized every one of you in the name of Jefm Chrifl for the Remiffion of fins, and ye Jh all receive the gift of the Holy ghoji. See Afts 8.36,37,38. The Eunuch's Faith and Baptifm. Aft. 22. to* Arife,and he baptized, and wafh away thy fins, having called on the name of the Lord. Rom^d. 3. So many as were baptized into Jefm Chrifl^ were baptized into his death* Gal. 3. 27. As many as have been baptized into Chrifl, have put on Chrifl. 1. Pet. 3.21. *lhe like rvhereuntoy Baptifm doth alfo nowfave us, (not the putting away the filth of thefefh-but the anfwer of a "good Confcience towards God) by the Rejurreftion of Jefm Chrifl. Rom. 4« 24, 25. But for us alfo to whom itfhall be imputedjfwe believe on him that rai-fed up Jejus our Lord from the dead : who was deli-vtred for our offences, and was raifed again for our JulHfication.\Quxt. How far Chrifl j Refurre&ionis imputed to us.']

II. The Creed, called^ the Apoftles, hath but [7 believe the forgivenefi of fins.~\

III. The Nicene and Conftantinopolitane Creed,

I

C 37 )

lactyowledg one Baptifm for the Remijfion of fins? (Chrirt's Death, Eurial, and Refurre&ion pre-mifed.)

IV. Athanafius's Creed [Who fuffered for our S alvation^defended into HelLjofe again the third day.

• At whofe coming all men jhall rife again with

their bodies-> and [hall give account for their own works \ and they that have done good, Jhall go into e-verla[iing life, and they that have done evil into ever-lajiing Fire<~\ (Remijfion is contained in Salvation*)

V. The Fathers fence I know not where the Reader can fo eafily and furely gather,without reading them ail, as in Laurentius his Collection de Jujtif after the Corpus Cwfeffumum > and that to the beft advantage of the Protectant Caufe. They that will fee their fence of fo much as (they accounted neceffary to Salvation, may beft hnd it in their Treadles of Baptifm, and Catechmngs of the Catechumens \ Though they fay lefs about our Ccn-troverfie than I could wifh they had. I will have no other Religion than they had. The Creed of Va-mafus in Hieron* op. Tom. 2. hath but (In his Death

and Blood we believe that we are cleanfd • a#d

have hope that we jhall obtain the reward of good merits (meaning our own) 5 which the Helvetians own in the end of their Confcflion.

VI. The Auguiiane Confeifion, Art.3, 4. Chrift

died that he might reconcile the Father to us, and

be a facrifice, not only for original (in, but alfo for all the aftuaifins of men* And that we may obtain thefe benefits ofChrijl, that is, Remiffion of fins, ptjiification and life eternal-* Chrifi gave us the Gofpel in which thefe benefits are prop nwded* "fo preach

D 3 Repen-

( 38 )

Repentance in his Name-, and Remiffion of fins among all Nations. For when men propagated in the natural manner have fin* and cannot truly fatisfie Gods Law* the Gofpel reproveth fin* and fheweth us Chrift the Me-

'diator*atidfo teacheth us about Pardon of fins -That

freely for Chrifts fake are given ns*RemiffioH of fins*& Justification by Faiths by which we mujt confefs that thefe are given us for Chrift* who was made a Sacrifice for us* and appeafed the Father* though the Gofpel require Penitence '* yet jhat pardon of fin may be fure*itieacheth us that it is freely given us\ that is* that it dependetb not on the Condition of our worthy-nefs, nor is given for any precedent works* or worthy-nefs of following worths. •—— For Confcience in true fears findeth no wor\which it can oppofe to the Wrath of God's and Chrift is propofed and given us* to be a pfophidtGrfihvs honour of Chrift muft not be transferred to our worty. Therefore Paul faith? ye are faved free-ly-i (or of Grace,) And it is of grace^ that the pro* mifemight bejure^th^tis* Pardon will be fur eh when we know that it dependetb not on the Condition of our

worthinefs? but is given for Chriji. In the Creed

this Article .[1 believe the Forgivenefs offins*~\is added itftbe hiftory : And the reft of the hiftory of Chrift muft be referred to this Article : For this benefit is the end of the hiftory* Chrifi therefore fujfered and rofe again* that for him might be given us Remiffion of fins* and fife everlafting.

Art. 6. When we are Reconciled by Faith* there

muft needs follow the Righteoufnefs of good worhj. ■ -

l$ut becaufe the infirmity of mans nature is fo great* that no man can fatisfie the Law* it is neceffary to i each men? not only that they muft obey the haw* but $lfo how this Obedience pleajith* le$ Confidences fall

into defperation> when they underfiand that they fa* tisfie not the Law* Tbti Obedience then pleajeth, not becaufe it fat'vsfieth the Law, hut because the perfon it in Cbrifl, reconciled by Faith, and believeth that the reliBs of hvs Sin are pardoned. We muji ever hold that we obtain remiffionof fins, and the perfon is pronounced Righteous->t bat is,is accepted freely for Chriji y by Faith: And afterward that Obedience to the haw pleafeth,andti reputed a certain Righteoufnefs,and merit etb rewards."] Thus the tirit Proteifcmts.

VII. The iith Article of the Church oi England ( to which we all offer to fubfcribe) is [Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted Righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chriji by Faith > and not for our own wirks or defervings. Wherefore that we are jujiified by Faith only-'tf a moji wholfome d)Urine, and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expreffed in the Homily of Justification f]

The faid Homilies (of Salvation and Faith) fry over and over the fame thing. As pag. 14. [three things'go together in our J unification*: On Gods p*rt hi* great Mercy and Grace* on Chrijis part ,Juftice,tbat is,the Satisfaction of Gods Jujtice, or the Price of our Redemption, by the offering of hit bidy, and jhedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfeVtly and throughly \ And on our part true and lively Faith in the Merits of Jefus Chriji: whichyet is not o-urs, 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 truft and confidence of the mercy of Gbd through our Lord Jefus Chriji,and ajieadfaji hope of all good things to be received at Gods hand > and that although we through

D 4. infirmity

infirmity or temptation —- do fall from him by fin* yet if we return again to him by true repentance, that \>e will forgive and forget our offences, for his Sons fake our Saviour Jefus Chrift, and will make us inheritors

with him of his everlajiing Kingdom Pag. 23.

For the very fure and livelyQbriftian Vaith,is,tohave an earnest truji and confidence in God, that he doth regard us-, and is careful over us, as the Father is over the Child whom he doth loves and that he will be merciful unto us for his only Sons fake > and that we have our Saviour Chrift our perpetual Advocate and Prince, in whofe only merits, oblation and fuffering, we do iruft that our offences* be continually wafhed and purged, whenfoever we repenting truely do return to him with our whole heart, jieadfaftly determining with our felvfs, through tin grace to obey andjerve him, in keeping his Commandments, &c] So alfo the Apology, This is our doctrine of Imputation.

VIIL The Saxon Confcffion oft infiftethon the frje Pardon of fin, not merited by us, but by Chrift. ^nd expoundeth Justification to be [Of unjuftjhat is,Guilty anddifobedienty and not having Chrift : to he made Juft, that is, '*£& be Abfolvedfrom Guilt for the Son of God, and an apprehender byFaith ofChrift himfelf, who is our Righteoujnefs > (as Jeremiah and 3P##/fay) becaufeby his Merit we haveforgivenefs, and God imputeth righteoufnefs to us,and for him, re-futethusfuft, and by giving us his Spirit quickeneth

and regenerated us. %y being 3uftified. by Faith

alone we mean, that freely for our Mediator alone, not for our Contrition, or other Merits, the pardon of fm and reconciliation is given us, —~ And before, It is Certain, when the mind is raifed by this Faith jbat the farddk of Jiff) Reconciliation and Imputation ofRighte* i ;; '•""'• oufnefs

qufnefs, are given for the Merit of Cbrift himfelf >

And after [By Faith is meant Affiance, refiing in the Son of God the Propitiator, for whom we are received andpleafe (God) and not for cur virtues and fulfilling of the Law.

IX. The Wittenberge Confeflion, (In Corp. Conf. pag. 104)A man is made Accepted ofGod,and Reputed jujl before him, for the Son of God our Lord Jefus Chrijl alone, by Faith. And at the Judgment of God we muji not trufi to the Merit of any of the Virtues which we have, but to thefole Merit of our Lord Jefus Chrill,which is made curs by Faith- And be-cattfe at the bar of God, where the cafe of true eternal Righteoufnefs and Salvation will be pleaded, there is no place for mans Merit s^but only for God y s Mercy,and the Merits of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, whom we receive by Faith: therefore we thtnkjut Anceftors faid rightly , that we are jujiified before God by Faith only*

X. The Bohemian Confeflion, making Juffifica-tion the principal Article, goeth the fame way. LPag. 183,184. By Chrijl men are Jujiified, obtain Salvation andRemiffion offinfreely by Faith in Chrijl, through mercy, without any Worh^ and Merit of man* And his death and blood alone is fufficient, to abolijh 0° expiate all the fins of all men* All mujl come toChrifi for pardon and Remiffion of Sin, Salvation and every thing. All our trujl and hope is to befafiened on him alone •'through him only and his mervs God is appeafd andpropitious\ Loveth us, and giveth us Life eternal. Xf/The Palatinate Confeflion ib. pag. i^^Ibelieve that God the Father for the mofi full Satisfafti-on of Chrijl, doth never remember any of my fins, and that pravity which Imujljlrive againjl while I live,but contrarily will rather of grace give me the right eouf*

nefs

K 42 ) uefs ofChrift, fo that I have no need to fear the judgment of God. -— And pag. 155. If he merited, and obtained Remiffion of all our fins, by the only and bitter pafjion, and death of the Crofs^jo be it we embracing it by true Faith, as thefatisfaBion for our fins 2 apply it to ourfelves. • ] I rind no more of this.

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

XI1L The Helvetian Confeffion, [fo Jujlifie figttifieth to the Apo\ileinthe diffute of Justification* Ho Remit fins, to Abfive from the fault andpunifh*

mentjo Receive into favour ^and to Pronounce jttft

F&r Cbriji tool^on himfelfand took^away the fins of the World, andfatisfted Gods Jujiice. God therefore for thefakg afCbrifi alone, fuffering and raifed again , is fr&piti&usto our fins* and imputeth them not to us,but imputiththe righteoujhefs of Chrifl for ours'-> fo that mm we are not only oleanfed and purged from fins, or Udy^ but alfo endowed with the Rtghteoufnefs of Cbriji, and fo abfolved from fins, Death and Condem-mtimj and are righteous and heirs of life eternal. Speai^ing properly, Godonlyjujiifiethus, and jujli* fttthmlyforChriji, not imputing to us fins, but im-pamgto us his Rtghteoufnefs.} This Confeffion ipeaketb in terms neereft the oppofed opinion; But indeed faith no'Abate than we alt fay* Chrifts Righ-febufeefs being given and imputed to us as the Afc-rhmwmsCaufe of our pardon and right to life. . XW. The Bafil Confeffion, Arr.p, [Weconfefs Jtan^ttK of fins by Faith in Jefus Chriji crucified* Ami though this Faith workjeontinudly by Love, yet Bigjkemjhej} and S atisfaUiionfor bur Sins, voe do not teto works) which are fruits of Faith > but jwi-

b

( 43 ;

ly to true affiance &faitb in the bhodfhedofthe Lamb ofGod.We ingenuoufly profefs .that in Chrifi,who is our Right eoufiefs, Holinejs 7 %.edemptvm, Way, 'truths Wifdom, Life, all things are freely given us. The workj 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 fe great benefits given us in Chrifi.

XV # The Argentine Confeffion of the four Ci-ties,Cap. 3. ib. p3g.i7p. hath but this htreo(:Wben heretofore they delivered, that a mans own proper Worlds are required to hit J unification, we teach that this U to be acknowledged wholly received of God's he~ nevolence and Chri[Vs Merit, and perceived only by Faitb.C.^We a+efure that no man can be made Righteous orfavedy unlefs he love God above all, and moji ftudioufly imitate him. We can no otherwife be Jujii-fed, that is, become both Righteous and Saved (for our Righteouftefs is our very Salvation) than if we being firjl 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 bec\ (ox Wilf.jjj

XVI. The Synod of Dort, mentioneth only Chrifts death for the pardon of fin and Justification. TheBclgick Conttilion §22. having mentioned Chrifi and his merits made ours, § 23. addeth, [We believe that our bleffednefs confifteth in Remif-fion of our fins for Jefus Chrifi > and that our Righ-teoufnejs before God is therein contained,as David and Paul teach > We are juftified freely, or by Grace, through the Redemption that is in Chrifi Jefus. We hold this Foundation firm j and give all the Glory to God—prefuming nothing of ourfelves^and our merits,

but

\ ft J

fat we reft on the fole Obedience of a Crucified Cbrift b which is ours when me believe in him.~\ Here you ice in what fence they hold that Chrifts merits are ours > Not to juftifie us by the Law, that faith, (Obey perfectly and Live) but as the merit of our -pardon* which they here take for their whole Righ-teoufnefs.

XVII. The Scottish Confeffioi^Corp. Conf. pag. 125. hath but [j:hat true Believers receive in tbti life RemiJJion of Sins* and that by Faith alone in Chrijis

blood : So that though fin remain yet it is not Im-

fitted to us* but is remitted* and covered by Chrijis Right eoufhefs.] This is plain and paft all queftion.

XVIII. The French Confeffion is more plain, § 18. ib. pag. 81 • \We believe that our whole Right e-oufnefs lyeth in the pardon of our fins j which is alfo as David witnejfethour only blejfednefs. therefore all 0-therreafons by which men thinkjo be jujiified before God* we plainly re)eft \ and all opinion of Merit being cgfi awayywe reft only in the Obedience of' Cbrift>wbicb is Imputed to us* both that all our fins may be covered* and that we may get Grace before God7\ So that Imputation of Obedience, they think is but (ox pardon of fin* and acceptance.

Concerning Proteftants Judgment of Imputation, it is further to be noted > 1. That they are not agreed whether Imputation of Chrift's perfe&Holi-nefs and Obedience, be before or after the Imputation of his Pallion 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 mod learned Confuters of the P4-

pifls

( 45 )

pifts hold,that Imputation ofChrifts Obedience and Suffering together, are in order of nature before our Remiflion of tin 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.Molinseus Thef.Sedan.Vol.i. pag, 625. Imputatio jufiiti* Cbrifti propter quam pec-cat a remittuntur, & cenfemur julii coram Deo. Mare-fius Thef. Sedan. Vol * 2. pag. 770, 771. § 6 & 1 o. -maketb the material caufe of our Jufiification to be the Merits and SatisfaQion of Cbrifti yea the Merit of bis Satisfaction^ andfo maketb the formal Caufe of Jufiification to be the Imputation ofChrijls Rigbteouf-nefj) or which is the fame , the folemn Remiffion of all fins,and our free Acceptance with God. Note that he maketh Imputation to be the fame thing with Re* miffion 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 Pailively as it is ours, but A&ively as it is Gods Jufiifying afcfo Marefms ibidem. And many deny it to be the form" And many think that faying improper.

3* Note, that it is ordinarily agreed by Prote-ftants, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs is imputed to us in che fame fence as our fins are faid to be imputed to him h (even before they are committed many Ages i) which cleareth fully the whole Controverfie to thofe that are but willing to underftand, and blafpheme not Chrift *, Co Marefws ubifupra'.Quem-admodum propter deliquia nofira ei imputata punitus fuit Cbrifius in terris > it a & propter ejus Jufiitiam nobis imputatam coronamur in C&Vfa And J oh.

Crocius

( 4« )

Crocius Difput. ib. p. 502. And Vaffeur in his folid Difp. Tbef. Sedan. Vol. 2. pag. 1053, io 54* While he mentioneth only SatisfaSion for our Juftificati-on, yet § 27. faith that SatisfaSion is imputed to us, and placeth Chrifts Imputed Righteoufnefs in his Obedience to the death > and faith that this Satisfying Obedience, infufjering, is our Imputed Righteoufnefs. Ea igitur Obedientia Chrijii qua Patri paruit ufque ad mortem cruris, qua coram Patre com-paruit ut voluntatem ejus perficeret, qua a Patre mif fits, ut nosfuifanguinis ejfufwne redimeret, ]uftiti<e' ejus propeccatis noftris abunde fatisfecit \ ea inquam obedientia ex gratiaPatris imputata &• donata*illaju~ ftitia efi qua juftificamur. And they ordinarily ufe the fimilitude of the Redemption of a Captive, and Imputing the Price to him. He addeth (Hence we may gather that as Chrift . was made fin, fowe are made the JLigJoteoufnefs of God, that is by Imputation^ which is true.

The plain truth in all this is within the reach of every found Chriftian 5 and felf-conceited wranglers make difficulties where there are none. Yea,how far the Papifts themfelves grant the Proteftant do-drine of Imputation, let the following words of Vaffeur on Bellarminebc judg. [Bellarm. ait h Si folum vellent baretici nobis imputari Merita Cbrifti, quia nobis donatafunt,& pojfumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis mfiris, quoniam Chrijius fufcepit fuper fe onus fatisfaciendi pro nobtfjtoJqueVeo Patri reconcile andi, reSa effet eorum Sententia : I doubt fbme will fay, it is falfe, becaufe Bellarmine granteth it ; but Vaffeur addeth [Htc tile : fed an noftra longe abeft ah illa y quam in nobis requireret fententia.~] And I wi(h the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace

to

to read the words of Pigbius, Cajfander^ Bellas mine^ &c. faying as the Proteftants, cited by Job* Crocius de Jujiificat. Vifout* 9*T<*g* 45 8. &c. And of Morton Apolog efpecially 'tbo-Waldenfis.

Nazianzetis fentence prefixed by the great Bafil-Do&ors to their Confeffion, I do affectionately recite, f Sacred 'theologie and Religion is afimple and naked thing \ confijling ofDivine Tejlirnonies. without any great artifice : which yet fome do naughtily turn into a moft difficult Art.

The Hiftory of the Socinians oppofing Chrifts Satisfallion 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 Jufhfication and Imputation^ a very little room, let him read, i. Mr. Brad(han><> zMx.Gibbotf s Sermon in the Exercifes at Giles's in the Fields. 3. Mr. Irumaris great Propitiation. 4. Jofhua Placeus, his Vifput. de Jujiif. in Tbef. Salmur. Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blanks late Tbefes* Which will fatisfie thofe that have any juft capa-' city for fatisfa&ion.And if he add Wotton de Recott-ciliatione, and Grotius de SatisfaBione, he need not lofe his labour : no nor by reading John Goodwin of Juftifkation,though every word be not approve* able.And Ds.Stillingfleet's Sermons of Satisfaction, coming laft, will aIfo conduce much to his juft information.

So much of the Hiftorical part.

CHAP.

(48)

CHAP. II.

Of the true dating of the Controverfie, and the explication of the feveral points contained or meerly implyed in it.

I take explication to be here more ufeful than argumentation : And therefore 1/hall yep fullier open to you the ft ate pfour differences, and my own judgment in the pointy with the reasons of it) infuch necejfary Diflinciionsy and brief Proportions, as /hall carry their own convincing light with them. If any think I diftinguif/j too much, let him prove any to be needlefs 'or unjufl, and then reject it and fpare not. If any think Idiflinguifh 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 whok doctrine of purification) but only that of Imputation) and what it necejfarily in-cludeth.

T Hough a man that readeth our moft Learned Proteltants, profeffing that they agree even with Bellarmine KimCdi in the ftating of the cafe of Imputation, would think that there fhould need no further ftating of it. I cited you Eellarmines

words

r 4*)

words before with Vajfeurs confent : I here add Johan. Crocius de Juftif. Difp. Id. pag. 500. 501. Vide bothinisfive vertiginemfive irriprobitatem^ darn at -fieri non pojfe ut Juftitia Chrifti nobis imputetur eofen-

fu qui b&retic'u probetur Et tame n reft am vocat

fententiam, quamfuam faciunt Evangelici. Quod tnim cum re&a ratione pugnare dicit^ nos per Jujii-tiam Cbrifti formaliier juiios nofninari & ejfe.nos non tangit: Non dicimm * Non fentimus : Sedhoctotum proficifcitur e Sopbijiarum officina^qui pbrafin ijiam nobis affinguntjtt poftea earn exagitent tanquam noftram: (yet fome of our own give them this pretence.) Nosfententiam quam tile reBarri judicata tenemus^ tuetnur h fie tamen ut addamus y quodGemi adverfa-ri* eft iniolerabile> non alia ratione nos jujios cenfe-ri coram 'Deo.'] But by Judication the Papifts mean Sandlification : And they count it not intolerable to (ay that the penalty of our (ins is remitted to us, by that- Satisfaction to the Juftice of God according to the Law of Innocency, which Chrift only hath made. But though many thruft in more indeed, and moft of them much more in words > yet you fee they are forced to fay as we fay whether they will or not : For they fecm unwilling ro be thought to agree with us, where they agree indeed.^] And the following words of Job. Crocius pag. 505,507. &c. (hew the common fence of moll Proteifants, [JVben Bellarmine obferveth that Imputation maketh us of righteous as Chrifti he faith, \_Ifwefaid that we are Jujiified by Chrifts effential right-toujhfs. — But we fay it mi. Tea above all we renounce that which the Sophijier puts in of his own. even that which he faith of Formal Righteoufnefs : F#r it is not our opini-oH-> that we are confntuted formally Righteous by

E Cbrijf's

( '* ) CbrijFs Righteoufnefs, which we rather call the Mate*

rialcaufe. § 32. ChrijisfatUfattion u made for

all : But it vs imputed to us, not as it is made for all, hut as for us. Iillujirateitbythe 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 tbti, and that, and the other member of the Community : For it is imputed to them by the King as if they hadpaid it. But this Imputation transferred not the honour to them, but brings them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid hy Chrijifor all, is imputed to this or that man, he is

taken into the fociety of the Benefit* 'Pag* 503*

Vifiinguifh between the Benefit,and the Office ofChnfi.

The former is made ours, but not the latter, ■ Pag;

542. The Remijjion of fin is nothing but the Imputation of Chrijis Righteoufnefs. Rom. 4* Where Jm* putation of Right eoufnefs, Remijjion of Iniquities,and non-imputation of fin, are all one, ——Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pkafeth, • —— Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents so unworthy

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

Infinite Righteoufnejs in Chrift, becaufe it is imputed to-usin 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 mud diftinguifh oiRighteoufnefs as it re-lateth to the Preceptive part of the Law '% and as it relateth to the Retributive part: The firft Righte-oufnefs, is Ianocency contrary to Reatus Culpa : The fecond is Jus ad impmiitatem & ad premium (feu d<mum,)Right to Impunity and to the Reward.

2. Wemuft diftinguifl) of Chrijis Right eoufnefs,

which

c 51;

which is either fo called, formally and properly ^ which is the Relation ofChriftsperfon to his Law of CMediation impofed on him, i. As Innocent znd a perfect obeyer > 2. As one that defervednot punijh-ment^but deferved Reward* Or it is fo called mate* rially and improperly ; which \s>Thofefame Habits* Acts and Sufferings of Chrift, from which bit Relation of Righteous did refult.

3, We muft diftinguifh of Imputation* which fignifyeth (here) 1, To repute us perfonally to have been the Agents of Chrijis ASs, the fubjetfs of his Habits and Pafjionm a Phyfical fence. 2. Or to repute the fame formal Relation of Rigbteoufnefs which was in Chrifts perfon, to be in ours as the fubjeci. 3. Or to repute us to have been the very fubjeSs ofChrijVs Habits and Pajfion^nd the Agents of his A8s in a Political or Moral fenfe? (and not a phyficalj > as a man payerh a debt by his Servant,or Attorney,or Delegate. 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Rigbteoufnefs to refult from the faid Habits > A£is, and Pajpons* one to Cbri(i as the natural Subjett and Agent-, and another to us as the Moral ^Political) or reputed Subjett and ^gf#* (And fo his Formal Rigbteoufnefs not to be imputed to us i# it fetfas ours, but another to refult from the fame Matter.) 5. Or elfe that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjetis of the Airtrir of his Righteoufc nefs, morally.and alfo of the Formal Rigbteoufnefs of C&riji himfelf. ' 6. Or elfe by Imputation is meant here,that Chrift being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of finful man,3nd become a Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Ferfon of a Mediator, to have fulfilled all the have impofed on him^by perfect Holinefs

E 2 and

( 52 )

and Obedience* and Offering himfelf on the Crofs a Sacrifice for our fins* voluntarily differing in our (lead, as if he had been a (inner, (guilty of all our (Ins)Asfoon as we believe we are pardoned, juftifi-ed,adopted for the fake and merit of this Holinefs, Obedience and penal Satisfa&ion of Chrift, with as full demonftration of divine Ju(tice*zt leaft,and more full demonftration of his Wifdom and Mercy* than if we had differed 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 accounted or reputed righteous* (not in relation to the Precept, that is, innocent , oxftnlefs* but in relation to the Retribution^ that is, fuch as have Right to Impunity and £*/<?,)becaufe Chrift's (brefaid perfedfc Holinefs, Obedience and Satisfaction, merited our Pardon* and Adoption*and the Spirit > or merited the New* Covenant* by which.as an Inftrument, Pardon* Jujiijication and Adoption are given toEelievers,and the Spirit to be given to (andiifie them : And when wq.beiieve, 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 out jiead* or perfon*we muft diftingui(h, 1. Between his taking the Nature of fwful man* and taking the Perfcn of (inners. 2. Between his taking the Perfonoizfinner* and taking the Perfon Gfyou and me* and each particular (inner. 3. Between his taking our finful perfons fimply, & ad omnia* and taking them only, fecun-dumquid* infantum* & ad hoc. 4. Between his j (offering in the Perfon of (inners, and his obeying and fandity in thePerfon of (inners ,or of us in particular. 5. Between his Obeying and Suffering in our Perfon*

and

< 53 )

and our Obeying and Suffering in his Perfon (Natural or Political.) And now I (hall make ufe of thefe diftin&ions, by the Propofitions following.

Prop. i. The phrafe of [ChrijVs Kighteoufnefs imputed to ui] is not in the Scripture.

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

3. Yet fo much is faid in Scripture,as may make this phrafe [of Imputing ChrijVs Kighteoufnefs to us) juftifiable, in the found fence here explained : tor the thing meant by it is true, and the phrafe intelligible*

4. Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to Believers, in thefixth fence here before explained * As the Meritorious caufe of our Pardon, Juftihcation, Righteoufnefs, Adoption, San£tification 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 fandifying Spirit, and fo of its Graces and Gods Image* Nor had 3. any of that permitted penalty by which fin it (elf is a mifery and 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 ic. 6. He did not totally defpair of ever being faved. 7. The

E 3 fire

( 54 )

fire of Hell did not torment his body. More foch inftances may be given for proof.

6. Chrift did not perform all the fame obedience in kind, which many men,yea all men, are or were bound to perform. As i. He did not ckefs and keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to drefs and keep. 2. He did not the conjugal offices which Adam^ and millions more,were bound to. 3. Nor the Paternal Offices to Children. 4. Nor all the offices of a King on Earth, or Magiftrate; nor of a Servant, &c. Nor the duty of the Sick. 5. He did not repent of fin, nor turn from it toGod,nor mortifieorrefiftinhimfelfany finful luft > nor receive a Saviour by Faith, nor was circumcifed or baptized for the Remiffion of Ws fins 3 nor loved God or thanked him for redeeming or pardoning him h nor obeyed God in the ufe of any Ordinance or Means, for the fubduing of fin, and healing or favingofhis Soul from any fin or deferved wrath of God * with much more fuch.

7. Chrift did perform much which nomanelfe was bound to do: As to redeem Souls, to work his Miracle^ and the reft of the works, peculiar to the Mediator.

8* That Law which bound us to Suffering, (or made it our due) bound not Chrift to it, (as being innocentj > But he was bound to it by the Fathers Law of Mediator, and by his own voluntary fpon-fion.

p. The Law obliging every finner himfelf to fuf-fer, was not fulfilled by the Suffering of Chrift our Sponfor : But only the Lawgiver fatisfied by attaining its Ends. For neither the letter nor fence of it faid, \Ifthoufin^ thou or thy fumy Jhall fujfer.]

JO. Chrift

(55)

io. Chrift fatitfied Juftice and obeyed in Humane Nature, which alfo was Holy in him.

11. He did not this as a Natural Root, or Head to man, as Adam was > to convey Holinefs or Rigbteoufnefs by natural propagation's Adam fhould have done ; and did by fin : For Chrift had no Wife or natural Children** But as a Head-fry Contratt as a Husband to a Wife, and a King to a Kingdom, and a Head of Spiritual Influx.

12. No as bring Afiually fuch a Head to the Redeemed when he Obeyed and Suffered •» but as a Head by Aptitude and Office,? ower and Virtue, who was to become a Head attually to every one when they Relieved and Confenteds Being before a H*W /<?r *JEtf#Z) and overtbofe that did exifi, but not a Hi?<ft/ to them, inadh

13. Therefore they were not Chrifts members Political, (much lefs 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-tied Headend all the members of his Body Contracted or Politic^, are every one a dijiincl Perfon jt follow-eth not that each perfon did really or reputatively what the Head did* Nay it is a good confequence that \Jf be did it as Head, they did it not (numerically) as Head or Members-']

15. Chrift Suffered and Obeyed in the Perfon of the Mediator between God and man > and as afub-je3 to the Law of Mediation.

id. Chrift may be faid to fuflfer in the perfon of a fmner, as it meaneth hi* orvnperfin reputed and ufed as a finner by his pcrfecutor5,and as he was one who flood before God as an Undertaker to fufler for Man's fin* 17. Chrift

( J* )

17. Chrift fuffered in the place and fleadof fin-tiers, that they might be delivered, though in the ferfon of a Sponfor.

18. When we are agreed that the Perfon of the Sponfor, and of every particular finner: are divers > and rhat Chrift had not fuffered, if we had not finned, and that he as a Sponfor fuffered in our flead, 3nd fo bore the punifhment, which not be, but we defervedy If any will here inftead of a Mediator or Sponfor call him oar Reprefentative, and fay that he fuffered even in all our Perfons relatively , not fimpliciter, but fecundum quid, & in iantum only; that is, not reprefentingourF^^ fimply and in all refpeds-i and to all ends, but only fo far as to be a

Sacrifice for our fins, and fuffer in our place and fiead what he fuffered '<> we take this to be but In de nomine, a queftion about the name and words : And we will not 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 m the perfon of every (inner, (at leaft Ele&,) that is, fo far only and to fuch effects* ip. Chrift' did not fuffer rtri&ly, limply, absolutely, in the perfon of any one elecj 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 Reprefenter J)avid, Manaffeb, Paul, and every fuch other finner, but ■only a Mediator that differed in their ftead.

20. God did make Chrift to be fin for us •> that is, A Sacrifice for our fm, and one that by Man was re-

>d, and by God and Man was ttfed, as finners are, j defcrve to be.

21. ChiUt vy^is not Qur "Delegate in Obeying or • :: ,. Suffering*

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

22. Therefore he did it on God's terms, and to what effects 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, nor to have had all the wickednefsin his nature which was in ours, nor to have deferved what we deferved : Nor did he in this proper fence impute our [ins to Chrift.

24. Thefalfe notion of God ? s ftri& imputing all our fins to Chrift, and efteeming him the greateft fmner in the World, being fo great a Blafphemy both againft the Father and the Son, it is fafeft in ' fuch Controverfies to hold to the plain and ordinary words of Scripture. And it is not the Wifdom nor Impartiality of fomemen, who greatly cry up the Scripture-perfedion, and decry the addition of a Ceremony or Form in the Worfhip of God s that yet think Religion is endangered, if our Conftffion ufe not the phrafes of [_God's Imputing our fin to Chrijh and bis Imputing CbrijFs Righteoufnefs to us} when neither oF them is in the Scripture \ As if all God's Word were not big or perfett enough to rnake us a Creed or Cqnfeflion 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 ouch more is to be added, and when we have all.

25. God doth not repute or account us to have

fuffered in our Natural perfons what Chrift differed

for us, nor Chrift to have fuffered in our Natural

perfons. 2 5» Though

( *8 )

26* Though Chri(\fufferedinourfiead y and in a large fence, to certain ufes and in fome refpetts, as the Reprefenttr, oy in the Perfons of finners > yet did he not fo far reprefent their perfons in his Habitual Holinefs and Atiual Obedience (no not in the Obedience of bis Sufferings) as he did in the fuffering it felf.Rc obeyed not in the Perfon of zfwner,m\ich lefs of millions of finners s which were to lay, In the perfon of finners he never ftnnsd. He fuifered, to fave us from fuffering > but he obeyed not to fave us from obeying^ but to bring us to Obedience. Yet his Perfection of Obedience had this end, that perfeQ Obedience might not be necejfary in us to our Juftitica-tion and Salvation.

27. It was not we our felves who did perfeUly 0-bey, or were perfeUly holy, or fuffcred for fin in the Perfon of Chrift, or by Him: Nor did we (Naturally or Morally) merit our own Salvation by obeying in Chrift} nor did we fatisfre Gods Jujiice 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 did this for us.

28- 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 Righteoufnefs. Becaufe it is a Relation and Accident, which cannot be translated from fubje6t to fubjed:, and cannot be in divers fubje&s the fame.

30. Where thequeftion is,Whether Chrifts Material Righteoujnefs, that is, his Habits, Ads and Sufferings thernfclves, be Ours, we muft confider how a man can have Propriety in Habits^ Ads and

Taffions*

( 19 )

Pajfiorts who is the fubjett of them: and in A&ions> who is the Agent of them. To Give the fame Individual Habit or Paffion to another, i* an Impoff%bility y that is, to make him by Gift the fubje& of it. For it is not the fame, if it be in another fubjedh To make one man really or phyfically to have been the Agent oianothers Aft, even that Individual Ad, if he was not fo, is a contradi&ion and impoilibilityi that is, to make it true, that I did that which I did not. To be ours by Divine Imputation, cannot be, to be onrs by a falfe Reputation, or fuppontion that we did what we did not: For God cannot err or lie. There is therefore but one ofthefe two ways left. Either that we ourfelves in perfon, truly bad the habits which Chriji had, and did all that Chriji did, and fuffered all that be fujfered, andfo fatisfied and merited Life in and by him, as by an Infirument^ or Legal Kepr efenter of our perfons in all this s Which I am anon to Confute : or elfe,That Chrijls Satisfa* dion, Righteoufnefs, and the Habits ^Afis and Sufferings in which it lay, are imputed to us,and made ours ■> not rigidly in the very thing it felf, but in the EffeUs and Benefits > In as much as we are as really Pardoned, Jufiified, Adoptedby them,asthe Meritorious caufe, by the inftrumentality of the Covenants Donation, as if we our felves had done and fuffered all that Chrift did, as a Mediator and Sponfor, do and fuflfer for us : I fay, As really and certainly, and with a fuller demonitration of Gods Mercy and Wifdom,and with a furficient demonflra-tion of his Juiiice. Eut not that our propriety in the benefits is in all refpe&s the fame, as it fhould have been if we had been, done, fcnd fuffered our felves what Chrilt did.Thus Chritts Righteoufnefs is ours.

31. Ckrift

31. Chrift is truly "the Lord our Kighteoufnefs > in more refpedts than one or two : i. In that he is the meritorious Caufe of the Pardon of all our fins ,and our full Justification, Adoption,and right to Glory : and by his Satisfaction and Merits only, odr Juftifi-cation by the Covenant of Grace againtt the CurfeoftheLawof Works is purchafed. 2. In that he is the Legiflator, Teftator and Donor of our Pardon, and Juftificatiom 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 iandtifie 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 Kigbteoufnefs.

32. We are (aid to be mbde the Kigbteoufnefs of God in him: 1. In that- as he was ufed like a (inner for us, (but not efteemcd one by God ,fb we are ufed like Innocent perfons Co far as to bzfaved by him. 2. In that through his Merits, and upon our union with bim,whcn we believe and confent to his Covenant, we are pardoned and juftijied, and fo made Kighteous really, that is, fuchasarenot to be con-demned but to be glorified. 3. In that the Divine Nature and Inherent Kigbteoufnefs, to them that are in him by Faith, are for his Merits, given by the HolyGhoft. 4. In that God's Juftice and Holinefs Truth,Wifdom, and Mcrcy,are all wonderfully de-monftrated in this way of pardoning and juftifying finners by Chrift. -Thus are we made the Righte-oufnefs of God in hi^„

33. For

(6i ) 33» For Righteoufnefs to be imputed to us, is aTl one as to be accounted Righteous, Rom. 4. 6, 11. notwithstanding that we be not Righteous as fel-fillers of the Law of Innocency.

34. For Faith to be imputed to us for Righteoufnefs ^ Rom. 4. 22,23, 24. is plainly meant, that God who under the Law of Innocency required perfedfc Obedience>of us to our Juftification and Glorification, upon the fatisfaction and merits of Chrift, hath freely given a full Pardon and Right to Life, to all true Believersifo that now by theCovenant of Grace nothing is required of us, to our Juftification, but Faith : all the reft being done by Chrift: And fo Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, is reputed truly to be the condition on our part,on which Chrift and Life^by that Baptifmal Covenant, are made ours.

35. Juftification, Adoption, and Life eternal are confidered > 1. Quoad ipfam rem, as to the thing it felf in value. 2. Quoad, Ordinem Conferendi & Recipiendi, as to the order and manner of Conveyance and Participation. In the firft refpeit, It is a meer free-gift to us,purchafed by Chrili : In the fecond re*

fpeft, 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 thefcopeof the Gofpel to fay, that the Law ofWor^sjr of Innocency, doth juftifie us, as performed either by our fdves, or by Chrift. For that Law condemneth and curfeth us> And we are not efficiently juftified by it, but from or againjl it.

37. Therefore we have no Righteoufnefs in Re-ality or Reputation formally ours* which confifteth

in the firft fpecies * that is,in a Conformity to the Pre* ceptive part of the Law of Innocency \ we are not reputed Innocent : But only a Righteoufnefs which confifteth in Pardon ofallfm,and right to life, (with fincere performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace^ th3t is, 'true Faith. )

3& Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fatt or Faulty but our Guilt of or obligation to Punifhment. God doth not repute us fuch as never tinned, or fuch as by our Innocency merited Heaven, but fuch as are not to be damned, but to be glorified > becaufe pardoned and adopted through the Satisfa&ion and Merits of Chrift.

3£. Yet the Ream C u ty* * s remitted to us Relatively as to the punifhment, though notinitfelfi that is, It (hall not procure our Damnation : Even as Chrift's Righteoufnefs is, though not in it felf, yet refpe&ively as to the Benefits faid to be made ours, in as much as we (hall have thole benefits by it.

40. Thus both the Material and the Formal Righteoufnefs oi Chrift are made ours <> that is, Both the Holy Habits and Ads-, and his Sufferings , with the Relative formal Righteoufnefs of his own Perfon,bt-caufe thefe are altogether one Meritorious caufe of our Juftification, commonly called the Material Caufe.

Ob), But though Forma "Denominate yet ifChrifts Righteoufnefs in Matter and Form, be the Meritoriouf Caufe of ours, and that be the fame with the Material Caufe, it is a very tolerable fpeech to fay,f hat His Righteoufnefs is Ours in itfelf while it is the very matter efours.

Anf\ x When any man is Righteous Immediately by

aft)

# ( «3 )

any aBion, thata&ionis called the Matter of his Righteoufnefs, in fuch an Analogical fenfe as Action, an Accident may be called Matter^ becaufe the Re-lation of Righteous is founded or fubjedied firftor partly in that Aftion* And fo when Chrift perfectly obeyed, it was the Matter ofkti Righteoufnefs. But to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion; Merit is adventitious to meer Righteoufnefs. Now it is not Chrifts Aftions in themfelves that our Righteoufnefs refulceth from immediately as his own did y But there is firft his Action* then his formal Righteoufnefs thereby » 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 Aftions, as to his own formal Righte* 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,f which is the heart of the Controverlie.) It is not of the hmefpecies or fort with his own. His Righteoufnefs was a perfect finlefs Innocency, and Conformity to the preceptive part of the Lapp ofhtnocency in Holimfs. Ours is not fuch.The diffenters think it is fuch bylmputa-tion, and here is the difference. Ours is but in re-fpedt tothe/fc<Wor retributive part of the Lavt> > a Right to Impunity and Life,and a Juftification not at all by that Law, but from its curfe or condemnation. The Law that faith, Obey perfectly and live y fin and die, doth not juftifie us as perfons that have perfectly obeyed it,really or imputatively 4 But its obligation to punijhment u dijf'lvtd, not by it felf, but by the Law of Grace, it is then by the Law

(#4 )

of Grace that we are judged and juftified. According to it, i. We are not really or ireptitatively fuch as Have perfeftly fulfilled all its Preceptr: 2. But we are fuch as by Grace do fincerelyperform the Condition of its promife. 3. By which promife of 6ift,we are fuch as have right to Chrifts ow nperfon, in the Relation and Union of a Head and Saviour, and with him the pardon of all our tins, and the right of Adoption to the Spirit^ and the Heavenly Inheritance as purchafed by Cbrift. So that befides our Inherent or Adherent Righteoufhefs of iincere Faith, Repentance and Obedience, as the performed condition of the Law of Grace, we have no other Righteoufhefs our felves, but Right to Impunity and to Life: and not any imputedfmlefs Innocency at all. God par* doneth our fins and adopteth us, for the fake oi Chrifts fufferings and perfett Holinejs : But he doth not account us perfectly Holy for it, nor perftttly 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 Tie fo made ? 1. As he is made Wifdom, Santftification and Redemption as aforefaid. 2. By Merit>Satisfa<9:ion,Dircd;ion3 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 Inftrumental Deed of Gift, confirming all thefe : And he is alfo our Righteoufnefs iu the fenfe that Auftin fo much ftandeth on, as all our Holinefs and Righteoufnefs of Heart and Life, is not of our natural endeavour, but his gift 5 and opeiation by his Spirit > catifingus

to

to obey his Holv precepts and Example. All thefe ways he is made of God our Righteoufhefs: Be- " fides the Obje&ive way of fenfe •, as he is Objectively made our Wifdom^ becaufe it is the trueft wifdom to know him > So he is objectively made our Rigb-teoufnefs-> in that it is that Gofpel-Rightecufnefs which is required ofourfelves^by his grace,to believe in him and obey him. .

41. Though Chrift fulfilled not the Law by Habitual Holjnefsand A&ual Obedience, firidtly in the Individual perfon of each particular (inner » yet he did it in the nature of Man : And fo humane nature, (confidered in fpecie, and in ChriiT: perfonally, though not confidered as atoturn, or as perfonally in each manjdid fatisfie and fullfil theLaw and Merit. As Humane Nature finned in Adam actually mjpecie^ and in his individual perfon, and all our Verfons were feminally and virtually in him, and accordingly finned, or are reputed finners, as having no nature but what he conveyed who could convey no better than he had (either as to Relation of Real quality); But not that God reputed us to have been actually exijient-, as really diftinft perfons in Adam (which is not true.) Even fo Chrift 0-beyed and fufFered in our Nature, and in our nature as it was in him i and humane finful nature in fpecie was Univerfally pardoned by him, and Eternal life freely given to all men for his merits, thus far imputed to them, their fins being not imputed to hinder this Gift 'i which is made in and by the Covenant of Grace: Only the Gift hath the Condition of mans Acceptance of it according to its nature, 2 Cer. 5. 19, 20. And all the individuals that (hall in time by Faith accept tht Gift,are there and thereby made

I fuch

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

42. As Adam was a Head by Naturei and therefore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation h fo Chriftjsa Head (not by nature but) by Sacred Confra&i and therefore conveyeth Right to Pardon, Adoption and Salvation, not by Generation, but by Contract or Donation. So that what it was XQ be naturally in Adam-, teminally and virtually, though not perfonlly in exiftenceseven that it is, in order to our benefit by him to be in Cbrifi by ContraH or the new Covenant ^ittuMy,though not in perfonal exiftence when the Covenant was made.

43. They therefore that look upon Justification or Righteoufnefs, as coming to us immediately by I mputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, without the Inftrumental Intervention and Conveyance or Collation by this Deed t)f Gift orCovenant,do confound themfelves by confounding and overlooking the Caufes of our Juftiftcation. That which Chrift did by his merits was to procure the new Covenant, The new Covenant is a free Gift of pardon and life with Chrift himfelf, for his merits and fa-tisfa&ion fake.

44. Though the Perfon of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very perfon ofeaebfinner, (nor fo manyperfons as there are fmners or believers,) yet it doth belong to the Perfon ofthe Mediator Jo far (limitedly) to bear the perfon of a ftnner, and to ftand in the place of the Perfons of all Sinners, as to bear the puniihment they deferved, and to fuffer for their (ins.

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

phrafe:

( *7 ) phrafe: And in Arid Phyfical fence, Chrifts very perfonal Righteoufnefs (Material or Formal) is not fo given to us, as that we are proprietors of the very thing it felf, but only of the effc&s (Pardon, Righteoufnefs and Life,)yet in a larger Moral phrafe that very thing is oft faid to be given to us, vvhich is given to another, or done or differed for our benefit. He that ranfometh a Captive from a Con-querer,Phyfically giveth the Money to theConque-rer & not to the Captive,& giveth the Captive only the Liberty purchafed : But morally and reputatively he is faid to give the Money to the Captive, becaufe he gave it for bim. And it redeemeth him as well as if he had given it himfelf. He that giveth ten thou-fand pounds to purchafe Lands>& freely giveth that land to another > 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 Chrills Righteoufnefs, Merirs and Satis-fa&ion, was given to us, in that the thing purchafed by it was given to us > when the Satisfa6Hon \Vas given or made to God. Yea when we faid it Wasmade to God, we mean only that he was paf-fively the 'Terminus of adtive Satisfaction, being the party fatisfyed > but not that he himfelf was made the Subjed and Agent of Habits and Acts 5 andRigb* teoufnefs of Chrirt as in his humane nature, except as the Divine Nature a&ed it>or by Communication of Attributes.

4<5. Becaufe the words [?erfon\ and [ferfina-ting] and [Keprefenting] are ambiguous (as all hu* mane language is,; while fome ufe them iu zftriOer

( 6* )

fenfe than others do, wemuft try by other explicatory terms whether we agree in the matter, and not lay the ftrefs of our Controverfy upon the bare words. So fome Divines fay that Chrift fuffered in the Perfon ofafinner*when they mean not that he re-preferited the Natural perfon of any one particular finner*, but that his own Perfon was reputed the Sponfor of finners by God, and that he was judged 3 real (inner by his perfecuters * 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 perfect Holinefs and Obedience* fo he is lefs improperly faid to have Reprefented all mankind as newly fallen in'Adam* in a General fenfe* for the fur chafing of the univerfal Gift of far don and Life , called^ The new Covenant » than to have Reprefented in his perfeti Holinefs and his Sufferings* every Believer confidered as from his firft being to his Death* Though it is certain that he dyed for all their fins from firft to laft. For it is moft true, i. That Chrift is as a Cccond Adam, the Root of the Re^ deemed*, And as we derive fin from Adam* fo we derive life from Chrift, (allowing the difference between a Natural and a Voluntary way oiyderivati-on,) And though no mans Terfon as a Perfon was adlually exijient 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 exiftent perfons* they are no better either by Relative Innocency&x by Phy-fical Difpofition* than he could propagate : and are truly and juftly reputed by God to be Perfons Guilty ef Adams faft, fo far as they were by nature

femi-

(«* )

feminally and virtually in him: And Chrift the ft-cond Adam is in a fort the root of Mm as Man, (though not by propagation of us, yet) as he is the Redeemer of Nature it felf from deftru&ion, but more notably the Root of Saints of Saints, who are to have no realfan&ity but what fhallbe derived from him by Regeneration, 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 fhould do themfelves from their Birth to their Death > fo that they fhould all have been taken for perfectly 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 perfbn, they fhould have died for it. But for the time paft, they were Guiltlefsor 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 caufam* Yet a Generating Caufe which propagateth efTence fromefTence, by felf-multiplication 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 perfect perfonal perfevering O bedience^n pain of Death. And Chrift the fecond Adam Co far bore the perfon of fallen Adam, and fuffered in the nature and room of Mankind in General, as without any condition on their p»art at all; to give man by an zGt 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 imperfe&, Obedience> and tnaketh 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 Jujlifying Teftament or Covenant, Though that Covenant give us not Juftification abfolutely, but on Condition of believing, fiducial Confent. 2. And fo as this Vnivdrfal Gift of Juftification upon Acceptance, is actually given to all fallen mankind as fuch y fo Chrift might be faid to fuffer inftead of all, yea and merit too, fo far as to procure them this Covenant-gift.

48. Thefumofalllyeth in applying the diftin* dtonof giving Chrifts Righteoufnefs as fuch in it felf, and as a caufe of our Righteoufnefs or in the Caufality of it* As our fin is not reputed Chrifts fin in it felf, and in the culpability of itffor then it muft needs make Chrift odious to God) but in its Caufality ofpunifhment : fo drift's Material or Formal Righteoufnefs, is not by God reputed to be properly and abfolutely our own in it felfzs fuch, but the Caufality of it as it produceth fuch and fuch e£*

4P- The Obje&ions which are made againft Im« putation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in tjfcs found fenfe, may all be anfwered as they are by our Divines i among whom the chiefeft on this fubje6t are Vavenant de fuftit. Habit & JciuaL Johan. Crocius de Juftif. Nigrinius delmpletione Legis* Bp. G* Vow man of Juftif. Chamier, Farms, Amefws and { Junius againft Bellarm* But the fame reafons againft the unfound fence of Imputation are unanfwerable. Therefore if any (hall fay concerning my following Arguments, that moft of them are ufed, by Gregor*

de

( 7i ) de Valent. by Bellarm* Becanus, or other Papifts, or by Socinians, and are anfwered by NigriHus£ro-ciuiy UavettaHt, Sec* Such words may ferve to deceive the fimple that are led by Names and Prejudice j but to the Intelligent they are contemptible, unlefs they prove that thefe objections are made by the Papifts againft the fame fence of Imputation a-gainft which I ufe them, and that it is that ftrife 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 phrafe of Cbrljis faffering 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. Lawfm in his Tbeopolitica, which (though about the office of Faith hefome-what differ from me) Imuftneeds 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.

"Pag. 100,101. [If we enquire of the manner " howRighteoufnefs andLife is derived fromChrift, " being one unto (b many, it cannot be, except "Chrift be a general Head of mankind, and one 4C Perfon with them&Adam was.We do not read of " any but two whowere generalHeads,and in fome refpw(St virtually, AH mankind * the firji and fecond Adam, . . The Marker-principal caufe of thisReprefentation tually. " whereby he is one perfon with us, is cc the will of God, who as Lord made him fuch, " and as Lawgiver and Judge did fo account him.

F 4 " But

u But, 2. How far is he One perfon with us> Anf. " 1. In general fo far as it pleafed God Not abfo- "tomake him fo,and nofurther. 2. In lutely, tc particular,He and we are one Co fat

" i. 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 * c death to us. Though Chrift be fofar one with us " as to be lyable unto the penalty of the Law, and " to fuflfer ic, and upon this fuflfering we are freed ; " yet Chrift is not the firmer, nor the finner Chrift. " Chrift is the Word made flefti, innocent without * c fin,an univerfal Prieft and King : but we are none "ofthefe. Though we be accounted Mar\ by a " as one perfon in Law with him, by a Trope, " Trope, yet in proper fence it cannot

" be faid that in Chrift s Satisfying vt>e "fatisfiedfor our own fins* For then we {hould have " been the Word made flefti, able to plead Innocen-" cy, &c. All which are falfe, impol-Mark^ how cc fible.blafphemous if affirmed by any. far, cc It's true,we are fo one with him,that

" he fatisfied for us, and the benefit of u this Satisfa&ion redounds to us, and is communi-cc cable to all, upon certain termes \ though not " actually communicated to all: From this Unity " and Identity of perfon in Law (if I may Co w fpeak) it followeth clearly that ChrilVs fuffer-* " ings were not only Affli&ions, but Punifhments "in proper fenfe. -— Pag, 102, 103. That Chrift "died for all in fome fence muft needs be granted, " becaufe the Scripture exprefly affirms it (vid, r M reliqua*) —»

" There is another queftion unprofitably hand-

«led>

(73;

1 led, Whether the TropitiatioH which includeth * bothSatisfa&ion andMerit,be to be afcribed to the < A&ive or Paflive Obedience of Chrift ? Anf. I. ic Both his A&ive, Perfonal, Perfedt and Perpetual <Obedieuce,which by reafon of his humane nature ;t afforded,and fubjedion unto God was due, and al-:t fo that Obedience to the great and tranfeendent " Command of fuffering the death oftheCrofs, " both concur as Caufes of Remiflion and Juftificati-" on.2. TheScriptures ufually afcribe it to the Blood, " Death,&Sacrifice of Chrijft,and never to thePerfo-" nal A&iveObedience of Chrift's to theMoral Law* " 3, Yet this A&ive Obedience is neceflary,becaufe " 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 effe&ual forExpiation.4.l£ " Chrift as our Surety had performed for us perfect " and perpetual Obedience, fo that we might have " been judged to have perfe&ly and fully kept u the Law by him, then no fin could have been * c chargeable upon us, and the Death of Chrift had €t been needlefs and fuperfluous. 5. Chrifts Propi-¥ tiation freeth the Believer not only from the obli-" gation unto punifhment of fenfe, but of lofs > " and procured for him not only deliverance from " evil deferved, but the enjoyment of all good ne-Cc ceflary to our full happinefs. Therefore, there is cc no ground of Scripture for that opinion, that the cc Death of Chrift and his Sufferings free us from pu-" nifhments, and by his A&ive Obedience imputed * c to us we are made righteous,and the heirs of life. u 6. It Chrift was bound to perform perfedi and 4< perpetual Obedience for us,and he alfo performed

"it

t( it for us, then we are freed not only from fin, but c< Obedience too: And this Obedience as diftindt and " feparate from Obedience unto death, may be plea-" ded for Juftification of Life, and will be fufficient ct to carry the Caufe. For the tenor of the Law "was this, Do thnand live : And if man do this Ci by himfelf or Surety, fo as that the Lawgiver and ct (upreme Judg accept it, the Law can require no u more. It couid not bind to pertedt Obedience and <c to punifhment too. There was 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-<c der, that as the Propitiation of Chrift maketh no cc man abfolutely, but upon certain terms pardon-<c able and favable> (bit was never made, either cC to prevent all fin, or all punifhments : For it pre-"fuppofeth man both finfulandmiferable : And cc we know that the Guilt and Punifhment of "Adams fin, lyeth heavy on all his pofterity to this " day. And not only that, but the guilt of actual cc and perfonal fins lyeth wholly upon us, whileft tc impenitent and unbelieving and fo out of Chrift. ct And the Regenerate themfelves are not fully freed "from all puniftunents till the final Refurre&ion " and Judgment. So that his Propitiation doth not c * altogether prevent but remove fin and punifh-cc ment by degrees. Many fins may be faid to be ct Remiffible by vertue of this Sacrifice, which ne-<c ver (hall be remitted.] So far Mr. Lawfon.

Here I would add only thefe Animadverfions. r. That whereas he explaineth Chrifts ferfonating us in fuflfering by the fimilitude of a Debtor and his Surety who are the fame perfon ip Law : I note i.

That

That the cafe of Debt much differeth from the cafe of Punifliment. 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 flionld do fo ^ 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 requeft or knowledg, fay to the Creditor, I will pay you all the Debt •» but fo that he (hall be in my power, and not have prefent liberty Cleft he abufe it) but on the terms that I (hall pleafe* yea not at all if he ungratefully rejedt it] This Confe-qnent Satisfyer, or Sponfor 3 or Paymafter, is not in Law-fence the fame Perfin with the Debtor: But if any will call him fo, 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 limilitudc of a Debtor will allow.

2. I do differ from Mr. L j0?/w and Partus, and Vrfine^ and Olevian, and Scultetus and all that fort of worthy Divines in this*, that whereas they make Chrifts Holinefsand perfedi Obedience to be but Jttiiitiaperf)H£,nccciTixy to make his Sacrifice fpot-lefs and foeifcdual: I think thztofitfelfit is as di-redtly the gaufe of our Pardotn, Jultification and Life, as Chrifts Piflion is > The Pillion being fatis-

U ftoiy

( 76 )

factory and fo meritorious, and the perfbnal Holi-nefs Meritorious and fo Satisfa&ory. 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 if : And that Satisfa-<3:ion lyeth, in the fubftitution of that which as fully (or more) attaincth 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. By the perfect Holinefs and Obedience of Chrift, the Holy and perfedfc will of God Ispleafed : whence [This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleafed."] 2. In order to the ends of Government, Holinefs and perfed Obedience, is honoured and freed from the contempt which fin would caft upon it y 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, He firft highly merited of God the Father hereby, and this with his Suffering, went to attain the ends that our fuffering (hould have attained,much better. So that at lead: as Meritorious, if not fecondarily as fatisfaftory, I fee not but Cbrijls Holinefs procureth the Justifying Covenant for us, equally with his Death. A Prince may pardon a Traitor foxfome noble fervice of hit Friend, as well as for his fuffering : much more for boch.This way go Grotius defatisf Mr. Brad/haw and others.

3. When Mr Laxvfon faith that the Liw binds

not

(77)

not to Obedience and Puni(hmentboth,be meaneth as to the fame A& : which contradicts not what Nigrinut and others fay, that it binds a finner to punilhment for fin paft,and yet to Obedience for the time to come;(which cannot be entire and perfed:.)

So pag. 311-Cap. 22. §>u. 2. Whether there be two parts of Juftification, Remiflion and Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs. i. He referreth us to what is aforecited againft Imputation of Chrifts Adtive Righteoufnefs, feparated or abftra&ed for Reward from thePaffive. 2. He fheweth that Paul taketh Remiflion of fin and Imputation of Righteoufnefs for the fame thing.] So fay many of ours.

In conclufion I will mind the Reader, that by reading fome Authors for Imputation,I am brought to doubt whether fome deny not all true Remiflion of fin, thatis,Remi(Iion of the deferved puni(hment. Becaufe I find that by Remiflion 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 perfe&ion to be fo ours, as that God accounteth us not as truly tinners. And' fo they think that the Ream Culp£ as well as ?<zn& (imply in it felf is done away, W hich if it be fo,then the Reatus Pan*? the obligation to punifhment, or the duenefsoi puni(hment,cannot be (aid to be diffol-ved or remitted, becaufe it was never contracted. Where I hold, that it is the Reatus ad Pxnamfhc Duenefs of punifhment only that is remitted,and the guilt of fin not as in it felf,but in its Caufality of punifhment. And fo in all common language,we fay we forgive a man his fault,when we forgive him all the penalty politive and privative. Not efteeming him, i. Never to have done the fa eft. 2. Or that

faci

( 78 )

h& not to have been a fault, and hitfaulty .but that punifhment for that fault, is forgiven him, and the fault fo far 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 Juftification and Remiffion of fin conjunct, he told me that the Papifts ordinarily acknowledg no Remiffion. And on fearch I find that Aquinas and the moft of them place no true Remiffion of fin, in Juftifica-tion : For by Remiffim (which they make part of Juftification,) they mean Mortification* or defiroying finitfelfm 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. Croctm de Juftif. oft tells them, They fhould for (hame grant that Chrifts Righteoufnefsmay be as far imputed to us, as they fay a Saints or Martyrs redundant merits and fuper-erogations are.

But if the Guilt of FaS and (juilt of Fault in it felf confidered, be not both imputed firft to us,that is, If we be not judged finners, I cannot fee how we can be judged Pardonedfinners *> For he that is judged to have no fin, is judged to deferve no punifhment. Unlefs they will fay that to prevent the form and defert offm> is eminenter^ though not for-maliter^ to forgive. But it is another (even Adfrual) forgivenefs which we hear of in theGofpel, and pray for daily in the Lords prayer. Of all which fee the full Scripture-proof in Mr, Hotchkjs of Forgivenefs of fin*

CHAP,

V 75? ;

CHAP. III.

A further explication of the Contro-verfie.

Yet I am afraid left I have not make the ft ate of the Controverfie plain enough to the unexercised Reader >and left the very explicate* ry diftinftions and proportions^ though needful and fuitable to the matter > jhould be unsuitable to his capacity, I will therefore go over it again in afborter vpay-> and make it as plain as poffibly I can; being fully per* fwaded^ that it is not fo much Argumentation^ 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 A 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 to fome Caufe^or fup-pofed Accufation or Queftion to be decided by that judgment.

§ 4. The Rule of Righteoufnefs here is Gods Law, naturally or fupernaturally made known.

§5. The

( S° )

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

§ (5. The Precept inftituting Duty, our Anions and Difpofitions,which are the Matter of that duty, are phyiically confidercd, conform or difconform to the Precept.

§7. Eeing Phyfically, they are confequently fo Morally considered, we being Moral Agents, and the Law a Rule of Morality.

§ 8. If thtAtfivns be righteous or unrighteous, confequently the Perfon is fo, in reference to thofe A&ions* fuppofing that to be his Cwfe&t the Que-' (iipn to be decided*

§ p. Unrighteoufnefs as to. this Cau(e, is Guilty or Reatus Culpa ^ and to be unrighteous is to be Sons-) or Guilty of (in.

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

§ 11. 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 thepenaltyus to be;#-repuniendm, or Reuspxn^ or obligatus adpxmm. And to be righteous here, is to have Right to imr punity , (quoadpxmm damni &fenfus.)

§ 13. The tirft Law made perfonaU perfett, per-fevering Innocency both mans duty, and the Condition ot the Reward and Impunity, and any fin the condition of punifhment.

§ 14, Man broke this Law, and fo loft his Innocency, and fo the Condition became naturally im-poffibletohim, defuturo*

§15. There-

§ 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant, that is, the Promiflbry part with its Condition,ceaffd; cejfante capacitate fubditi > and fo did the preceptive part. 1. As it commanded abfolute Innocency (of a& and habit.) 2. And as it commanded the fceking of the Reward on t he Condition and by the means of perfonal Innocency. The Condition thus paffing into the nature of a fentence 5 And punilhment remaining due for the fin.

§ id. But the Law remained ftill an obligingPre-cept for future ptrfedt Obedience, and made punifh-ment due for all future fin : and thefe two parts of it,as the Law of lapfed Nature 3 remained inforce,be-tween thehrft fin, 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 becometh mans Redeemer by undertaking, and by prefent adtual reprieve, pardon and initial deliverance : and the fallen world, the mife-rablefinners, with the Law and obligations which they were under,are now become the Redemers jure Redemptknis^sbefove they were the Creator's jure Creatienif.

§ 18. The Redeemers Law then hath two parts h

1. The faid Law of lapfed nature (binding to future perfect 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 diihorioured God and

his Law by fin, the Redeemer undertook to take mans nature without fin, and by perfedt Holinefs and Obedience, and by becoming a Sacrifice for fin-, to bring that Honour to God and his Law which

/ G we

f 6* )

we (hould have done, and to attain the Ends of law and Government infteadofour Perfection ox Tunijhment) that for the Merit hereof we might be delivered and live.

§ 2o.This he did in the third perfon of a Media-tor,who as fuch had a Law or Covenant proper to himfelf»the Conditions of which he performed, (by perfe& keeping, i. TheLawoflnnocency* 2. Of Mofes-,%* And that proper to himfelf alone) and fo merited all that was promifed to him, for Himfelf and Us.

$21. By his Law ofGrace (as our Lord-Redeem-er)he gave firft to all mankind fin Adam^ and after in Noab.and by a fecond fuller edition at his Incar* nation) a free Pardon of the deftru&ive punilhment (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 progreflively of fincere Obedience to the end, to be performed by his Help or Grace.

§ 22. By this Law ofGrace (fuppofing the Law of lapfed nature aforefaid, inclusively) all the World is ruled, and (hall be judged, according to that edition of it (to Adam or by Chrift; which they are under. And by it they (hall be Juftified or Con-demned.

§ 23. If the queftion then be, Have you kept or not kept the Conditions of the Law of Grace, Per-fonai Performance or nothing muft fo far be our Righteoufnefs, and not Chritts keeping them for us, or Satisfa&ion for our not keeping them. And this is the great Cafe (fo oft by Chrift defcribed Mat. 7. £^25. &c.) to be decided in judgmentjand therefore the word Righteous and Righteoufnefs are ufed for

what

.(«3 )

what is thus perfonal hundreds of times in Scripture.

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

§ 2 5. Therefore no man hath a proper Vniverfal Rigbteeufnefs i excluding all kind of Guilt whatfo-ever.

§25. Therefore no man is juftifiedby the Law of Innocency (nor the Law Mofaical as of works 0 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 Chrift fulfilled it for us: For it faid not fin words or fenfe) [Thou or one for thee (hall Perfectly 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 injiead of that Perfett Legal Innocency and Re-wardablenefs, by which we (hall be accepted of(jod, and glorified at laft as furely and fully (at leaft) as if we had never finned, or had perfectly kept that Law i which therefore may be called our ProAegal Righteoufnefs.

§ 29. But this Righteoufnefs is not yet either OURS by fuch a propriety as a Perfonal perfor* nance would have bin, nor OURS to all the fame

G 2 ends

( *4) ends and putpofes: It faveth us not from all pain, death or penal defertion, nor conftituteth our Relation juft the fame.

§ 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 Chrift as Judg according to that Law(and God by Chrift) that mWfentence us juft> and executively fo ufe us.

§ 3 r. The Grace of Chrift firft giveth us Faith and Repentance by effe&ual Vocation : And then the Law of Grace by its Donative part or A& doth give us a Right to Vnion with Chrift as the Churches Head (and fo to his Body) and with him a right to Pardon of paft fin, and to the Spirit to dwell and a& in us for the future, and to the Love of God, and Life eternal, to be ours in pofleflion,if we fincerely obey and perfeverc.

§32. The total Righteoufnefs then which we have(as an 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 to Gods Favour and Glory, as a free gift quoad valorem, but as a Reward of our Obedience, quoad Ordinem conferendi & rationem Camparativamtwhy one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift.) 2. And the Relation of one that hath by grace performed the Condition of that free Gift,without which we had been no capable recipients ; which is initially QFaith and Repentance] the Condition-.of our Right begun, and confequently, (Incere Obedience and Pcrfeverance (the Condition of continued right, J.

§33. Chriftsperfonal Righteoufnefs is no one of ihde, and fq is not our Confiitutive Righteoufnefs.

for-

formally and ftri&ly Co called : For Formally our Righteoufnefs is a Relation, (of right *,) and it is the Relation of our own Perfons : And a Relation is an accident: And the numerical Relation (or Right3 of one perfon cannot be the fame numerical Accident of another perfon as the fubjed:.

§ 34. There are but three forts of Caufe s h Efficient, Conftitutive&nd Final.

i.Chrift is the efficient caufe of all ourRighteouf-nefs : (1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life j 2. And of our Gofpel-Obedience : ) And that many waies: 1. He is the Meritorious Caufe : 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant i 3. And the Donor or Operator of our 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 Conflitutive Caufe.

§35. The Conflitutive Caufe of natural bodily fobitances conliftethof Matter difpofed, and Farm. Relations have no Matter, but inftead of Matter a Subject (and that is Our own perfons here, and not Chrift.) and a terminus and fundamentum.

§ 36* The Fundamentum may be called both the Efficient Caufe of the Relation (as commonly it is) and the Matter from which it refulteth : And Co Chrifls 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 theControverlie 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 )

lattons have no proper Matter, befides the fubjed: all confefs that thtFundamentum is loco efficients Jmt 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 Cofctroverfie: For 1. Titulus eft fundamentum Jurii : The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Chrift, is the Vona-tive a& of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace : that is our Title j 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 fundamentum than Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs.

§ 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant (and the Spirit and Grace) being a Right merited firft by Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs, this is a Caufa Caufa, id eft, fundamenti, feu Donations : And while this much is certain, whether it (hall be called a Remote fundamentum (viz. Caufa funda-menti) and fo a Remote Confiitutive 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. Queft. 1. Is Chrifts Righteoufnefs OVRS > Anf. Yes s In fome fenfe, and in another not.

§ 41. Queft. 2, Is Chrifts Righteoufnefs OVRS ? 'dnf.Ycs i In the fenfe before opened > For all things are ours h an4 his righteoufnefs more than lower Caufes. §2 f Queft*

( *7)

§ 42. Queft. 3. Is Cbrijls Righteoufnefs OVRS as it was or is His own^with the fame fort of propriety ? Anf No.

§43. Queft. 4. Is the formal Relation of Righteous as an accident of our perfons, numerically the fume Righteoufnefs ? Anf. No h It is impoffible: Unlefe we are the fame perfon.

§ 44- Queft. 5. IsChriji and each Believer onepo* liticalperfon ? Anf. 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 Society^Yeah But noxia & noxa caput fequuntunTnxc Guilt is an accident of natural perfons, and of Societies only as conftituted of fuch ; and fo is Righteoufnefs} Though Phyfically Good or Evil may for fociety-fake, befal us without perfonal defcrt or confent.

But if by [Perfon] you mean a certain State or Condition (as to bczfubjed ofGod^ or one that is to fuffer for fin) fo Chrift may be faid to be the fame perfon with us infpecie^ but not numeric ally >becaufe that Accident whence his Perfonatity is named, is not in the fame fubjedi.

§ 45. Queft. 6- Is Chrifls 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.

§ 46* Queft. 7. Are we reputed ourfelves to have fulfilled all that Law oflnnocency in and by Chriji, as reprefenting our perfons % as obeying by him ? Anf. No..

§ 47* Queft. 8. Is it Cbrijls Divine, Habitual^ AUive or PaJJive Righteoufnefs which Jujiifieth us ? Anf All : viz, the Habitual, Adtive and Paflive exalted in Meritorioufnefs by Union with the Divine. G 4 §48,Queft.

(88)

§48. Queft. 5?. Is it Chrifls Righteoufnefs^ or our Faith which U jaid to be imputed to us for Righteoufnefs } Rom. 4. Anf. 1. The textfpcaketh of imputing Faith, and by Faith is meant Faith, and not Chrifis Righteoufnefs in the word : But that Faith is Faith in Chrifi and his Righteoufnefs i and the Obje&is quafi materia a£ius, and covenanted.

2. Vere, both are Imputed : that is, 1. Chtifls Righteoufnefs is reputed the meritorious Caufe. 2. The free-gift (by the Covenant) is reputed the fundamentum jurti (bothoppofed to our Legal Merit.) 3. And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituli> and all that is required in us to our Juftifjcation> as making us Qualified Recipients o( the free-Gift merited by Chrift.

§ 4P* Queft. I0# Are vpe any way Juflified by our own performed Righteoufnefs ? Anf.Yes > Againft the charge of non-performance, (as Infidels, Impenitent, Unholy,) and fo as being uncapableofthe free-gift of Pardon and Life in Chrift.

CHAR

V vy )

CHAR IV.

FheReafons of our denying the fore-defcri-bed rigid fence of Imputation.

though it vcere mojl accurate to reduce what roe deny to feveral Proportions, and to confute each one argument atively by it [elf Jet I /hall now choofe to avoid fuch prolixity; and for brevity and the fat isfaction of fuch as look more at the force of 'aReafon, than the form of the Argument > Ifhall thruft together our denyedSence 7 with the manifold Reafons of our denyaL

"TTTE deny, that God doth fo Impute Chrifts " V V Righteoufnefs to us, as to repute or ac-€t 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 fuftered all that he cC fuffered, and to have made God fatisfa&ion for cc our own fins, and merited our own Salvation and cc Justification, in and by Chrift s or that he was-, cc did and }uffered-> and merited, all this ftri&ly in cc the perfon of every finner that is faved j Or that 4C Chrifts very individual Righteoufnefs Material or " Formal, is fomadc ours in a Arid: fenfe, as that " we are Proprietors, Subjects, or Agents of the

CI yer y

( 9o ) cc very thing it felf (imply and abfolutely, as it is " diftin<a from the effedte * or that Chrifts Indivi-cc dual Formal Righteoufnefs, is made our Formal " Perfonal Righteoufnefs j or that as to thzeffe&s, U we have any fuch Righteoufnefs Imputed to us, cc as formally ours, which confifteth in a perfedt Ha-cc bitual and Adual Conformity to the Law of In-c 'nocency, that is, that w£ are reputed perfectly cc Holy and finlefs, and fu^h as (hall be Juftified by cc the Law of Innqcency* which faith, VerfeUly Obey cc and Livej or fin ay(idie7\ All this we deny.

Let him that will anfwer me, keep to my words, and not alter the fenfe by leaving any out* And that he may the better underftand me,I add,i. I take itfor granted that the Law requireth Habitual Ho-linefs as well as A&ual Obedience, and is not fulfilled without both. 2. That Chrift loved God and man with a perfed: conftant Love, and never finned by'Omiffion 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-miflion, is fuppofed to have done all his duty. £. That he that hath done all his duty, is not cotidem-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, Ads and Sufferings in which his Righteoufnefs did con-fift* or was founded. 7. By his and our Formal Rigbteoufnefs-i I mean the Relation it felf of being Righteous. 8. And I hold that Chrifts Righteoufnefs, did not only Numerically (as aforefaid) but alfo thustotAfpeciejui kind differ from ours, that his was a perfeft Habitual and AUual Conformity to the

Law

( 91 )

Law ofInnocency y together with the peculiar Laws of Mediator-floipyby which he merited Redemption for us y and Glory for himfelf and us : But o#rs is the Tar don vf fin-> and Right to Life , Pur chafed, Merited and freely given us by Cbrift in and by a new Covenant^ whofe condition is Faith with Repentance, as to the gift of our Jujiification now, andfincere Holinefs>0-bedience, Viftory and Perfeverance as to our pojfejfion of Glory.

Now our Reafons againft the denyed fence of Imputation are thefe.

i. In general this opinion fetteth up and introduced all Antinomianifm or Libertiniim, and Un-godlinefs, andfubverteth the Gofpel andallfrue Religion and Morality.

I do not mean that all that hold it, have fuch effects in themfelves, but only that this is the tendency and confequence of the opinion: For I know that many fee not the nature and confluences of their own opinions, and the abundance that hold damnable errors,hold them but notionally in a pee-vifh faction, and therefore not dammingly,but hold practically and effe&ually the contrary faving truth. And if the Papifts (hall perfwade Men that our dextrine, yea theirs that here miftake, cannot confift with a godly life,Iet but the lives ofPapifts and Pro-teftants be compared. Yea in one of 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 ftridfriefsoffomeofthem, in their Church-admif-Gons and Communion, while they fly further from uch as they think not godly, than I think God

would

would have them do, being generally perform fearing God themfelves : (Excepting the finful alienation from others, and eafiAefs to receive and carry falfe reports of Dilfenters, which is common to all that fall into fidings.) 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 make them ungodly.

2. It confoundeth the Perfon of the Mediator ,and 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 rvell-pleajed in him, had (not only fufifered in the room of the (inner by voluntary Sponfion 5 but alfo) in fufferingand doing, been Civilly.the very perfon of thefinner himfelf* that (inner I fay, who was an enemy to God, and fo efteemed.

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

4. It introduceth a falfe fence and fuppofition of our fin imputed to Chrift,as if Imputatively it were his as it is ours, even the finful Habits, the finfitl j48s>> and the Relation oievil, IVichedjUngodly and Unrighteous which refulteth from them : And fo it maketh Chrift really hated 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, as we all were : whereas it was only the Guilt of Pii'nifliment, and not of Crime &% fuch that Chrift aflumed: He undertook to fuffer in the room of finners > and to be reputed one that had fo undertaken; But not to be reputed really a (inner, an ungodly perfon, hater of-Godson? that h^d the Image of the Devil. 5. Nay

(93 )

5* Nay it maketh Chrift to have been incomparably the worft man that ever was in the World by juft reputation y 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 fhe language that Luther ufed Catechre-ftically, to be ftridtly 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 exiflent in bisperfon, and fo in him to have been perfons that commited the fame fin \ whereas we are only reputed to be now {not then) perfons who have a Nature derived from him,which being then feminaliy only in him, deriveth by propagation an anfwerable Guilt of his (infill fadt, together with natural Corruption*

7. It fuppofeth us to be Juftifiable and Juftified bv the Law of Innocency-made to Adam, as it faith [Obey perfectly and Live.~] As if we fulfilled it by Chrift : 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.

8. Itputteth, to that end, a falfe fence upon the Law of Innocency : For whereas it commandeth Terfonal Obedience, and maketh Terfonal punifti-. ment due to the offender : This fuppofeth the Law to fay or mean[Ei//?er thou.or one for thee (hall Obey > or, Thou jh alt obey by thy felf, or by another : And if thoufinthoujhaltfujferbytbyfelf, or by another.

Whereas the Law knew no Subftitute or Vicar,no nor Sponfor * 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

Jurti-

( 94 )

Juftificd 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 to be what they ate not, and us to have done what we did not. To repute Chrift a Sponfor for finners who undertook to obey in their nature^ and fuffer in their place and ftead, as a Sacrifice to redeem them, is all juft and 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 iinner, or guilty of fin it (elf ^ or to repute us to have been habitually as Good as Chrift was, or actually to have done what he did, either Naturally or Civilly and by Him as our fubftitute, and to repute us Righteous by pofTeffing his formal perfonal Righteoufnefs in it felf-, Al! 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 Life, as if we had merited it our felves.

n. It feigneth the fame Numerical Accident (jheir Relation of 'Righteoufnefs'] which was in one fubjed to be in another, which is Impoflible.

12. It maketh us to have fatisfied 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, contradideth this opinion : For when God maketh a Law or Covenant, to convey the effects of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, by degrees and upon certain Conditions, this proveth that the very

Righ-

( 95 )

Righteoufnefs in it felf (imply was not ours : elfe we fhould have had thefe effeds 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 drifts Legiflation 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 bufinels for the Law of Grace to do.

id* It feemeth to make internal San&ification by the Spirit needlefs,or at leaft,asto one half of its ufe : For if we are by juft Imputation in Gods account perfectly Holy, in Chrifts Holinefs the tirft 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 fan&ified in our felves > Becaufe by Imputation it is all our 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 hath* if he can repute a man laden with hateful fins^to be as perfedty Holy, Obedient and Amiable to him as if he were really fo in himfelf, becaufe another is flich for him.

i£. If we did in our own perfons Imputatively

what

what Chrift did, I think it will follow that we finned i that being unlawful to us which was Good in him. It is a lin for us to be Circumcifed, and to keep all the Law of Mofes^ and fend forth Apo-ftles, and to make Church-Ordinances needful to Salvation* Therefore we did not this in Chrift: And if not this, thev that diftinguifh aqd tell us what we did in Chrift, and whatnot, muft prove it.I know that Chrift did fomewhat which is a common 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 part in him,is to be proved*

20. If Chrift iiifFered but in the Perfon of finful man, his fufftrings would have been in vain,or no Satisfaction to God : For finful man is obliged to perpetual punilfcment > of which a temporal one is but a final! part ; Ourperfons cannot make a temporal fuffering equal to that perpetual one due,to man : but the tranfeendent perfon of the Mediator did.

Obj. Chrift bore both his own perfon and ours : It belongeth to htm as Mediator to perfonate the guilty finner.

Anfi It belongeth to him as Mediator to undertake the finners puniflhment in his own peifon. And if any will improperly call that, the Verfonating and Reprefenting of the finner, let them limit it, and confefs that it is not fimply, but infantum, Co far* and to fuch ufes and no other, and that yet finners did it not in and by Chrift, but only Chrift for chem to convey the benefits as he pleated > And then we delight not to quarrel about mere words > though we like the phrafe of Scripture better than theirs.

21, If

2i. If Chrift was perfe&ly Holy and Obedient in ou* perfons, and we in him, then it was either in the Perfon of Innocent man before we finned, or of (inful man. The firft cannot be pretended : For man as Innocent had not a Redeemer. If of finful man, then his perfect Obedience could not be meritorious of our Salvation: For it fuppofeth him to do it in the -perfon of a (inner : 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 finlefs perfedt perpetual Obedience.

Obj. He firft fuffered in our ft fad and perfons as finnerS) and then our fin being pardmedhe after in our ferfons fulfilled the havp^infteadofour after-Obedience to it.

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

Obj. But yet though there be nofuch difference in Time^ God doth firft Impute his Jujferings to us for -pardon of all our fins to the deaths and in order of na-ture-y his Obedience after it, as the Merit of our Salvation.

Anf 1. God doth Impute or Repute his fu fife r-ings the fatisfying caufe of our ParJon, and his Merits of Suffering and the refi of his Holincfs and O-bedience^as the meritorious caufe of our Pardon and our Justification and Glory without dividing them. But 2. that implyeth that we did not our fchd re-

H puc^a-

(9* )

putativcly do all this in Chrift: As (hall be further proved*

22. Their way of Imputation of the Satisfaction of Chrift, overthroweth their own do&rine of the Imputation of his Holinefs and Righteouf. ncfs. For if all fin be fully pardoned by the Imputed Satisfaction, then (ins of Omiflion and of habitual Privation and Corruption are pardoned > and then the whole punifhment both ofSenfe and Lofs is remitted : And he that hath no fin of Omiflion or Privation-^ is a perfe& doer of his duty, and holy > and he that hath no punifhment of Lofs, hath title to y fe> according to that Covenant which he is reputed to have perftdly obeyed. And fo he is an heir of life, without any Imputed Obedience upon the pardon of all hisDifobediencc.

Obj. But Adam muft have obeyed to the Death if he would have Life eternal: Therefore the bare pardon of \m fins did not procure his right to life*

Anf True, if you fuppofc that only his firft fin was pardoned : Eut i. Adam had right to heaven 3s Jong as he was finlefs. 2. Chrift dyed for all Adams fins to the laft breath, and not for the firft only; And ft) he did for all ours. And if all the fins of omiflion 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 fubjecft. JBut a man cannot be imlefs,but he is Righteous, and hath right to life by Covenant.

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

Anf They arediftind formal Relations and Notions :

tions: cut vvnere felicity is a utft and caned 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 perfons : and not to Reward* is materially topunijh > and to be reputed innocenc is to be reputed a Meriter. And it is impoffible that the moft 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 Governing Paternal Juftice as to the Order of donation.

Obj. But there is a greater Glory merited by Cbrifi* than the Covenant of works promifed to man*

Anf i. That's another matter, and belongeth not to Juftification,but to Adoption. 2. Chrifts Sufferings as well as his Obedience, confidered as meritorious, did purchafe that greater Glory, 3. We did not purchafe or merit itinChrift, butChrift for us.

23. Their way of Imputation feemeth to me to leave no place or poflibility 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 we are eled from eternity, it leaveth no place for any pardon : And according to their opinion who fay 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^ Habit & Ad) there it is reputed that the perfon hath no fin.We had no i\n before we had aBe-ing > and if we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed in Chrift from our firft Being, we are reputed (inlcfs. But if we are reputed to have obeyed in

H 2 him

him only fince our believing, then we are reputed to have no fin fince our Believing. Nothing ex-cludeth fin, if perfect Habitual and A&ual Holinefe 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 hrft believing.

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

26. And then all prayer for the pardon of fiich 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 expeft Juftification from fuch guilt here or at Judgment.

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

3 1. And it would be no lie to fay that we have no fin, at teaft, fince believing.

32, Then no believer {hovAd fear finning, becaufe it is Irnpoffihle and a Contradiction, for the fame per-fon to be perfe&ly innocent to the death, and yet a {inner.

33* Then the Con fciences of believers have no work to do, or atleaft, no examining, convincing, fclf-accufingand (elf-judging work.

34. This chargeth God by Confequence of wronging all believers whom he layeth the leaftpu-

nifhment

( iox )

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

35. ItintimateththatGod wrongcth believers, for not giving them immediately more of the Holy Ghoft, and not prefent perfecting them and freeing them from all tin : For though Chrift may give us the fruits of his own merits in the time and way that pleafeth himfelf > yet if it be we ourfelves that have perfe&ly fatisfied and merited in Cbrifi^ we have prefent Right to the thing merited thereupon, and it is an injury to deny it us at all.

3d. 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 ^breaming of PunKhment in the Law of Grace would feem injurious or incon-gruous,to them that have already reputatively obeyed perfectly to the death.

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

3$>. And I think this would overthrow all Humane Laws and Government: For all true Gover-nours are the Officers of God, and do what they do in fubordination to God \ tmd therefore cannot

H 3 juftly

( *°* )

juftly punifh any man, whom he pronounceth er-fe&ly Innocent to the death.

40.. This maketh every believer Cat leaft) as j Righteous as Chrift himfelf, as having true-propri-ety 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 perfeS^ and no difference between them. David and Solomon as Righteous in the a6t of finning as before, and every I 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 » as I have proved in my Life ef Faith ^nd eHewhere.

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

43. The Scripture no-where calleth our Imputed

Righteoufnefs by thenameof Innocency, or finlefe

Perfection, nor Inculpability Imputed, Nay when

the very phrafe of Imputing Chrifts 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

(hall excogitate, and ill befeemeth them, that are

for Scripture-fufficiency and perfe&ion, and againft

Additions in the general. And whether fome may

not (ay that we are Imputatively Chrift himfelf,

Conceived by the Holy Ghoft, Born of the Virgin

&?ary, fuffered under Pontius Pilate, Crucified, &c,

I cannot telL

*Vr h ■ To

To conclude,the honeft plain Chriftian may without difquieting the Church or himfelf, be fatisfied 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 Jufiice of God: That he hath byhisperfedt Holinefs and Obedience withthofe fufferings, merited our pardon and life: That he never hereby intended to make us Lawlefsor have us Holy, but hath brought us under a Law of Grace : which is the Inftrument by which he par-doneth 5 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 h but his Holinefs and Obedience are to merit Holinefs,Obedience & Hap-pinefsforus, that we may be like him, andfobe made perfonally amiable to God : But both his Sufferings and Obedience, do bring us under a Covenant, where Perfe&ion is not neceflary to our Salvation.

H 4 chap.

CHAR V. The Objections Anfwered.

" Obj. I. \70 V confound a Natural and a Politi-X cc cal perfon: Chrift and the feveral be-cc liepingfinners are nottbejame natural Perfon, but " they are the fame Political. As are with us, faith "Dr.Tullie, the Sponjor and the Debtor, the Attor-cc ney and the Clyent, the "tutor and the Pupil > fo are <c all the faithful in Chrift:, both as to, their Celeftial "regenerate nature,of which he is the firji Father, who cc begettethfons by his Spirit and feed oftheWord to his cc Image, and as to Righteoufnefs derived by Legal iC Imputation. Vid. Dr. Tulliejuftif. Paul.p.8o 5 8i. "It's commonly faid that Chrifi as our furety is our "Perfon.

Anf i. The diftindtion of a P erf on 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 thefe equivocals mean. What a Natural P erf on fig-nifieth, we are pretty well agreed vbut a Political Perfon is a word not fo eafily and commonly under-flood, Calvin tells us that Perfona definitur homo qui caput habet civile. (For omnis perfona eft homo fed non vicijjim : Homo cum efi vocabulum nature \ Perfona juris civilis*) And fo (as Albenius) civitas, piunicipwm&aftrum, ColUgiumfVniverfrtasfo quod-\ibet corpus^ Perfona appellatione conthtetur > ut Spi-

get*

gel. But if this Definition be commenfurate to the common nature of a civil perfon, then a King can be none > nor any one that hath not a civil head. This therefore is too narrow. The fame Calvin {inn*Perfon&) tells us, that Seneca Perfonam vocat^ cum pr£Jfefert aliquis, quod non eft } A Counterfeit: But fure this is not the fence of the Obje&ors. In general faith Calvin^ 'Tarn bominem quam qualitatem bominx, \eu Conditioner** fignificat* But it i$ not fure every Quality or Condition : Calvin therefore giveth us nothing fatisfa&ory, to thedecifion of the Controverfie which thefe Divines will needs make, whether each believer and Chrift be the fame Political Perfon. Martinw will make our Controverfie no eafier by the various fignifications gathered out oiVet* Vocab. GeU Scaliger, Valla h Which he thus enumerateth. i. Perfona eft accidens conditio bominis>> qualitas qua homo differt ab homine, turn in animojum in corpore^ turn in externir. 2. Homo qualitate difla proditus : 3. Homo inftgni qualitate -pr&ditus babens gradum eminently, in Ecclefia Dei y &c* 4. Figurafcu faciei fit! a, larva bifirionica^ &c* 5.1lk quifub bujufmodi ftgura aliquant reprefemat^&Cs 6. Figura emiuens in adificiis qu<e ore aqxamfun* dit-> &c. Individttafubfiantiabumanaifeufwgula-rvs homo. 8. Individua fubftantia Intelligens quslibeU Now which of thefe is Perfona Politica vel Legalis. Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I fuppofe we (hall find that we are agreed of the Matter. When I deny the Perfon of Chrift and the (inner 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 Qtherwifeare obliged to Define > For Analogum per

( io6 )

fi pofttum fiat pro fuo ftgnificato famofiore. 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 Perfon (not as zfociety* nor fuch as agree in Quali-ty*h\xt) A natural Perfon fo related to another Natural perfon* as that what he doth andfufereth* Is or Hath* is limitedly to certain ends and ufes as effettual as if that other perfon himfelfdid andfujfered* 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 greatlydiflikctheir way that lay much ftreft on fuch humane phrafes,) I grant the thing meant by them. Chrifts Holinefs Habitual and Adfrual, and his Merits and Satisfaction are as effe&ual to a believers Juftification and Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace (which is fealed by baptifm) as if we had been,done and fuffered the fame our felves. Eut ftill remember that this is only [limitedly] tothefeufes* 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 Cthe 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 Hath*Doth*or Suffereth in fuch a cafe* is (not only effectual as aforefaid to others, but) is in itfelf fmply Reputed or Imputed to be Morally* though not physically* the Habit* Aft and

Sufferings

( io8 )

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

And fo a man may indeed many ways among us Keprefent or Perfonate another. If I by Law am Commanded to dp this or that fervice per meipfum antper alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-fence, becaufe the other doth it in my name and I am allowed fo to do it. So if I appear or anfwer by any Proftor or Attorney ; 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 Keprefenter ox in my name) : So if I pay a debt by the hand of my Servant or any Meffcnger, 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 fulfil all the Law in andbyChrift ; Nor are we thus the Proprietors of his Habitual perfection, Merits or Satisfaction.

The common reafon given by the contrary-minded is, that he was our Surety, or Spotsfor, or fide-jujfor : and fo we tranilate Zyy\j& Htb. j. 22. and I remember not any other text of Scripture allega-ble for that title, But this word doth not necefla-rily fignihe any fuch Keprefenter of our Perfons as a-forefaid. Nay when he is called thus the fideiujfor of abetter Covenant, it ftemeth plain that it is Gods Covenant as fuch, and fo Gods Sponfor that is meant? and as Grotius faith Mofespro Deo fpofpov-dit in Lege Veteri: Jefus pro Deo in Lege Now. Lex utraqtte & pattum continet, promiffa babet. Sponfo-srem darefolent minus nati; & Mfes & Veus hemini-

bus

( lop )

bus melius nati erant quam Veus qui inconfpicuus. So alfo Dr. Hamond [He was Sponfor and Surety for (jody that itjbould be made good to us on Gods part, on Condition that we performed that which was required of us :] And here they that tranflate AiolShm a Teftament,never intended that it was ouvPart of the Covenant that is meant by a ft/lament : But (the moft Judicious expofitor,) <c Mr. Lawfon on the <c text,truly faith [The Scriptures oiMofes and the " Prophets tranflated into Greek will tell us > That cc AiolSvi'kv) always fignifieth a Law or a Covenant, u and for the moft part both: fo it doth in the <c writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts where it " feldom fignifieth the laft Will and Teftament of a cc man. The fame thing is a Law in refpedt of the c< precepts, &c > Ejyu©r turned Surety, fignifieth " one that undertaketh for another to fee fomething <c paid or performed : And though the word is not ct found in theNew Teftament except in this place, " &c. But Varnius tells us that 'e^u©-* is Mioirm, * c a Mediator h and fo it is taken here as it's ex-a pounded by the Apoftle in the Chapter following: "And becaufe a Prieft doth undertake to procure " from God 5 both the Confirmation and performance !• 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 refpedfc the C€ 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 'Ejyu(Gp of Gods Covenant from the facerdotal appropinquation, mentioned verf 19. 8$c. " And M*rlorate aftc xtheophia^t^Spnforem pro Me* " diatore & inurcejforepofmt.

"So

( 109 )

cc So Varans in loc.Efi novif<ederisSponforCbriftus y " quia novum fedus [anguine & mortefua obfignavit*

So the Dutch Annou 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,Suflfereth,Merit-teth, Satisfyeth y fo as the Reprefenter or perfon of each believer, as that every fuch Perfon is fuppofed in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus in and 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 cafe by an ill— exprelTed diftin&ion, which indeed is not of two forts of Perfonr, but between Reality and Accept a-Hon, taking Perfon properly for a Natural Perfon : It's one thing to be fuch a Perfon, and another thing to have the Jfct, Pajfion, Merit, &c. Accepted for that other Perfon: And this latter fignifieth,either I. That it was done by the other perfon mediately, 1 ^ being a cheifCaufe aftitig by his Injirument. 2. Or that it was dme for that other Perfon by another. The firft is our denyed fence, and the fecond our affirmed fence.

Among us Sureties and Sponfors are of feveral forts : Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another fenfe ofSponfwn in the Civil Law, than is pertinent •to the objectors 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 Perfen (as you call it) of Parent or Child, nor fpake as their Injirument, in their name : But was a Third perfon,

who

( «o)

who (becaufe many parents Apojlatized, and more Vied in the Childs minority) did pafs his word, I. That the Parent was a credible Perfon, 2 . That if he Dyed fo foon or Apojlatized^ he himfelf would undertake the Chriftian Education of the Child. But the Parent himfelf was Sponfor for the Child in a ilridter fenfe, fas alfo Adopting Pro-parents were, & as fome take God-fathers to be now,) that is,they were taken for fuch, whole Reafon,will and word, weauthorifed todifpofeof the Child as obligingly, as if it had been done by his own reafon will and word, fo be it, it were but ForhUgood^ 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 them 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 Confenit) But this fenfe of Sponfwn is nothing to the prefent Cafe.

They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety as if the word bad but one fignification, and all Sureties properly reprefented the perfon of the Principal obliged perfon, do deal very deceitfully : There are Sureties or Sponfors* i. For fome Duty, 2. For Debt, 3. For Punifhment.. 1. It is one thing to undertake that another fhall do aComman-ded duty : 2. It's another thing to undertake that elfe I will do it 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 fuffer a penalty* or elfe tofufFer for him, or make a Valuable Compensation.

1. And it's one kindofSuxety that becometha

f&ond

fecond party in the bond* and fo maketh himfelf a debtor h 2. And its another fort of Surety that ttn-dertaketb only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friends 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 Sponfor are words of very various 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, tnaxitne pro aliis : Fidejube.-re efifuo periculofore id, de quo agitur, recipere : Vel, fidemfuampro alio obligare. . He is called Adpromif-for-, and he is Debtor, but not the fame perfon with the Principal* but his promife is accejforia obligatio, non principalis. Therefore FidevufforfiDe Intercejfor non efi cmveniendus, nifi prius debitore principali convento : Fidejujfores a correis it a dijferunt, quod hi fuo drproprio morbo labor ant, illi vero alieno tenentur: Quare fideijujfori magis fuccurrendum cenfent: Ve-nia namque digni funt qui aliena tenentur Culpa, cx-jufmodifunt fidejujfores pro alieno debito obligati, in-quit Calv.

There muft be fomewhat more than the bare name £jyu(Gp once uiitd 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 th£ Mediator and the feveral finners are the fame Legal Perfons in Gods account.

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

wc

( I" )

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

difference intelligibly ftated.

i. It is granted (not only by Dr. Tullie, but o-thers that accurately handle the Controverfie,) i. That Chrift and the Believer never were nor are our Natural perfon > and that no union with him inaketh us to be Chrift, or God, nor him to be Peter, John or Paul, &c. That we know of no third furt of Natural perfon, (which is neither Jefus, nor Peter, John, &o; But compofed of both united, which is conftituted by our Union. For though it be agreed on,thaf 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 Real-Communion> the name of a Real-Union may be ufed > yet here the Real-Vnion is not Perfonal fas the fame Sun quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant, and yet maketh them not our perfon:) Therefore he that will fay we atePhyfwally one with Chrift, and not only Relatively, but tell us [ONE IVhat ? ] and make his words Intelligible; and muft deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that by that time we are not like to be found differing. But remember that while Physical Communion, is confeffed by all, what VNl&N we fhall from thence be faid to have (this Foundation being agreed on) is like to prove but a queftion, derealitione & w-rnine.

2. Yea all the world muft acknowledg that the whole Creation is quoad pr&fentiam & derivationem more dependant on God than the fruit is on the Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the infepsratc Caufc o't our Bung, Station, and Life i

And

^"5J

And yet this natufral intimatenefs, and influx, and

caufality, maketh not GOD and every Creature ablblutely or perfonally One.

3. It is agreed therefore that Cbrift's Righeouf nefi is neither materially nor formally-> any Acci~ dent of our natural Perfons i ( and an Accident it is )

wnlefsit can be reduced to that of Relation.. i« The Habits of our Perfon,cannot poffibly be the habits of another inherently.2.The attions of one cannot poffibly be the aQions of another, as the Agent, unlcfs as that other as a -principal Caufe, a&eth by the other as his Injlrurnent 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 famejout not numerically.

4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falfly, and therefore taketh not Chrift's Righteoufnefs td be any more or otherwife ours*> than indeed it is 5 nor imputeth it to us erroneouily,

5. Yet it is commonly agreed, thztChrifl's Ri$b-teoufnefs is OV RS in fdme fenfe h 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 bitter Church-tearing ftrife'if not hindred by fonrje that will call them to explain an ambiguous word) is it that muft be underftood to end this Controver-lie. Propriety is the thing, fignified. 1; In the ftri&eft fenfe that is called Ours-, which inhereth iri

us, or that which is done by us. 2. In a larger ( Moral ) fenfe, that which a Man as the principal Caufe, doth by another as his Inftrument> by authorising, commanding, perfwading, &c. 3. In a yet larger fenfe that may be called OVRS> which a third perfon doth partly infteadoi what we fhould have done ( bad, or fuffered) and partly for our ufe, or benefit. 4, In a yet larger fenfe that may be cailed OVRS> which another bath, or <&*&, or fufferetb 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 Ours, 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-teoufhefs hath to us, or we to it, that muft here be meant by the word Q 0 V R S J : Which is our RIGHT! ox Ju*\ And that is acknowledged to be no Jus or Right to it in the forefaid denied fenfe > And it is agreed that fome Right it is. Therefore, to underftand what it is, the *fituius feu Funda-mentum jurii 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.<$« 19. \that God wm in Chriji, reconciling the World to himfelf % not imputing to them their fins y &c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Chrift as his Covenanted People, Subjects, Brethren, Friends, and Political Members * yea, as fjch that have Right to », and PoJfeJJion of Real Communion with him by his Spirit: And that we have then Right to Pardon, Juftification, and Adoption^ (or have

Right

Right to Impunity in tht promifed degree, and to the Spirits Grace, and the Love of God, and Hea~ venly Glory). This Relation to Chrijl and this K/g/tf 5 to the Bienefitf of his Righte oh fnefs are agreed «m ; And confequently that his Righteoufnejl is OVRS> and fo may be called, as far as the toreiaid Relations and Rights import.

II. Now a Relation ( as Ockam hath fully proved ,) having no real entity, betide (he quid alfolu-turn, which is the Subjett, Fundamentum, or Ter-tninufy he that yet raileth at his Brother as not faying enough, or not being herein fo wife as he, and will maintain that yet thrift's Rigbteoufnefs 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 occalion of ftrife and mutual enmity, 1f they will but be driven to a diftindi explication, and will not make confufton and ambi gttous words their defence and weapons, tf you fet your quarrelfome Brains on work, and ftudy vs hard as you can.for matter of Contention, ir will not be eafie for you to find it, unlefs you will raze out the'names of Popery, Socimanifin, Armir.ia-nifm, or Solijidtanifm-, Herefie, &c inftead of real Difference. But if the angrieft and lo&dejl Speakers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the moft Orthodox places.

Briefly, i. The forefaid Benefits of drift's Righteoufnefs, (Habitual, A&ive andPaffive } as a Meritorious, Satisfactory, Purchafing Caufe, are ours,

(ii6)

2; To fay that the Benefits are Ours* importeth that the Caufal Righteoufnefs of Chrift is related to tfj, and the Effects as fuch aCaufe: and fo is it felf OVRS, in that fenfe, 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 Ilighteoufnefs which you affert, name what they are. If you fay that we deny any true Funda* mmtum )urti*> 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 we are judged by God, as thofe that (habi* tually and a&ively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocencyour felves, though not in our natural 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 efteemeth or reputeth us, to be the very Subje&s of that Numerical Righteoufnefs, in the Habits, Ads, Pat fion or Relation, which was in the Perfon of Chrift, or to have done* fuffered, or merited our [elves in and by him, as the proper Reprefenter of our Perfons therein \ and fo that his Righteoufnefs is thus imputed to us as truly in it felf our own pro-pietyi we do deny it, and defire you to dofoalfo, kit you.deny Chriftianity.

(ii7)

2. If you blame us for faying, That we had or have no fach Rdation to Chrift, as to our Inftru-merit, 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.

Objeft. 2. Cbrift U called "the Lord our Righte-enfnefsy and be is made Rigbteoufnefs to us^ and we are made the Righteoufnejs of God in bim> 2 Cor. 5. 21, &c. And by the Obedience of one^ many arc made Righteous*

Anfxv* And are we not all agreed of all this ? But can his Righteoufneft.te Ours no way but by the forefaid Perfonation Rcprefentating ? How prove you that ? He is Our Right eouftefs^ and his Obedience maheth us Righteous.

i, 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.

2. In that he fuffered to fatisfie Juftice for cur fin.

3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father, all that Rigbteoufnefs which we are truly fhc Subje&s of, whether it be Relative, or Qualitative, or A&ivei> that is, 1. Our Right to Chrift in Union to the Spirit, t<j Impunity, and to Glory j And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which'we arc made Holy, and fuhil the Conditions of the Law

of Grace, We are the Subjetts of thefc, and he is ihz Minitler, and the meritorious Caufeof our Life, is well called Out Righteoufntjs, and by many the material Caufe, (as our own perfed 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 F>e!ated as his Members (though not parts of his Perfon as fuch) to him that thus pierited for us.

6* And we have the Spirit from him as our Head.

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

8. A nc * a ^ t his is God's Righteoufnejs defigned for us, and thus far given us by him.

p. And the perfed Juftice and Holinefs of God, is thus glorified in us through Chrilh And are not all thefe Cct together enough to prove, that we juiV lypvyn all aflerted by thefe Texts? But if you think that you have a better fenfe of them, you mufi: better prove it, than by a bare naming, of the

words.

-\

Objeft. 3. If CbrijPs Right eoufnefs be Ours, then we are Righteous by it as Ours *, and fo God re~ jputeth it but as it U : But it vs Ours ; • 1. By our Vni-on with him. 2. And by his Gift, and fo confequently by God's Imputation*

Anfiv. 1. I have told you before that it is con-fefled to be Oms \ but that this fyllable OVR& hath |Tiany fenfes j and I have told you in what fenfe,

and

and how far it is OVRS, and in that fenfe we are juftified by it, and it is truly imputed to us, or re-puted or reckoned as OVRS : But not in their fenfe that claim aftridt Propriety in the fSme numerical Habits, A&s, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfa&icn, which was in Chrift, or done by him, as if they did become Subjects of the fame Accidents > or, as if they did it by an inftrumental fecond Caufe. But ijt is OVRS, as being done by a Mediator, inftead of what we ihould have done, and as the Meritorious Caufe oi all our Righteoufnefs and Benefits, which are freely given us for the fake hereof. • 2. He that is made Righteoufnefs to us, is alfo made Wifdom, San&ification and Redemption to us : but that fub genere Caufe Efficientis^ nan ant em Caufe CoHJiitutiv£ : We are the Subjects of the fame numerical Wifdom and Holinefs which is in Chrift. Plainly the Queftion i$, Whether Chrift or his Righteoufnefs, Holinefs, Merits, and Satif-fa&ion, be Our Righteoufnefs Cmjlhutively* or only Efficiently ? The Matter and Form of ChrilVs Per* fonal Righteoufnefs is OVRS, as an Efficient Caufe, but ic is neither the neareft Matter, or the form of that Righteoufnefs which is OVRS as the Subje&s of it '•> that is, It is no t a Conirkutive Caufe nextly materhl, or formal of it.

3^ If our Union with Chrift were Perfonal, (making us the fame Perfon) then doubtlefs the Accidents of his Perfon would be the Accidents of ours, andfo not only Chrift's Righteoufnefs, but every Chriftians would be each of Ours: But that is not fo. Nor is it fo given us by him#

I 4 Obje&c

Qbje6h 4. You do feem to fuppofe that we have none of that kind of Righteoufnefs at all, which con-fifteth in perfett Obedience and Holinefs, but only a Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfett Inherent Righteoufnefs in our felves : 'the Papifts are forced to confefs, that a Righteoufnefs we mu(l have which confijieth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Tl,*w, and not only the Retributive part: But they fay. It is in our felves, and we fay it is ChrijVs imputed to us.

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 Ipnccency and of Grace, as if they never underftood 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 Perfections* and the Commands that require them* batCounfels, 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 Ju-flification, of the Remitting of Punifhment h but by remitting Sin, they ufually mean the destroying the Habits : As if they forgot all attnal fin paft, or thought that it deferved no Punifhment, or needed po Pardon : For a paft A& in it felf is now nothing, and is capable of no Remiflion but Forgive-ncCs. 4. Or when they do talk of Guilt of Pu-nilhmenc, they lay fo much of the Remedy on Man's" Satisfaction, as if Chrift's Satisfaction and

Merits

( fc« )

Merits had procured no pardon, oratleafr, of no temporal part of Punifhment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protcftants, as if we denied all Perfonal Inherent Righteoufnefs, and trufted only to the Imputation of Chriit 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 PerfeQlon and Super err oga'ion, unlefs when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Condition of the Law of Grace, and not that of In-nocency.

2. But if 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 7 wearefo. by Imputation, when -we are fo no way at all ( but finners really, and fo reputed ) 5 what Reconciliation is there to be expe&ed, till both lay by their Errour ?

Objedt. 5, How can God accept him a* /«/?, who is really and reputedly ji Sinner ? This dijhonoureth h'vt Holinefs and Juflice.

Anfw. Not fo : Cannot God pardon fin, upon a valuable Merit and Satisfadion of a Mediator ? And though he judg us not perfeVx now, and accept usnotasfuch, yet 1. now he judgethus Holy,2.and the Members of a perfedt Saviour •> 3. and will make us perfect and fpotlefs, and then fo judg us, having wafhed us from our tins in the Blood of the Lamb. ,

Objedh 6. ihus you nuke the Reatus Culpa?, not pardoned at aU 3 but only the Reatus pcenx. .

Anfw. i. If by Reatus Culpa be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator y and Co to be Reus* is to be Reveraipfe qui peccavit j then wemuft confider what you mean by Pardon : For if you mean the nullifying of fuch a Guilty (or Reality) it is impoffiole, becaufe necejjiate exifteu-ti&-> hethathath once finned, will be itill the Per-{on that finned, while he is a Perfon, and the Relation of one that finned will cleave to him : It will eternally be a true Proportion, L ^ etcr an d ? an l did fin 3 \ But if by Pardon you mean, the pardoning of all the penalty which for that fin is due, ( damni pel fenfws ) fo it ii pardoned v and this is indeed me Reatus pxna : Not: only the Penalty, but the JDnencfsoC that Penalty, or the Obligation to it, is remitted and nullified. .

2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpa you mean an Obligation to Punishment 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 carl be : But as Duenefs of Punilhment followeth, that is pardoned.

Objed. 7. Tots have faid, 'That though we were not perfonally but fminajly in Adam when he faned, yet when^mzare Perfons; we are Persons guilty of his aftual fin: And fo we muji be Perfons that are Partakers of Chrift's AUual Righteoufnefs, and not only of its Ejfecls, as foon as we are Believers. For Chrift being the Second Adam, and ..publicly Terfon* we have our part in his Right eoufnefs, at truly and as much as in AdarnV fin,

Avfa

( 1*3 )

Anfa* T. We mud firil underftand how fa* Adam's fin is ours: And firft I have elfewhere proved that our Covenant-Union and I*/flv/?.fuppofeth our Natural Vnion and Intereji '<> 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 s and fo that his innocemyor fin (hould be reputed theirs, 09 far as if they had been perfonally the Subje&s and'Agents. The Perfon of Peter never was in Reality or Gadfs Reputation^ the Perfon of Adam. ( Nor Adams Perfon the Perfon of Peter ): But Peter being virtually and feminally in Adam y when he finned, his Perfon is derived from Adam's 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 Yundamqutum of that Relation (of Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Perfon to Adam y ( and fo it is Relatio in Relatione fundaia ). The Fundamentum of that natural Relation^ is Generation yeaa/rnVj* of Generations from Adam to that Perfon : And Adams Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with perfmality to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his fterfonal Vault and Guilt charged on him by the Law : So that here is a long jeries of efficient Caufes, bringing down from Adanfs Perfon and Guilt a dijhnll numerical Perfon and Guilt of £ very 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 A ft, as was

pri him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another fort : 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 is,Tib* Relation is fuch 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 fravity 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, 1. Our Perfons are not the fame as ChrifFs Perfon, (nor Chrift's 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 #11 things ) as they were in Adams* t

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 refuted to have been in him naturally fit 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 bti, ox 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 acquired finlefs Peifedion > Ani he being fuppo T

fed

( 12 5 )

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

6. 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 beings doing, and fuffering for us, that in bis qvph Perfon, which fhould 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 bimfelf) to be given by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Accepters. And fo our Righteoufnefs, as is oft opened, 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.

Object. 8. As Chrift is a Sinner by imputation of mr fin-, fo we are Righteous, by the imputation of bis Righteoufnefs. But it is our fin it felf that is imputed to Chrijl: 'Therefore it is bis Righteoufnefs it felf that is imputed to us.

Anfrv. i. thrift's Perfon was not the Subjedt of our perfonal Relative Guilt, much lefs of our Habits or Afts*

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

3. Nay, Chrift had no Guilt ci the fame hind reckoned to be on him \ elfe thofe unmeet Speeches, ufed rafhly by fome,wouId be true, viz. That Chrift was the greateii Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater,

, B:aiphe-

126 ) Blafphemer. Thief, &c. in all the World, and con-fequently more hated of God, (for God muft needs hate a finner 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 nor Chrift, and therefore not fo to be reputed. Chrift was but the Mediator that undertook to fuffer for our fins, that we might be forgiven *, 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 5 but only our Keatum ¥xn&, or Debt of Pu~ nijhment) or (left the Wrangler make a verbal quarrel of it) our Keatum Culpa non qua talent & in /£, fed quatenus efi fundamentum Reatus pcen* : And fo his Rigbteoufnefs is ours s not numerically the fame Relation that he was the Subjedfc of made that Relation to us *, nor yttz Rigbteoufnefs of the fame Species as Chrift's is given us at all, ( for his was a Mediators Rigbteoufnefs, confifting in, 1. perfett Inmcency s 2. And that in the J^ri^r of the Jewish Lapp , which bind us not h 3, And in doing his peculiar Worlds , as Miracles , RefurreSion , &Cc. which were all His Rigbteoufnefs as a conformity to that Law, and performance of that Covenant, which was made with, and to him as Mediator). 'But his Rigbteoufnefs is the Meritorious Caufe and Rea-fon of another Righteoufnefs or Juftitication (di-Itind 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 Celf in its formal Relation to be his own, and fo

Chrift

Chrift to be formally as great a finner 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 Controvcrfie.

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 Jin > you muft know that it's true, That we cannot be bound to obey to the fame ends as Chrift did, C which is to redeem us , or to fulfil the Law of Works ) But yet we muji obey to other ends, viz. I#-gratitude, and to live to God, and to do geod, and other fuch like.

Anfxv. 1. 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 fpecies, much lefs numerically the fame.

2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckoned to have perfectly 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 Gratitude is a Duty or not •, If not, it is not truly Obedience, nor the omiffion fin : If yea, then that Duty was made a Duty by fome Law : And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude ( or

for

f 128 J

£qi 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 ourfelves, 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 finneth 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 Faiths 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 finner for not doing it.

3. Yea, the Gofpel binds us to that which Chrift could not do for us, it being a Contradiction. 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 flefti; <5. To confefs our felves fin-ners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want. p. To love God for redeeming us. 10. Sacramentally 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 Objection 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-

(129)

on, (and fo fuch Righteoufnefs neceflary in oijr felves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfe<3: Innocency, and be faved upon our fincere 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.

Objedt. 10. "the fame Perfon may be really a futner in bimfelf and yet perfe&ly innocent in Chrift y and by imputation.

Anfo. Remember that you fuppofe here the Per-fon and Subjeti to be the fame Man : And then that the two contrary Relations of perfeft Innocency^ or guiltlefnefs^ and guilt of any^ ( yea much fmj can be confident in him, is a grpfs contradiction. Indeed he may be guilty, and not guilty in fevcral partial refpedrs j but a perfection ot guiltlefnefs ex-cludcth all guilt. But wc are guilty of many a fin after Convulion, anJ need a Pardon. All that you fliould fay is this We are finners our fellies, but rve have a Medator that finned not-, who merited Pardon and Heaven for fmners.

2. Eufif you mean that God reputeth us to be perfe&Iy innocent when we are not, becaufe that Chriltwasfo, it is to impute Error to God : He rrp.it' th bo Mm to b: otherwifc than he is : But he doth indiei iirft give, aad then impute a Righte-qufneis Evangelical to us, initead of perfect InnOf crncy, winch tyall as cectainly bring us to Glory •, and tint is, He giyeth us both the-Renovation of

K his

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

iri us. ;

CHAP. VI.

'Ammmivergons on feme of Dr. T. Tullies Strictures.

§. i. T Suppofe the Reader defireth not to be wea-JL ried with an examination of all Dr. 2W-lies words, which are defective in point of Truth, Juflice, Charity, Ingenuity, or Pertinency to the Matter, but to fee an anfwer to thofe that by appearance of pertinent truth do require it, to dip abufe the incautelous Readers ; Though fomewhat by the way may be briefly faid for my own Vindication. And this Tradate being conciliatory, I think meet here to leave out moil: of the vpords^ and -pergonal part of his contendings, and alfo to leave that which concerneth the interefi of Worlds ( as they are pleafed to call Man's performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace) in our Juftifi-cation, to a fitter place, viz. To annex what I think needful to my friendly Conference with Mr. Chrifiopher Cartwright on the Subjed", which Dr. TuBes Aflault perfwadeth me to publiih.

§•2.

(ISO

§. 2. pag. 71. jM*/« Paulin. This Learned Doctor faith 3 | 'the Scripture mentioneth no Juftificati-on in foto Dei ** <*//, £#* *W 0#e, wWcfc is Abfolu-tion from the Maledi&ory Sentence of the Law.

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

Exod. 23. <5> 7. 'thou fhalt not wreft the Judgment of thy Poor in his Caufe : Keep thee far from a falfe Matter, and the Innocent and Righteous flay thou not 5 for I will not ]uftifre the wicl^d']. 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 juil, 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. Hoiv then can Man be jujlified with God ? or, Hm? can he be clean that U born of a Woman ? Is the fenfe, Hofr can Man be abfolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law ? ~| Or rather, [ How can he be maintained Innocent ? ]

Pfal. 143. 2. In thy fight (hall no Man living be jufiified* Is the fenfe, [ No Man living fhall be absolved from the Maledictory fentence of the Law ? Then we are all loll for ever: Or rather no Man fhall be found and maintained Innocent^and judged one that defrved not pinijhment~\\ (Therefore we are not judged perfect fulfillers of that Law by another or our felves ).

Objedt. But this is for us and againft you : for it denyeth that there is any fuch Jujlification.

Anfa* Is our Controverfie de re, or only de no-mine, of the fenfe of the word Juftifie I If de re y \ 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, (orelfehe writeth againft thofe that he underftood not> But if the Queftion be (asitmuftbe) denomine, whether the word Juftifie have any fenfe befides that which he appropriated to it, then a Propofition that denieth the Exi-jhntiam rei, may confute his denyal of any other fenfe of the word*

So Ifa. 43. p, 26. Let them bring forth their Wit-nejfes that they may jujiified: Declare thou that thou mayeji be jujiified j that is, proved Innocent.

But I hope he will hear and reverence the Son i Matth. 12. 37. By thy words thou (halt be Jujiified^ and by thy words thoufhalt be Condemned'] (fpeaking of Gods Judgment) which I think meaneth {de re & nomine) 'thy 'Righteous or unrighuous words (hall be a part of the Caufe of the day, or Matter,for or according to which, thou (halt be judged obedient or difobedient to the Law of Grace, and fo far juft or unjult, and accordingly ftntenced to Heaven or Hell, as isdefcribed Matth* 25. But it feems this Learned Doftor undcrftands it only, By thy words ihnt' Jhalt be abfolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condemned.

Lu\. 18. 14. The Publican [_went down to his Hoafe jujiified rather than the other ] •> I think not

only

d33)

only [ from the Maledittory Sentence of the Law of Innocency] but [ by God approved a fincere Penitent^ andfoa fit Subjed of the other part of Juftuica-tion.

Ads 13-30. is the Text that fpeaketh moft in the fenfe he mentioneth > And yet I think it inclu-deth more, viz. By Chriji-, 1. we are not only ab-folved from that Condemnation due for our fins i 2. but alfb we are by his repealing or ending of the Mofaick^Law juUihed againfl the Charge of Guilt for our not obferving it ^ and 3. Augujiine would add, That we are by ChriH's Spirit and Grace made juft (that is, fincerdy Godly) by the deftru&ion of thofe inherent and adherent fins, which the Law of Mofes could not mortihe and fave us from, but the Spirit doth.

Rom. 2. 13. Not the Hearers of the Law are juft before God y but the Doers of the Law Jhall be jujii-fied ]. Is it only, 'the Doers Jhall be Abfolved from the Maledittory Sentence., &c ? Or firft and chiefly, They Jhall be judged well-doers-, fo far as they do well-, and fo approved and juftitied, 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 >

Objedt. 'The meaning is, ( fay fome ) 'The Doers of the Law Jhould be jujlified by it > 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 fiiew, where the Gentiles are pronounced partakers of fome of that which he meaneth inclufively in doing to purification: There-

K 3 fore

( 134 ) fore it muft include that their Actions and Perfons

are fo far juftified, (more or lefs) as they are

Doers of the Law, as being fo far a&ively juft.

Rom. 8, 30. Whom be juftified, them he alfo glo~ rifted y And 1 Cor. 6* 11. Te are juftified in the Name of the Lord Jefus, and by the Spirit of our God. Many Proteftants, and among them Beza himfelf, expound (in thePapiftsand Auftins fenfe of Justification ) as including Sandification alfo, a* well as Abfolution from the Curfe : And fo Arch Bifhop VJher told me he underfxood them. As alfo *tiu 3. 7. "that being juftified freely by his (3 race.

And many think fo of Rom. 4. 5. he [[ jufiifietb the Vngodly ] fay they, by Converting, Pardoning, and Accepting them in Chrift to Life.

And Rom. 8-33. Who JhaV condemn ? it U God that juftifietb, £ttmtt\\to me more than barely to fay, God abfoiveth us from the Curfe, becaufe it is fet againft Man's Condemnation, ( who reproached, flandered and peffecuted the Chriftians as evil Doers, as they did Chrift, to whom they were pre-deftinated to be conformed ). And fo muft mean, God will not only abfolve w from his Curfe, but alfo juftifie our Innoccncy againft all thefalfe Accufati-ons of our Enemies. _ .

And it feemeth to be fpoken by the Apoftle, with refped to Ifa. 50. 8. He is near that juftifieth me, who 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 juftified fiiit, (&>ctftof&wTO ) which not only our Tranflaters, but almoft ail Expolltors take as in-

clufive

( *35 ) cluGve of Inherent Righteoufnefs, if not principally fpeaking of it*

To fpeak freely, I remember not one Text of Scripture that ufeth the word Q Jufiifie 1 in this Doctor's fenfe » that is, Only for the faid abfoluti-on from the Curfe of the Law : For all thofe other Texts that fpcak for jufiification 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, p, id, 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. GaU 2. 16, 17. & 3. 8, n> 24. & 5. 4, &c> ) do all feem to me to mean, not only ' that [ we are abfolved from the MalediUory Sentence of the Law ^, but alfo that we are firlt made, and then accounted Perfons firft meet lor Ab-folution, and next meet for God's Acceptance of us as juft, and as Heirs of Life Eternal, and meet for the great Reward in Heaven: For when the Apoftle denieth Jufiification by Works i 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 ~] y But alfo, No Man by the Works of the Law-, is before God taken for a Performer of the neceffary 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 Doctor fuppofeth James to mean, that [By Works a Man is abfolved from the MaledUiory Sentence of the Lawj and not by Faith only ~\. For that James fpeaks of Jufiification in foro Dei is paft all doubt ; And who would have thought that the Doctor had granted this of the Text of James ? But miflakes fcldom agree among themfelves.

Anfw. 3 • And would not any Man have thought

K 4 that

( 13* *

that this Author had pleaded for fuch an Imputatk on of ChriiVs Righteoufnefs, a^ juftifieth not only from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, but alfofrom the very guilt of fin as fin, we being reputed, ( not only pardoned finners, but) perfect 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 tome, 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 perfitt Innocency ? And yet that The Scripture mentioneth no Juftification at all-, in foro Dei, befides that one^ which is Abfolution from the Malediftory Sentence of the Law. But ftill miftakes have difcord withthemfelves.

AnftP. 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Ga-ia\er> Wotion^ Fifcator^ Paraus^ Vrfme^ Wende-line^ and abundance other excellent Divines, that as fins of omiifion are truly fin, and poena damnU or privations truly punifhment \ fi> for a finner for his fin to be denied God's Love and Favour, Grace and Glory, is to be punifhed =, and to be pardoned, is to have this privative punifhment remitted as well as the reft b and fo that Juftification contained} pur Right to Glory, as it is the bare forgivenefs of the penalty of fin 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 Dodor feemeth to be of the commoner Opinion, |hat the Rcmiffion of Sin is but one part of our JultiiicatiOD, and that by ■ Imputation of perfed:

Holinefs

( 137 )

Holinefs and Obedience wemuft have another part, which is our Right to the Reward* ( and I think a little Explication would end tfi3t 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 Abfulution from the Malediftory SV«-tence of the Law f

Anfa. 5. But indeed his very Defcription by Abfolution is utterly ambiguous : 1. Abfolution is either by AUual 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 actual 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 Judication 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 MaledilYion ? If he deny this, I refer him to my full proof of it, to Mr. Cart-wright and elfewhere. If not, we (hould 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-i 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 i or whether he mean the 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 fpeaking, and diftincft, that muft edifie us, and end thofe Controverfies which ambiguities and con-fufion bred and feed.

Anfa. 6* But which-ever he meaneth, moft certainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth no other Juftification in foro Veu For many of the fore-cited Texts tell us, that it oft mtntioneth a Juftification, which is no Abfolution from the Maledictory Sentence, (neither of the Law of Innocen-cy, of Mofes, or of Grace) but a Juftification of a Man's innocency in tantum, or quoad Caufam banc particularem^ Viz*

1. Sometimes a Juftifying the Righteous Man againftthe ilandersof 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 neceffary to God's Acceptance.

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

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

6. Sometimes for Juftification by Witnefi.

7. And fometimes, perhaps, by Evidence. As appeareth, Ifa^o. §. Rom. 8. 33. (and To God himfelf is faid to be juftifkd, PfaL 51. 4. R0W.3.4. and Chrift, 1 7w 3. 16. ) 1 King. 8. 32. Hear thou in Heaven, and do, and judg thy Servants, condemning the Wicked to bring his way upon his Head h

and

and justifying the Righteous* to give him according i& his Righteoufnefr, (where the Sentence is parted by the A& of Execution). Is this abfolving him from the Curfe of the Law > So i Chron* 6.23. fo Mat. 12.37. & jF.a«. 2. 21,24, 25. where Juftification by our Words and by Works is affcrted i and many other Texts fo fpeak : Frequently to Juftifie, is u> maintain one, or prove him to be juft. It's ftrange that any Divine fhould 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 [ prater imam Warn qu£ eji Abfolutio~\ he might mean, which is partly Abfolution, and partly Acceptation, as of a fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Chrift, and partly Right 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-fiances here prove that even fo it is very far from Truth, had he fo fpoken.

Anfw. 7. But what if the word [junification] had been found only as he affirmed ? If Juftice, ( Righteoufncfs) and Ju\}, be otherwife ufed, that's all one in the fenfe, and almoft in the word ^ feeing it is confefTed, that to Juftifie, is, 1. To make Juft h 2. Or to efteem Juji , 3. Or fentence Jnft., 4, Or to prove Juft, and defend as Juft * 5. Or to ttfe as Juft by execution. And therefore in fo many fenfes as a Man is called Juft in Scripture, he is inclufively, or by connotation, faid to be Jnfiified, and Jufiifiable, and Juftificandm. And I defire no more of the Impartial Reader, but to

turn

turn to his Concordances* and perufe all the Texts where the words [ Juft, Juftice, Juftly, Righreous > Righteoufnefs, Righteouily ] are ufed ; and if he find not that they are many (core, if not hundred times ufed, for that Righteoufnefs which is the Perfons Relation refulting from fome Adts or Habits of his own, (as the Subjedt or Agent ) and otherwife than according to his folitary fcnfe here, let him then believe this Author.

§. 3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs, as in his Angular uncrue Aflertion : " [ Rom. 8. 2, 4/ cc *tbe Law of the Spirit of Life* bath freed us from "the Law of Sin and of Death. Gal. 3. 13. God u fern bis Son* that the Righteoufnefs of the Law H might be fulfilled in us s Cbrift hath redeemed us "from the Curfe of the Law > and many more fuch: Here is no mention of any but one Legal Juftifica-tian ^].

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

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

Man

( Mi )

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 juiiifyiag a Man fo far as he is Innocent and Jutf againft all falie Accufation of Satan or the World,

3. The firft Text cited by him^Kom.S^^ downright contradicts him : Not only AugujHn^ but divers Proteftant Expofitors fuppofe, that by the Law of the Spirit of Life is meant, either the quictying Spirit it felf given to us that are in Chrift, or the Gofpel, as it giveth that Spirit into us \ And that by delivering us from the Law of Sin y is meant either from that fin which U as a Law within us y or Mofes LaWy 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 arecurfed by, and (o guilty, but chiefly that Law, as it is faid Rom. 7. to kjll Paul, and to occafion the abounding of fin, and the Life of it: And that by [ the fulfilling of the Law in us-, that wall{ not after the Fltjh, hut after the Spirit ]], is meant |[ that by the Spirit and Grace of Chrift, Chrifiians do fulfil the Law, as it requireth fin.ere Holincfs., Sobriety and Righteoufnefs, which God accepteth for Chrift's fake; vvfiich the Law of Mfes, without Chrift's Spirit, enabled no Man to fulfil 1., Not to weary the Reader with citing Expofitors, I now only de-fire him to perufe, Ludov* de Vieu 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 obfervarioa of it was not neceflary to the Gentiles, to their performance, or

JuQU

( 142 ) Juftification and Salvation, (necejjitate pacepti vel mediijy (for it would not jullihe the jews them-felvesj). Andfure, i. all his meaning is not, [The Law will not abfolve Men from the fenfe of the Law]. Bat alfo its Works will give no one the juft title of a Righteous Man, accepted of God, and faved by him, as judging between the Righteous and the wicked : (as Chrift faith, Mattb.25. The Righteous fhall go into Everlafting Ltfe^ Sec. ) 2. And if it were only the MalediUory Sentence of liiofes LaWjZS fuch,that Paul fpeaketh of Abfoki-fion from, as our only Juftification, then none but Jews and Profelites who were under thatLaw,could have the Juftification by Faith which he mention-eth *, 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 L&w of lapfed Nature, ( the relidfo of Adams Law of In-nocency) and the Curfe for Adams firft Violation > and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noahs and after perfected fullier by Chri(fc in its fecond Edition.

2. His other Text Q Chrift redeemed us from the Curfe of the Law ] proveth indeed that all Believers are redeemed from the Curfe of the firft Law of Innecency, and the Jews from the Curfe of Mofes Law (which is it that is Mreftly meant): But what's that to prove that thefc words fpeak the whole and the only Jufiiftcation ? and that the Scripture mentioned no other ?

§. 4. He addeth, [Lex eft qu<e prohibeth Lex qua pcenam decernii •> Lex qu& irrogat ; Veccatum efi tranfgrefiio Legrf : Fcena effellus ijiius trangrefjionis h Jnftificatio dmique abfoluti® ah ijia pcana: Itaque

cam

( *43 )

cam Lex nifi pr&ftita neminem Juftificat, & frtjli-tarn omnes in Cbrijio agmfcunt-> ant Legalis erit om-nit Jufiificatio coram Deo, aut omnino nulla "]•

An fa. 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 irreversible condemnation which the Law of Grace pafleth on them that never believe and repent > Doth this Law, £ He that believetb 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, Q Juftification is Abfolution from that Penalty ]. But is a Man abfolved (properly ) from that which he was never guilty of ? Indeed if he take Abfolution fo loofly as to fig-nifie, the juftifying a Managainft a falfe- Accusation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty *> So all the Angels in Heaven may pGflibly be capable of Abfolution : Juftihcation is ordinarily fo ufed, but Abfolution feldom by Divines, And his words fhew that this is not his fenfe, if I underftand them. But if we are reputed perfect fultillers of the Law of Innocency by Chritt, and yet JulHfication is cur Abfolution from the Curfe, then no Man is junified that is Righteous by that Imputation.

3. And how unable is my weak Underftanding, to make his words at peace with thcmfclves ? The fame Man in the next lines faith, [ Lex nifi pr<elli-ta neminem jufiificat: and all Jujtification before God muji be legal or none ^ j fo that no Man is juftificd but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law :

And

jf *44 )

And yet Jujiification is our Abfolution from the Pu-mfhment and MaJedi&ion of the Law j As if he faid, No Man is juftified but by the pardon of that fin which he is reputed never to have had, and Abfolution from that Curfe and Pumfhment which he is reputed never to have deferved or been under. Are thefe things reconcileable ? But if really he take Abfolution (ox juftifying or acquitting from a falfe Accufation,and foto beabfolved from the Malediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that never deferved it, or was under it, then it's as much as to lay, that there is no pardon of fin, or that no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Pardon, is juftified.

4. All this and fuch Speeches would perfwade the Reader that this Learned Difputer thinketh that I took and ufe the word [Xegal] generally as of that which is related to any Law in genere* and fo take Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, th3t ( fpeaking in the ufual Language that I may be un-derftood ) I take Q Legal | fyecially ( and not generally ) for that Righteoufnefs which is related to the L<m of JVorhj or Innocency, (not as if we had indeed fuch a Righteoufnefs as that Law will jufti-fie us forj But a pro-Legal-Righteoufxefs^ one in~_ fteadof it, in and by our perfed: Saviour, which fhall effedually fave us from that Laws condemnation): And that by \JLvangelhal Righteoufneff |, I mean, that which is related to the Law of Grace-, as the Rule of Judgment, upon the juft pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but juftifieus. If he knew this to be my meanings in my weak judgment, he (hould not have written either as if he

did

(145 )

did not, or as if he would perfwade his Rsaders to the contrary : For Truth is moft congruouily defended by Truth : But if he hjiew it not, I defpair of becoming intelligible to him, by any thing that I can write, and I {hall expeft that this Reply be wholly loft to him and worfe.

5^ His £ Lex nifi pr£liita neminem juftificat ^ is true > and therefore no Man is juftificd by the Law, But his next words [_ & prjsftitam omnes in Cbrifio agnofcunt ~] feemeth to mean that [_ It was performed by us in Cbrift ~] j Or that |[ It juftifietb us, becaufe -performed perftBly by Cbrijt as fucb ] ; Which both are the things that we moft confidently deny. It was not Phyfically, or Morally, or Politically, or Legally, or Reputativeiy, (take which word you will) fulfilled by us in Cbrift : it doth not juftifie us, becaufe it was fulfilled by Chrift, (as fucb, or immediately, and eo nomine). It juftified Cbrift, 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* to fulfil it by our fives or another: Therefore anothers Obedience, merely as fuch, ('even a Mediators) is not our Obedience or JulHncation : But that Obedience juftifieth us, as given us only in or to the effecting of ourPerfonal Righteoufnefs, which confiftech in our right to Impunity, and to God's Favour and . Life, freely given for (Chrift's Merits fake, and in our performance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace, or that free Gift, which is therefore not a co ordinate but a fub-ordinate Righteoufnefs ( and Juftmcation) to qualihe us for the former. This is fo plain and necefTary, that if ( in fenfe ) it be not underttood by all that are admitted to the Sa-

cramental Communion, (excepting Verbal Contro verfies or Difficulties) I doubt we are too lax in our

admiilions.

§ <>. Next he tells us of a threefold refiett of Juftification : I* Ex parte principiu 2. 'termini. 3. Medii : ( I find my felf uncapeable of teaching him, that is a Teacher of fuch as I, and therefore prefume not to tell him how to diftinguifh more congruoully, plainly,* and properly, as to the terms). And as to the Principle or Fountain whence it ftoweth, that is, Evangelical Grace in Chrift^ he faith, It is thus neceffary, that in our lapfed State all Juftification be Evangelical ],

Anfw. Who would defire a foarper or a fofter, a more dijfenting or a more confenting Adverfary ? Very good : If then I mean it ex parte principti^ I offend him not by afferting 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 laycth on them, and the calling up the Chri-ilian World to arrive by their Zeal againft cur Phrafe ? Muft the Church be awakened to rife up againft all thofe that will fay with Chrift, £ By thy words thou (halt be jujlified~]. And with James, [_ By Worlds a Man U jujlified-, and not by Faith only\ and [_ we are judged by the Law of Liberty ] , and as Chrift, J^h^. 22. £ the Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment totthe Son ~| > and that (hall recite the 25*/; Chapter of Matthew.

Even now he faid at once, Q there is no Juftification inforoDei, but Abfolution, &c the Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us^ &c. Here is no

men-

( *47 ) .

mention of any Justification but Legal ]. And now £ All our Justification ex parte princ pii, is only Evangelical ]. So then w 2Var* calks of Evangelical Jufrification-, or of Juftificarion ex parte prin-cipii: And Absolution which definethi 1 , is named ex parte principiu And yet all Ju(lification is Evan* gelical* Is this mode of Teaching worthy a Defence by a Theological War ?

2. But Reader, Why may not I denominate Ju-ftification ex parte principii ? Righteoufnefi isfor-malfy a Relation: To juftifieconftitutively, is to make Righteous. To be Juftified,' Cor Juftificarion in fenfit pajjivo ) is to be made Righteous > And in foro^ to be judged Righteous : And what meaneth he by Vrincipium as to a Relation, but that which other Men call the Fundamentum^ which is loco Efficients ^ or a remote efficient ? And whence can a Relation be more fitly named, than from the fun-damentum-i whence it hath its formal being ? Reader, bear with my Error, or correct it, if I miftake. I think that as our Righteoufnefs is not all of one fort, no more is the fundamentum: i. I think I have no Righteoufnefs, whofe immediate funda-mentum is my finlefs Innocency, or fulfilling the Law of Works or Innocency, by my felf or another : and fo I have no fnndamentum of fuch. 2. I hope I have a Righteoufnefs confining in my perfonal Right to Impunity and Life h and that Jns or Right is mine by the Title of free Condonation and "Donation by the Gofpel-Covenaut or Grant: And fo that Grant or Gofpel is the fnndamentum of it; But the Merits of Chrirt's Righteoufnefs purchafed that Gift, and fothofe Merits are the rerqiote fun-damentum or efficient : And thus my J unification,

L 2 by

(i 4 S) by the Dodoes confeffion, is Evangelical. 3. I muft perifli if I have not alfo a fubordinate perfo-nal Righteoufnefs, confiding 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 Heretie, if I be heretical \ and be it right or wrong, I will make it intelligible, and not by faying and unlaying, involve all in confulion. •

§. 6* Headdeth, \_Ex parte "termini Le-galU eft, quia terminatur in fatisfatiione, Legi prtflauda : Liberavit me a Lege mortis, &c. And hence*, he faith, the denomination U properly taken.

Anfw. 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 properly to be taken from the Terminus ? Is it as dangerous as you frightfully pretend to take it aliunde ? 2. But (lay a little : Before we come to this, we muft crave help to underftand what hetalkethof; Is it, -i. Jujlificatioijuftificans (*a£live fumpta) > Or, 2. Ju(iificatio Juftificati (paffive) ? 3. Or Juftitia ?

1. The firft is Afiio-, and the Terminus of that AdHon is two-fold, 1. The Objedt or Patient (a believing Sinner). 2. The Effect, Juftificatiopaf-five, neither of thefe is the Law^ or its Maleditii-on. But which of thefe is it that we muft needs name it from ?

•2. The pafjive ox effective Juftification is in rc-fpecfi of the Subjects Reception called Pafio; In

xefpe&

(149) refped of the form received, it is as various as I

before mentioned.

i. The Effed of the Donative Justification of the Law of Grace, is Jujiitia data > a Relation (oft defcribed).

2. TheEflfed: of the Spirits giving us Inherent Righteottfnefsi is a Quality given, Ads excited, and a Relation thence refulting.

3. The Etfedt of Jujiification per fententiam Judicis, is immediately a Relation, Jus Judication*

4. The Effed of an Advocates Juftification, is Jujiitia & perfna ut defenfa feu vindicata.

5. The Eflfcdt of Executive Justification^ is Actual Impunity or Liberation. And are all thefe one Terminus, or hence one name then > Thefe are the termini of Jujlificatio Jujiificamvs, ut Attionii \ 2nd nothing of this nature can be plainer, than that, i. Remiflion of fin (paflively taken) the Reatus or Obligatio ad fxnam, (the firfl ad quem^ and the fe-cond a quo) are both the immediate 'termini of our Avfl of Jnftihcation. 2. That the terminus Jujii-tix^ as it is the formal Relation of a Juftified Per-fon, as fuav, i^ the Law as Norma AUionum, as to Righteous Adtions, and the L3W or Covenant making the Condition of Life, as tothofe Adtidns, fub ratione Condition* & tituli. And the Promiffo-ry and Minatory part of the Law, as Jujiitia is Jus przmii, & impunitatis. Firft, The Actions, and then the Pcrfon are ]ut\ in Relation to the Law or Covenant, by which their Anions and they are to be judged. But the remoter terminus is the malum a quo^ and therbonum ad quod. And as a quo, it is not only the evil denounced, but alfo the

L 3 Reatus^

k *5° ) Meatus, or Obligation to it, and the efficacious Aft 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-Itieft, either ftill he taketh legal generally , as comprehending the Law of Innocency, of Worlds ', and of Grace, or not? If he do, I muft hope he is more intelligent and juft, than to infinuate to his Header, that f ever mention an Evangelical Justification that is not fo legal, as to be denominated from the Law of Grace, as difiindt from that of Works: If not, he was indebted to hi^ intelligent Reader for fome proof, that.no Man is juftified againft this fahe Accufation * [ Thou art by the Law of Grace the Heir of a far forer punifhment, for defpifing 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 Giace]. But no fuch proof is found in his Writings, nor can be given.

I!L But his (~ Quia 'terminatur in fatisfaliione X<egi. prgftanda ~L I confefs it is a Sentence not very intelligible or edifying tome. i. SatisfaUio pro-prie &> firittc fie ditta differt a foluiione ejufdem quod fit, folutio gquivalentis alias indebiu : Which of thefe he meaneth, Satisfa&ion thus ftri&ly taken, ox folutio ejufdem, I know not: Nor know what *t is that he meaneth by Legi prajlanda : In-dced^fdlutio ejyfdem is Legi prajlanda, but not prt-$ita by us (perfonally or by another) ; For we neither ,kept the Law, nor bare the full Penalty v And

the

C 151 )

the Law mentioned no Vicarium Obediently aut pcem > Chrift performed the Law> as it obliged him-felf as Mediator, and as a Subject, but not as it eb-liged us '■> for it obliged us to Perfonal performance only : And Chrift by bearing that Punifhment ( in fome refpedls) which we deferved, iatisfied the Law-giver, (who had power to take a Commutation) but not the Law : unlefs fpeaking improperly 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 tantundcm : And ChrifFs fuffering for us, was a fulfilling of 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 fuffer : For fo it bound none but us \ fo that the Law as binding us to Duty or Sufferings was neither fulfilled, nor ftriitly fatisfied by Chrift '•> but the Law-giver fa-tisried, and the remote ends of the Law attained, by Chrift's perfect fulfilling all that Law which bound himfclf as Mediator.

Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Punifkmem, or both, and what by fa-xifaUion I am not fure : But as far as I can make fenfe of it, it feeneth to mean, that Poena is fatif-factio loco obediently and that Punifnment beingour Due, this was fatisfaaio Legi pr&}ianda<> (for he fiith not Prtjiita). But then he mult judge that we are juftified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfeit Obedience. And this will not ftand with the fcop: of other PalTages, where he endureth not

L 4 my

( W )

my Opinion, that we are not jufiified by the fac hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Keatus Culpa in fe, but by ChrilVs whole Righteoufnefs from the Reatus ut ad p&nam.

2. But if this be his fenfe, he meaneth then that it is only the 'terminus a quo*> that Jujiification is properly denominated from. And why fo ? i. As Jujiitia and Jffftiftcatio paffivefumpta^ vel ut ejfe£}us y isKelatio-) it hath neceflarily no "terminus a quo* And certainly is in fpecie^ to be rather denominated from its own proper terminus ad quern. And as Juftification is taken for the Juftifiers Al\ion\ why is it not as well to be denominated from the terminus adquem, as a quo ? Jujiificatio efficiens (ic dicitur y quia Juftum facit: Jujiificatio apologetica^ quia Jujium vindicat vel probat. Jujiificatio per fententi-am^ quiafujiurn aliquem ejft Judicat : Jujiificatio executiva, quia ut Jujium eum traUat.

But if wemuft needs denominate from the terminus a quo^ how ftrange is it that he fhould know but of one fenfe of Jujiification ?

3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, [_Jn fatisfattione Juegi prtjiita, though he (ay pr^fianda^ and fo de-nominateth from the terminus a quo : But iffo, l» Then it cannot be true ; For fatisfacere & Ju-

fiificare are not the fame thing, nor is Jujiifying giving Satisfaction* nor were wfe juftified when Chriit had fatisfied, but Ions after : Nor are we juftified eo nomine^ becaufe Chrift fatisfied, (that is, immediately) but becaufe he gave us that Jus adimpunitatem & vitam & jpiritum fan£ium y which is the Fruit of his Satisfa&ion. 2. And as is faid, if it be only in fatisfaUione^ then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it

bound

bound us : for to fatisfie tor not fulfilling, is not to fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is jufiiried, 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 Liberavil nos a Lege Mortis, I before (hewed impertinent to his ulc, Is Liberate & Juftificare, or Satisfacere all one ? And is a Lege Mortify either from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the fole malcdi^ion ? There be other Acts of Liberation befides Satisfaction : For it is f ibe Law of the Spirit of Life ] that doth it : And we are treed both from the power of indwelling-fin-* (called a Law) and from the Mofaical Yoak, and from the Tmpof-fible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.

§. 7. Headdetha Third, Ex parte Medii, quod eft Jujiitia Cbrijii Legalis nobis per fidem Imputats: Omnem itaque Juftificatibnem proprie Legalem ejfe conftat.

Atifxv* 1. When I read that he will have but one fenfe or fort of Juftirication, will yet have the Denomination to be extermino, and fo julHfiethmy diltinCtion of it, according to the various "termini h And h:re how he tnaketh the Rightecufnefs of Chrift to be but the MEVWMof our ]unification, (though he ihould have told us which fort of Medium he meaneth) he feemcth to me a very favourable confenting Adverfary : And I doubt thofe Divines who maintain that Chrift's Rignteoufnefs is the Caufa Formalis of our Juflification, (who are no (mail ones, nor a few, though other in anfwer to thePapiftsdifclaimit) yea, and thofe that make it

but

(in;

but Caufa Materiality (which may have a found fenfe) will think this Learned Man betraye'th their Caufe by prevarication, and feemeth to fet fiercly againftme, that he may yeeld up the Caufe with lefs fufpicione But the truth is, we all know but in part, and therefore err in part, and Error is incon-lifterit with it felf. And as we have confli&ing Flefh and Spirit in the Wi% fo have we confli&ing Light and Dartyefi, Spirit and Flefh in the Under-/landing * And it is very perceptible throughout this Author's Book, that in one line the Flefh and Varkpefi faith one thing, and in the next oft the Spirit and Light faith the contrary, and feeth not the inconfiftency : And fo though the dark^ and flejhy part rife up in wrathful driving 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 Chrht's Righteoufnefs is a Medium of our Justification, (for fo alfo is Faith a Condition-* and Difpofitio Receptiva being a Medium) '■> nor only fome Caufe^ (for ib alfo is the Covenant-Donation) ; but that it is an efficient meritorious Caufe, and be-caufe if Righteoufnefs had been that of our own, Innocency would have been founded in Merits we may call Chrift's Righteoufnefs the material Caufe of our Juftification, remotely, asitjs Materia Meriti, the Matter of the Merit which procureth it,

2. But for all this it followeth not that all Julli-fication is only Legal? as Legal noteth itsrefpedt to the Law of Innocency: For i„ we are juftined from or againft ehe Accufatlon of being non^per-foimers of the Condition of the Law of Grace \

( 155 )

2. And of being therefore unpardoned, and lyable to its forer Penalty. 3. Our particular fubordi-nate Perfonal Righteoufnefs contifHng in the faid performance of thofe Evangelical Conditions of Lite, is fo denominated from its conformity to the Law of Grace, fas it infrituteth its own Condition) as the meafure of it, (asReaitudo ad Regu-lam). 4. Our Jut ad impunitatem & vitam^ reful-teth from the Donative A3: of the Law or Covenant of Grace, as the Titvlus qui efi Fundamentum Jurti^ or fuppofition 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. 6. The fame Judg doth now per fententiam concept am judg of us, as he will then judg per fententiam prola-tarn. 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in the Law, this fame Law of Grace, which in primo inllanti doth make us Righteous^ ( by Condonation and Donation of Right) doth in fecundo inftanti> virtually jultifie 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 lit de nomine that is by him managed). 8. Bcildes that the whole frame of Caufcs in the Work of Redemption, (the Redeemer, his Righteoufnefs, Merits, Sacrifice, Pardoning Ad\ Interceilion, &c. ) are fure rather to be called Matters of the Gofpel, than of the Law.

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

2. That

2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death, ac* 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 necefTary terms of Life, and from its Obligation of us to Death, for want of Innocency): But we are not juftified by thatLaw,either as fulfilled or as fatisfied by us our felves, either perfonally or by an Inftru-tnent, fubftitute or proper Representative, that was Vicatius ObedientU aut pcen<e* 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 refpe&s to call Juiification Legale we intend not to quarrel with the name, (though what I called Legal in thofe Aphorifms, I chofe ever after to call rather, Jujiitia po-legalis). But we cannot believe him, I* That it is only Legal \ 2. Or that that is the only (or mod) proper denomination.

§• 8. Heproceedeth thus, \Andit will be vainjf any argue, 'That yet none can be faved without Evangelical Works, according to which it U confejfed that all men Jhall be judged : for the diftinttion U eafie {which the Author of the Aphorifms fomewhere ufeth) between the firji or Private, and the laji or Publicly

purification* In the firji fenje it is never faid^that

Works jujiifie, but contrary, *fhat God juftifietb him that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5- In the latter we confefs that Believers are to be jufiified according to Works, but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Jujlift-cation maketh men jujl before God, but only jo J>ro-nounceth them.

Anjw. 1. This is fuch another Consenting Ad-

verfary

v 157 ;

verfary as once before I was put to anfwer v who with open mouth calls himfelf confequentially what he calleth me '•> if the fame Caufe, and not the P*r-fon make the Guilt. Nay let him confidei whether his grand and molt formidable Weapon [ So alfo faith Bellarmine, with other Papijis ] do not wound himfelf: For they commonly lay, That the firjl Justification is not of Workj, or Wvr\s do not fir ft ju-fiifre us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papifts 1 If not, let him ufe better Arguments himfelf.

2. But why is the firft Justification called Private ? Either he meaneth God's making us juft con-fiitutively-i or his judging us fo : and that per fen-tentiam concept am only, or prolatambKo.

i. The common diftindtion in Politicks, inter judicium Privatum & Publicum^ is fetcht from the fudgt who is either Perfona privata vel publica : a private Man, or an authorized Judg judging as fuch : And fo the Judgment of Confcience,t riends, Enemies, Neighbours, mere Arbitrators, &c 4 is Judicium privatum j and that ot a Judg in foro, is Judicium publicum, (yea, or in fecret, before the concerned Parties only in his Clofet, foit be deci-five): If this Learned Do&or fo underftand it, then, i. Conftitutive Jujlification (which is tru-Jy firft ) is publick Juftihcation, being done by God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who fure are not herein private authorized Perfons. 2. And the firft Sentential Juftificatim, as merely Virtual* and not yet A&ual, viz. as it's virtually in the ju-fxifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publicly in fuo genere, being the virtus of a Publick Law of God, or of his Donative Promife* 3* And the

firft

firft Actual J unification y per Veum Judicem pet fententiam conceptam (which is God's fecret judging the Thing and Perfonto be 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 /?»-tentia prolata ( the fourth in order ) is fomeway publick as oppofite to fecrefie, (for, 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven •> 2. And in part by Executive demonftrations on Earth): But it is certainly by a public}^ Judg, that is, God. 5. And the firft A ^Apologetical Jujlificafion by Chrift our Interceding Advocate, is publick both quoad perfonam, and as openly done in Heaven : And if this worthy Perfon deny any Justification per fententiam Judicis, upon our firft Believing, or before the final Judgment, he would wofully fall out with the far greateft number of Proteftants, and efpecially his clofeft Friends, who ufc to make a Sentence of God as Judg to he the Genus to Juftification.

But if by £ Private and Fublick^ Justification ] \ he means [_ fecret and open ~}< 1. How can he hope to be underftood when he will ufe Political Terms unexplained, out of theufual fenfe of Politicians: But no men ufe to ahufe words more than they that wonld keep the Church in flames by wordy Contro-verfies, as if they were of the terms of Life and Death. 2. And even in that fenfe our firft Juftification is public^ or open, quoad Afium JujUfican-cantis^as being by the Donation of a publick Word of God h Though quoad cjfeZlwn in recipiente, it xnuft needs be fecret till the Day of Judgment, no Man knowing anothers Heart, whether he be indeed a found Believer: And So of the reft as is intimated.

Con-

Concerning what I have fdid before, fome may Objedt, i. That there it no fnch thing as our Jnjlifi-cation notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2, 'that the Sententia Concepta it God's Immanent A£is, and therefore Eternal.

An fa. To the firft, I fay, j. It is certain by Lnk. 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 Dijputation of purification, where I do give my thoughts, That this is not the Juftification by Faith meant by Paul, as Mr. Tombes aflcrteth it to be.

To the Second, I fay, Too many have abufed Theology, by the mifconceiving of the diftin&ion of Immanent and Tranfient Afts of God, taking all for Immanent which effedfc nothing ad extra. But none are properly Immanent quoad ObjeUum, but i uch as God himfelf is the Object of, ( as fe in-telligere, fe amare ) : An A& may be called indeed immanent in any of thefe three refpe&s^ 1. Ex parte Agent'n i 2. Ex parte Objefii ; 3. Ex parte effeauf. 1. Ex parte agentis, all God's A#s are Immanent, for they are his Eflence. 2. Ex parte Ob)eVtivel Termini, God's Judging a Man Juft or Unjuft, Good or Bad, is tranfient> becauie it is denominated from the ftate of the Terminus or Object : And fo it may be various and mutable deno-minatively, notwithftanding God's Simplicity and Immutability. And fo the Sententia Concepta is wot ab lEterno. 3. As to the Effect, all confcfs God's Acts to be Traniient and Temporary. But there are fome that effeil not (as to judg a thing to be whatitis\ . 3. Either

3- Either this Militant Difputer would have his Reader believe that I fay, That a Man is juftifiedby IVbrks, in that which he called [making jufl, and the firji Jujiifica'iPH^ or not: if he would, fuch untruth and uwrighteoufiteft (contrary ro the full drift of many of my Books , and even that which he feledted to oppofe) is not a congruous way of difputing for "truth and Rigbteoufnefs : nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modett. If not, then why doth he all along carry his profeflcd agreement with me, in a militant ftrain^perfwading his Reader, that I favour of Socinianifmor Popery, or feme dangerous Error, by faying the very fame that he faith. O what thanks doth God's Church owe fuch contentious Difputers for (lippo-fed Gr/hodoxnefs, that like noctarnbuli, will rife in their fleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an AJlarm on their Drums, and cry out, *The Enemy, T'he 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 ) thele following Ailertions about Works.

i. That we are never juftified, firftorlaft, by Works of Innocemy

2. Nor by the Work* of the Jewifli Law (which Paul pleadcth againft).

3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of Commutative Juftice, or of diftribxtive Governing Juftice, according to cither of thofe Laws (of In-nocency^ or Jewijb).

4. Nor by any Works or A&s of Man, which are fee againft or inftead of theleaft part of God's

A&s,

A&s, Chrift's Merits, or any of his part or ho* nour.

5. Nor are we at firft juftified by any Evangelical Works of Love, Gratitude er Obedience to Chrijt, as Worlds are diitinguifhed from cur firft Faith and Repentance.

<5. Nor are we juftified by Repentance, as by an inftrumental efficient Caufe, or as of the lame re-ceivingiNature with Faith, except as Repentance fignifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith, *and fo is Faith it felf.

7. N01 are we juftified by Faith as by a mere Aft, or moral good Work.

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

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

10. And lead of all, by Popifh bad Works, called GojJj (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Aufteriries, &c.)

But if any Church r troubling Men will firft call all AQs of Man's Soul by the pame cf WORKS, and next will call no Aft by theTname of Jujlifying Faith, but the belief of the Promife ( as fome ) or the accepting of Cbrifrs Righteoilfnefs given or iw-putedtousy as in fe, our own (as others) or [the Recumbency on this Righteoufnefs ] ( as others ) or all thefe three Acis ( as others ) '•> and if next they will fay that this Faith jufiifietb us only as the proper Instrumental Caufe \ and next that to look for Juftification by any other Aft of Man's Soul, or bf this Faith in any other refpeft, is to truft to that Juftification by IVorVs, which Paul confuteth, and to fall from Grace, I do deteft fuch corrupting and

M abufing

abufing of the Scriptures,and the Church of Chrift. And I aflfert as followeth >

i. That the Faith which we are juftified by, doth as effentially contain our belief of the Truth of Chrift's Perfon, Office, Death, Refusion, lb-terceffion, &c. as of the Promife of Imputation.

2. Arid alfo our confent to Chrift's Teaching, Government, Interceflion, as to Imputation.

3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spffit, 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 effentially fomewhat of Initial Love to God, to Chrift, to Recovery, to Glory j that is, of Volition ', and fo of Defire.

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

7. That we are juftified by this Faith, as it is £ A moral Att of Man, adapted to its proper Office, made by our Redeemer, the Condition of his Gift of Jujiification, and fo U the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject, or the Vijpofitio materia vel fubjefii Re-cipientii] : Where the Matter of it is [An adapted moral Aft of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio forma-lis of its Intereft in our Juftification is [ Conditio pr£f}ita~\ fpeaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel jDijpofnio maralti Receptiva ] fpeaking logically 5 which Dr. "fwifs ftill calleth Caufadijpofitiva.

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).

9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued, as well as initially juftified by its firft Aft.

10. That as this Faith includcth a confent to future Obedience •> (that is, Subjection) fo the performance of that confent in fwcere Obedience, is the Condition of our Justification as continued (Secondarily) as well as Faith (or confent it felfj 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. And his Law being Norma judicii> now ver-tually judgeth us juft on thtfe 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 J 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 juftifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified, by and for the Merits, perfedt Righteoufnefs and Sacrifice of Chrift, which procured the Covenant or free Gift of IJniveifal Conditional Juftifica-tion 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 j I meddle with no other. If this oe Juftification by Works, I am for it% If this Do&or be againft it, he is againft much

<i*4)

of the Gofpel, If he be not, he had better have kept his Bed, than to have call'd 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 (hort explication of our fenfe, and rejection of ambiguities,- is fitter to end thefe quarrels, than the long difputations of Confounders.

4* But when be faith, [Worfy make not a Man juftj and yet we are . at laft juftified according to them ], it is a contradiction, or unfound. JFor if he mean Wor\s in the fence excluded by Paul, we are not juftified according to\bem y viz. fuch as make, or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt: But if he take Workj in the fenfe intended by Jamesincere Obedience is afecon-dary confiituti'tie part of that inherent or adherent per-fonalRighteoufnefs^ required by the Law of Grace, in fubordination to Chrifi 7 s Meritorious Righteoufnefsh And what Chriftian can deny this ? So far it maketh us Righteous, (as Faith doth initially). And what is it to be juftified according to our Wor\s y 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 Lite ?

5. His [_ According"] but not [exoperihus'] at the Laft Judgment, is but a Logomachie [~ According J| fignifieth as much as I afTert: But" £ ex ] is no unapt Prepofition, when it isfcyat theiubor-dinate part of Righteoufnefs and Justification, of which we fpeak, and fignifieth (with me) the fame as [ According ~). ^

<5. His Tropical Phrafe, that ^fforkj pronounce us jufi ] is another ambiguity : That the Judg

will

(16$)

will pronounce us jufi according to them, as the fore-faid fecond part of the Conjiitutive Caufe, or Matter of our Subordinate Kighteoufnefs, is certain from Mattb.25. and the fcope of 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, Q If there be an 'Evangelical Juftification at God's Bar, diftincl from the legal one, there will then alfo be in each an abfolution of divers fins : For if the Gojpsl forgive the fame fins M the Law, the fame thing will be done, and a double Juftification will be unprofitable and idle* If from divers fins, then the Law forbids not the fame things as the Gofpel, &c.^

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

i. It's a falfe Suppofition, That all Juftification is Abfolution from fin : To juftihe the fincerity of our Faith and Holinefs, is one a£l or part of our Juftification, againft all ( pofiible or adual) falfe Accufation.

2. The Law of Inndcency commanded not the Believing Acceptance of Chrift's Righteoufnefs and Pardon, and fo the Remnants of that Law in the hand of Chrift ( which is the Precept of perfeft Obedience de futuro ) commandeth it only confe-quently, fuppoting the Gofpel-Promife and Institution to have gone before, and fekdfod this as the terms of Life > fo that as a Law in genere (exiilent only in jpeciebxs*) commandeth Obedience, and the Law of Innocency in fyecie commanded [ pcrfoud

M 3 pcrfeft

C 166 )

perfett perpetual Obedience^ the Condition of Life'] ? fo the Gofpel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer^ as the new Condition of Life : on which fuppofiti-on, even the Law of lapfed Nature further ob-ligeth 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 isaforefaid.

§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical Juftification are fyecie dijiintt) then fo are the Courts in which vpe are -juftified. —- If diftinU and fubordi-nate, and fo he that is juftified by the Law> is juftified 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 jufiifieth us Jj, who have voluminously 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 perfed Righte-oufnefs of Chrift our Surety, conform to the Law of Innocency j by which he was juftified (though not abfolved and pardoned) : I call it [pro Legalis )uftiua\ becaufe that Law doth not juftifie us for it ( but Chrift only ) but by it given us ad ejfefta by the New-Covenant * we are faved and juftified from the Curfe of that Law, or ftom Damnation, as certainly as if we had done it our fclves: I call

Faith

Faith our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, on the Rea-fons too oft mentioned. Now thefe may be called 7n?0 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 Adfcs, may not be at once#tranfaukd at the lame 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 Man's Caufe be judged at the fame Bar ? And why fnuft your Pupils be (aught fo to conceive of fo great a bufinefs,in itfelf fo plain?

§. 11. He proceedeth, £ The Vfe of this Evangelical Juftification is made to be, that vpe may be made partakers of the Legal purification out of us, in Chrifl : And fo our purification apply eth another Jw-ftification, and our Remijjion of fins another.

Anfvp. No Sir \ buc our particular fubordinate fort of Kighteoufnefs, confifting in the performance of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz. a believing fuitable Acceptance) is really our Vifpfitio receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that Pardon and Glory, which for Chrift's Righteoufnefs if freely given us. And our perfonal Faith and Sincerity muft be juftified, and we in tantum, before our Right toChrift, Pardon apd Life can be juftified in foro.

M 4 2. Ar.d

% %

* i6*;

'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-fcured and oppofed, when laying by the quarrels about mere words, I am confident you deny none of this.

§. 12. Headdeth, [then Legal Juftification if nothing but a bare word, feeing unapplyed j as to the Matter it U nothingy as it is not called Healing by a Medicine not applyed *, nor was it ever heard that one Healing did Apply another ].

Anfw. Alas, alas, for the poor Church, if this be the Academies beft! forrow muft excufe my Complaint! If it be an Argument it muft tyn thus: If Legal (or pro-legal) Righfeoufnefs (that is, our pare in Chrift's Righteoufhefs) be none to us (or none of our Juftification) when not-applyed, than it is none alfo when it is applyed! But, &c*

Anfw* It is none till applyed : Chrift's Merits, or Legal Righteoufhefs -juliifie himfelf, but not us till applyed : (Do you think otherwife, or do you wrangle againft your felf ? ) But I deny your Consequence : How prove you that it is none when ap~ plyed therefore ? Or the Cure is none when the Medicine is applyed ?

Perhaps you 5 ] fay, Thac then our Perfonal Righ-ieoufnefs-) and fubordinate J'unification, is ours before Chrift's Righteoufnefs, and fo the greater de-pendeth on, and followeth the lefs.

r Anfa* I. ChrifPs 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 h And the nature of a Condition, is to fufyend the ejfett of the Donation till performed. 4. Therefore the performance goeth before the faid Effect and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any caufe of it, bat a removal of the fujpenfwn ; nor hath the Donation any other dependance on it. And is not all this beyond denial with Ptrfons not ftudioufly and learnedly milled ?

But you fay, It wm never beard that one Healing apply ed another.

Anfiv. And fee you not that this is a lis de nomU 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 \ 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 Subordinates perfonal Righteoufnefi ( 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 j but neverthelefs the Condition of other Fruits.

If you fay that our Faith or Performance is not

to

to be called Rigbteoufnefs > I refer you to my An-fwcr to Mr. Cartvprigbt > And if the word Rigbteoufnefs be not ofter (ten to one ) ufed in Scripture for fomewhat Perfonal, than for Chuffs Righte-oufneft imputed, then think that you have faid fomething.

If you fay, But it jujliftetb not as a Rigbteoufnefs, but as an Inftrumenu I Anfwer, i. I have faid dfewhere fo much of its Instrumentality, that I am afhamed to repeat it. 2. It jujiifietb not at all, (for that fignifieth efficiency) * but only maketh us capable Recipients. 3. We are jujiified by-it as a medium, and that is a Condition performed ( as aforefaid ) : And when that Condition by a Law is made both a Duty and a Condition of Like, the performance is by neceflary refultancy T a Righte-oufnefs J. But we are not juftified by it> as it is a Rigbteoufnefs in genere i nor as a mere moral Virtue or Obedience to the Law of Nature i but as it is the performance of the Condition of the Law of Grace > and fo as it is this -particular Rigbteoufnefs, and no other.

§. 13. |£,fij Legal Juflificatim (faith he) ta-tyn precifely^ either there ps Remiffion of fin, or not :. If not. What Juflification is that ? |jf yea> then Evangelical Jujiification is not neceffary to the application of it \ becaufe the Application is fuppofed> &cf\

Anfvp. 1. What I ufually call \ Evangelical Rigbteoufnefs ] he fuppofeth me to call purification \ which yet is true, and found, but fuch as is before explained. t

2. This

( *7* )

2. This is but the fame again, and needeth no new anfwer h The performance of the Condition is flrangely here fuppofed to follow the Right or Be-nefit of the Gift or Covenant: If he would have the Reader think I faid fo, he may as ingenioufly tell,that I deny all Juftification ; If not, what mean-eth he ?

CHAP. VII.

Dr. Tullies (Quarrel about Imputation of Ghrifts Righteoufnefi^ conjidered.

§. i. /^Ap. 8. pag. 79* he faith, £ Becaufe no VJ Man out of Socinus School, hath by his Dictates more Jharply exagitated this Imputation of Righteoufnefs, than the Author of the Aphorifms , and it is in all mens hands, we thinly meet to bring into a clearer Light, the things objefftd by him (or more truly his Sophi(lical Cavils) whence the fitter ProjpeEl may be taken pf almofl the whole Contro~ verfiel.

Atfrv. That the Reader may fee by what Weapons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace, and profligate brotherly Love *, let him conifer how many palpable Untruths are in thefe few Lines, even in matter of Fa£t.

i. Let him read Dr. Gell, Mr! Tbowdike, and by his own confeffion* the Papifts ( a multitude of

them)

( *7* )

diem ) and tell me true, that [ No Man out of So-cinus School hath, &c/]-- To fay nothing of many late Writings near us.

. %. If I have, i. never written one word againft [ Imputation of Rigbteeufnefs ~) there or elfewhere ; 2. Yea, have oft written for it > 3. And if thofe very Pages be for it which he accufeth v 4. Yea, if there and elfewhere I write more for it than Olevi-An* Vrfine, Partus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Tifcator-, and all the reft of thofe great Divines, who are for the Imputation only of the Paffive Righteoufnefs of Chrift, when I profefs there and often, to concur with Mr. Bradjhaw, Grotim, and others that take in the A&ivealfo, yea and the Habitual, yea and iDivine refpe&ively, as advancing the Merits of the Humane > If all this be notorioufly true, what Epithets vill you give to this Academical Dodtors 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 fince written by roe purpofely, fully opening my mind of the fame things > all which he paiTeth wholly by, fave a late Epiitle > what credit is to be 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.jf- [Hehenceajfauketh the Sentenceof the Reformed', becaufe it fuppofcth, M he faith, that we were in Chrift, at leaft, legally before we believed^ or were bom. But what proof of the conference doth

he

( m )

he bring ?~] ( The reft are but his Reafons againft the Confequences, and his talk againfi me , as pouring out Oracles-, &c )

Anfw. i. Is this the mode of our prefcnt Academical Difputers, To pais by the ftating of the Controveifie, yea, to filence the ftate of it, as laid d8wn by the Author, whom he oppofeth in that very place, (and more fully elfewhere often) ? Reader, the Author of the Aphorifms, pag. 45. and forward, diftinguifhingas Mr. Br'adjh aw doih, of the feveral fenfes of Imputation, and how Chrift's Righteoufnefs is made ours, 1. Beginneth with their Opinion, who hold, £ That Cbrifi did fo obey in our ftead, as that in God s ejicem, and in point of Law vpe were in Chriji dying and fuffering, and fo in him we did both perfeftly fulfil the Commands of the Law by Obedience, and the "fhreatnings of it by bear* ing the Penalty -, and thus (fay they ) is thrift's Righteoufnejs imputed to us, viz. His Pajjtve Righteoufnefs for the pardon of our fins, and deliverance fiom the Penalty } His Attive Righteoufnefs for the making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the Kingdom h And fome fay the Habitual Righteoufnefs of his Humane Nature, inftead of our own Habitual Righteoufnefs > Tea, fome add the Righteoufnefs of the Divine Nature ]•

The fecond Opinion which he rcciteth is this, \jthat God the Father accepteth the fitffetings and merits' of his Son, as a valuable confederation* on which he will wholly forgive and acquit'the Offenders, and receive them into h'tf favour, and give them the addition of a more excellent happinefs, fo they will but re-cCive his Son on the terms expreffd in the GojpeL '

And

A m )

And as diftin& from theirs, who would thug have the Paffivefiigbteoufnefs only imputed , he pro-feffeth himfelfYo hold with Bradfhavp^ Grotius, 8cc. that the A&ive alfo is fo imputed, being Jufiitia Meritij as well as Perfont, and endeavoureth to prove it: But not imputed in the firft rigid fenfe, as if God efteemed us to have been, and done', and juf* fered our felves in and by Chriji^ and merited bj> him* Thus he ftates the Controverfie \ And doth this Dodtor fight for Truth and Peace, by i. palling by all this \ 2. Saying, I am againft Imputed Righ-teoufiiefs \ 3. And againft the Reformed ? Were iiot all the Divines before named Reformed ? Was not Camero, Capellus^ Placeus-, Amyrald> Dalltus* Blondel, &c Reformed? Were not Wotton, Brad-Jhan>> Gatakgr, &c. Reformed ? Were not of late Mr. Gibbons^ Mr. Truman, to pals many yet alive, Reformed ? Mud that Name be (hamed, by appro* priating it to fuch as this Dodtor only ?

2. And now let the Reader judg, with what face he denieth the Confequence, ( that it fuppofeth us to have been in Chrift legally, &c.) When as I put it into the Opinion oppofed, and oppofed no other. But I erred in faying, that [vnoft of our ordinary Divines ] hold it *, But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed.

§. 2. Dr. !f. [2. Such Imputation of taghte-oufnefs, he faith, agreeth not with Reafon or Scripture i But what Reason meaneth he ? Is it that vain y blind, maimed, unmeafmably procacious and tumid

Reafon of the Cracevian Philofophers ? Next he

faithy

faithj Scripture is fdent of the Imputed Ri?bteouf> nefs of Cbrifi j what a faying is this of a Reformed Divine ? fo alfo Bellarmine, &c.

Anfo. Is it not a doleful cafe that OrtbnJoxnefs muft be thus defended ? Is this the way of vindicating Truth ? i. Reader, my words were thefe, ( juft like Bradjbaws ) [It teacheth Imputation of CbriJFs Rifhteoufneji in fo ftricl a fenfe, as will neither jiand with Reafon-, nor the Doctrine of the Scrip-ture y much left with the <P HR A S E of Scripture, which mentionetb no Imputation of Chriji or his Righ-teoufnefs ]. i. Is this a denying of thrift's Righ-teoufnefs imputed ? Or only of that intollerable fenfe of it ? 2. Do I fay here that Scripture men-tioneth not Imputed Righteoufnefs, or only that ftridt fenfe of it ? 3. Do i not exprefly (ay, It is the Phrafe that is not to be found in Scripture>and the unfrund fenfe, but not the found ?

2. And as to the Phrafe, Doth this Do&or, or can any living Man find that Phrafe in Scripture, [_Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to us~\} And when heknoweth that it is not there, are not his Exclamations > and his Bug-bears [CracovianRea-fon> and Eellarmine] his dilhonour, 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 Phrafe, or that Scripture fpeaketh in his rigid fenfe, and not in ours, is but to lofe time, and abufe the Reader, the firft being impertinent, and the fecondthe begging of the Queftion*

$• 3-

( *?o

§•3. Dr. % "the Gree\word anfwering to Im~

futation, it ten times in Rom. 4. And, what U impu~ ted but Rigbteoufneft ? we have then fome imputed Righteoufnefs* Tthe Gjhtejiion is> only what or whofe it vi** Chrifis or out own ? Not ours, therefore Chrijis : If ours, either its the Righteoufnefs of Worlds, or of Faith, &c > s

Anfw. 1. But what's all this to the tbrafe? Could you have found that Phrafe [ ChrijPs Righteoufnefs is imputed J , why did you not recite the words, but Reafon as for the fenfe ?

2. Is that your way of Difputation, to prov£ that the Text fpeaketh of the Imputation of CbriJFs Righteoufnefs, when the. Queftion was only, In 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 Righteoufnefs ~] that the Perfon was or is, accounted, reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Righteoufnefs is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Be- | liever : ib that what-ever be the matter of it (of which next) rhe formal Relation fure is our own, and fo here faid : And if it be from the matter of ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, yet that muft be* our own, by your Opinion. And it muft be our own, in and tathe proper Effetts, in mine. But fure it is not |( the fame numerical formal Relation of |~ Rigbteouf- \% nefs ^ that is in ChvilVs Perfon, and in ours: And it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not in Chrifh that is called Abraham's Reputed Righteoufnefs

H77J . oufnefs in the Text: I fcarce think you will fay the

contrary*

§. 4. Dr. jT. |~ But Faith U not imputed to us for \Righteoufnefs.

Anfa* Exprefly againft the words of the Holy Ghoft there oft repeated. Is this defending the Scripture, exprefly to deny it ? Should not reverence, and our fubfeription to the Scripture fuffici-entiy rather teach us to diftinguifh, and tell in what fenfe it it imputed, and in what not, than thus to deny, without diftindtion, what it doth fo oft affert ? Yea, the Text nameth nothing elfe as fo im-futedy but Faith*

§• 5. If it be imputed, it U either as fome Virtue 7 or Humane IFor^ ( the to Credere ) or as it appre-bendeth and applyetb ChrijFs Kighteoufnefs ? Not

\(the firft) . If Faith be imputed relatively only,

as it applyeth to a Sinner the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift, Us manifeji that it's the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift only that if imputed, and that Faith doth no more to Kighteoufnefs, than an empty hand to receive an Alms.

Anfvp* 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 Queftion on which we fhall be Juttified or Condemned > not only whether we received ChrilVs Righ-teoufnefs, but whether by Faith we received Chrift in all the Eflentials of his Office, and to all the tffential faving Ufes : Yea, whether according to :he fenfe of the Baptifmal Covenant, we firft be-

N Ikviogty

(178)

licvingiy received,and gave up our felves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and after performed fincerely that Covenant.

3. But kt me defend the Word of God : Faith is imputed for Righteoufnefs, even this Faith now defer ibed', 1> Remotely, ex materia aptitudine, for its fi'tnefs to its formal Office ; And that fitnefs is, j. Becaufe it is an Aft of Obedience to God, or mo-rally goody (for a bad or indifferent AU doth not ju-flifie). 2, More fpecially as it is the receiving, tricing, 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 Objed ( for the Objecft is effential to the Ad 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, includefh, That [ It is the part required of us by the Law of Grace, to malleus partakers of the Benefits ofChrift* j Righteoufnefs, which meriteth Salvation for us in-ftead of a legal and perfeB Righteoufnefs of our own, ( which we have not ). Or, [_ Whereas we fell fhort of a Righteoufnefs of Innocency, Chrift by fuch a Righreoufnefs hath merited our Far don and Salvation, and given title to them by a 'Revo Covenant of Grace, which maketh thti Faith the Condition of our 'title ', and if we do this ■> we (hall be judged evangelically Righteous *•> thai {s, fuch as have done all that was ne~ ceffairy to their right in Chrift and the J aid Benefits, and therefore have fuch a Right ]•

This is plain Englifli, and plain Truth, wrangle 110 more againft if 5 and againft the very Letter of

^ the-

the Text, 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 my 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 Ascu-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 elfewherei And therefore I will here take up, only adding one Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epiftle to Mr. W. Aliens Book of the Two Covenants, and this Dodtor, like an Enc-tny of Peace, aflaulteth*

N 2 CHAP*

( i8o )

CHAP. VIIL

Jhe Concord of Protefiants in the Matter of Justification defended^ againft Dr.TuL lies Oppojitions^ who would make Dif-eord under pretence of proving it m

$.i.T IT TRite truth is pretended by moft, that V V by envious firiving introduce Confufton^ and every evil Wor]^ it ufually falleth out by God's juft Judgment, that fiich are almoft as oppofite to Truth as to Charity and Peace* What more palpable inftances can there be, than fuch as pn fuch accounts have lately affaulted me : Mr. Vanvers^ Mr. BagfbatV) See. and now this Learned Do6tor. The very ftream of all his Oppofition againft me about Imputation, is enforced by this oft repeated Forgery, that I deny all Imputation of CbrijFs High-teoufnefs: Yea, he neither by fear, modefiy^ or z«-genuity, was reftrained from writing, pag. 117. [_Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem~] [Hederu detb all Imputation ]. Judg by this what credit contentious Men deferve.

§. 1. The conciliatory Propofitions which I laid down in an Epiftle to Mr. W* Aliens Book, I will here tranfcribe, that the Reader may fee what it is that thefe Militant Do&ors war againft*

Lejl

.(x8i>

Left any who know not bow to flop in mediocrity, l/hould be tempted by Socinians or Papifts, to think 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 j and left any weak Opinionative Perfons, (hould clamour pnpeaceably againft their Brethren, and think to raifea name to themfelves for their differing Notions > 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, afTcrt, That [ Good Works are not neceflary 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 difhonour to God 5 and therefore fpeak as if God were honoured moil by faying the worft words of our felves > and many have uncomely and irregular Notions about chefe Matters; And though fome that are addidxd 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 Dodrines and evil Lives > yet is the Argument of Proteftants thus manifefted.

i. They all affirm that Chrift's Sacrifice, with his Holinefs and perfect Obedience, are the meritorious Caufe of the forgiving Covenants, and of our Pardon and Juftirication thereby, and of our Right to Life Eternal, which it giveth us. And that this Price was not paid or given in it felf inri-

N 3 mediately

( IS* )

snediately to us, but to God for us i and fo,that qui forefaid Benefits are its EfFe&s.

2. They agree that Chrift's Perfon and ours were not really the fame i and therefore that the fame Righteoufnefs, which is an Accident of one/ cannot poffibly 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 Me-fits are really io 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 h that God giveth us all thefe benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for thp fake of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, as if we had fatisfied him, and merited them our felves: and thkt thus far Chrift's Righteoufiiefs is ours in its Eflfedts, 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 aptitudinaLaccount > even as a willingnefs to be cured, and a willingnefs to take one for my Phyfician, and to truft him 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* turn to fubje&ion and thankful acceptance of a purchafed Pardon, and of the Purchasers Love and

future

future Authority, are the Conditions of a Rebel's Pardon.

S. And they all agree, that in the firft inftant of a Man's Converfion or Believing, he is entred inco a ftate of Juffifkation, 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 alfo in the fenfe that Aujim fpakeit, who took Juftification, for that which we call Sandification or Converfion.

, p. And they all agree, that Juftifying Faith is fuch a receiving affiance, as is both in the Intellect and the Will \ and therefore as in the Will, parti-cipateth of fome kind of Love to the juftifying Ob-jedt, as well as to Juftification.

10. And that no Man can chufe or ufe Chrift as a Means ({o called, in refpedl 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 end in the ufe of that means.

11. And they agree, that we (hall be all judged according to our Works, by the Fvule of the Covenant of Grace, though not for our Works, byway 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 juftiticd or condemned according to them.

12. They all agrfce, that no Man can pofiibly merit of God in point of Commutative Juilice, nor yet in point of Diftributive or Governing Juliice, according to the Liw of Nature or Innocency, as Adam might have done, nor by the Works of the Mofaical Law*

N 4 13. They

( 184 )

13. They all agree, that no Works of Mans arq Co be trufted in, or pleaded, but all excluded, and the Conceit of them abhorred,

1. As they are feigned to be againft, or inftead of the free Mercy of God.

2. As they areagainft,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 perfect.

$. Or as fuppofed to have any of the afore-dif-claimed Merit.

6. Or as materially confiding iq Mofaical Obfer-vances.

7. Much more in any fuperftitious Inventi-ons.

8. Or in any Evil mifljaken to be Good*

p. Or as any way incotififtent with the Tenor of the freely pardoning Covenant. In all thefe fenfes Juftification by Works is difclaimed by all Protectants at leaft.

14. Yet all agree, that we are created to good Works in Chrift Jefus, which God hath ordained, that we (hould walk therein h and that he? that nameth the Name of Chrift, muft depart from iniquity, or elfe he hath not the Seal of God ; and that he that is born of God finneth not i that is, predominantly. And that all Chrift's Members are Holy, Purified, zealous of Good Works, cleaning themfelves from all filthinefs of Flefh and Spirit, that they might perfedt Holinefsin God's fear, doing good to all Men, as loving their Neighbours as themfelves h and that if any Man have not the

' ; Sandi-

Sandifying 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 uftd the word £ Merit of Good Works ], becaufe they meant but a moral aptitude for the promifed Reward, according to the Law of Grace through Chrift.

16. They confefs the thing thus defcribed them-felves, however they like not che name of Merit, left it (hould countenance proud and carnal Conceits.

17. They judg no Man to be Heretical for the bare ufe of that word, who agreeth with them in the fenfe.

18. In this fenfe they agree, that our Gofpel-Obedience is fuch a neceflary aptitude to our Glorification, as that Glory ( though a free Gift) is yet truly a reward of this Obedience.

ip. And they agree,that our final Juftification by Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pafs upon the fame Caufes, Reafons, 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 Difobedicnt And O ! thac the Papifts would as zealoufly promote Holinefs and good Works in the World, as the true ferious Proteftants do, whom they fa&ioufly and peevishly accufe as Enemies to them > and that the Opinion, Difputing, and name of good Works, did not cheat many wicked Perfon into fe!f-flattery and Perdition, while they are void of that which

they

they difpute for. Then would not the Mahometans and Heathens be deterred from Chriftiam-ty by the wickednefs of theft nominal Chriftians, that are near them : nor would the ferious pra6tice of that Chriftianity, which themfelves in general profefs, be hated, fcorned, and perfecuted by fo many, both Proteftants and Papifts i nor would fo many contend that they arc of the True Religion, while they are really of no Religion at all any further, than the Hypocrites Pi&ure and Carcafs may be called Religion : Were Men but refolved to be 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 (hould meet with no (harp Oppofition, from any Learned lover of Peace ^ 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 affaultcth the third Propof. ~ 'they all deteft the Conceit^ that God Jhould aver y and refute a Man to have done that which he never did ].

And is not this true ? Do any fober Men deny If, and charge God with Error or Untruth ? Will not this Man of Truth and Peace, give us leave so be thus far agreed, when we are fo indeed ?

But

But faith he, \_lCea-, the Orthodox abhor the con* trary, if [_ to have done it ^ be taken in fenfu forenfi, (for in a Phyfical and Per final, they abhor it not, but deride it): T>oth the Afhorifi abhor thefe and fuch-like fayings* £ We are dead, buried, rifen from the Dead with Chriji ?~\

Anfvp. i. Take notice Header, that it is but the Words, and not the Matter that he here aflaulteth > fo that all herefeetneth but lis de nomine. He before, fag. 84. extolleth Chryfijlom for thus expounding, [He made him fin for us~] s that is, to be condemned as an Offender^ and to die as a Blajpbe-mer. And this fenfe of Imputation we all admit * ( But Cbryfollom in that place oft telleth us, That by [ Sin ] he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man by his Perfecutors, £ not by God ] and Qne that fuifered that curfed Death,which was due to wicked curfcd Men : And which of us deny not Juftifica-tion by Works as Chryfoftom doth ? I fubfcribe to his words, Q It U God's Righteoufnefs > feeing it is not of Works (for in thorn it were necejfary that there be found no blot) but of Grace,which blotteth out and extinguijheth all fin: And this begetteth us a double benefit, for it fuffereth us not to be lift up in mind, be-caufe it it all the Gift of God, and it Jheweth the greatnefs of the benefit ]. This is as apt an Exprefc lion of my Judgment of Works and Grace as I could chufe. But it's given to fome Men to extol that in one Man, which they fervently revile in others, How frequently is Chryfoftom by many accufed as favouring free-Will, and Man's Merits, and fmelling of Pclagianifm ? And he that is acquainted with Cbryjojicm, muft know, That he in-cludeth all thefe things in Juitificatian. I, Remif-

fion

wun ot inc oiui as tu inc riuuuuiiciu. 2. jx.emijjt" on of it by Mortification, ( for fo he calleth it, in Rom. %. p. (mibi) 63.) 3. Right to Life freely given for Chrift's fake. 4. And Inherent Rigbte-mfnefs through Faith : And he oft faith, That this is called the Righteoufnefs of God,becaufe as God,who is living, quicheneth the dead, and as he that is Jirong giveth firength to the weahj fo he that is Righteous, doth fuddenly 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, orju-iHfieth : And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Reward, Q the Retribution of Faith ]. And pag. 2p. he thus conjoyneth [ Faith and Chrift''s Death'] to the Queftion, How Men obnoxious to fo much fin are jufiified, £ he fheweth that he blotted out all fin, that he might confirm what he faid, both from the Faith of Abraham by which he wm jujiified, and from our Saviours Death, by which we are delivered from fin ]• But this is 011 the by.

2. But faith Dr. "f. the Orthodox abhor the contrary 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 chefe words, and not many better that are contrary muft be the difcovery of it ) viz. That will not lay, that in fenfu forenfi, God efieemeth Men to have , done that which they never did* The beft you can make of this is, that you cover the fame fenfe, which I plainlier exprefs, with this illfavoured

Phrate

( IS? )

Phrafe of Man's inventing: But if indeed you mean any more than I by your fenfus forenfis, 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, &c.^ I have proved, that the Dodfrine 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 Magistrates, animadverting on Molin&ws, faith, How great an injury tbofe Divines-, who turn the Chriflian Doftrine into unintelligible Notions and Contr over fie s^ do to Chriflian Magistrates > becaufe it is the duty of LMagiftrates to difcern and preferve necejfary found Doftrine, which theje Men would make them unable to difcern* The fame I muft fay of their injury to all Chriftians, becaufe all fhould hold faft that which is proved True and Good, which this fort of Men would disable them to difcern. We juftly blame the Papifts 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 Difiin&ions, 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 •> and the great and ufeful Rule, Verba Rebus aptanda funt> is laid afide : or rather, Men that underftand not Matter, are like enough to be little skilful in the exprefling of it: And as Mr. Pemble faith, A cloudy unintelligible ftile, ufually Cgnifieth a clou-

dv

( 19° )

dy unintelligent Head, (to that fenfc ) : And as Mr. y. Unmfrey tells Dr/ Fullrvood^ ( in his unan-fwerable late Plea for jhe Conformifts againft the charge of Schifm) f^g.2^. ^So overly are men ordinarily wont to $e&\, at the firji fights againji that which others have long thought upon ~]h that fome Men think, that the very jingle of a diftindtion not underftood is warrant enough for their reproaching that Dodhine as dangerous and unfound,which hath coft another perhaps twenty times as many hard ftudies, as the Reproachers ever beftowed oa that Subjed.

To deliver thee from thofe Learned Obfcurities, read but the Scripture impartially, without their Spedacles and ill-devifed Notions, and all the Do-drine of Juftification that is neceffary, will be plain to thee: And I will venture again to fly fofar from flattering thofe,called Learned Men, who ex-pedt it, as to profefs that I am perfwaded the common fort of honeft unlearned Chriftians, ( even Plowmen and Women ) do better underftand the Do&ririe of Juftification, than many great Difpu-ters will fuffer themfelves or others to underftand it, by reafonof their foreftalling ill-made Notions; thefe unlearned Perfons commonly conceive,i.That Chrift in his own Perfon, as a Mediator, did by his perfect Righteoufnefs 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 al! 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 impcfecl Conditions, and will judg us, as we have or have not performed them 3« Believe but this plain Dc-dhine, and you have a righter underftanding of Juftirication, than many would let you quietly enjoy, who tell you, |^ That Faith is not imputed for Righteoufnefs ** that it juftifieth you only as an In-ftrumental Caufe, and only as it is the reception of ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, and that no other A& of Faith is jutiifying, and that God efteemeth us to have been perfectly 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&orwill 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 himfelf to have done that} which the Law or hU Contract alloweth him to do either by himfelf or another \ ( 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 h 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 efteemed of God to have done what Chrift did > who Jhall have the benefits of Pardon, Grace, and Glory thereby merited, in the manner and measure given by the free Mediator, as certainly as if he

had

( *9* ) ( had done it himfelf~\. In this improper fenfe wc agree to the Matter, but are forry that improper words (hould be ufed as a fnare againft found Doctrine, and the Churches Love and Concord. And yet mull we not be allowed Peace ?

§. 4- But my free Speech here maketh me re-member how lharply the Do&or 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 fuppofeth a Medium betwixt one that is juji, and one that is no finner*} one that hath his (in or guilt taken away, and one that hath his unrighteoufnefs taken away : lis true in bruits and injenfibles that are not fubjeSs capable of Juftice, there is, &c. *ihere is a Negative Injuflice which denominated the Subjett non-jufium, but not in juftum, where Righteoufnejs is not due. But where there is the debitum habendi, its privative* The Do&or learnedly tranflateth firft the word [fondly 1 ^ [ftolide~]\ and next he (fondly, though not Jiolide) would pcrfwade the Reader, that it is faid of the Men^ though himfelf tranflate it £ J)d-ttrina ]•

And next he bloweth his Trumpet to the War, with this exclamation, £ Stolide ! 0 vocU mollitiem, & modefliam! 0 ftolidos Ecclefts Reformat* Cla-rijjimos Hero as I Aut ignoravit certe, aut fcire fe dijjimulat, (quod affine eft calumnia) quid ifii jlatu-ant, quos loquitur, jhlidi Theologi ].

Anfw. i. How blind are fome in their own Caufe ? Why did not Confcience at the naming of Calumnie fay, [I am now committing it ? ] It were foetter write in Englifh, if Latin tranflations muft

needs

needs be fo falfe ! we ufe the word [fond ] in ouf Country,in another fenfe than \_foolifh~\ h with us it fignifieth any byaffed Inclination, which beyond teafon propendeth to one fide : and fo we ufe to fay, That Women are fond of their Children, or of any thing over-loved: But perhaps he can ufe his Logick^ to gather by confequences the Title of the Perfon^ from the Title of his Opinion, and to gather [Joo-lifljly~] byconfequence out of [_fondly\ To all which I can but anfwer, That it he had made him-felf the Tranflator of my Words, and the Judg of my Opinions > if this be his beft, he (hould not be chofen as fuch by me.But it may be he turned to Ri-ders Dictionary,8c found thtic\_ fondly,vide foolifhly].

2. The Stolidi Theologi then is his own phraie ! And in my Opinion,another Mans Pen might better have called the Men of his own Opinion |[ Ecclepi Reformat* dariffimos Heroas] compared with others! I take Gataker, Bradfbavp, Wotton, Camero, and his •followers ', Vrfvie, Olevian, Pifcator, Par£us, 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 Phraie, [_ We are dead, buried, and rifri tvitb Cbrifi ].

I anfwer, No 5 nor will I abhor to fay, That iH fenfn forenfi, I am one -political Perfon with Cbrift, and am ferfettly holy and obedient by and in him, and died and redeemed my felf by him, when he fnall prove them to be Scripture Phrafes : But I de-fire the Reader not to be lo fond, ( pardon the •word ) as by this bare quefiion to be enticed to believe, that it is any of the meaning of thofe Texts •that ufe that Phrafc which he mentioncth, that

( XP4 )

[ Legally ,or in fenfu forenfi, every Believer is efteem-ed by God to have himfelf perfonaliy 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 Expositors, 3. and the Analogy of Faith, and he will find another fenfe * viz- That we fo live by Faith on a dyings buried, rifin and glorified Saviour, at that at fuch he dweUeth objectively in our Hearts, and vpe partake fo of the Fruits of his Death, Burial, and Refur-reliion, and Glory, as that roe follow htm in a Holy Communion, being dead and buried to the World and Sin, andrifeu to newnefs of Life, believing that by his Power we Jhall perfonaliy, after our death and burial, rife alfo unto Glory. I will confefs that we are perfectly holy And obedient by and in Chrift, as far as we are now dead, buried, and rijen in him,

§. <5« And here I will fo far look back, as to remember, That he (asfome others) confidently telleth us, That £ the Law bound us both to perfeh Obedience, and to punishment for our fin, and therefore pardon by our own fujfering in Cbrift, may ft and with the reputation, that we "were perfectly Obedient and Righteous in Chrift.~]

Anfw. And to what purpofe is it to difpute long, where fo notorious a contradiction is not only not difcerned, but obtruded as taiitum ncn ne-ctffary to our Orthodoxnefs, if ndtto our Salvation ? I ask him,

1. Was not Chrift as our Mediator perfedly ho< Jy habitually, and a&ually, without Original or A dual Sin? 2> If

2. If all this be reputed to be in fe, bur own as fitbjeSed in and done by o'nr felves folttical, or in

J*

enfu forenfiy Are we not then reputed in foro, to have no original or a&ual fin, but to have inno^ cently fulfilled all the Law, from the firft hour of our lives to the laft > Are we 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 riot a contradiction that in Law-fenfe, we are reputed perfe&ly Holy and Innocent, and yet finners.

4- And can he have need of Sacrifice or Pardon * that is reputed never to have finned ( legally ) ?

5. If he will fay that in Law-fenfe, we have or are two Perfons, let him expound the word Perfons only, as of Qualities and Relations, (nothing to Cur Cafe in hand) > or elfe fay alfo, That as we are holy and perfeft in one of out own Perfons, and pnfuly unrighteous, or ungodly in anbther, fo a Man may be in Heaven in one of his own Perfons, and on Eahh, yea and in Hell in the other t And if he mean that the fame Man is juftified in his Perfon in Chirift, and condemned in his bther Perfon h confi-der which of thcfe is the Pbyfical Perfon; for I think its that which is like to fuffer.

§.7. fag. 224. He hath another touch at m^ Epiftle, but gently forbeareth contradidion as to Num. 8. And he faith fo little to the i i*£,as need-eth no anfwer.

§.8. fag. 127. He afTaulreth the firft Num. 0$ N. 13. That vpe all agree againft any conceit of Works that are againft or inflead of the free Mercy of God].

And what hath he againft this ? Why that

which taketh up many pages of his Book, and feemeth his chief Strength in moft of his Conteft, viz. [the Papifts fay the fame] and [To faith BeL larminf]* It's ftrange that the fame kind of Mea that deride Fanatic}^ Sectaries, for crying out in Church-Controverfks, [ O Antichriftian Popery^ Bellarmine, &c. ] fhould be of the fame Spirit, and take the fame courfe in greater Matters, and not perceive it, nor acknowledg their agreement with" them ! But as Mr. J. Humjrey faith in the forefaid Eook of the word [ Schifm, Scbifm ~] oft canted out againft them, that will not facrilegioufly fur-render their Consciences, or defert their Miniftry, [ "the great Bear hath been fo oft led through the fireets, that now the Boys lay by all fear, and laugh or m?ke $ort at him] fo fay I of this Sectarian Bugbear, £ Popery, Antichriftian, BeUarmine] either the Papifts 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 vporfe ? which ever it btffruth (hould defend 'truth* If they do, I heartily rejoyce, and it fhall be none of my labour any more (whatever t did in my Confjfion of Faith) to prove that they do not* Let who will manage fuch ungrateful Work. For my.part, I take it for a better Charader of any Opinion, that Papifts and Proteftants agree in it, than, that the Proteftants hold it alone. And. fo.much for £ Papifts and Betiarmine] though I think I know better what they teach, than his Book will truly tell 'me.

§. p. But he addeth, \Jiumane Jfftifying JForkf are in reality adverf* to the free. Mercy of God, ihere~ fore to be accounted of no value to Kighteoufnefs ]]•

Avfm

( w )

Anfw* r. But whofe phrafe is Justifying Works?

2. Doth not the Holy Ghoji fay, That a Ma«is jtiftified by Worlds, *md w* by Faith only ? Jam«2..

3. Doth not Chrirt fay, By thy, words tbonjtah he jnftified ? fa

4. Do not I over and over tell rf# World, That J hold Juitification by Works in jno fenfe, byt as ii'gnifying the fame as [According to JFork/] yyhich you own ? And Co both Name and Thing ace eon-fefled by you to be Scriptural.

5. I have before dedred the Reader to turn to the words, [Righteous, Rightemfiefs, Jujlijicati-0# 3 &c J in his Concordance. And it there he find Righteonfnefi mentioned a5 confifung in Tome Ads of Man, many hundred times,. Jet him next fay if he dare, that they are to be had in no price to Righteoufiffs : Or let him read the Texts cited by me in my ConfiJJion of Faith.

6. Becaufe, Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedience, are-that whofe fincerity is to be judged in order to our Life or Death ere long* I will not fay that they are to be vilified as to fuch a Righteouf-nefsor Juftification, as confifteth in our vindication from the charge of Impenirency, 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 wc have the old Cant, The Papifts faytheli\e*

Reader, I proved that the generality of Piote-ftants are agreed in all thofe twenty Particulars, even in all the material Doctrines about Man's Wosks and Juftification, while this warlike Dodror

(i>8)

would fet us all together by the ears ftill, he is over-ruled fo aflert that the Papifts alfo are agreed with us. 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 £ fuch are all Worfy whatever^ ( even Faith it felf) which are called info the very leaft part of Jujlification 3»even as a Condi* tion or fiibordinate -perfonal Evangelical Rigbteouf-nefl, fuch as Chrift and James^ and a hundred Texts of Scripture aflert v lanfwer, I cannot believe him, till I ceafe believing the Scriptures to be true i which I hope will never be : And am forry that fo worthy a Man can believe fo grofs an Opinion, upon no better reafons thanhegiveth : 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 fecbnd Notions, while he hotly proclaimeth a greater difcord.

A N

ANSWER

T O

Dr. TULLIES

Angry Letter.

LONDON,

Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinfcn, at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675.

(I)

e^ Anfyper to Dr. Tullies ^gry Lette^

Reverend Sir y

F I had not before perceived and lamented the great £*# 0/ Contenders^ the dangerous /^v /or fg-»0r*«* Chriftians, and the gmz* Calamity of the Church, by mar king Verbal Differences fecm A/ir-rVr/4/5 and variety of fomc Arbitrary Logical Notions 5 to feem tantum Hon-, a variety of Religions > and by frightning Men out of their Charity, Peace, and Communion, by Bugbear-Names, of this or that Herefie or dangerous Opinion^ which is indeed but a Spedfrum or Fan-tafm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain, your Ju-flificatio Paulina, and your Letter to me, might be fufficient means of my full Convi&ion. And if once reading of your Writings do not yet more in-creafe my love of the Chrijiian fimplicity, and plain old Divinity, and the amicable Communion of practical Chriftians upon thofe terms, and not med-ling with Controversies in a militant way, till by long impartial ftudies they are well understood, I

mull

\ *)

muft confefsmy non-proficience is very unexcu-fablc.

With your felf I have no great buGnefs; I am not fo vain as to think my felf able to underftand you, or to be underfiood by you : and I muft not be fo bold as to tell you why, much lefs will I be fo injuiious to the Reader, ashyz particular examining all your words, to extort a confeflion th^t their fenfe is lejl or worfe than I could wi(h: For cui bono ? What would this do but more offend you ? And idle words are^b 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 Touth, 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 Do&rines handled > Let them but learn truly the feveral fenfes of the word \Ju-ftifica'ion], and the feveral forts, and what they are, and ttill conftrain ambiguous words to confels their fenfe, and they will need no other Anfwer to fuch Writings.

And as to your Letfer (paffing by the fjpume and paffion) I think thefe few Animadversions may fuffice.

§. I. Between twenty and thirty years ago, I did in a private Pifputation prove our guilt of the fins of our nearer Parents > and becaufe many

doubted

doubted of it, I have ott fince in other 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 Perfaafwe to Vnity^ and a I'reatife of the 'two Covenants) \ in a Preface to the latter, I faid, [ that mod Writers, if not mofi Chrijiians, do greatly darken the Sacred Votlrine^ by overlooking the Imereji of Children in the Attions of their nearer Parents, and thinly that they participate of no guilt, and fuffer for no original fin, hut Adam 3 / only, &c. ] You fattened on this, and war* ned ferioufly the Juniors, not rajhly to believe one that brings forth fuch Paradoxes of his ( or that) Theo-logie , which you added to your £ 0 c£cos ante *Xheologos quicunque unquam fuijiis ^ : The charge was exprefled by Q aliud inveniffe peccatum Origin nale, multo citerim quam quod ah Adamo traduSutn e\i\. Hereupon I thought it enough to publifh that old private Difputation* which many before had feen with various Cenfures : 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 contract additional pravity from them as fuch, ( which was my AflTertion ) 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, [^ Which neither I, nor any Body elfe Ikjtorv of, denies as to the thing, though in the extent, anc{ other circumfiances, all are not agreed, and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me 3-This is too kind : I am loth to tell you how many

that

( 4 ) 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 (ped extraordinary well, when I have procured the published confent of fuch a Do&or, 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 lb loud and wide a feeming difagreement is confef-fed 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, \Remember not our Offences^ nor the Offences of our Fore fathers^ and many words of indignation you ufefor my queftioning it. All this I like very well as to the Caufe h And I matter it not much how it looks at me : If you agree more angrily than others difagree, the Cauje hath fome advantage by the Agreement. Though me-thinks it argueth Ibmewhat unufual, that feeming Diifenters fhouid clofe by fo vehement a Coilifion.

But yet you will not agree when you cannot cbufe but agree, and you carry it ftill as if your Allarm had not been given without caufe : Muft we agree y and not agree? What yet is the Matter ? Why it is la new original fm']. My ordinary exprellionsof

f 5 ;

it may be fully fcen in the Difputation : The phrafe you laid hold on in a Preface is cited before, [Tfbat vpe participate of no guilty and fujftr for no original (in but Adam 5 / only ~], 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 f uch, you deny not: That it U fin, I find you not denying : fure then all the difference mull be in the word [ ORIGINAL ].

And if fo, you that fo hardly believe your loud-noifed difagreements to be but verbal, mud 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 purpofely written about it, you would have told your Reader what it U. Suffer me then to fum-mon your Allarm'd Juniors to come and fee what a Spttrum it is that muft affright them > and what a Poppet-Play 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 I ORIGINAL'] Sin, which was the ORIGO of all other fins in the Humane World : And that was. not Adams fin, but Eves.

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 conjunft, viz. i. Their firft iinful Acts h 2. Their Guilt* 3. And their habitual pravity (making it full, though in Nature following the Aft;. This Sin, Faft, Guilt, and Kabit, as Accidents

(<5)

adents of the Perfbns of Adam and Eve, are not Accidents of bur Perfons;

3, Our prfinal participation* i. In the guilt of the fin of Adam and Eve i 2. And of a vicious privation and habit from them, as fbon as we are Perfons. Which is called Original fin, bn three accounts conjun£t * t* Becaufe it is a participation bf their Original Aft that we are guilty of > 2. Becaufe it is in us ah Origine, from our firft Being * 3. And becaufe it is the Origo of all bur Atiual

4.. I call that alfo [ ORIGINAL] (or />*r* of Original Sin) which hath but the two late* only i viz. 1. Which is in us AB ORIGINE, from our firft perfonal being > 2. Which is the R00* or ORIGO in our felves of all our Attual Sins: And thus our Guilt and Fzce derived from our neater Parents* and not from Adam* is our Original Sin > That is, 1. Both Guilt and Htf&it are in us from bur Original, or firft Being > 2. And all our Actual Sin fpringeth from it as a partial Caufe : For I may prefume that this Revererd Dodtor doth not hold that Adam's fin derived to us is in one part of the Soul* ( which is not partible ) and out nearer Parent's itianother * 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 Ream having more than one fundamentum* may be called diverfe. That Origo & Atiive & pajjive dicitur* 1 fuppofe we are agreed. No\V I call the vicious Habits contraded froin out nearer Parents by fpe-cial reafon ot their own fins> fuperadded to the degree, which elfe we fhould have derived frbm

Adam y

C7)

Adam, a part of our original frnful Pravity, even a fecondary part. And I call cur guilt of the fins of our nearer parents ( not Adam's ) which you will, either a fecondary Original Guilt, or 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 Aftual Sin : though it was not the Original Sin of Mankind, or the firft of Sins. The Doctor thinks this an Expreflion, which all Juniors muft be warned to take heed of,and to take heed of the Do&rine of him that ufeth it. The Allarm is againft this dangerous word [ ORIGINAL ]. And let a Man awake tell us what is the danger.

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 Na* ture whereby we are far gone from Original Righte-oufnefs, and are of our own Nature inclined to eviU fo that theflejh lufleth againji the Spirit.Tbe lufi of the flejh called (p£pvv(jLa oztpxxK, which fome do expound the Wifdom, fome Senfuality, fome the AffeBi-0#, fome the deftre tif the Flejh, not fubjett to the Law of God ]; Seing a degree of all this fame Lult is in Men from the fpecial fins of their Fore-fathers, as well as from Adanfs ■> Is not this Degree here called Original Sin ? ( why the Churc h emitted the Imputed Guilt aforefaid, I enquire not ) . "^2. If this will notierve, it he wilFffnd me any Text of Scripture, which ufeth the Phrafe, [ORIGINAL Sin ], I will promtfe him hercatcer to

ufe

ufe it in no other fenfe, than the Scripture ufeth it.

3. If that will not ferve, if the Matters of Language will agree, ( yea, to pafs by our Lexicons, if the Doftors of that Univerfity will give it us un-<kr their hands ) that the word [ ORIGINAL "] is unaptly and dangeroufly applyed to that iinful Guilt and Pravity which is in us ab Origine Nojlrs cxiftentia, and is the internal Radix vel Origo of all our A&ual Sin, in part pf Caufality, I will ufe that Epithete fo no more.

4. If all this will not ferve, if he bimfelf will give me a fitter Epithete, I will ufe it t And now we over-agree in Do&rine, a word fhall not divide us, unlefs he will be angry becaufe we are agreed, as Jonas was that the Ninivites were fpared, becaufe it (eemed to difgrace his Word.

§. II. j>ag. 4, 5 v &c. You invite toe to, [ a full entire retractation of my Vottrineof purification (yqta add, By Werks) and the fecondary Original Sin ]. .. . i. Will you take it well if I retradt that which you profefsnow tohold, and know none that de-fcyeth, then there is no pleafing you : If I muft be thought to wjrong you for feeming to differ from you, and yet muft retrad all: What, yours and all Mens ?

2. Do you mean the words or the fenfe of JuflU ficatinn[as you call it)by Works?Fox the words,! take you for a fubferiber to the 39 Articles h and therefore that you rejedt not the Epiftleof St. James: And for the fenfe, I confefs it is a motion fuit3b!e to the Intereft of your 'freatife, (though not of the Truth ) ; He that cannoc confute the Truth,

would

would more eafily do his Work, if he could pcr^ fwade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retratlati-m* Hereupon, pag* ■$• you recite my words, of the difficulty of bringing fome Militant Divines to yield : Your Admonition for Self-Application of them is ufeful, and I thank you for it: But is it. not a (height that fuch as I am in, between two contrary forts of Accufcrs? When Mr. Vanvers^ and Multitudes on that fide,. Reproach me daily for Retrattations&nd you for want of them ? How natural is it now to Mankind, to defiie to be thd Oracles of the,World, and that all fhould be Silenced, or RetraQed>. which is againft their Minds ? How many call on me for Retra&ation ? Mr* Ttombeij and Mr. Vanvers, for what I have Written for Infants-Eaptifm : The Papijis for what I have Written againft them : And how many more ? And as to what,J have RetraUedfine reproached me for it, and another either knoweth not of it, or perfwadeth others that it is not done.

You fay, pag* <5. \_A great out-cry you have made of m§> as charging yon with things you have Retra* bed —— And pag. 7. What's the reafon you have not hitherto direUed us to the particulars of your Re-captation-) what, when, where i —-. Ton direft one indeed^ to a fmall Boo^ above "twenty years a-gc

retraced. ■ All I can pick^ up of any feeming

Retractation, is that you fay, that Worlds are necej-fary at leaft to the continuation of our Jujiification.

Anfw. Either this is Written by a Wilful, or a Heedlefs miftaking of my words. The firft I will not JlifpeCh it muft therefore be the fecond, (for I miift not judg you Vnable to ur.deiftand plain Englifh). And is it any wonder if you have

jp many

many fuch Miftakes in your difputes of Juftificati-on, when you arc fo heedlefs about a matter of Fad ? Where did I ever fay, that I had Recanted ? Or that I Retraced any of the Dodtaine of Juftifi-cation, which I had laid down? Cannot you di-ftinguifh between Sufpendings or Revoking* or Retracing a particular Boo]^* for the fake of feveral Crude and Incongruous Expreflions, and Retracing or Recanting that Vottrine of Justification? Or can you not understand words, that plainly thus Diftinguifh? Why talk you of what* and when* and where, and conjecture at the words* as if you would make the Reader believe, that indeed it is fome confeffed Errors of mine, which you Confuted ? and that I take it for an Injury, becaufe I Retraced 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 Aphorifms* or Boo\ , that I faid was above Twenty years a go Revoked : When in my Treatife of Infant-Baptifm, I had craved Animadverfions on it, and promifed abet* ter Edition, if I Published it any more* I forbad the Reprinting it,till I had time to Corredfc it * and when many called for it, I flill deny'd them. And when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a fecond time, he did it by Stealth, pretending it was done beyond Sea. In my ConfeQion Twenty years ago, I gave the Reafons, Preface, fag. 3$. [I find that there are fome Incautelous Pajfages in my Aphorifms* wot fitted to their Reading, that come to fuc\ Poyjon*' and feel^for a Word to he Matter of Accufation and

Food for their Cenfuring opinionative Zeal* . And

pag. 42. If any Brother underjiand not any word in

my

toy Aphrifms which is here Interpreted, or miftafa rnyfenfe about the Matter of that Book^ which is here more fully opened h I mull expett , that they interpret that by this. Andij any one have fa little to do as to write againft that Book^ (which is not unlikely) if he take the Senfe Contrary to what I have here and elfe where (mce then Fubiijhed, I jbail but neglctt him as a Conttnthus^ Vain Wrangler, if not a Calumniator]. I Wrote this Amply, to fo; warn the Contentious, not knowing then that above Twenty years after Dr. "fully would be the Man. Pag. 43. [If any will needs ta\e any thing in this Bool^ to be rather a RetraHatio^ than an Explication, of what 1 have before faid, though I (hould beji k>iow my own Meaning ', yet dofuch commend me. while they f^m to blame me : I never lot\ to write that which fhall

have no need of Correction* Aud Cap. 1 pag.2,

[Left J Jhould prove a further Offence to my Brethren^ and a Wrong to the Churchy I de fired thoje who thought it worth their Labour, to vouchfafe me their Ammad-verfwns, # which I have fpent much of tbefe "three la(i years in considering, that I might Correft what-ever was difcovered to be Erroneous , and give them an account of my Reafons of the reft. I have not only fince SVPPRESSEV that BooJ^ which did offend them, but alfo laid by thofe Papers of Vniverfal Re-demption, which I had written, lei I Jhould be further offenfive, &c] In my Apjlogie elfe-where I have fuch like Paflages, ever telling Men that [It was the firji Booi^ I wrote in my Unexperienced Touth '<, that I ta^e the Do8rine; of it to be found and needful, fave that in divers places thy are unskilfully and incauteloufly worded. (As the Word [Covenant'] is oft put tor [Law,] &c,) And that

r I*)

I wrote my Confefjion, and Difputes of Juftifica* to/j, as an ExpoGtionof it h and that I RetraUed^ or Sufpended, or Revoked , not the Vottrine^ but the Bwj^, till I had Corrected it, and did difown it as too unmeet an Expteffion of my Mind, which I had more fully expreft in other Bookj.

And is not this plain Englifh ? Doth this warrant a Wife and Righteous Man, to intimate that I accufe him of writing againft that Doctrine of Jufiification w{iich I Recanted, and to call for the What, and Where, arid When ? Yea, and tell me, that I [refer you to afmall BookJ\ when inftead of referring you to it, I only blame you for referring to that alone, when I hadfaid as before ?

When many Divines have publifhed the firft Edition of their Works imperfectly, and greatly cor reded and enlarged them in a Second ( as Beza his Annotations •> Polanus his Syntagma , 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 Sufpended the whole BooJ^ y znAhave thefe twenty four years hindred the Printing of it > profeffing that I have in many larger Books, more intelligibly and fully opened the fame things.

Yea, you fear not pag. 23. to fay, That I tell you of about $0 Bookj of Retractations, in part at lea\l which I have Written] > when never fuch a word fell from me* If I fay, That one that hath publifhed his Sufpeitfion of a fmall Boo\ written in Youth not for the VoUrine of it-, but feme unfit Expre/Iions, and hath fince in aJ-moft thirty Years time, writteivabout fixty Eooks* in many or

moft

( *?)

moft of which is fomewhat of the fame Subjeft, and in fome of them he fullier openeth his Mind i fhould be dealt with by an Adverfary, according to fome of 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 Bookj of Retradations']? Or will it not abate Mens reverence of your difputing Accuratenefs,to find you fo untrufiy in the Recitation of a Man's words ? The truth is, it is this great Defeft of Heed and Accu-ratenefs, by hafly Temerity, which alfo fpoileth your Difputations.

But, pag. 7. the Aphorifms muft be, [The moft Schollar*like , and Elaborate (though Erroneous) Boohjn Controverted you ever Compofed~]> Anfw. 1. Your Memory is faulty ; Why fay you in the next, that I appeal to my Difputation of Juttification and fome others i but you cannot "frudg up and down*-to every place 1 would fend you? your Legs are too vpeakj Either you had read all the fixty Books which you mention (the Cent rover fal at lead) 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 feledt a Sufpended Book, and touch none that were Written at large on the fame Subjedt ? 2. By this (I fur-pofe 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, fhould Write no more Scbollar-likg 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 fpared v

P 3 When

( i4 )

When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath co(t me mor Labour than all that Book > and perhaps one Scheme of the Diftindiions of Juftifica-tion, which you deride* If indeed you are a corn-parent Judg of vour own Writings, Experience alfureth me, that you are not fo of mine. An4 T a &* *5»' y° u &Y> You defire not to be preferred before your Betters, leafl of all when yon are fingulari as here I think you are.

§. III. Pag. p. You are offended for being put %n the Cub-, with divers mean and contemptible Ma* lefattors.']

Anfa. O for Juftjce! i. Was not Bellarmin-> or fome of the Tapifis and the Socinians, as great Malefactors, with whom (as you phrafe it) you

{>ut me in the Cub > 2. Are they MalcfaBors fo ar as they agree with you in Vo£irine, and axe yon Innocent i 'What is the Difference between your, Treatife, in the part that toucheth me, and that of Mr. Eyres, Mx.Crandon, and fome others fuch ? Dr. Owen, and Dr. Kendale, indeed differed from you i the latter feeking (by Biftiop Vfher) an amicable Clofure, and the former (if I underftand his Book on the Hebrews) lefs differing from me in Doctrine, 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 alhamed). But to give you your due Honour, I will name you with your Equals, as far as I can judg, viz. Maccovius^ Cluto, Coccejus, and Cloppenburgius, ( I mean but in the Point in Queftion *, it's no Difhonour to^you to give fome of them Precedencie in other things)? it may be alfo Spanhem'm^ was near you. But

( 15 ) (if I may prefume to liken my Betters) no Men feem tome to have been Co J ike you, as Guilielmus Rivet, fnot Andrew), Mr. George Walker, and Mr. Roborougb. (I hope this Company is no Difhonour to you). And very unlike you are Le Blani^, Ca-mero, Vavenant, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Anthony Wotton, ar«d in Complexion Scans and Ock^m, and fuch as they : If yet I have not Chofrn you pleafing Company, I pray you choo fefo your felf.

But you fay on, [Had you not {inyour Memory many Scores of greateft 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 foame let it be

the Church of England, with all the reji of the Reformed, &c»]

Anfw. i. I know not what you hold, even when I read what you 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 with you?

2. Yet I am very confident, that all they whom you mention, are cf the fame in fome thing or other > and in particular^ that we are Jujlified by Faith, and not-by the Works of the haw, or any Works 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 miftaken, muft your bare Word determine which it is? Which of us hath brought the fuller Proofs ? I jubferibe to the Do drine o f the Church of En gland, as well as you h and my Condition thefe thirteen or fourteen years, giveth

P 4 *5

•as'much Evidence, that I am loth to fubfcribe to

what I believe not, as yours doth of you. And you that know which of my Books is the moft Elaborate, fureknow, that in that Book which I Wrote to explain thofe Aphorifms (called my ConfeJJion) I cite the Words of above an Hundred Troteftant Witneffes* that give as much to Wor\s as I do; And that; of this Hundred, one is the Au-guftine Confeffion, one the Wtftminfter Synod, one the Synod of Don, one the Church of England* each one of which being Colle&ives, contain many. (And here I tell you of more). And have you brought more Witneffes ? Or any to the contrary > Did you Confute* or once take Notice of any of thefe ?

4. Do yoii not here before yon are aware, let your Reader know that it was, and ftill" is, in the Dark, that you Alarm the World about our dangerous Differences* and run to your Arms undreft, before your Eyes are open ? Qui conveniunt in ali-quo tertio* &c. They that agree with the Church of England* in the Dodfrine of Juftification by Faith,do fo far agree between themfelves : But Dr. T'ullie* 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 {For fbame let it be no longer Bellarnine, and R. B. hut the Church of England, and all the Re>* formed, and R. B.^) ? Difprove the Witneffes twenty years ago, produced by me in this very Caufe \ or clfe fpeak out, and fay, \jthe Church of England, and the reft of the Reformed, bold Juftification by

Wor\s*

( 17 )

tFcrks, jufi as Bellarmine and the Papijis do] which is it which you would fallen on me, who agree with them fas if you had never there read my Anfwer to Mr. Crandon y obje&ing the fame thin^). .

§. IV. Your Cenfure, pag. jo, n. of my Windings* Clouds of Novel ViftinUions ', Preambles, Limitations, &c. is juir fuch as your Treatife did bid me exped: Till you become guilty of the fame Crime, and fall out with Cstifufidp, and take not . equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained, inftead of Univocals, in the ftating of your Queftions, 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 [Xott have no Profit by my Preface: I fhall not deny it, nor wonder at it > you are the fitteft Judge : Where you fay, that [I have no Credit,'] You do but tell the World at what Rates you write. Honor eft in bonorante. 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 his Diflike, or DifTent. And fure your own Pen is a good Confuter of you. It is fome Credit, that fuch a Man as you, is forced to profefs a full Con-fent to the Doftrine, though with paffionate Indignation.

You tell me of [Nothing to the Queftion]. But will you not be angry if I fhould but tell you, how little you did to ft ate any Queftion,and in Rea-fon muft be fuppofed , when you aflaulted my

Dodtrine,

Do6frine, to take it as I jtated it i which I have fully (hewed you?

You tell me, that Tou Charged me only with new Original Sin , underived from Adam , unknown* unheard of before, in the Christian World.

Anfw. Ve re, is not our Guilt of nearer "Parent's Sins fuch which you and all that you know (now atlaft) confefs? Ve nomine, i. Tell the World if you can, when I called it [New Original Sin, or underivedfrom Adam, or unknown, or unheard of ']• There are more ways than one of Derivation from Adam. It is not derived from him by fuch Imputation as his fijrft Sin* but it is derived from him as a -partial Caufa Caufe, by many Gradations. AllSinisfome-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 the Firft, (hew the Words, and the Shame (hall be mine. If not, you know the old Law, that to falfe Accufers, it muft be done as they would have done to the Accufed. But if it be your Confequence, prove it, and tell the Worlds what are the Premifes that infer it.

§. VI. Tag. 12. You friendly help me to profit by my felf, however you profefs that you profit not by me! What I have faid to you againft [Ha-fty 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 my felf it is againft my felf that I have a Treatife on that Subje£b but I begin to think my felf in this more Seeing than you > for I fee it both in my felf and you, and you fecm to fee it in me, and not in

your

(19)

yoyrfelf. But with all Men, I find, that to fee the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard, and to love the Glafs which fheweth them, is not eafie i efpecially 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 of Examining the hundred Witneifes which I brought, and my elfe-where oft proving the Dodhine oppofed by jne to be Novell and Singular , do in few words talk of your holding the VoRrine delivered to the Saints^ and of the many Worthies that concur with you , and of my pelting at their Heads-, and dragging them by the Hoary-heads, as a Speftacle and By-rvord to all\ (by proving their confent by exprefs Citations ) what Armies, and of what Strength appear againfl me> whofe Names I defie and womd> through yours ?

Anfxv, And is not he a weak Man that cannot talk thus upon almoft any Subject ? But who be thefe Men, and what he their Names > Or rather, firft, rub your Eyes, and tell us what is the Con* troverfie ? tully fometimes talkt at this rate in his Orations, but verily much better in his Philofo-phy.

And you fee no caufe to repent, but you blefs Cod that you can again and again call to all Xouth y that as they love the Knowledg of truth, they take me not for an Oracle in my hold dividing Singula* Titles'].

Anfo. 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. I am obliged to love you the better, for being

againlt

againft dividin£ Singularities in the general N0-*fe/T, I hope if you kpew it, you would not be for them , as in fingular Exigents* But; fure, none 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 ValUus in a large Catalogue, hath proved the Common Judgment of the Church, till Contention of late caufed fome Diflenters.

Will you ceafe thefe empty general Oftentations, and choofe 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 i yea, bring me but any two or one confiderable Per-? (on, that was for a thoufand years for your Caufe againft mine, and I will fay, that you have done more to copfute me by far, than yet 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 Thantafms you fee not the Churches together by the Ears, and make People be** lieve that they differ, where they do not ; And you ask, Who began the Fray ?

Anfop. 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 Galius, Ambfdorfius, Schluffelburgius, and Dr. Crijpe&nd his Followers, be the Church ? But, Sir, I provoke you to try it by the juft Teftimony of Antiquity* who began to differ from the Churches.

^ 21 )

In this Treatife I have given you fome Account, and Vojjius hath given you more, which you can never anfwer : But if my Dodtrine put you upon this Neceffity, what hindred you from perceiving it thefe twenty years and more, till now ? O Sir, had you no other wort^ to do, but to Vindicate the Church and Truth ? I doubt you had.

§. VIII. But pag. 15. You are again incredulous, that I All the Difference betwixt yon and me^ or others of the fame Judgment in the Point of Jujli-fication^ is meerly Verbal s and that in the Main we are agreed^. And again you complain of your ma\ Legs.

Anfa. 1. I do agree with very many againft their mils in Judgment (becaule the Judgment may be confirained)) but with none in Affetiion, 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 fhort Epi-file to Mr. Alletfs 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 perfett Contradictions no more than a difference in Words ? Faith alone > and not Faith alone ? Faith with and without Works f Ex-cufe our Vulnefs here"]*

Anfw. 1. Truly, Sir, it is a tedious thing, when a Man hath over and over Anfwered fuch

( 22 )

Objections* yea, when the full Anfwers have beett twenty years in Print, to be put ftill to fay oveir all again, to every Man that will come in and fay, that his Legs are too wea\ to go fee what was an* fwered before: How many fcore times then, or hundreds, may I be called to repeat.

2. If I mult pardon your Vitlnefs, you muft pardon my Chr'iftianity (or chufe) who believe that there is no fuch [jperfeB Contradictions'] between Chrift's, [By thy Words thoujhalt be Jufti-fied] zndPauFs, [Juftified by Faith, without the Works of the Law] or [not of Workj] > and James's [We are juftified by Works , and not by Faitb only]* Muft we needs proclaim War here, or cry but, Here fie, ox Popery ? Are not all thefe Recon-cileable? Yea, and Pauls too, Rom. 2. 'Ihe'Doeri of the Law fhall be juftified.

3. But did I ever deny that it is [by Faith alone and without Works] ? Where, and when ? But may it not be, by Faith alone in one fenfe, 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 6 , Is it here the Words, or Senfe, which yoa accufe* The Wcrds you dare not deny to be Gods own in Scripture, fpoken by Ghrift, Paul, and James* My Senfe I have opened to you at large, and you take no Notice of it* but as if you abhorred Explication and Viftinftion 7 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 j

and

and *tislihglybe will concur with me, in thatAfc-lancholy Phantafm , or Fear : For 'tis worth the noting, bow in that dar\ Appeal where you diftin-guifh of Popijb Points, i. e. fome-where the Difference is reconcile able , others in effeCt but in words > we have no Direction upon which Kank^we muft befiow J unification, nothing of it at all from you, Name or Thing : But why, next te the All-feeing God, you fhould kyow befl your feif\

Anfvp. Alas, Sir, that God (hould be in fuch a manner mentioned ! I anfvvered this fame Cafe at large in my Confcflion.Apologie, Difputeof Juftifi-cation, &c. Twenty years ago, or near* I have at large Opened it in a Folio (Cathol. Theol.) which you faw, yea, in the very part which you take Notice of * and now you publilh it [worth the Noting, that I did not aljo in one Jheet of *Paper, Printed the other day againft a Calumnieof fotne Sectarian Hearers, who gave me no Occafion for fuch a work. Had it not been a Van:'/of me, Should I in that fheet again have repeated, how I and the Papifls differ about Juftification ? Were you bound to have read it in that fheet,any more than in many former Volumns ? It's no matter for me S But I ferioufly befeechyou, be hereafter more fober arid juft, than to deal with your Brethren, the Church snd Truth, in fuch a manner as this! But by this Talk I fufpedt, that you will accufe me more for opening no more of the Difference in this Book. Bur, I. It is enough for to open my own Meaning, and I am not obliged to open cuier Mens: And my own I have opened by (b many Repetitions, info many Books, as nothing but fuch Mens Importunity and objtruGcd Minds, could have Excuftd.

2. The

by their own Writings, than by mine: The Council of irenty tellethit you: What need I recite it? g. 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 a Papift doth not own. Where they differ, I am forry for it: 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* fifh! Antichriftim]'] (hall tempt me to do by the Papifts, as the Vominicans,znd Janfenifis, and fome Oratorians, do by the Calvinifts: I will "not with Alvarez, Arnoldus, Gibieuf, &c. make the World believe, that my Ad verfaries are much further from me than they are,for fear of being cenfured by Fafti-bn, to be one of them. If I would have been of a Church-Fadtion, and fold my Soul to pleafe a party, I would have begun before now, and taken a bigger Price for it, than you can offer me if you would.

Pag, 17. You fay, [Pile one Difthttion or Evasion on another ■, as long as you fleafes as rtiany fever al Faiths, andWorkj) and J unifications, as you-can name 0 all this will never make two Poles meei\.

Anfo. And do you cry out for War in the Dark-nefs of Confufion, as long as you will, youfhall never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptifm* and Lift my felf under the grand Enemy of Love and Gmcord) nor to Preach up Hatred and Vivifion,

fox

lor nocning,as in me iName or ^nrut. it you will handle fuch Controverfies, without Viftinguijhing of Faiths, Worlds, and Juftifications^ I will never perfwadeany Friend of mine to Be your Pupil, or Difciple. Then Simon Magufs faith, and the Devils faith, and Peters faith muft all pafs tor the fame, and juftifie accordingly. Then indeed, Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoft, yea, and Chrift, as our Teacher, King and Judg, &c muft pafs for the Works by which no Man is Juftified ! If Viflinftion btunfound, detedt the Error of it; If not, it is no Honour to a difputhig Dodlor to reproach it.

§• X. But/wg.17. you fet upon your great undeceiving Work, to (hew the evil of ill ufwg Words : [Words (you fay) as they are enfranchised into Law* guage, are but the Agents and Fafiors of things, far which they continually negotiate with our Minds, conveying Errands on all occafions, &c. (Let them mark, that charge the vanity and bombaft of Metaphors on others, one word \Signa] fhould have ferved our turn inftead of all this). [Whence it follow /-> that their ufe and Signification is Unalterable, hut by the ft amp of the like publick^ nfage and impofition from whence at firft they received their being, &C.3

Anfa* 0 JuniorsJN'iW not fuch deceiving Words fave you from my Deceits ? But, 1. Is there a L#»>, and unalterable Law for the fenfe of Words? Indeed, the Words of the facred Text muft have no new Senfe put upon them. 2. Are you fure that it was Fublicl^ ufage, and Impofnim from whence they firft received their being ? How (hall we know

Q^ that

\iiai iwcy grew uui miu puuuiiv uit uuui uuc mans fir ft Invention, except thofe that (not Publicly ufe^ but) God Himfelf made? 3. Are you fure that all or moft Words now, Latine or Englijh, have 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 Orange thing to us ? 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 , Englijh, or any common Language, which have no,t many Signifi-cations ? Your Reputation forbids you to deny it. And fhould not thofe many Significations be di-ftinguiflied as there is Caufe? Are not Faith, Workg, Juft , Juftice, Jujhfication^ words of divers fenfes in the Scripture ? and do not common Writers and Speakers ufe them yet more varioufly > And (hall a pifputer take on him, that thearpor figpification of each is but one % ottrpoy or is £o fixed that there needcth no diftin&ion > 5, Is the change that is made in all Languages in the World, made by the fame publick ufage and impofition, from which at firft they received their be-ing? 6* If fas you fay) the fame thing can be re-frefented by different words, only vphenthey are Sy* nonymout, ihould we not avoid feeming to represent the fame by Equivocals, which unexplained are unfit for it ?

Pag* 20. You tell me what fadwor\ you are doing* and no wonder, Sin and Paflions are felf. troubling things: And it's well if it be fad to your (elf alone, and net to fuch as you tempt into Mistakes, Hatred, and Divifion. It fhould be fad to every Chriftian, to fee and hear thofe whom they

are

are bound to Love, reprefented as odious: And you are ftill, pag. 19. feigning, that [Every eye may jee Men dealing Blows and Deaths about, and therefore we are not wife if we thinkjhem agreed*

But doubtlefs, many that feem killed by fuch Blows as fome of yours, are dill 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 let two Per-fons of quality on Fighting, before they fpake a word to one another, by telling them fecretly and falily what one faid againft the other. Many differ, even to perfecutingand bloodshed, by fl^i/Zand Paffion and PraUice, upon a falfly fuppofed great-difference in Judgment. I will not fo fuddenly repeat what Proof I have given ot fome of this in the place you noted, Cath TheoU Confer, n, 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 j to build , than to full down * to heal-, than to wound.

I prefume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary Cautions to your Juniors.

Young-Men, after long fad Experience of the fin-ful and miferable Contentions of the Clergie, and confequently of the Chrifiian florid, that you may efcape the Guilt, J befeech you, whoever coutradi-Seth it, co-nfider and believe thefe following Notices : I. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs, and are changed as Men pleafe '> and through the Penury of them* and Mans imperjeftion in the Art of Speak;

.(*8)

ing, *kr? <*r£ zwj> few at all, that have not various Significations.

2. "that this Speakjng-Art requirethfo much time andfiudy y and all Men are fo defective in it, and the variety of Mens skill in it is fo very great, that no Men in the World do perfeSly 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^ Sox Words muft have a three-fold aptitude of Signification, i. To fignifie the Matter, 2. And the Speakers conceptions of it. 3. And this as adapted to the hearers Mind, to make a true Impre/Iion there.

3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words fo neceflary as Things, nor neceffary 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 met: For more ox 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 believeth in, and giveth up himfelf to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, according to the fenfe of the Baptifinal Covenant* is a true Chriftian, to be loved, and ftall be faved) fo he that underftandeth fuch\ Words, \% help him to that true Faith and Confent,\ doth know fo much of the Verbal part, as is of ne-

ceflity

ceflity to his Chriftianity and Salvation.

6* And be that is fitch, holdeth no Hetefie 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 Cbrifti-ans, till fome proved or notorious inconfiftents nullifying his ProfeJJion difoblige you.

8. Take your felves to be neither of Roman, or any other Church as Vniverfal, which is lefs than the Vniverfality of all Chrijlians headed by Chriji alone.

9. Make this Love of all Chrijiians the fecond fart of your Religion, and the Love of God, ofChrifi, of Holinefs and Heaven, the firjl > and live thus i n the ferious practice of your Covenant, even of Simple Chrijtianity: For it's this that will be your Peace, in Life and at Death.

io # And if Men of various degrees of Learning (or Speaking-skill) and of various degrees of Holt-nefs, Humility, and Love, fliall quarrel about Words, and forms of Speech , and fit all bereticate, and revile, and damn each other, while the Effentials are beldfa(t and pradifed, difcern Right from Wrong as well as you cans but take heed that none of them make Words a fnare, to draw you irjurioujly to thinly hatefully of your Brother, or to divide the Churches, or Servants of Chriji: And fufpett fuch a Snare becaufe of the great ambiguity of Words, and imperfettion rf Mans Skill and Honejiy in all Matters of debate: And never difpute ferioufy, without firji agreeing of the Senfe of every doubtful term with him that you Difpute witlf] %

Q^3 Dr.

( $o) Dr. 2W/ji's Allarm , and other Mens militant Courfe, perfwaded me as a Prefervative, to commend this Counfel to you.

§. XT. fag. 19. You next very jufty commend tMethod, ordering^ and exprejjing our Conceptions, of which f you fay) I feem to make little account in Comparifon]*

Anfw. 1. 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 fpokjen 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 unfeafbna-bly, to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accufation.

2. But yet I willftill fay, that it isnotfone-ceflary either to Salvation , or to the Churches Peace, that we all agree in Methods and Exprejjions, 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 EffeBs and Means, God from the Creature, and as our true confent to the Bap-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 any whit large, (and I have feen many) which was fo exa<3: in Order, as that it was dangerous in any thing to forfake it. But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method, with a Man that talketh as you

do

do oi'DijlinguiJhing^ and handieth the bodirine, of juftification no more Methodically than you

do/

> «

§. XII. Btit/ug. ip. youinftance in the differ-' ence between Proteftants and Papifts, about the NeceJJity of Good works, which is voids in refpeU of. the placing or ranking of them > viz. T^hs one ftretching it to the firfl Juftification, the other not, but con* fining it to its.proper ranh^ and province of Inherent Holinefs^ where it ought to keep~] t

Anfxv. 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, yon or I >

i. Is this diftin&ion our proof of your accu-ratenefs in Method, and Order , and Exprejjion ? What meaneth a diflindiion between £ Firft-Ju-ftification,"] and [Inherent Hvlinefs"]? Do you difference them §htoad ordinem, as Firft and Second f But here is no Second mentioned: Is it in the nature of the things [Juftification, and Inherent Ho-linefs']? What figniheth the [Firft'] then? But Sir, how many Readers doycuexpedi who know not, I. That it is not to the Firft Juftification at all, but to that which they call the Second or In-creafe^ that the Church of Rome afferteth the ne-ceijity or ufe of Mans meritorious Works? Sec what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. *tbeol. Lib. 2. Confer* 13. pag. 267. &c* faving that fome of them are for fuch Preparatives as fome call Merit of Congruity, and as our Englifh

Q^4 Divines

Divines do conftantly preach for, and the Synod of Don at large affert \ though they difown the name of Merits as many of the Papifls do. They ordinarily fay with Aufline, Bona opera fequuntur JujiificatHm, non pr&cedunt Juftificandum.

2. But, I hope, the word [FirjV] here over-flipt your your Pen, inftead of [Second] : But fup-pofeitdid fo : What's the difference between the Papijis firjl or fecond Jujiification, and the Protectants Inherent Holinefs ? None that ever I heard or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papijis take Jujiification for Inherent Holinefs ? And is this the great difference between Papijis and Protejiants, which I amfo loudly accufed for not acknowledging ? viz. Tthe Tapijis place Good-Worty before Ju-ftification-i that is, Inherent Holinefs '» and the Pro-teftants more rightly place them before Inherent Holt* nefs ? Are you fcrious, or do you prevaricate ?

The Papijis and Protectants hold, that there are fame Duties and common Grace, ufpally preparatory to Conversion ( or SandHfication ) i which fome Papifts (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and fome will not. 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 of it, which confifteth in the Work/ ef Holi-n?fs. If you fpeak not of Workj in the fame fenfe in each part of your AiUgnation, the Equivocation would be toogrofs, viz. If youfhould mean [Papijis ra?i\ the necejjity of preparatory Common Works, or the Internal ah of Faith, or Love, ftretching it

to

to the Firft Justification » and Proteftants ran\ other Worlds, viz. 'the fruits of Faith and Love , with Inherent Holinefr. All agree, i. That Common JVor^s go before Sanftification. 2. That Internal Love, and other Grace, do conftitute Sandification in the Firft part of it. 3. That Special Worlds proceeding from Inward Grace, are theeffedte of the Firft Part, and the conftitutive Caufes of the Second Part of San<5tification > as the word ex-tendeth alfoto Holinefs of Life: And whilft Pa-pifts take Juftification for Sanfiification, in all this there is Ve re no difference. (But your accurate Explications by fuch terms, as [Stretching, Confirming, Province, &c]] are fitter for 7»//y, than for Arijlotle).

And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of, that we muft in this take heed of joyning with the Papifts ? Do you mean [Ran^ Good-Workj with Inherent Holinefs, and not with the Firjl SanBification, and youthen do widely differ from the Papi(ls~\? Will not your Reader fay, i. What doth Inherent Holinefs differ from the Firft S anUiftcation ? 2. Do you not invite me thws herein to be 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 neceflity of Good-works to Ju-ftification ? 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 afhamed, to fore-fee how Learned Papifts will make merry with fuch Paffages \ and fay, See here how we differ from the Proteftants I See what it is for, that the Protectant

(34)

ft ant TkUors feparate from the Church ef Rome J viz. Becaufe we make Good-Works necejfary to the Firji Juftification y wbicb unlefs equivocally Spoken, irfalfe i and becdufe the Protectants ran\ them with Inherent Holinefs, as we d<T\* What greater advantage will they defire 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?Who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of fuch paflages to draw any to Popery ? It is my aflurance, that fuch Over-doings is Vndoingy and that miftaken Accufations of the Fapifts greatly advantage them againft us, which maketh me the more againft fuch Dealing > be-fides the ftnfulnefs-, of pretending that any differences among Chriftians, are greater than indeed they are.

But may not I think that you take the word [Juftification] here in the Proteftant Senfe, and not in the fapifts , when you fay that they ranj^ Good-worths-necejfity as firetcht to the Firfi Juftifi-cation? No fure: For, i. Protectants u(e notto diftingnifhof a Firfi and S^cW Justification, which Papiftsdo, but of Juftification as Begun*, Continued, and Confummate. 2. If it were fo, it were not true: For the Firft Juftification in the Proteftant Senfe, is our firfi right to Impunity and Life Eter-naU freely given to Believer j, for the Merits of Cbrifts perfett Rigbteovfnefs and Satisfaction* And Papifts do not make Good-works ( unlefs Equivocally fo called) neceffary to this i but as a Fruit to follow it*

As

(an

As for Remiflton 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.Thac moft of them are not refolved, where the Remifji-on of the Punijhment (which Proteftants call Re mijjion of Sin , or Forgivenefs) (hall be placed; They differ not much as to its time, but whether it be to be called any part of Jujiification : Some fay, yea > feme make it a di\iintt thing. Moft de-fcribe Jujiification by it felf, as confining in our/ Remiffion of, or Deliverance from Sin it felf, and the infufed habit of Love or Righteoufnefs (all which we call San&ification), and the forgive-nefs of the Penalty by it felf, 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-ftinguifh of Forgivenefs, as we diitinguifh of 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. Direff. for the Cure of Church-divifions, telling the Weak whom they muft follow, I concluded, 1. that the neceffary Articles of Faith muji be made our own, and not taken meerly on the authority of any \ and we muji in all fuch things of abfolute necefuy kfep 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^

eur

( 3* )

our Governours tnuft be our Guides* And, 4. Ju Matters of high and difficult Speculation, the judgment of one Man of extraordinary Undemanding and Cleamefs, is to be preferred before the Rulers and the major Vote. I inftanced in Law, Philofophy, Phyfick^ Languages,- &rc and in the Controverts of the Ob-jeft of Predefttnation, the nature of the WilPs Liberty > Divine Concourfe, the determining way of Grace-, of the definition of Justification, Faith, &o^ Here I was intreated before God and my Consciences to feafch myfelf, with what Defign or Intent I wrote this, and to tell you, Who that One is, that we may kpow whom to prefer, and to whom, in the Do-Urine of Jujiification, &c.

Anfxv. How greatly do you diftionour your felf, (ind then you will impute it tome) byinfifting on fuch palpably abufive Paflages ? Had you not been better, havefilently paft it by > 1. Doth not the World know, that Heathens and Chriftians, Papifts and Proteftants, are Agreed on this general Rule ? 2. And will you make any believe that Definition of J unification \$ none of thefe Wor\s 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 y and fay, Hoc non eft 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 fobex Scholar will you make believe, that by laying down this common Rule, I fignifie fome One fin-gular Perfon , as an Individuum determinatum .

whom'

whom therefore I muft acquaint you with? Thefe things are below a Grave Divine.

Pag* 21. Where you called me to ferioufnefs or diligence in my featch y and I told you by what, and how many Writings, I havemanifefted my almoft thirty years Diligence in this Controverfie, and that I am now grown paft more ferious and diligent Studies y that I might (hew you what a trifling way it is, for a Man to wrangle with him that hath written fo many things, to tell the World what his ftudiesof this Point have been, and never to touch them, but to call him z-neu> to ferious diligence : You now expoftulate with me, whether you accufed me for want of diligence 2 I talk not of Accnfing, but I tell you, that I have done my beft s 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 Leffon, pag. 22. that tumbling over many Books without meditation^ may breed but Cru* dities 0 &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 fed any pre-fent trouble by it.

Pag. 22, 23. You infinuate that about Retrafta* thn, which I before detedted; I told you when, and where, I Sufpended or Retraced the Book,

and

r 3»)

and for what Reafbns, and you prefently feign a Retractation of the Do&rine, and of about fixty Books of Retra&ions.

It's well that pag. 23. you had the juftice not to juftifie your [Nee dubito quin imputatam Chri[\i juftitiam incluferit] i But to confefs your In juftice, was too much : It is not your own Retraftation that you are for, itfeems.

§. XIV. Tag. 23,24. You talk as if my fup-polingthat both [Jttfiice] and [Imputation"], are capable of Definitions which are not the Things, were a Fallacy, becaufe [or] is a disjunctive* viz* When I fay that the Definition of the one, or the other, is not the 'Thing. Do you grant it of them Disjunctively, and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunct? Yes, you fay, [Imputed Juftice cannot differ from its true definition^ unlefs you will have it to differ really from itfelf]. And, pag. 34. you fay, [I am ajhamedyou (hotild thus over and over expofe your felf as if fappofing (Definitions) true, they were not the fame Re, with the De-finitum.-—. Good Sir, talj^what you pleafe in private, tofucb as underftand not what you fay, and let them give you a grand 2o<p<£$ for your pains > but you may do well to ufe more Civility to the reafon of a Scholar, though he hath not yet worn out his Frejh-mans Gown].

Anfo. This is no light or jefting Matter: The comfort of Souls dependeth on iu I fee feme Men expect that Reverence of their Scholarship Ihould give them great advantage: But if one argued thus with me for Tranfubftantiation, I would not rum to him, to efcape 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 Frcthmen, 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 neceffary, but to be able to Define it, cr a&ually to Define it, is not necelTary (to Salvation) it is notorious that we take Definition (as Defining) actively, as it is Attus definientis; and Definire fare is not the fame with the thing defined. I have heard before your Letter told me, that Definitum & 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 topickj for one ) that when they are taken Pro ter minis Logicis definitio & definitum non funt idem ', but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos [ignificatis\ and that there they differ in {JModo fignificandi efientiam, the definitum fignifying the EJfence confufedly, and theZ>-finition difiinUly. If you will take the Res definita, for that which is fhi&ly nothing but Rei concepts inad<equatus feu partialis, (that is, a Species) and that not as the thing is Exiftent extra intelleSum, but as the conception is an operation of the Mind, fo I confefs, that he that hath a true Conception of

a

V 4 U J a Species as meerly denominated, or as defined, hath the fame conception of it: And alfo the Thing named, and the "thing defined, is the fame thing in it felf. Homo & Animal rationale, are the fame v that is, it is the fame effence, which is denominated Homo, and defined Animal rationale. And it is the fame Concepts mentis, which we have (if true) when we denominate , and when we define. But as Things are diftindt from the knorpledg and figns of Things, nothing is Res, that is not exijient i and nothing exifieth but in Singulars for Individuals) : And as nothing can be defined but a Species, fo a Species , or any Vniverfal, is nothing but a Notion** or Ens rdtionU, faveas it exifteth in the faid Individuals* And in the Individuals, it is nothing but their being as partially, or inadequacy taken, or a Couceput ob)etkivm partialis, (whether it be of a thing re*//y, or only intellectually partible, or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of, Vno & fimplici conceptu aBivo). Now if you take the word \Vefinition\ for the Species, as exigent in Individuals, it is really a part of the thing j that is, a Partial objective concepts, or fomewhat of the Thing as Intelligible: But this is to take [Definition] in Senfu pajfivo, for the Thing defined > which our Cafe diftinguiflieth.

But Sir, I crave your leave, to diftinguifh #£• al objeftive Beings , from, I. The Knowledg. 2, and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by which we know them, and exprefs our knowledg of them : God , Chrift, Grace , Glory , Pardon, Juftification, Sandlification, the Gofpel-Dodfrine, Precept, Promifes, Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definite

(40

in our Cafe, not as they are in effe ccgnito, of iri the notion or idea of them, but in effe reali. To Define ptoperly, is either, i. ^Mentally to con ceive of thefe things, 2. or Exprefpvely, to fig-nifie fueh Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the things known, or Expreffively defined: Which is, if the Definition be perfed, under the notions of a Genus 9 and Differentia* The Definition as in IVords, is but a Logical Organ* (as Names are alio ; Notifying figns) : Mental defining, is but the faid di-fiinh tyovpledg of the thing defined, and is neither really the "thing it Jelf \ nor ufually of neceflity to the Thing : Which two, I fnall prove diftindtly as t© the fenfe of pur.Cafe.

1. The Definition of Juftification, is either oue Diftinti knowledge ox Ex predion of it: Juftificati-on is not our Vijlinfit kgorvledg, or Exprefiion of its Therefore the Definition of Juftification, and Juftification, are not the fame.

. Juftification In fenfu aUivo , is not an A& of God, and In fenfu pajjivo^ is the Relative ftate o£ Man thereby effe&ed : But the Definition of Juftification is neither*

The Definition of Juftification, is a work of Art i but juftification is a Work of Grace.

A wicked damnable Man, or a damned Devil, may define Juftification, and fo have the Definition of it 5 but not Juftification it felf.

The Definition of Juftification , Faith , Love, &c* is Quid Logicum? but Jutlificatiori , Faith, Love, &c\ are things Phyfical and Moral..

A Man is Juftified (or hath Chrilts Righteoufne(s imputed to him) in his fleep, and when he think-

R ttti

( 4* )

cth not of it \ but he hath not the Aftive definition o( Juftitication in his deep, &c.

Other things be not the fame Really &ith their Definition, therefore neither is Juftification> Faith, &c.

The Sun is not really the fame thing with a Definition of the Sun*, nor Light, Heat, MotioDj &c* A Brute can fee, talk, feel , fenjp , that cannot define them. If you have a Bifhoprick, becaufe you define a Eifhopiick, or have a Lord-ihip, a Kingdom, Health, &c. becaufe you can define them, your Axiome hath flood you in good Head.

The Definition is but Explicatio rei : But Rei explicatio mn eji ipja res.

individuals (fay moft) are not Definable: But nothing is truly Res, but Individuals. Vniverfals as they are in the Mind, are exijlent Individual ABs^ Cogitations ■, Nations: As they zttout of the Mind^ they arc nothing but Individuorum quid intelli-gibile.

The Definition of Learning, of a Dodtor, &c. may be got in a day : If Learning and Do&orfhip may be fo, what ufelefs things are Univerfities and Eooks >

Perfwade a hungry Scholar, that he hath Meat and Drink * or the Ambitious, that he hath Preferment j or the Covetous, or Poor, that he hath Money, becaufe he hath in his Mind, or Mouth, the Definition of it j and quibble him into fatisfa-drion by telling him,that Vefinitio & definitmnfunt id°m re. We know and exfrejs things narrowly by Names, and largely and dijiin&ly by Definitions : The Definition here, is Explicatio nominiiy (as Animal

v 43;

tftal rationale, of the name Homo) \ and both Nam* and Definition, as they aire Verha mentU vel crii, or Verborum figmficatio, are Tardy clivers from the things named and defined, known and exprtfTed y unlets by the thing you mean only the Knowledge or Notion of the Thing.

Therefore though Cui comment defimtio eidem quoq* competit definitum, & contra, & quod convenit definitioni convenit definito: Yet fay not that Imputed Righteoufnefs in Re, is the fame with the ^Definition, as it is the Defineirj z&.

By this time you have helpt Men to underftand by an Inftance, why St. Paul fo much warncth Chriftiaus to take heed left any deceive them by vain Philosophy, even by Sophiftry, and abufed arbitrary Notiorts.

Remember, Sir, that our Cafe is of grand Importance j As it is (fated in my Dirett. 42. which you aflfeulted ', it is \jVhether if the ghtefiion were of the ObjeU of Predestination, of the nature of the WilVs liberty , Divine conconrfe, and determining way of Grace, of the Definition of Justification, Faithy &c. a few well ftudied Divines are not here to be preferred before Authority, and the major Vote-* Such are my. words. 1 aifcrt, 1. That the Defining of JujVtfication, Faith, &c. is a work of Art. 2. And I have many and many times told the World (which you feem to .ftr'ike at) that Chrr-ftians do not differ fo much in their Real conceptions of the Matter, as they do in their Definitions. 1. Becaufe Definitions are made itp of Ambiguous irords, whofe Explication they are not agreed in : and almoft all Words arc ambiguous till explained > and atnbiguous Words are not fit to dctine, or

R 2 be

H.

( 44 )

be defined!, till explained. And, 2. Becaufeboth

fclcdlng fit terms, and explaining them, and Ordering them, are works of Art, in which Men are unequal h and there is as great variety of In-telle6Uial Conceptions, as of Faces. 3. And I have often faid, That a Knoxvledg intuitive y or a Simple apprehension of a thing as Senfate, or an Internal experience, or Refleft aft , and a general notion of fomc thi.ngs,may prove the truth of Grace, and fave Souls, and make us capable of Chriftian Love and Communion, as being true faving Know-ledg. 4. And confequently I have often faid y that many a thoufand Chriftians have Faith, Hope , Vefire, Love, Humility, Obedience, Judication, Adoption, Union with Chriji, who c4n define none of thefe : Unlefs you willTpeak equivocally of Definition it felf, and fay as good Melan-Uhon, and as Gutberleth, and fome other Romifts, that Not it ia intuitiva eft definitio , who yet fay but what I am fiyitfg, when they add, \_Vel fd-tem inftar defiwionis^. If all are without Faith, Love, Jufiification, 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 Ariftotle then is not fo far below Paul, or the Spirit of Chrift, as we Quftly) believe, :

The Cafe is fo weighty and palpable, that you have nothing to fay> but as you did about the Guilt of our nearer Parents fins, to yield all the Caufe, raid with a paffionate clamour to tell Men that I miftake you, or wreft your words ; of which I fhall appeal to every fobcr Reader, that will pe->ufc the words of mine which you affault, and yours

as

C 45T )

as they are an Arivver to mine.

In a word, you go about by the abufc of a trivial Axiome of Definitions, i. To fentence molt Chrillians to Hell, and call them into Dtfperation, as wanting the Grace which they cannot define. 2. And to defiroy Chriitian Love and Concord, and tear the Church into as many Shreds, as there be diveriities of Definitions ufed by theip. 3. And you would tempt us to think much hardlier of your (elf, than we muft or will do i as if yom Faith> Juftification, &c. were unfound, becauie your Definitions are fo.

I know that Vnim rei una tanturn eft Vefimih % (peaking, 1. Not of the "terms , but the Senfo 2.And fuppofingthat Definition to be perfectly tiuej that is, the truth oi Intellection and Expreffivt con-(ifting in their congvuuy to the Thing i> while the thing is one a;nd the fame , the conception and ex-predion which is perfectly true, muit be fo too. But, 1. Our understandings are all imperfed, and we know nothing perfectly but Secundum quxdam > and Zanckez faith truly, that Nihil fcitur, if we call that only Knowledg which is perftU: And con-(equently no Mental Definition is perfed. 2. And Imperfedions have many degrees. 3. And our Terms, which make up that which ycu know I called a Definition in my Dir. +2. (as it is in words) are as aforefaid, var'mis, mutable, and variouily underftood and ufed.

§. XV. Yag m 24. Again you are at it, [iVhom do you mem by that one rare Tcrfon, vrhfe fwgle Judgment U to be preferred in tfye point of Jvjhfica-tion } and to wbomy

R 3 M™>

Anfw. r. No one that knoweth not the difference between an Invididuum vagum & determine ium. 2. No one that is of fo hard Metal, as in ilefpite of the pjaineft words, to infinuate to the World, thatthefe words [A few mll-fiudied Judicious Divines~]do fignifie only one > and that thefe words [One Man of extraordinary underjianding and clearnefs), (is to be -preferred before the Rulers and major Vote, in difficult fpeculations) do fignifie one individuum determination in the World,and that the Speaker is bound to name the Man. No one that thinketh that Pemble^ho in his Vind.GratJnzxh al-npft the very fame words, faid well, and that I who repeat them, am as criminal as you pretend : $o one who either knoweth not, that almoft all the World (even Papifts) 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.

5ut, pag. 25. After fome words to jeer away Conyidion, you cell me, \jVt mnji have fome better account of you , quern quibus , than what you have given us yet. I Jhall take leave to prefent cur indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and truer ; ]late cf the Queffion,' far more fuitable both to my -plain meaning" and the clear purport of your Di~ region.' Let the Cafe be this \ 'there is One who of late hath raifed much duft among us, about the grand Article of Juftification '•>' Whether it be by Faith without Works, or by Faith andlFuPkj too ? All our old Remwned Divines on this fide and btyond the $eas are unanimoujly agreed, that purification is by fdt u dotted i. e. without Worbj. %his one Perfon

hath

hath oftenpublijhed bis Judgment to the contrary —-Jo that a poor Academical Uocior may very rationally enquire cf you, Who in this caje is to be frefrred I that one, or tbofe many ?

Anfvp. There was a Difputant who would undertake to conquer any Aclverfary : When he was asked, How f He Gid he would pour out upon him fomany and fo grofs untruths, as ihould leave him nothing to anfwer congruoufty, but a Mentirii> and then all the World would judg him uncivil, and condemn him for giving fiich an unrcverent anfwer. But you fhall not jfo prevail with me, but I will call your Reader to anfwer thefe Oueliions :

1. Whether it be any truer, that [ 77;j* i< the clear purport of my Virefiionjl than it is that I fiy, 'there u hut one Star in the Firmament, becaufe I fay iTici one Star a more Luminous ihan many Candles i

2. Whether if a difeafed Reader will put fuch a Senfe upon my words, his Forgery be a true fiating of the Queflion between him and me, with out my content ?

3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is either Vnicus, or Frimus, or Singular, in the definition of Jnflitication , or the intereft of Works, be any truer, than that he is the only cjedted Mi-Hifter in England, While the writings of Bucer^ Ludov. Cronus. Job. Bergiw, Conrad- Bergtus, Calix-tU6,?laceut, leBlanl^ Dave Gatak. M&U. PrefK Ball-, and multitudes fuch are vifible ftill among us ?

4. Whether he deals truly, mfely , or friendly with the holy Scripures, au«i the Praftftants, who would perfwade the Ignorant, that this is the true lb.te of the Controverfie , [Whether it be by Fabb witbo.it JForksy or by Faith and jfvrkj w> that we

K 4 are

( 48 )

m juftified"] While the Scripture {peaketh both, and all Proteftants hold both in feveral fenfes ? And whether this estfie ftating of Controverfies, Without more Explication or Diftindion, be worthy an Academical Difputant ?

5. Whether it be true or notorioufly falfc, that \All 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-diacth?

6. Whether this Do&ors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof, than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred (yea many Hundred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is of the contrary ? ^

7. Whether it be an ingenuous way befeerrting 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 which I ftate the Queftion, and bring all this evn denceof confent ?

8. If fuch a Doftor will needs enquire, whether the fecret thoughts of the Writer meant not kim-filfi when 4ie pretendeth but to accufe the Rule there given, and (hould enquire but of the meaning of the words, whether it favour more of Rationality, or a prefumptuous ufurping the Prerogative of God ?

§. XVI. Pag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful, you areconftrained to come nearer yet, and you cannot deny my Rule of Diredfc. in other Points, but only thofe of [High and difficult ff>e-mlation] 1 And do you 4 en y H there * ^ ou

Will

( 4P )

will deal with it but as the application of that Rule ro the Definition of Jujiification ? (And Chall we lofe your favour, by forcing you to lay by you? Oppofition as to all the reft?) 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 Jujiification to be properly of Speculative concert?, hit wholly Practical: Where yet you confefs, that in all Practical kitowledg, there be fome antecedent contemplations of the Nature-, Properties^ End, Ob-)eU, and that to know the certain number of Paces J bcmc-ward } is a Speculative nicety].

•Anfw % And can you rind no fairer a fhift for difagrecment ? I would fuch as you made not the Doihine of JuftiHcation too little PtaUical? I am far from thinking that it is not Practical: But is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature, Properties, End, Obje£i , or fome of thefe which you call ConteRiplarions ? Make not plain things dark. Sir: The ufe of Art is not to (hut the Windows , and confound Mens Minds. I take all *Xheologie to be together, Scientia-affcftiva-prafiicai for our IntelleU-i Will, and Prattice, mull 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 Practice, yet forgive me for telling you, that I think that many holy Perfons in Scripture and Primitive times, loved and pradtifed more than you or I, who knew not how to form ah exadi Logical Definition. And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit fpi-fitually* by Scripture Notions; may pra&ife them

as

as fully, as he that knoweth and (peaketh them in the Notions of A%iftotle\ ox elfe the School-Men excel the A pottles. Though ambling be an ealie 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 Loveth* Be-lievethj Hopeth, Obeyetb, and by doing them hath a retk&ing perception what they are, and hath but fuch a knowledg of the Gofpel as may be had without a proper Definition, (lull be faved.

2. Pag. 28, 2$. you fay, [Norte the VoUrine of Justification fi high and difficult , but that the mean-eft Chriftian may underjiand it Efficiently to Salvation* jo far as words can make it intelligible^

AMw. Your own blows feem not to hurt you* I thank you for granting fo much hope to the mean-eft Chriftians* But what's this to your Ca(e ? i* Do the rneaneft Chriftians know how to define Juftification, and all the Grace which they have ? 2. Are they acquainted with all the [Words that Jhould make it intelligible .?]

Pag. 2£>. you add, [Ton have done little fervice to your weaker Chriftians to perfwade them otherwife {as well as to the great blejjed Charter of Salvation J and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods and Mazes>) to that one Man of extraordinary Judgment and^Clearnefs't no body muft know what his Njme if) or where he dwells^ and fo to whirle them

about til!you have made them giddy ].

Anfw. How ealle is it to talk at this rate for any Caufe in the World I Is this Difputing or Reason-

(JO

toning? Cannot I aseafilyfay thus againft yau > But the queftion 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-eliRoad? Let them, that have leifure for no more, read but my Preface to my Difput. of Jujlif. and inark which fide wrongeth wea\Chriftians, and the Charter of Salvation*^

§♦ XVII. Pag*2p. you add, [5zV, I under (I and

fmething at thefe years, without your 'tutorage, of

the duty both of Pajiors and People: But I fyton> not

what you mean to make the way to Heaven (revealed

fuffciently to all, &c.) to he a matter of high ab-

Jlrufe 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. Eli as., &c.*]

Anfw* Still I fee w r e (hall agree whether you .will or not: O, Sir, iris juft the contrary that I .wrote for : And T need but repeat your words to anfvver you. I am not difparaging your under-landing, otherwile than you may fo call the vindicating of needful truth : Nor did I ever prcfmri-to offer you my Tutorage : You fpeakall this with too much tendernefs. But that which I have wiit-Xen almoft all my Books of ControverGe 3gainit, is this making the Way to Heaven more difficult and bewildring, than the Scriptures make it. Therefore it is that I have perfwaded Men to la) 7 lefs -ftrefs on arbitrary humane Notions: But the question

(a)

ftion is now, whether it be your Courje or mine. that is guilty of this ? Are Logical Definitions the necejjary Way to Heaven ? Doth the Scripture diffidently reveal fuch Definitions to all ? Do all ordinary Believers by the ufi of the Scripture? know how to define ? Do not Logicians make true defining one of the fureft figns of clear and accuratt knowledg? Why fhould you and I difpute thus about Matters of Fad ? 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 ybu would take as many to the Lords Sapper as Believers, as I would, and abfolve as many, and pronounce as many favea at Buryat. 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 ii they all give you a true definition? and one definition^ I will write a Retractation. I know^you notj but by your now telling me, of your undemanding of the duties of Pafiors and People? I may fuppofe that you have been a Pajlour? ("elfe——). And if fb, that you have had perfonal conference with tnoft (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 Ari-fiotle? as you ! Yea, let us take only fuch as by their Lives we commonly judg truly Godly Christians: And if aWtbefe give you one and a true definition of Justification, then do you tell them that Defining is no fuch difficult work, but ordinary Christians

( ®)

flians may and do attain if, 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 5 I will go on and ftill fay, that They wrong Souls, the Go$el, and the Churchy who pretend fuch neceffjty and facility of defining, and mil cenfure, reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in a Definition, when they have as real though Ids diftintl a knowledg of the thing.

I doubt 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 obje&iva be properly called Definitio, or only Formal^? Whether Ac-cidents may be properly defined ? An Genus defi-niripoflit? An pars Logica definiri pojjit ? Anindi-vidua pofjint definiri ? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non potefl Individuis definitio fubfiantialis h & quidem ejftntialis Phyfice > eft enim de ejfentia hu)m bominii h£c anima cum hoc Corpore h Imo & effentialis Me-

taphyfice fi indhidua reSe pojfentpenetrari, ilio-

rum definitio eflet omnium perfefiijfima ) An ea qu£ dijferunt defimtione diftinguantur realiter ? With a multitude fuch. And is th<? Art of Defining Co eafie, as that ordinary Cbrijiians jalvatimmuA he upon it, when fo many things about Defining are anyone the fabtileft Dodtois undeterounc d ?

r 54)

And as Ignorant as I am, while you fuppofe tot tinable to define JujUfication , I would wifh yod (not for my fake^but theirs) that you will not fen-tenceall as unjuftified to Dafrirtation, that ate not more skilful in defining than I, and that you will not reject all fuch from the Sacrament and Communion of the Church,

§. XVIIJL Yet again, fag. 30. you tell me, [J

cannot well fwallow down in the lump , tiphat yod would have me and others to do^ when you direB us U prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority of Votes, till you atquaint ub who that Gentlemati fa , and what fort of Rulers and Majorities yod mean].

Anfw. What you cannot fwallow you muft leave; I will not cram or drench you. I could wifli For your own fake, that you had not thus often told the World of fuch a Malady, as that mull needs be which hindreth your fwallow : When, 1. You your felf receive the fame Rule in other Inttances, and make all this fiir againft it only, as to the Definition of purification*, even the Logical definition, which is ABus definientk, called Vefi-nitio formality and not the Definitio objeBiva, as the Ipfum defimtum is by fome improperly called^ 2. And when the words in that Inftance are not [ONE MAN'] but [_a few Men] which your Eyes may (till fee, and when in the General direction where-one Man is mentioned, there is no fuch word as [that one Man]-, or the leaft intimation of an Indhiduum determinaiurrih You greatly wrong your Honour by fuch dealing > As you'do by adding,

jr. For

( $\)

I. [For the Jingle Verfon (that Monarch in Divinity) to whom we are upon differences to make our Appeals, &c]

Anfw. If you hold on thus to talk as in your deep, and will no^ (hut your Ch3mber~door, but commiffion the Prefs to report your words to the World, how can your belt Friends (ecure your reputation ? Is not all this talk of fmgle Perfon, and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effefts of a Dream, or fomewhat worfe ? Thefe Fitlions will ferve no honeft ends. But you next come indeed to the true difficulty of the Cafe, and ask :

\Ihefeechyou Sir, how jhali your ignorant or weaker Chrijiian be able to )ttdg of' fitnefs ? . He had

need to have a very competent meafure of Abilities him] elf, who is to give his verdict of anothers > &c]

This is very true and rational: But it concem-eth you as much as me to anfwer it, unlefs you wiil renounce the Rule. And feeing you grant it in other Inftances, if you pleafe to anfwer ycur own queftion as to thofe other, you have anfwered it as to this: And if you will not learn of your feif, I am not fo vain as to think, that you will learn of me.

In cafe of Subtilties which depend upon Wit, and Art, and Industry, in that proportion which few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but one of thefe ways that can be taken *, Either wholly to fufpeud our Judgments, and not to meddle with them, till we can reach them our fclvcs ', Or to take them/We kumana, or as probabilities on the Credit of fome Men, rather than others: As to the firft, I am for as much fnfpenfion of Judgment,

as

as will ftand with the part of a Learner (where we mull learn \ and in qfelefs things for a total ftt£ 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 afcertaining evidence. ^Therefore here the Queftion is, Whole judgment I (hall take as mo{l probable? (Were the cafe only^ how far we fhould Preach our judgment to others, there Rulers muft more determine h or if it were, How to manage our judgment fo as to keep Unity and Concord, the Church* or major Vott muft over-rule us). But it being the meer.Judgment ox Opinion that is in queftion, either we muft adhere to the Judgment* i> Of Rulers zs fitch, 2. Or the major Vote as fitch y 3. Or to thofe that are moft Excellent in that part of Knowledg : Why fhould I w 7 afte time to give you the Reafons againft thetwoiirft, 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 fubtile DoBors, yea one in the things in which he excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council: And therefore the Scotifts prefer one Scottis, Lyche-ius, Memiffe, Rada, &c. before a Pope or Multitude •> and fo do the Nominals, one Oc^am, Gregory , Gabriel , Hurtado , &c. and fo the other Serfs.

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 it is indeed one grand calamity of Mankind, and not the leaft hin-derance of Knowledg in the World i that he that hath it not, hfiomthnot what another hath, but by

dark

clark Conje&ure?. 4. And therefore Parents ar4 Pupils know not r who is their beft Tutor : The hearers that are to chufe a Teacher, hardly know whom to chufe*, for, as you fay truly, hemult know much that muft judg of a knowing Man. I God hath in all Arts and Sciences given (bm$ few Men an excellency of ff^it and Reach above the generality of their Profeffion , and they have a, more clear and folid Judgment: If all Men could but know whothefe be, the World would.in one Age Be more recovered from Ignorance than it hatty been in ten> , But the power of the Proud, and the confidence of the Ignorant , arid the number of all ibefe , and the Slanders and Scorn , and pecvifh Wnnglings of the common Fride and Ignorance againilthofe fere that know what they know not^ is the Devils great meins to frUftrate their endeavours and keep the World from having knowledg. Tl is is certain ajid weighty Truth, and fuch.as you (hould m^ke no Malignant applications of, nor jftrive againlh Mankind muft needs acknowledg it. Your urgent queftion'hg here, [poyou not mean your felff\ doth but expofe you to pity, by opening that which you might have concealed.^

And to your Queftion, f (ay, could I enable &11 Ignorant Men to kntiw, who are the beft Teach-ers, I (hould be the grand Benefa&or 9f the World: But both the hieing of excellent teachers? and alfo of acquaintance with tbem and their worthy is given by God, partly as it pleafcth Him, freely^ even ro the unworthy, and partly as a Reward, to thofe that have been faithful in a little , and obeyed lower helps o (for there is a Worthiness robe found in fome Houfes, where the Preacher comcth with the

S voice

v?3 .-■ ■ •

voice of Peace, and unwQrthiriefs, which oft depri-veth Men of fuch Mercies.) Both abfolutely free* Grace , and alfo Rewarding-Grace, do here (hew themfelves.

But yet I add, i. That Light is a [elf-demon-fir Ming thing* and will not eafily be hid. 2. And thofe that are the Children of Light, /and have been true id former helps .and convictions^ and are, willing to fell all for the.Pearl, and fear not being lo-fers by the price of Kjtotvledg, but would have it whatever Labour or Suffering it rnuft coft, and whcj fearch for it impartially and diligently, and forfeit it not by Sloth, or a fkfhly., proud, oi worldly Mind, thefe, I fay, are prepared to difcerr the Light \ when others fall.under the.heavy Judgment of being deceived by the Wr anglings, Scorns 'Clamours, and threatnings of PROUD IGNO-RANGE. And thus one dugujlirnxvas a LIgh'j in his time, and though fuch as Profpcr^ fulgen* im^'Scc. knew Him, Pelagius and the MaJJilienJej Wrangled .againft him: And I^uther^ Melantthoth. T5ucer\thagiMs-> Z^milm^Cdlvin^Mt^c^lus^ Zanchm were fuch in their times \ and foincdifcernfd them to be fo, and more did not: If Men rnuft have gone by the judgment of Rulers ,,pr the m?joi Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Re« formation > If you can better dire£V Men how to 'difcern Gcds Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do it, and? dp hot.cavjl againft it.

As for vour { 0\&e Jingle Proteffani in fuch a caft t JuJiificatioH]^ ana your [Irpijh h be not your

^ning] Pag- 31. they deferve no further knfwer 3 I dl the anger y >^:-31, 32.3.33.

§. XIX,

9. ^wvv. cm fag. 3^. inotc -^ain, i. mat :r is not ObjeUive Definitions, (as fome cj// thtrrij but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] fuppofed to be Mens needful Ads, which you fay are 21^ the fame with the Definitum. 2. And that yet j itiuil have it [fitppofed that ibefe Definitions are true]. And I iuppoie that few Good Christians comparatively know a true one, no, norrtrhiti a Definition,(or the Genus and Differentia which con-fijtute ?0 * ? *

You fay, £/ abfolutely deny what you fo rajhly avow, that the Definition of Justification is controverted by the greateft Divines : "this is cm of your liberal Didates i The Reformed Divines are all, I tkznk^ before you, agreed about the nature of Jttfiification^ its'CaufeS) &c. and confequently cannot differ about the Definition"]*

Anfrv. 1. But what if all Divines were fo ft-jrreed? So are not all honeji Men and'Women thar inuft have Communion with us: Therefore m not Definitions more necefiary than they are, nor as fceceffary as the Thing.

2. You muft be confirained for the defending of thefe words, to come off by faying, that jbxi meant, That though they agree not in the WjstTs, or Logical terms of the Definition i but one fiirb, This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but that\ one faith; and another that is the Formal, or Material Caxjh &c. yet de re, they mean the* fame thing , WjSc they fo happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions I And if you will do in this, as you have done in your other QVuml", corr.cQif by fcyin'2 as I fay, and (hewing Men ibt .

S 2

IW) of Truth, thbugh you do it with never fo mfoeTi

anger, that you waft agree, I (hall be fatisrted, that

the Reader is delivered from your fnare, and that

Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or fay of

me.

3. But becaufe I mud now anfwer what you fay,

and not what I fore fee you will or mttjl fay, I mutt

add, that this paffage fecmech to fuppofe that your

Reader Jiveth in the dark, and hath read very little

of Juftiticafion. 1. Do all thofe great Divines,

who deny the Imputation of Chrijls aftive Rigbte-

enfnefs, and take it to be but Jujiitia Perfon£ y mn

Meriti, and that we are Juftified by the Pajjive only,

agree with their Adversaries, who have written

againft them, about the Definition and Caufes of

Jujlification ? Will any Man believe you> who hath

read OlevianJUrfme, Parens, Scuhetus, Pifcator, Ca-

rolus Molin<eus , Wendeline , Beckjnan, Alftediuj,

Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with

abundance more, who are for the Imputation of

the Paflive Righteoufnefs only ? Were Mr. Anth.

IVotton, and Mr. Balmfordy and his other Adver-

farics, of the fame Opinion in this ? Was Mr*

Bradfhatp fo fbttilh as to write his Reconciling

Treatifeof Juftification in Latine and EvgHJh, to

reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while

he knew that there was no difference, fo much as in

the Definition?Was hemiftaken in reciting the great

differences about their Senfes oi Imputation ofCbrifis

Rigbteoufnrfs, if tbere/vere none at all ? Did Mr.

Gataker a^ree with Lucius and Pifcator, when he

wrote againft both (as the extreams) ? Did Mr.

Wotton, and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G.

Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawful*

in his Tbeopolitica agree with you, and fuch others ? Doth not Mr. Cartnrigbt herediffct from thofe that hold the Imputation of the A&ive Righteouf-nefs >

What abundance of Protejlants do place Juftifi-:ation only in Foghmfs of Sins ? And yet as many ( I know not which is the greater fide) do make that Forghenefs but one part, and Imputation f Righteoufnefs another. And how many make Forgivenefs no part of Justification, but a Concomi-rant? And many inftcad of [Imputation of Rigb-y toufnefs~] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the r akf* or merit of Cbrijis Righteoufntfs imputed"] viz. as the Meritorious Caufe). And Par£M tells as, that they are of four Opinions, who are for Zhrifis Righteoujnefs imputed', fome for the PaJJiie pnlys fome for the Pa{JjvemdA8tvc% fume for the Fajjive, Afiive y and Habitual > fome for thefe three ind the Divine. And who knowcth not that fome Krefodiftinguiih Caufcs and Erllds, as that cur Original Sin tor Habitual f.<y fome) is pardoned [ot Chriffs Original ("and Habitual ] Ho]inc k : Our Omifftons for C brifis A dive Obedience, and our Com-wffims for His Pafjive ?■ Or as more fay that Chrifis ?afive Righteoufnefs as 'Satisfaction, favech us iom Hell or Pun i ft men t, and His Alive as meritorious, procurech Life as the reward > When ma-ly others, reje&ing ch3t Divilion, fay > That both Freedom from Pnnilhment, and right to Glory are :he conjunct erfedis of His Habitual, AdHve, and PaiTive Righteoufnefs, as an entire Caufe (in lis kind)* as GuiL Forbes , Groiius , Bradjharp , and others truly fay : Betides that many conclude with jataker, thai theft are indeed but one thing ar.d

S 3 tCdj

effe<?i% (to be Glorified, and not %o be Damned o% Punifhed)* feeing not to be Glorified is the P&na damm, and that the remitting of the whole Penalty dxmnl & fenfus, and fo of all Sin of Omillion and Commiffinn, is our whole Justification.

And I need not tell any Man that hath read fuch Writers, that they ordinarily diftinguifh of Ju-ftification, and give not the fame Definition of one fort as of another, nor of the Hame in one Senfe as in another.

Many confefs (whom you may read in GuiU[ Forbes, and Vine, le Blanck^) that the word \J}hA ftifie~] is clivers times taken in Scripture (as the; Papijis da) as including SanUification : And ib\ lYuh Beza again'! Ihjricus, pag. 218. as cited by Q. Forbes, \ Si Ju\iificationem generaliter accipiasy ut imerdum nfurpatur ab Apoftolo , San&ificatio no'tt, erit ejus effeUns^ed pars am fpecies] : And as I find him (tnihi) pag. ljp. ®htamvis Jujtificationis no~, men inter dum generaliter accipiatur pro omniillius Juftitia dono quam a ptatre in Chrifto accipimus y &c

And how little are we agreed whether Reconciliation be a part of J unification or not? Yea, or Adoption either ?.'Saith Illyricus \jtioc affirmo, re&e pofle did Jujlificationem ejfe Caujam omnium benefit riorum Jequentiitm : Nam ]u\tificatio eft plena Recon-ciliath cum Deo, qu<z nos facit ex hoftibusfiliosDei:~] To whkh Beza ibid, faith, (dilHnguifhing of Re^ conciliation) Neutro modo idem eft Reconciliaiio ac Jujiificatio. — Si Remijji.o peccatorum eft Juftificatio-nis Definition quod negare non aufis, &Cc

Of ihc three forts or parts of Chrifts Righteouf* . nefs 'imputed to make up three parts of our Juftifica-

tion.

C«3 >

{ion, fee fcim . de PredejU pag. 405. Col 2. which Perkins and feme others alfo follow.

Olevian (as all others that grofly miftake not herein) did hold, that God did not judg us to have fulfilled all the Law in Chrifi *, and that our righ-teoufnefs confifteth only in the Remillionof $ia> and right to Life as freely given lis for anothers Merits: But Beza inilfteth full, on the contrary, and jn his Epiille to Olevian, (pag^^S.Epiji^sO Caith, Quid vanius ejl quam Jujlum arbitrariy qui Legem non impleverit ? Atqui lex non tantum probibet fieri quodvetat^ verumpr&dpit quodjubet. \ Ergo qui pro non peccatore cenjetur~in Chrijio, mortem quidem ejfttgerit > fed quo jure vitam J>r<eterea. petet^ nift omnem jujlitiam Legis in eodem Chriilo impleve-rut (This is the Dodhine which Won on andG*-tj^er (in divers Books largely) and Bradjhaw, after many others do Confuted Yet faith he, Mr-que vero id objiat^ quominus noftra Juftificatio Remif-fione peccatorum apte & retle definiatur~] , Which is a contradiction. Yet was he for Love and Gen-tlenefs in thefe differences i ibid*

Yet ght. & Refp. Chnji. pag. 670. He leaveth out Chriils Original Habitual Righteoufncfs, [Nmitla efientialis qua Deitatis ejl, nee ilia Habitualis^ vt

itahquar^ Puritas Carnis Chrifti. Qu£ qnum

nondijiingueret Ofanderfadijjime eft hallucinates.

And {fad. 670. he givcth us this dticiiption of Juilification.

Qu. Quid Jufiificationem vocal Paulus hoc loca ? R. I'tlud quo Jttjli fimus > id eil, eoufque perfect, integri , ctfA,<e'A7i\oi £ ctfjuo^oi , ut pleniflime, non tantum aboleatur qnicqitid in nobis totis in -e(i turpi-fudinif) qua Dtus fumme puxus offend'i uIIq modo

( 94 )

fofftt,verttm etiam in nos comperiatur qutkquid inhac humans natters ufque adeo poteft enm delegare, ut iHud vita £t ems pro bona fits voluntate coronet].

Yet (as in his Annou in %om. 8. 30. & alibi) he confefftth that Justification in Scripture, fometime is taken for Santtificafion> (or as including it) fo hctzkcth our Sarittification to contain the Imputation of Ghrifts Sancflity to us. (Qu. & Refp. pag. 6ji>) i. Vko noftras Perfonst* imputatsip-fmsperfeUafanUitate& integritate-> plene fanUas & integras, acp'rbinde Pdtriacceptas^ non in nobis fed in'Chrifto cenfemur. • 2. And next the Spirits San-dHficration Vand thus Chrift is made SanUiftcation to us. "

• Dr. 'Twifte, and Mr. Femble, Vind. Grat. diftin-gurlhof Juftiiicatibn as an Immanent Ad in God from Eternity^ and as it is the notice of the former irt oijr Conferences : But doubtkfs the commoiiefl: Definitions of Juftification agr^e with neither of thefe: And Pemble of Juftification other wife de-fineth it (*s Mrijeffop faith Dr. fmjfe did).

Lud. Crocks Syntag. pag. iixp'i thus defineth it, '[faftificdiio Evangelica eft aUus Divih*grati£ y quaVeus adoptatpecdatotem per' approbationem obe-diemi* hegts in fpfflfort toque interceftore Cbrifto y & per Remijjionerh' ptccatorum ac Juftitia imptttaii-*nem in eo qui perftdem Chrtfio eft infitHs']. Arid faith, pag. 1223. [Fides fold juftificat quatenus no-tat Obediential quandam expeSantem promijjionem utdwuMgratHitum-— '& appbnitur illi Obedientia qu£ non expedat premijjionetn ut donum ommnograiu-itum fed ut merdedem propofitamfubConditione opens alicu uz ff&ter acceptations & gratitudinem debit am^ qutfasNatttra in ottini donation* quamvis gratuita V - ■■ :' l ' requiri

reqitirl folet. Et ejufinodi Obedientis peculiariter opus abApoftolo, & Latiw proprie Meritum dicitur \ & quifub bac condixione obediunt Qperantes vocantnr y Rom. 4.. 4. & 11. 6* This is the truth which I aifert.

Conrad. Bergius Prax. CathoL dif 7. pag. £83. tells us that the Breme Cat chifm thus openeth the Matter : £Qu. ^nomodo Juftificatur Homo coram J)e9 ? R. Accipit Homo Remifiionem peccatorum & Juftificatur^ hoc eft, Gratut fit coram Deo in vera Converfione, per flam fidenij per Chrijium^ fine pro-prio Merito & dignitate.

Cocceius difp. de via falut. de Juft. pag. 189. Original^ Cbrifli Juftitia correfpondtt nojiro Originali peccato, &c. vid. ccet. plnra lid* de feeder*

Macovw Colleg. de Juftif. diftinguifheth Justification into Aftive and Pajjive^ and kith, JujUfica-tio Attiva fignificat abfolunoncm Dei^ qvtz Hominem reum a reatu abfohit : And he would prove this to be before Faich, and citeth for it (abufively) Par&ws and c f(ffanus > and thinketh that we wero abfolved from Guilt from Chiifts undertaking our Debt, Thef. 12. thus arguing, \Cu)us debit* apud Creditorem aliquis recepit exjuhenda* & Creditor iiiius fpotffionem ita acceptat, ut in ea acqniefcat y "ille jam ex parte Creditor]* liber eft adelitU: At que Eleflorum omnium in fingulari debita apud Deunt Patrem Cbriftm, ex quo faUut eft Mediator* recepit exolvenda, & Veus Pater illam Jponfionem acceptavit^ &c. Paflive Juftihcation^which he fuppofeth to be our application of Chrifis Righteoufnefs to our felves daily as oft as we offend, fk 5. (And Part 4. difp. 22. he maintaineth, that 'There are no

Vif

I pafs by.

Spa*berniut Vifput. de Jufiif. faith, that £The Form of Pajjive Juftificatiou confifteth in the appre-henfion zndfenfe of RemifTion of Sin and Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in capable Subjects] groily : Whereas Adtive Juftificatiqn (Juftifican-tit) ever immediately caufeth PaJJive (JuiHficatio-nem jufiificati) which is nothing but the effedt of the A&ive, (or as mod call it, AUio ut inpatiente): And if this were the Apprehenfion and Senfe (as aforefaid ) of Pardon and imputed Righteoufnefs, then a Man in his ileep were unjuftified, and fo of Infants, &c. For hethat is not Paffively juftified, is not at all juftified*

I told you elfe-where, that the Synopf Leidevf. de Jujlif. pag. 415. fy. 23* faith, That Chrifts Righteoufnefs is both the Meritorious , Material, and Formal Caufe of our Ju unification.

What Fayus, and Vavenant, and others fay of the Formal Caufe, viz. Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed, I there (hewed: And how Partus, Job.&ro-dm, and many others, deny Chrifts Righteoufnefs to be the Formal Caufe.

Wendeline defineth ]uftification thus ( Thepl. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Juftificatio eji aftio Vet gra-tuita, qua peccatores JLletli , maledt&ioni legti cb-noxii*, propter jujlitiam feu fatisfa&ionem Chrijii fide applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali DzV vino, remflis peccatis, a maledtWtone Legis abfolvun~ iur & jufti cenfentur. And pag. 615, 616. He maintaineth that \jObedientia adiva, fi proprie & accurate loquamur, non eft materia nojlr£ Juftifica-tionh, nee imputatur nobis> it a ut nofira cenfeatur,

&

^ ®1)

& nobis propter earn peccata remiiianiur, & debiiur% f \rgis pro nobis folvatur \ quemadmodum Pafliva per imputationem cenfetur mftra, &c Etpoft QSi dicws Chriftum faVxum effe hominem pro nobis, hoc eft, no-flro bono % conceditur : Si pro nobis, hoc eft, noftro'loco* negatur : Quod enim Chrijius noliro loco fecit , & faftus eft, idnos non tenemur facere & fieri, &c.

Rob. Abbot approverh of Tfbpmpfins Definition of Evangelical JuitiHcation, (pag. 153.) that it is, §hta pozuitenn & Credenti remittuntur peccata> & jus vita <£t.ertt£ concjjkur per & propter Chrifti obe~ dientiamilii impttHmm : (Which is found) taking Impuiatam foundly, as he doth).

'job. Credits, Difp. 1. p. 5. thus defineth it, [Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter fatisfaaionem Chrifti peccatoribus in Chriftum iotius M*ndi redtmptorem nmcutfUy vere credenilbus gratis fine opcribus aut meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & juftitiam Chrifti imputat ad fui nominis gloriam & thrum fa-Intern £ternam. And he maketh only [Cbriftsfullfa-wfaUion for Sin,to be the Itnpulfive-External, Meritorious, and Material Caufe, as being that which is imputed to us j and the Form of Justification to be the Remifiion of Sin, Original and Actual, or the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs (which he maketh to be all one) cr the Imputation of Faith fit Righteoufnefs^].

Saith Bi{hopD<?»7Mf»* of juftif. p. 305. [To be Formally Righteous by Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed^ never any of us, for ought I hnotv, affirmed' The like faith Dr. Prideaux, when yet very many Pro-teftants affirm it*

Should I herefet together forty or fixty Definitions of Protectants verbatim, and (hew you how

much

f 69 ) much they differ, if would be unpleafant, and tedious, and unneceflary." "

And as to thofe fame Divines that Dr. Tully na ? meth as agreed, Dr. t>avenants and Dr. Yields words I have cited at large in my Covfef. faying the fame in fubftance as I do > as alfo Mr. Scuddcrs, and an hundred more, asisjbeforefaid.

And let any fober Reader decide this Controycrfie between us, upon thefe two further Confederations.

i. Perufe all the Corpus Confeffionum^ and fee whether all the Reformed Caches give us a Definition of Juftification, and agree in that Definition : Yea, whether the Church of England in its Catechifm, or its Articles, have any proper De r finition : Or if you will call their words a T>efi* nitioity I am fure it's none but what I do con&nt 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 Creed): Or if it were held neccifaiy to Church-Concord, and Peace^and Love, it would be in their Articles of Religion, which they fubferibe. i 2. How can all Proteftants agree of the Logical ^Definition of Juftification, when i. They agree not of the fenfe of the word [Jufiifie^"] and of the fpecies of that Juftification which Paul and James fpeakof? Some make Juftification to include Pardon and San&ification, (fee their woids in G. ForbeSy and Le Blanl^) \ many fay otherwife. Moft fey that fanl fpeaketh moft ufually of Juftification in feafu foren% but whether it include [Making jtiff] as fome fay, or only [Judging juji] as others, or Nolle punire, be the ad as Dr. 2W/J>, they agree not. And fome hold that in James Juftification is

that

< *9 )

that which is cflnzra hominibusy when faid Co be bf

War\^\ but others (m*/y) fay, it is that coram Veo.

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 Caufes, nor of Definitionr (as is aforefaid) : And as I will not undertake ro prove that all the Apoftles, Evangelifb and Primitive Patfours, knew how to define Efficient > Material* Formal and Final Caufes in general, fo I am fort that all good ChrifHans do not.

3. And when Jujiification is defined by Divines, is either the A&ns Jufiificantis, and this being in the predicament of Adion, what wonder if they difagree about the Material and Formal Ctmftf ofit>

Nay, it being an Adt of God, there are few Divines that tell us what that Aft is : Ueus operatur per eJfcHtiam: And Ex parte agentis, his A£s arc his Efftnee, and all but one. And who will thus difpute of the Definition and Caufes of them, Efficient, Materia], Formal, Final ? when I pre-fumed to declare, that this A& of Justifying is not an immanent Adc in God, nor without a Medium, but Gods Ad by the Inftrumentality of his G°fpel-Covcnant or Tromife , many read it as a new thing* and if that hold true tfoait the Firft Juliifi-cation by Faith, is that which Gods Gofpei- Donation is thelnftrumentof, as the Titulus feu Funda-ntentum Jurti, being but a Virtual and not an A£h> al Sentence, then the Definition of it, as to the Caufes, muft differ much from the moil common

Definitions.

But

( 7° ) But moftlProfeftants fay that JujUfcaiion is SVtf-ientia Judicti. (And no doubt but there are thred feveral/tfrfj, or Ads called Juftification, i. Condi-tutive by the. Vouative Covenant^2.Sentential^. Executive.) And here they are greatly at a Jofs, for the decifion of ihcCa'Ccfvbai Att of God ihkSententiaJu-di is. What it will be after death,we do not much disagree ; But what it is immediately upon our believing. Itmuft bean A£i as in patiente^ or the Divine effence denominated from fuch an effiett. And what judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tomhes 'faith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels : But that is not alitor the chief; fome xun back to an Immanent Ad; moft leave it undetermined i A$& Cure the Name of Sentence in general, fignifkth ' ho true Conception ofit at all., in him that know-eth not what thit Sentence is, feeing Univerfals are Nothing (out of us) but as they exift in individuals* TS&r/Latbfon hath faid that wihch Would Reconcile Proteftants,and fome Papifts, as to the Name, iijs* that Gods Execution is his Sentence \ He Judgetb by Executing : And fo as the chief punifhment is the Privation of the Spirit^ Co the Juftifying Ad:, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed about AUive Jufijficaiion (which I have oft eiidea-Voured Cbnciliatprily fullier to open.)

And as to Tafjive Justification (ox as it is Status. yujiijicati) which is indeed that Which it co'ncevn-eth'us in this Controverfie to ope«v I have told you )iow grotty fome defcribe it here before. And all a-gree not what Predicament it is in : fome take it to be in that of AUion\ ut recipitur in pajfo h and fome in that of Quality and Relation ConjundrBut moft

place

. .. . < 71;

place it in Relation *, And will you wonder it 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 Fin J CaufeJ, of that which muft be defined fas it iscapablej by its fubjeBum, fundamentum and terminw.

I would not wifh that the Salvation of any Friend of mine (or any one) fhould be laid on the true Logical Definition ofjuftification," A&ive or Paffive, Conftitutive, 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 th£ Nature, Caufes and Definition of Juftification i and that to depart from that one Definition (where is it?)is Co dangerous as the Do&or pretendeth.becaufc the Definition and the Vefinitum are the fame.

§ XX. P. 34. You fay [Ton tremble not in the cm-dience of God andMan tofuggeji again that hard-jren-tedCxilumny^ viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorant* before a Learned man in his own profejjion*

Anfvp. I laid it down as a Rule-, that 'they are not to T)e preferred : You aflault that Rule with bitter ac-cufatibns, asifitwere unfound- (orelfc to this day I underftand you not.) Is it then [a hard-fronttd Calumny'] to defend it, and to tell you what is contained in the denying of it. 'fhe audience of-God rnuli be fo dreadful to(you and)rne, that (without calling you to confider whether theCalumny be not noton-oufly yours) I heartily defire any judicious per feu to help me to fee 5 that I am here guiky 3 if k be i"u you add,

" [Tm

r r J '

, u [Ton knot? not what the Event of all this may be s ** Forfuppofe now.bsing drag*d in my Scarlet^ (a habit <c more Juit able for him that Triumphs) at the Wheel of 41 your Chariot in the view ofallmenjfhould happen to ** be degraded and turned out of my literate Society \ " would it not trouble you? no doubt: but then it might 41 happen to be too late*

Anftv* i. It would trouble me : becaufe (though 1 know you not)our fame here faith that you are an bonefl ,and very modejl mankind thofe that areNickna* med Calvinijis prefer you before mod others of your rank. But alas, what is Man.and what thayTemptation do?

5. did yon think that your Scarlet or Majlerfhip tdid allow you to write copioufly^as you did,againll your Neighbour who never medled with you, and triade it a crime in him,whom you accufe,to defend! himfelf, Jind a irighteous caufe ? I fee in this age wc deal on hard unequal terms with fome Men that can but get into Scarlet*

3. You would ixiake your Reader believe by theft words that you are really Melanchdlly, and fear whek no fear is. PL Reveierid Do&or>whofe Book hath the Patronage of one of the greateft Eps« of En-gland writeth againfiorie of no Academical degree , who hath theft 13. years and more been judged imworthy to preach to the moil: ignorant Congregation in the Land, and by th£ (Contrived) diftin-& ion of Nonconformijis from Conformi/is r goeth under the /corn and hatred of fitch, as yoii pretend to be in danger of, and hath himfelf n6 fecurity for his liberty in the open Air \ that this Learned man in his honour,fhould conceit that an Anfwer from this hated perfon might endanger his degradation and

turning

turning out of his place, is fo ftrarige a fanciers will make your Readers wonder.

4. But whether you are MelanchoIIy or no I know noti but if you are not unrighteous, I know-not what untighteoufnefs is. Will you bear with the diver fion of a'ftory ?

When the Moors were fenteiiced to ruin iti Spain, oneoftheDifciplesof Vdidejfo fa Scholar) fell into the difpleafure of the Bp. of Toledo: A Neighbour Dodlor knowing that the Bps.favour might beflead

him . (whether accidentally or contrivedly I

know net) 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 eryed Fire, Fire<> The Scholar wiped his face, and went onjThe Dodor next threw an Ink-bottle in bis Face, crying ftill Fire, Fireh The Scholar being thusblackt, perceived that he was like to betaken for a Moor, and ruined, and he went out and carefully wafh'd his face:the Doftbr charged him openly for affronting him fyea and injurkufly calumniating him) by the fad: For faith he, there was neceflary Caufe for what I did : There is no fnloaJ* without fome fire: that which fired you might next have fired the Houfe, and that the next Houfe, and fo have burnt down all the City : and your a&ioit intimateth as if I had done caufekfly what J i and done you wrong : The Scholar anfwered hitni I knew notjSi^thayt was unlawful to wafh mt,but I will take no more Tobacco that I may no more erfend you ^ But if in this frofty weather the thick; ttefs o(my breath (ho\i\& be called fmoal^ may I not Wafh my face, if vou again call: your Ink upon it I

T No,

( 74) No, faith theDo&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 hazard ed,i( you fay that it is not Fire > The Scholar asketh, may 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 Schifm to your difo-bedience; I perceive what principles you are of. Why 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 injuffice, fo be ic the Cafe be truly ftated.

The perfon whom you affaulted is one, that attempted (with fuccefs) the fubverfion of Antino-mianHm 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 ("as Covenant for Law-> &c.) and that fomewhat often, and fome excepting a-gainft the Book, he craved their animaverfions,and promifed to fufpend the Book till it were correded j and purpofely wrote a far greater Volumn in explication of what was dark, and defence of what was wrongfully accufed,and many other Volumns of full defence: No man arifwereth any of thefe ; but after twenty years, or thereabout, (though I protefted in print againft any that would write againft the A-phorifrns, without regard to the faid Explications) you publish your Confutation of part of thofe Apho-vifms, and that with moft notorious untruth, charg ing me to deny all Imputation ofCbrijlsRigbtecvfnefsj

when

(75)

when I had there profeft the Contrary, and taking no notice of any after-explication or defence, ana parallelling me with Bellarmine^ if not with Here-ticks or Infidels (for I fuppofc you take the denyers of all Imputation to belittle better.) This Book you publifh without the leaft provocation with other quarrels,dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who firft fi-lencedmes (as if I muftgo write over again all the Explications and Defences I had before written, becaufeyou (that are bound to accufe me) are not bound to read them:) and this you do againft one that at that time had been about 13 years filenced, ejected, and deprived of all Ministerial maintenance^ andofalmoft all his own perfonal Eftate, defiring Ho greater preferment than leave to have preached for nothing, where is notorious neceflity, could I have obtained it, fometimes laid in the common Jail among Malefadtors, for preaching in my own houfe, and dwelling within five miles if it : after fi« ned at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for nothing s looking when my Books and Bed are taken from me by diftrefs, though I live in conitant pain and langour, the Constable but yefterday coming to have diftrained for fixty pound for two Sermons *, hunted and hurryed about to Jufiices 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 : Yet the exciting of wroth by public}^ Calumny againUonefo low already, and under the perfecuting wrath of your friends^ was no fault, no injustice in you at all! (nor indeed did I much feel it. )

But for me who am thus publickly by vifibte Calumny traduced>tru!y to tell you where you miftake,

( 70

and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more than me,' and if alfo I offer peaceably to wafti my own face, this is hard fronted Calumny, dragging a Dodlor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot-, which might occafion 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 find out. Had you the tenth part as many Books written againft you,as are againft me (by Quakers, Seekers, Infidels, Antinomians, Millenaries, Ana-baptifts, Separatifts, Semi-feparatifts,Papifts, Pfeu-do-Tilenus, Diocefans, Conformifts, and many E-ncmies of Peace, (to whom it was not I, but your felfthat joyned you) it would have hardened you into fome more patience. If you will needs be militant you muft exped replies : And he that will injuriously fpeak to the World what he (hould not fpeak, muft look to hear what he would not hear. But you add.

Sir,the Name and Quality of a V OCT! OK and Mafter of a Literate Society, might have been treated more civilly by you*

Anfw. 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 fomewbat "partial for you) fhall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injurious. 2. But to be free with you, neither Doftor-foip, Mafterfhip nor Scarlet will Priviledg you to fight againft 'truth, Right, and Peace, and to vent grofs miftakes,and by grofs untruths in matter offaB* fuch as is yox\x[Omnein ludibrio habet imputationem\ to abufe your poor Brethren, and keep the long-con*

( 77 )

confuming flames ftill burning, byfalfe reprefenting thofeas Popi(h,andI know not what, who fpcak not as unaptly as your (elf, and all this without contradiction. Were you a Bp. my Body and Eft ate might be in your power, but Truth, Juftice and the LoveofChrijiians, and the Churches pace, fhould not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretenfe of reverence to your Name and Quality. I am heartily defirous that for O R D E R-fake the Name and Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently u-fed. But if they will think that Errour Jh)ufliee'&xi& Confuftou muft take fandtuary under bare Ecclefia-ftical or Academical Names and robes, they will find theinfelves miftaken : Truth and Honefty will conquer when they pafs through Smithfield flames : Prifons confine them not *, Death kills them not y No fiege will force an honeft Confcience by fan/ to gjve up. He that cannot endure the fight of his own excrements muft not difh them up to another mans Table, left they be fent him back again. And more freedom is allowed againft Peace-Breaktrs in Frays and TFars^thm towards men that are in a qui* eter fort of Controverfie.

§ XX. P. 36. 37. You fay \Y or your various r finitions of Justification, Qonftituthe, Sententia ecutive, inForo Dei, iriforoGopfcivniiJt, &c-IVhat need this heap of dlftinUions here y when yon tytow the queftion betwixt us is of no other JujjtificatU on, but the Constitutive in fro Vei.th.it which ma'--us righteous in the Court of Heaven ? 1 have nothuf\ do with you yet in anyelje, as your oivn Confcience tell you when you pleafe : If'you have not more J* and civility for your intelligent Readers, 1 wi(h you

X 2 would

<7$)

WQuldjhen? more Gompaffion to your Ignorant Homai, gets, and not thus abufe them with your palpable Eva^ pons.

Anfw- Doth the gueftion, Whether the feveral forts of JujUHcation will bear one and the fame Definition* deferveall thisang^r (and the much greater that folio wcth)>

i.Seeing I am turned to my Reader, I will crave his impartial judgment: I nt ver received and agreed on a iiace of thequeftjor* with this Do&or: He writeth againft my books : Id thofe Books I over and over and pver ditiinguifh of Juftification, Con* jiitutive, Sentential, and Executive (befides thofe Subordinate fores,by JFitnefs,Evidence, Apologyfoc.) I oft open their differences: He writeth againft rne 5 as denying all Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs* and holding Popifh fufiification byworks^ and never tells me whether he take the word iJuftification] in the fame fenfe that I do, or in which of thofe that I hadopened : And now he paffionately appealeth to my Confcience that I kpew bis 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 \_Juftification.~]

2. What [Conjlitutive inforoVeijhat whichma-heth us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth with him, I cannot conje^ure. He denyeth not my Difjin&ions., but faith, what need they: I ever di^ ftingnifhed Making Righteous y Judging Righteous. Executively ufeing as Righteous: The firft is in our fives j The fecond is by Divines faid to be inforo peiy an a 51 of Judgment* the third is upon us after

both:

(79) both; now hefeemeth to confound the twofirfi, and yet denyeth not their difference*, and faith, he meaneth [Confiitutive inforo : J He that h.made Righteous is fuch in fe *, and as fuch is Juflifiable inforo :] Wc are CMade 'Righteous by God as free Donor and Imfuter, antecedently to judgment ; We are in forofentenced Righteous by God as Judg: fo that this by fentence prtfuppofeth the forjtoer : God never Judgethus Righteous and Juftifieth us a-gainrt Accufation, till he have firit 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 his httellizent Reader. He taketh on him to go the Commoneft way of Proteftants: And the Commoneft way is to acknowledg that a Conjiitutive Jujiification, or making the man Jujl, (antecedent to the Adusforenfis) muff need go firft : but that it is the fecond which Paul ufiuWy meaneth , which is the alius forenfis, 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 otherwife than to bejuft in cur fives ,and To Ju-ftifiable inforofrtfore the Sentence ? or do Proteftants take the Sentence to be Confiiiuting or Making us Righteous ? All this is fuch talk as had I read it in lAx.Bunnyan of the C6venants\or any of my Ignorant Homagers, I ihould have fa id, the Author is a fir an-ger to the Controverfiefinto which he hath rajhly f lunged himfelf: but I have more reverence to lo learned a man, and therefore blame my dull undemanding.

3. But what if I had known fas I do not yet) ■what fort of Jufhfication he meaneth ? Doth he not

X 4. know

( 8o )

ktfow ttat I was then debating the Cafe with him^ whether the Logical Definitions of Jujlificationy Faith, 8cc. are not a work of Art, in which a few wellftndied judicious Divines ( theie were my words) are to be preferred before Authority^ or Ma~ jority of Votes. And Reader, what Reafon bound me to confine this Cafe, to one onlyjm of Ju(lifi~ cation ? And why, (I fay, why) muft I confine it to z fort which Dr. 'fully meaneth^ ivhenmy Rule and Book^ was written before hti^ and when to this day I know not what he meaneth ? Though he at once chide at my Diftinguifhing, and tell me that All Proteftants agree in the Nature, Caufes, 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 Inftancc of many.

ClutOy in his very Methodical but unfound Idea *fheoL (fignalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Ju-ilification fo, as I fuppofe, beft pleafeth the Doctor, viz* [Eft AUio Dei Judiciality quaredemptos -propter pajfiones juftitU Divina fatifaUorias a Chrifto fuftenfatM) redemptifque imputatasj a peccatis puros^ & confequenter a points liberos, itemque propter Obediential a Chrifto Legi Divina praftitam redemptif" queimputatamy jttftitia prtditos-, & confequenter vita sterna dignos-y ex miferecordta pronunciat\. In the opening of ^vhkh he telleth us, pag. 243. (a-gainft multitudes of the greateft Proteilants Definitions.) [Male alteram fuftificationis partem, ip~ fjm Juftiti'£ Imputationem ftatui , cum Juftificatio non fit ipfa Imputation fed Pronunciatio qu$ Impu* Utione-) tanqtiam fmdamento fefto, nititun ["*' ' And

( 8i )

And he knew nofenfeof Juftification, but [Vel-ipfiim ftntenti& Jnflificatort£ in mekte Vivina pro* lationem^ five Conjiitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifefiantemRevelationem : And faith, Priori modo fafium ejlautem omnemfidem, cum Veus omnes^quibus paffiones & juftitiam Chrijii imputabat* innocentcs & jujios reputaret, cum ejus inimici^ ade-oque fine fide ejjent, (To that here is a JuOihcaiion of Inficiels^as innocent for Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed to them) : Quare etiam ut jam fafta fide appre-hendenda eft* The fecond which follows Faith, is Faith, ingenerating a firm perfwafion of it. Is not here fad defining, when neither of thefe are the Scripture- Junification by Cbrifl and Faith ?

And fo §. 32. the time of Juftification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feeling of the former : And the time of the former is prefently after the Fall i of all at once : And hence gathereth that \JLx eo quod Jujlificatio did-fur fieri propter paffiones & obedientiam Chrijii. 2 qui* bus ad perfettionem nihil deeji 3 nobis imputatas (before Faith or Birth) confequitur innocentiam & jujlitiam in Kedemptis quam prirnum pcrfeaas & ab

omni macula puras ejfe ] and fo that neither the

pronunciation in mente Vivina , or imputation ullii gradibus ad perfeciionem exfurgat*

Eut what is this pronunciation in mmte Vivina ? He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes aUiones Vivim-i fi ex eo <ejiimentiir quod re ipfa in Deo funty idem funt cum ipfo Deo^ ideoque depen-dentiam a Caufa externa non admittant : Si tamen confiderentur quoad rationemformalem bujus vel illius denominations ijtfis impofit£ in relatione ad Crejtu-ras confijlentem, ipfis caufa impulfiva affignare pof*

(§2)

funti &c. This diftindtion well openeth, how God may be faid to juftifie in His own Mind: But what is that effed, Vnde effentia vel mens Vivina ita denominator juftificans ? Here he is at a lofs, neither truly telling us what is Jufticatim Confti-tutlve, Sentential* nor Executive (but in the little part of [Feeling] Gods fecret Att) yet this dark Definer truly faith [Ex fenfu Scripture verijftme affirmetur hominem -per fidem folam juftipcari > quia ex noftra parte nihil ad Jnflificationem conferendum jpeus requirit, quant ut Juftificationem in Chrijio fun-iatam credamus % & fide non producamus* fed red" jpiamus.

If yet you would fee whether all Proteftants agree in the Definition of Justification, read the multitude of Definitions of it in feveral fenfes > in Learnrd Alftedim his Veftniu "tbeol. c.i^. §.2. pag. 97. &c. [Juftificatio bominis coram Deo eft qua homo in foro Vivino abjolvitur, feu jujius effe evinci-tur contra quemvis aUorem, Veo ipfo judice^ & pro eo fcntentiam ferente~\> But what is this Forum ? Forum Vivinum efi ubi Veus ipfe judicis partes agitj & fen fententiam fecundum leges afe I at as ? But where is that Eft internum vel externum ? Forum divinnm internum eft in ipfa bominis Confcientia, in qua Veus "thronum juftiti* erigit in hac vita ibi agendo partes aVtoris & judicis : Forum Confdentin (•But it is not tbvs that is meant by the Juftification by Faith). Forum divinum externum eft % in qua Veus poft banc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium* 1. Particular, .2. Vniverfale. This is true and well: But are we no where Juftified by Faith but in Confcience-y till after Death > This is by not confi-dering, 1, The Jus ad impunhatem & vitam do-

natum

vatum per fxdus Evangelicum upon our Bdieving > which fuppofing Faith and Repentance is our Coh-fiitutive JujUfication, ( virtually only fentential ). 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 Alftedius, and fome wrong, and the chief omitted.

The vehement paflfages of the Do&ors Conclu-fion I pafs over * his deep fenfe of unfufferable Pro-vocations, I mud leavoitohimfelf^ his warning of the dreadful tribunal which I am near, it greatly concerns me to regard : And Reader, I (hall think yet that his Conteit (though troublefome tome that was falily affaulted, and more to him whofc detedted Mifcarriages are fo painful to him) hath yet been Profitable be\ ond the Charges of it to him or me, if I have but convinced thee, that i. Sound mental Conceptions of fo much as is neceffary to our oven Jujiification, much differ from proper Logical Definitions : And that, 2. Many mil liens are Jujii-fied that cannot define it: 3. And that Logical Definitions are Workj of Art more than of Grace, which require fo much Acutenefs and Slqll, that even worthy and excellent teachers may be , and are difagreed about them, efpecially through the great ambiguity of Words* which all underhand not in the fame fence\ and few are fufficicntly fnfpicious of, and diligent to explain. 4. And therefore that our Christian Love, Peace, and Concord, Jhould not be laid upon fuch Artificial things. 5. And that really the Generality of Protectants are agreed moftly in the Matter, when they quarrel fharply about many Artificial Notions and Terms in the point of Juitifica-

( B4)

tion. (And yet after all this, I (hall as earnefiljr as this Dodtor, defire and labour for accuratenefs in Dillmguifhwg, Defining and ^Method , though I will not have fuch things to be Engins of Church-Divilion.)

And laftly, Becaufe he Co oft and earneftly pret feth me with his Quern quibus, who is the Man> I profefs I dreamed not of any 'particular CMan i But I will again teU you whom my Judgment magnifies in this Controverfie above all others, and who truly tell you how faPPapifis and Proteftants agree, viz. Vine, le Blaq^, and Guil. Forbes, (I meddle not with his other Subjetts), Placeus (in Thef. Salmur.) *Davenant, Dr. Field, Mr. Scud-der (his daily Walk,fit for all families) Mt.JPbtton, Mr. Bradfbaw, and- Mr. Gataker, Dr. Prefton, Dr. Hammond, (Tratt. Cat.) and Mr. L^wp/* (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, I will venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our wrangling tedioufnefs,thzt Mr* "trumans Great Profit. and Mr. Gibbons ferm. ofjujlif. may ferve him well without any more.

And while this worthy Do&or and I do both concord with fuch as Vavenant and Field as to Ju-fiificationby Faith or J^j^,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 Controverfies which he raifed (our Guilt of nearer Parents fin, and our preferring the judgment of the wifeft, Sec.) it be not likely that he will do fo alfo

(85)

in this>when he hath leifure to read and know what it is that I fay and hold, and when we both under* fiand 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 notionsfwhich 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 tojhew thyfelf approved unto Godj a workman that need not be a]hamed 3 rightly dividing the word of Truth

Two

(%6)

Two Sparks wore quenched^ which fled after the reU from the Forge of Dr. Tho* Tully.

Did I not find that fottie Mens Tgno^ ranee and factious ^edoufie 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 afTauked 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. Bag(haw 7 Mr. Darners^ and others, chat it is a work I

have

(8 7 j have not patience to be much longer in, uri-lefs it were more necefTary.

Two fheets more tell us that the Doftor is yet angry • And little that's better that I can find. In the firft, he faith again, that {J 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 ovens the Authority of the fecond Com-mandmenf]. And have I not then good Company and Encouragement not to change my Mind ?

But, i. He feigneth a Cafe ftated 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, \l charge you with a new fecondary Original Sin y whofe Pe degree is not from Adam : / engage not a fjliable further^. And pag. 8. | Tom have averted that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original Father 5 no line of Communication between them; a

fin be fides that which is derived from Adam,

as

( 88 )

m you plainly and positively affirm]* I never faid chat 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 Gafe^ he ihould have noted it as ftated in the very Preface which he writeth againft 5 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 Inter eft of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents^ and think that they participate of no Guilt 7 and fuffef for no Original Sin, but Adams only]. And after, [They had more Original Sin than what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells me, that \l feem not to under ft and my own (^ueftion, nor to know well how to fet about my Work]* and he will teach me hoW ( to manage the Bujinefs that I have un~ dertaken , 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 caft it away as utter DISHONESTY and IMPUDENCE/

M

It troubleth me to trouble thee with Repetitions. 1^ hold, I. That Adams Sin is imputed (as I opened) to hR Po;ierity. 2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains nature received from Adam, was the dif-pofitive endining Caufe of all his Adual Sin : 3. But not a neceffitating Caufe of all thofe AdS 5 for he might poffibly have donelefs evil and more good than he did. 4. Therefore not the total principal Caufe * for Cains free-rviil was fart of that. 5. Caws actual Jin increased the pravity of his nature. 6. And Cains Poferity were (as I opened it) guilty of Cains actual Jin • and their Natures were the more depraved by his additional pravity 5 than they would have been by Adams (in alone (unlefs Grace preserved or healed any of them).

The Dodtor in this Paper, would make his Reader believe that he is [for no meet. 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 fin is derived from Adam i Yet this now muft be the Controverfie de re.

Do you think (fori muft go by thirihin 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 Cafe to him: He will over-look it, and tell me what I jhould have held;, that he* may not be thought to make all this Noife for nothing.

He faith pag 8. {If it derive in a direct line from the fir ft Iranfgreffion, and have its whole Root fajlened there jwhat then* why then fome words which he fets together are not the bejl 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 fastened] I know not; but I have told the World oft enough what I mean 5 and what he meaneth, I hav£ little to do with.

But if he think, i. That Adams Perfon did commit the fin of Gain, and o£ all that ever were fince committed; and that Ju* d&shisacl, was Adams pergonal act. %• Or that Adams Jin was a total or necejjitating Caufe of all the evil fince committed; fo do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And -now I am caft by him on the ftrair, either to accufe him of differing de re, and fo of Doctrinal errour, or elfe that he knoweth not when the difference is dere y and when de nomine^ but is fo ufed to confufion, that Names and Things do come promifcuoufly

( pi )

into the Queftion with him: And which of thefe to chufe, 1 know not.

The Reader may fee that I mentioned fcAtfual Sift, andGuilf\ : And I think few Will doubt 5 but Adams [Actual fin, and Cains^ were divers • and that therefore, the Guilt that Cains Children had of Adams (in and of Cains was not the fame: But that Cauja caufe is Caufa caufati^ and fo that all following Sin was partly (but partly) caufed by Adams > we ihall focn

agree.

He addeth that I mud make good that new. Orioinal Sin (for he can make ufe of the word New , and therefore made ir) doth mutare naturam^ as the Old doth. Jnj. And how far it changethit^ I told him, and he taketh no notice of it: The jirft fin changed Nature from Innocent into Koccnt; the Second changeth it from Noceni triiv -more Nocent: Doth he deny this t Or why muff I prove any more i Or doth nothing but Cbnfufion pleafe him <

3. He faith, I muft prove that the Derivation of Progenitors Jins is conftant and neceffarv, not uncertain and contingent. Jnf. (if this alfo I fully (aid what I held, and he diffemblem it all, as if I had never done it: And *hv muft I prove more i

'v z £y

K 91 ) By what Law can he impofe on me whaf: %o hold**

But really doth he deny that the Re at us $ulf<z^ yea and ad la?nam 7 the Guilt of nearer Parents lins is n'cejfartly and certainly thtGhilds^ thoug; Urace may far don it? If he do not, tfhy doth he call on ra^ to prove it i If he do confefs the Guilty and deny it necejfary^ when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Ca»fe i For we take a 'Relation (Tuch as Guilt is) neceffa-yily to refult apfitofundamento*

§• %. He next cavilleth at my Crtati* qns^ about which 1 only fay > either the Reader will perufe the cited words^ and my. words ^ which /hew to what em I cited them (to prove our Guilt of pur nearer parents fins) or he will not. If he will not, I cannot expeft that he will read a further Vindication : If he will, he peedeth not*

j, §. 3. His fecond Spark is Animadver-Jians on a fheet of mine, before mentioned, which are fuch as I ana not willing to meddle with 5 feeing I cannot either handle them., or name them as the nature of them doth require, without offending him : And jf what is here faid fof Imputation and JRf-

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 Objections long ago, will call for more, and will write his Animadverfions upon a fingle Sheet that was written on another particular occafion, and pretend to his difcoveries of my Deceits from the Sir knee of that Sheet 7 and from my naming the Antinomians.

1 only fay, i. If this Mans way of Dif-puting were the common way, I would abhor Disputing) and be afhamed of the Name.

2. I do friendly defire the Author of the friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock, and all o-thers that would fatten fuch Do&rines on the Non-GonformifiS} as a Character of the J?artyi' to obferve that this Do<5W fuffici ently confuteth their partiality ; and that their Academical Church-Dodors, are as Confuted, as Vehement maintainers of fuch exprefifions as they account moft unfavoury, as any even of the Independents cited by them: Yea 5 that this Doctor would make us qneftion whether there be.now znyAntino-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 Doctrine of the Church of England which they maintain^ whom I and others calljlntino-mians and Libertines: And I hope ^t 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 theGhurch.

3. I yet conclude, that if this One Mans Writings do not convince the Reader, of the Sin and Danger of Aliarming ChrifUans a-gainft one another, as Adverfaries to great and necefTary Do&rines, 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 unexwfeMe.

Pemble Vind. Graf, p, 25. It were fomewbat if it were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burtbsn > where many weak^Men may bear that which One or few cannot: But in the fearch of Knowledge it fares as in difcrying a thing afar off j where one quick-fight will fee further than a thoufand clear Eyes.

F I JA£ I S,

fmmmmmmm

A

POSTSCRIPT.

ABOUT

Mr. DA^VE^s

Laft BOOK.

WHen this Book was coming out of the Prefs, I received another Book of Mr* Qapvers againft Infants Baptifm, in which he mentioneth Dr. Tallies fro-t/lflg what a Papiftlam, in his Juftif.Paul, (with Dr. Pierces former Charges) arid lamenting that no more yet but one Dr. Tally hath come forth to 'Encounter rnc^ Epift. and Pag. 224. The perufal of that Book ("with Mr. Tombs (hort Refledions) diV re^eth me to fay but this intfead of any further Confutation.

That it is (as the former) fo full of falfc Allegations fet off with the greateft Audacity (even a few Lines of my own about our meeting ar Sainc James's left with the Clerk, grofly falsified) anct former falfifications partly juftified , and parriy part over, and his mod paffionate Charges grou-d-

F

74 3t ^oftfcript about

ed upon Miftakes, and managed by Mifreports* j fometime of Words-, fometime of the Senfe* and ■ fometime of Matters of Faft > in fhort, it is , fuch a bundle of Miftake* Fiercenefs and Confidence* \ that I take it for too nfelefs and unpleafant a Work j to give the World a particular Detection of thefc j Evils. If I had fo little to do with my Time as to write it, I fuppofe that few would find leifure to read it: And I defire no more o,f the willing Reader, then ferioufly to perufe my Book (More Keafons for Infants Chitrch-memberjhip) with his, and to examine the Authors about whofe Words or Senfe we differ. Or if any would be Informed at a cheaper rate, he may read Mr. 'Barrets Fifty Queries in two (beets. And if Mv.Tornbes revile ] me, for not tranferibing or anfwering more of his Great Bool^* when I tell the Reader that I fuppofe him to have the Book before him* and ani not bound to tranferibe fuch a Volume already in Prinr, and that I anfwer as much as I think needs an Anfwer, leaving the reft as I found it to the Judgment of each Reader , he may himfelf take this for a Reply > but I muft judg of it as it is.

I find but one thin^ in the Book that needeth any other Anfwer, than to perufe what is already Written : And that is about Baptizing Naked : My £ook was written i6* r p\ A little before* common uncontrolled Fame was* that wot far from us in one place many of them were Baptized na^edy reproving the Cloathing way af Antifcriptura!: I never heard Man deny this Report: I converted with divers of Mr. tombes's Church, who denied it not: As never any denied it to me* fo I never read one that did deny it to my knowiedg: He now tells me Mr.

Fijhet t

$0t. Danver's fctft 2I500&* 7?

Tifoer, Mr. Haggar^ and Mr. Combes did : Let any Mao read Mr. T'ombes Anfvver to me, yea and that Paffage by him now cited, and fee whether there be a word of denial : Mr. Fifher or Haggar 1 never faw : Their Books I had ieen*, but never read two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fifhers, though I numbered it with thofe that were writ-ten on that Subject, as well I might: I knew his Education and his Friends, and I faw the Great Volume before he turned Quaker, but I thought it enough to read Mr. 'tombes and others that wrote before him, but I read not him, nor all Mr. Wg-gars: If I had, I had not taken them for competent Judges of a fad far from them ? and that three years after : Could they fay, that no one ever did fo ? The truth is that three years after, mifta-king my words, as if I had affiimed it to be their ordinary praUice (as you may read in them) which I never did, nor thought, they vehemently deny this: (And {ach heedlefs reading occafioneth many* of Mr. Danvers AccufationsJ. I never faid that no Man ever denied it j for I 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 Fame be not credible, which is of things Late and Near, and not Contradicted by any one of the m 0 Ji interejfed Perfons themfehes, no not by Mr. T'ombes himfelf, wemuft 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 faro not any ore Baptized by Mr. T'ombes or any other in River cr die-[Where by Dipping at Age: If you do no fuch %lm§%

7A £ ^oftfcript about I

1 am forry that I believed it, and will recant it° J Had I not feen a gjtyaker go nakec( through JVorce-fieratthc Aflizes, and read the Ranters Letters full of Oathes, I could have proved neither of them. And yet J know not where fo long after to find my Witnefles t I abhor Sjanders, and receiving ill Reports unwarrantably : I well know that this is not their ordinary Practice : The Quakers do not thofe things now, which many did at the rifing of the SecSti and if I could, I would believe they never did them.

2.This Book of Mr. Vanversjwith the reft of the fame kind, increafe my hatred of the Vifputing Contentious way of writing, and my troublie that the Caufe of the Church and "truth hath fo oft put on me a neceffity to write in a Difputing way, againft the V^ritings of fo many Aflailants*

3. It increafeth my Grief for the Cafe of Man-Irind, yeaof well-meaning godly Chriftians, who are unable to jiidg of many Controverfies agitated, otherwife than by fome Glimpfes of pocr Probability, and the efteem which they have of the Perfons which do manage them, and indeed take their Opinions upon truft from thofe whom thf'y moft reve-ience and value \ 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 greateft Truths. Q how much (hould Chriftians be jpitied, that muft go through fo great Temptations !

4. It increafeth my RefoJution, had I longer to |ive, to converfe with Men' that I would profit? or profit by, either as a Learner hearing what they have to fay, without importunate Contradiction, or as a 'teacher tf they delire to Learn,of me: A School^

£Pt% Danver's iatt BOOR. 77

way may do fomething to increafe Knowledg * but drenching Men, and Jiriving with them, doth but fee them on a fiercer driving againfi the Truth; And when they that have need of feven and feven years Schooling more, under fome clear well ftudicd Teacher, are made Teachers thtmfelves, and then turned loofe into the World (as Sampfons Foxes) to militate for and with their Ignorance, what tLuft the ChurchTuffer by fuch Contendeis ?

5. It increafeth my diflike of that Sectarian dividing hurtful Z^al, which is defcribed James 3. and abateth my wonder at the rage of Periecntors : For I fee that the fame Spirit maketh the f*me kind of Men, even when they moft cry out againft Perffe-cutors, and feparate furtheii from them.

6* It refolveth me more to enquire lefs after the Anfwers to Mens Booty than I have done : And I (hall hereafter think never the worfe of a Mans writings, for hearing that they are anfwered ; For I fee it is not only eaiie for a talking CM an to tall^ QH-i and .to fay fomething for or againji any thing, but it is hard for them to do otherwife^ even to hell their "tongues , or Fens , or Peace: And when I change this Mind, I muft give the greateft belief tA Women that will talk moil, or to them that live longeji, and fo are like to have the laft word, or to them that can train up militant Heir* and Succel-fors to defend them when they are dead, and fo propagate the Contention. If a fober Confidcra-tion of the firfl and fecond writing fyea of pfu he Principles) will not inform me, I (hallhave littfc hope to be much the wifer for ail the reft.

7. I am fully fatished that even good Men are

here fo far from Petfe^ion, that they puft bear

'• ■ witli

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. Darners Citations of Dr. Fierce, to prove my Popery and Crimes, nor his paflages about the Wars, and about my Chan* ges , Self-oontradi&ions , and Repentances , left I da that which favoureth not of Forgivenefs; O whff need have we all of Divine Forgivenefs!

8. I (hall yet lefs believe what any Mans Opinion (yea or Practice) is by his Adverfaries Sayings, Collettionsj Citations, or moft vehement Aftevera-tions, than ever I have done, though the Reporters pretend to never fo much Truth, and pious ■Zeal,

p. I (hall IeYs truft a confounding ignorant Reader or Writer, that hath not an accurate defining and difiinguijhing Underftanding, and hath not a mature, exercifed , discerning Knowledg than ever I have done \ and efpecially if he be engaged in a Se& (which alas, how few parts of the Chriftian 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 by fuch Men as this, but to be for both and again(h both, and to contraditl my felf When I write a-gainft the Per(ecutors, I am one of the Sectaries, and when I write againft the Se&aries, I am of the Perfecutorsfide : If I belie not the Prelatifts, I am a Conformift; If I belie not the Anabaptifls, In-dependants, &c. I am one of them : If I belie not the Papifls, I am a Papift V if I belie not the Armenians, Jam an Aminian > if I belie not the Cal-

• yinijls

vinilh-, I am with Pfeudo-Tilenw and his Brother, pwus putus ?nritanus y and one Qui totum Purita-nifmumtotus fpirat (which Jofepb Allen too kindly interpreted) • If I be for lawful Epifcopacy, and lawful Liturgies and Circumftances of Worfljip , I am a temporizing Conformijl: If I be for no morejmx an intollerable Non-Conformift (at this time forced to part with Houfe, and Goods, and Library, and all fave my Clothes, and to poifcfs nothing, and yet my Death (by fix months Imprifonment in the Common Goal^ is fought after and continually expected. If I be as very a Fool, and as little understand my felf and as much contradiU my felf as all thefe Confounders and Men of Violence would havs the World believe,it is much to my cofl, being hated by them all while I feek but for the common peace. 10. But I have alfo furthetr learned hence to take up my content in Gods Approbation , and (having done my duty, and pitying their own and the Peoples fnares) to make but fmall account of all the Reproaches of all forts of Se&aries * what they will fay againft me living or dead , I leave to themfelves and God, and (hall not to pleafe a Cen-forious Sect, or any Men whatever, be falfe to my Confcience and the Truth : If the Caufe I defend be not of God, I defire it may fall: If it be, I leave it to God how far He will profpet it 5 and what Men (hall think or fay of me : And I will pray for Peace to him that will not hate and revile me for fo doing. Farewell.

Septemb. 4.

U75,

F I N I S.